I agree with everything you say, but wonder about this line. I've questioned whether Bush wants a Judicial Revolution at all--I maintain that he doesn't want one: never intend to have any such revolution, throw the conservatives red meat that is meaningless, then throw the blame all on Specter. But, on rereading, maybe that's what you mean by "would-be".
Your straw man is the term "Judicial Revolution". Bush wants exactly what he says he wants, and he himself never said he wants a "Judicial Revolution".
You see, we already had one of those and it was all in the wrong direction - towards Judicial Activism, or legislating from the Bench. Bush wants to right the imbalance that we now have gotten to in America. He wants to begin pushing the Courts back toward non-judicial activism and away from legislating from the Bench. Someone calling that a Judicial Revolution is just throwing a bomb into the middle of everything, whether they are throwing it from the Left or the Right.
Bush and Rove supported Arlen Specter because they feared that Pat Toomey would lose the general election and give that seat to a Democrat who would always vote with the Dems on everything, especially on who controls the Senate, and because of political protocol, in which you never oppose an incumbent Senator in a primary election. {{{They supported Bob Smith in NH against young John Sununu, for crying out loud.}}} So far they have never varied from this protocol. No matter if the incumbent was liberal or conservative.
You are wrong in your conspiracy claims that would make Bush a very evil man, if they were true. But go ahead, drag out the BushBot rhetoric and the rest, because you just lost the argument. Time for the name-calling to begin? (But I won't be around to read it, he he).