Mickey Kaus disagrees with me about the “Gang of 14”

Tuesday, October 04, 2005
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.

Scorecard:

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.

3 comments:

Knucklehead said...

I'm reusing comments left an right today. In a thread below I linked to Beldar and Jim Miller's blogs on the Meirs nomination. Miller talks about the politics of it. Beldar responds to critics of Miers credentials.

Between the two of them (and your blog here) I've begun wondering if, rather than the politically dumb move so many on the right seem to think this nomination is, a remarkably astute political move.

As I said over at Roger's place...

... it just occurred to me that GWB may find this nomination exquisitely amusing. He's nominated a woman who makes Hillary's "among the top 100 attorneys in the US" credentials seem downright, well, overrated. He nominated the real-deal Hillary rather than the New Yorker puff-piece Hillary.

Not only that, but he's now made one never-married, childless, high-achieving, career woman his Secretary of State and another never-married, childless, high-achieving, career woman his choice for associate supreme court justice.

Tell me again why the NOW crowd hates him?

MeaninglessHotAir said...

Knucklehead,

Tell me again why the NOW crowd hates him?

Because he's a Republican! Because he's a red-stater.

terrye said...

I think the gang of 14 may be very useful to both parties. It allows cover for them to make necessary compromises.

I have no reason to believe that Miers is any less qualified than Brown just because some conservative does not think she have proven herself or whatever.

The base of the Republican party wants a fight, but the gang makes a fight unlikely.

That might piss the base off the base, but it could save the party.

Most Americans do not enjoy watching other Americans attacking each other.

Partisan politics might be fun for the partisans but it is a pain in the ass for the rest of us.

So far the main objection to Miers seems to be that the Democrats do not hate her enough and she might get confirmed without fight.

how awful.