Honor Amongst Honor?

One thing that Bush has constantly been presenting about judicial nominee John Roberts isn't his actual qualifications, but his personal ones. It just seems to reek of the same type of campaign that Bush held for the 2000 election, which Bush contended that he would bring "honor" back to the White House (it turns out he brought a much worse form of dishonor).
Or is it another unrelated link such as exercise and trust (I remember that Brendan Nyhan had a post on that with Roberts, but I can't find the post right now). Does somehow having a wife and two kids make you a better judge?
By presenting such a mask while avoiding the real questions, it does more of a disservice to people then even comming up with bad phrases. Here is a person who can effect the Supreme Court, and thus all Americans, for many decades to come. While I certainly can't mock a person for having what appears to be a good personal life, it just doesn't show the real qualifications.
And yes, I do want to know what his judical philosophy is. I don't just mean if he's liberal or conservative, I mean if he really is more activist then not. Does he take previous rulings to mind, or what implied rights (such as privacy) does he agree with. These are things everyone should know and take into account.
It just seems that even conservatives should be worried here, since that is what this campaign seems to be targeting. This viel is also avoiding their questions too. I doubt that conservatives also believe that one's personal life shows all the qualifications of being a judge.
This is just another example of how Bush and his adminisration has been trying manipulating everyone.