Here it is. Note that the survey was taken within a few days of the Miers nomination, so the comparison with Roberts is based on very different levels of information. The good news, from the conservative point of view, is that the conservatism of the Court is not an issue for the majority of those surveyed, either because the President’s nominees don’t seem especially conservative or because the majorty like the conservatism they see. I’m generally speaking inclined toward the latter point of view.
These detailed deomgraphic breakouts point to the usual suspects--non-whites, seculars, and Democrats--as the only groups opposed to the Miers nomination. But most groups--the exceptions are Republicans, Protestants (evangelical and mainline), and seniors--are rather narrowly divided. Only liberal Democrats think that Miers would make the Court too conservative. In every other group, a majority isn’t worried about this.
Makes you think GWB could have won a fight over judicial philosophy in the proverbial court of public opinion.
Makes you think GWB could have won a fight over judicial philosophy in the proverbial court of public opinion.
...but then you remember that part of "changing the tone" is pre-emptive capitulation.
you people are crazy! The only polls that you look at and take seriuosly are the ones that make you feel good. anything else, such as Bush’s approval numbers, you dismiss out of hand. Have you looked at those lately? Seems completely obvious that a whole lot of people who voted for the guy now don’t trust him and don’t approve of what he’s doing! Putting that guy in office was a huge mistake! And I say that as someone who believes Miers would be ok on the Supreme Court. This Supreme Court stuff is small beans compared to how he’s screwing up the country otherwise.
Mike, I’m no particular fan of GWB, but the fact remains that the last 7 presidents all had lower approval numbers than W currently has during their second term or, in the case of 1 term presidents, their lame duck years. Even though you can count me in the dissatisfied column, I don’t think his poll numbers are that drastic.
W better get ready to fall as far as the prior 7. He is at 40% now, and is dropping like a rock as conservatives are becoming more and more disenchanted by his string of broken promises.
Bush’s numbers should be a lot lower. Considering the failures on immigration, soc sec, tax reform, and now this nomination.
I just had the distinct displeasure of listening to Hannity’s show Thursday afternoon. The callers who were defending Miers were all doing so not on her merits, but on the basis of "dear leader" Bush’s awe inspiring wonderfulness, insisting that "this man would never let us down."
Did I fall asleep on I-71 and wake up in North Korea? What is this cult of personality crap I am hearing from a movement alledgedly dedicated to freedom and limited government? For many reasons I have been deeply humiliated over the last week - regretting my support of this president, regretting flushing for him all day in the rain on election day, regretting my own suspensions of disbelief when his "administration" broke its word to conservatives and governed recklessly - but never did I feel more embarassed than when I heard these rah rahs phoning in one after another to pledge their undying loyalty and perpetual suspension of judgement to the Maximum Leader. It was a profound moral rebuke to me that I only noticed this disease in our faction of the body politic when Bush did something to hack me off.
Until then it had not struck home to me what a cult of personality problem our movement has developed. No one deserves the suspension of disbelief these callers enthusiastically offered to the president - NO ONE. And no true conservative leader should ever ask for it as Bush has. We are supposed to be the party with the "tragic vision" of human nature. The party free of utopian hopes and millennial expectations. Much of what I have heard on Hannity and on other shows has been rapturous descriptions of "this man" and all the wonderful things he has done for us. Things, vaguely described, which ought to lead us to "trust him."
We’re conservatives, for crying out loud. We are not supposed to trust anyone with that much power. Just because "our guy" inspires such bovine loyalty today, does not mean someone far worse won’t pick up on this disgusting tendency tommorrow. I am more bothered by this dear leader mentality - by the rapturous sigh one woman offered describing the wonderfulness of Bush- than by the Miers nomination itself. Arguments for Miers based on her (titter) "merits" don’t bother me - mostly they are just silly. Arguments based on our necessary loyalty to His Wonderfulness, he-whose- discretion-should-replace-our-own, are really troubling.