Bush, Gonzales, and some clueless winger pundits

Today's Dallas Morning News has the following quote in response to Bush's defense of Alberto Gonzales from Jonah Goldberg, editor at large for the National Review:

It's nice to defend your friends. But friendship isn't a qualification for the Supreme Court. And Bush should understand that.

This seems to have become a theme among right wing pundits, as evidenced by a recent column from the douchebag of freedom (phrase coined by Jon Stewart), Bob Novak:

The Founding Fathers put the Senate "advise and consent" clause into the Constitution partly to combat cronyism. In Federalist No. 76, Alexander Hamilton opposed the president's nominees "being in some way or other personally allied to him." Thus, the wonder in Washington is that a peeved Bush would defend Gonzales's selection on grounds of personal pique. So much is at stake in these Supreme Court nominations that surely the president must realize this situation transcends loyalty to a friend.

(emphasis added). Where have these boneheads been the last four years? Bush has shown time and again that friendship and loyalty transcend damn near everything for him. Why do you think so many Texans have prominent positions in the administration? Why do you think lots of people with direct ties to Enron ended up in Washington? Why do you think Rumskull and Wolfowitz did not get sacked? And on and on...

On another note, I am still trying to figure out why so many on the right are becoming anti-Gonzales? I'll say it again--Gonzales will do whatever Bush wants. If all the wingers have such blind faith in Bush, why are they so against Gonzales being on the Supreme Court? Perhaps it is a ruse. Many of these same pundits are saying that Gonzales is the best Democrats can hope for in terms of getting a moderate on the Court. That is a load of crap, and any Democrat who disagrees is an idiot.