Is there ice forming in Hades?

WaPo (gasp) supports Roberts' confirmation (HT: Redstate):

QUOTE(Washington Post @ 9-18-05)

JOHN G. ROBERTS JR. should be confirmed as chief justice of the United States. He is overwhelmingly well-qualified, possesses an unusually keen legal mind and practices a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have. He shows every sign of commitment to restraint and impartiality. Nominees of comparable quality have, after rigorous hearings, been confirmed nearly unanimously. We hope Judge Roberts will similarly be approved by a large bipartisan vote.

QUOTE(Washington Post @ 9-18-05)

For this reason, broad opposition by Democrats to Judge Roberts would send the message that there is no conservative capable of winning their support. While every senator must vote his or her conscience on the nomination, the danger of such a message is considerable. In the short term, Mr. Bush could conclude there is nothing to be gained from considering the concerns of the opposition party in choosing his next nominee. In the longer term, Republicans might feel scant cause to back the next high-quality Democratic nominee, as they largely did with Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5091701133.html

My take is that the Post realizes the fight is lost on Roberts, and that they need to save their capital for the fight on the O'Connor replacement. This brings me to some speculation from Erick at Redstate:

QUOTE(Erick@Redstate)

As Robert Novak is reporting this morning, many in the Senate think that whoever Bush nominates to the Supreme Court to fill O'Connor's spot will be filibustered by the Democrats, if they can hold it together. The President would like to avoid that if possible -- hence Larry Thompson's name has been floated. The thinking is that Thompson could pass through the Senate without a filibuster and that he would be to the right of Alberto Gonzales. The President is still not considering Gonzales.

QUOTE(Erick@Redstate)

The President is going to have to find someone who is considered "top notch" that can keep Senators in line and also keep conservatives happy.

http://www.redstate.org/story/2005/9/17/112359/844

I see it as a wee bit distressing that they are even worrying about polls. If the Dems try to filibuster, the democrat half of the "gang of 14" will either break the filibuster by keeping their word, or force the GOP half to keep their word by voting for the constitutional option, killing judicial nomination filibusters once an for all. Either way, whomever Bush nominates will get confirmed.

It is often said the difference between 40% in the polls and 60% is action vs inaction. Clinton was in the 60's but didn't do very much at all, and as such is still searching for a legacy. For all the complaints, no one can say that Bush has done nothing. The one thing never asked in those types of polls is why those polled approve or disapprove. A breakdown between disapprove because of doing too much, or disapprove for doing too little would be nice.