News reports are already playing up the "demeanor" of John Roberts as a selling point. But isn't this a silly way to judge a person in politics? George W. Bush's 2000 campaign was largely based on how his demeanor was different than conservatives like Newt Gingrich, and it fooled a lot of people into thinking he was a moderate. We can only judge a politician or a judicial nominee based on what they have said and done in the past. Whether they have a friendly demeanor or a "good heart" is irrelevant.
« John Roberts will be confirmed | Main | David Ignatius worries about GOP disinformation »
July 20, 2005
Comments
The comments to this entry are closed.
About Me
I am Professor in the Department of Government at Dartmouth College. I received my Ph.D. from the Department of Political Science at Duke University and have served as a RWJ Scholar in Health Policy Research and a faculty member in the Ford School of Public Policy at the University of Michigan. I also tweet at @BrendanNyhan, contribute to The Upshot at The New York Times, and am a co-organizer of Bright Line Watch. Previously, I served as a media critic for Columbia Journalism Review, co-edited Spinsanity, a non-partisan watchdog of political spin, and co-authored All the President's Spin. For more, see my Dartmouth website.
Content feeds:
-Blog RSS
-Twitter feed
-Twitter RSS
Email:
bnyhan@yahoo.com
Recent Posts
- Foreign Affairs: COVID-19 is not like political speech
- New Post Outlook: Why Democrats won't attack Bernie
- New Post Outlook: Tom Steyer's bad ideas
- New Bright Line Watch report on US democracy
- New Upshot: Exploiting Americans' trust in local news
- New GEN: Will extremist shootings change gun politics?
- New GEN: How Trump can erode democracy in defeat
- New GEN: 2020 polls are useless right now
- New GEN: AOC is right - give Congress a raise
- New Medium: Trump as the arsonist firefighter
Hear hear.
At least with politicians, smooth demeanor is a job-related asset. Part of diplomacy.
Judges should be judged on their judging. I imagine an orchestra-audition-style senate meeting where interrogators can ask tough questions to a curtain and then wait for replies from the printer at the podium.
Imagine the gasps when the curtain rises on the confirmed nominee: S/he's---(gasp)---ugly/obese/short/handicapped/unkempt/ill-mannered/etc./etc.
Posted by: brent | July 20, 2005 at 09:05 AM
ugh. i heard this first on npr last night, and nina totenberg, who i used to adore, gushed about the "nice man."
blech. gimme a jerk who respects my civil liberties any day.
Posted by: jami | July 20, 2005 at 07:34 PM