Actually, Kaus’ disagreement is with David Brooks and only coincidentally with yours truly---but I will take my enemies anyway that I can find them!:
“Kf, on the other hand, said the Gang of 14 deal was "favorable to the Dems" because
If the "nuclear option" is on the line when President Bush nominates a Supreme Court justice, that in itself will circumscribe his choice. He won't want to name someone too controversial, lest the public side with the pro-filibuster Dems.
Now Bush has named Harriet Miers--a nominee pre-approved by the Senate's Democratic leader and seemingly controversial only on the right.
Brooks: Bought bogus GOP spin!
kf: Eerily prescient!
I remain convinced that the “Gang of 14” helps the Republicans far more than the liberal Democrats. This agreement allows red state Democrats some cover when going against the wishes of their more liberal comrades. They dare not openly confront their fellow Democrats, but prefer the more subtle and discreet approach. The Democrat tent has grown smaller. It is increasingly becoming home for only those embracing the nostrums of the far left. Even so-called moderates are treated as heretics to be rebuked and damaged. The Daily Kos has more influence than the Kausfiles.
Mickey Kaus’ argument is premised upon the belief that Harriet Miers is something of an intellectual lightweight who is not firmly committed to the originalist legal philosophy. Could he be right? Are people like myself naive and too trusting of President Bush’s judgment. Well, allow me to put it this way: Miers will be approved by the U.S. Senate. There’s little doubt of that. We should know who was truly prescient by no later than the early part of next year.
What are the consequences?
5 minutes ago