Bush: The Ultimate Crony

White House officials have spent nearly every waking hour over the past week trying to quell the escalating rebellion within the conservative ranks over the nomination of Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court. As Bob Novak explains, most conservatives are now asking themselves two questions: ''Is this what we fought for?'' and ''What was he thinking?''

As to Novak's first question, I'll let conservatives figure that one out for themselves. At the root of Novak's second question, however, is a concern that is widely shared across the ideological spectrum. There is simply no glossing over the fact that, relative to the other potential candidates for the job, Miers' resume is decidedly mediocre. As I've written before, there is nothing in her law school or professional career that indicates that she is one of our nation's top legal minds. That doesn't necessarily mean that she lacks the intellectual capacity to be a competent Supreme Court justice, but it certainly means that there were any number of people who were more deserving of the job. It is patently obvious that the only reason Miers was even considered for this nomination is because she is a close personal associate of President Bush. Indeed, the stench of cronyism is so strong in this case, that it is hard to see how the White House didn't anticipate the sort of bipartisan outcry that has in fact occurred.

But upon further reflection, I suppose I understand why Bush doesn't fully comprehend why people find cronyism so objectionable. After all, has there ever been a person who has benefited more from cronyism than George. W. Bush? Let's review his life story. Bush was born into a life of privilege, the son of a future President, the grandson of a Senator. Throughout his years of schooling, he attended a number of prestigious institutions that--but for his family's connections--he would never have been admitted to. After graduating from business school, Bush landed a number of jobs at various oil companies due solely to his family connections in the oil business. After repeated failures in that business, Bush landed the dream job of running a baseball franchise (again due solely to his family's fortune and clout). Bush then cashed in on his family name to become the Governor of Texas, and a few years later, perhaps the least qualified president in modern American history.

On some level, Bush has to know that he never would have made it as far as he did without his family's name and connections. Yet at the same time, I'm fairly confident that Bush thinks he is a great president (or as he would put, that he's doing "a heckuva job"). This makes him naturally sympathetic to the plight of the crony and particularly defensive about charges of cronyism leveled against his friends. He knows that the same things that are being said about Harriet Miers could very well be said about him, and so he takes it personally. Bush has never had to compete in a pure meritocracy. He's never had to stand out from the crowd based solely on his resume. And he has never been beat out for a position he wanted by someone less qualified but more connected. Given the central role that cronyism has played in Bush's life, it's easy to see why the objectionability of the practice is lost on him. To him, cronyism is simply how the world works. It is business as usual. Is it any wonder he chose his own lawyer to serve on the Supreme Court?