Kevin Drum remarks on the opposition to Trump’s appointees:
Depending on how Nannygate and a few other things turn out, it’s possible that Andy Puzder might also look vulnerable when his hearings start. If so, I expect that we’ll see a full-court press similar to what we saw with DeVos. The key variable here is not badness—Trump’s nominees are all bad from a liberal perspective—nor demonstrating loyalty to teachers unions—that’s just gravy—but the realistic possibility of defeating one of Trump’s nominees. That’s where most people want to spend their energy.
I don’t think Kevin really takes this far enough. Why should the Democrats oppose the nominees? I see two reasons:
- To demonstrate to Trump that he can’t just throw any sort of mud at the wall and expect it to stick. Unfortunately, that requires some GOP help and, except for the DeVos nomination, that hasn’t happened. So long as the mistaken ethic that politics is a blind team game persists, I think the Democrats will just have to hope to catch nominees in such devastating mistakes that they withdraw on their own. Incidentally, Kevin is keeping tabs on this, and in this post notes the list of withdrawn nominees is up to four as one of Flynn’s friends is being boosted off of the National Security Council, but doesn’t know why he couldn’t achieve the proper security clearance.
- To demonstrate to their own base and the nation that they are still relevant, that Trump isn’t unconstrained. Fortunately, the injunction against the Muslim Ban Executive Order has achieved half of that – Trump is discovering the President is not the caesar, The reaction of SCOTUS nominee Gorsuch to Trump’s attacks on the judiciary is also heartening – further reactions from Gorsuch might also be a lesson to Trump to treat the judiciary with respect, although it’s not clear Trump is capable of learning from lessons.
