I Really Wasn’t Sure About Matt Gaetz

Then Andy McCarthy weighed in. And now I can't wait.

McCarthy's piece (sometimes behind a paywall) is entitled "On Trump's Foolish, Futile Matt Gaetz AG Nomination". Now, for many that will be enough: if McCarthy is against, being for can't be too wrong. But let's look at the article anyway.

He begins with the disingenuous "I'm not going to mention these allegations I've just mentioned," so I won't. McCarthy's substantive charge is that:

[Gaetz] took the constitutional-law (sic) position that the vice president had the authority to ... remand the votes back to the states, despite their certification ... No one who took such a position is qualified to be attorney general of the United States.

I am about as far from being a constitutional law expert as one could find, so take this with all the appropriate salt, but... that's it? The Electoral Count Act of 1877 was so unclear on procedure that it was subsequently significantly amended in 2022. The situation regarding the legitimacy of electors certified by states that held elections contrary to Federal laws and their own laws was sufficiently unclear to prompt a Supreme Court case with 18 states on one side and 20 on the other. (The Supremes dismissed the case — for lack of standing.) Am I saying Gaetz's position was correct? No. But it was clearly sufficiently plausible not to be the sort of position no qualified lawyer could hold.

But, of course, McCarthy's objection is not to the legal basis for the position. Indeed, he says "Matt Gaetz has a lot of political talent, and a lot of lawyer talent." McCarthy's real objection is that Gaetz dared to challenge McCarthy's true North Star - not the Constitution, not justice, not the good of the country, but The System. "Gaetz," McCarthy writes, "dabbled in conspiracy theories that the Capitol riot had been led by left-wing radicals ... and that it may have been an inside job." How dare he so dabble! No one must question The Narrative! In this, as in so much, the anti-Trump commentariat misses — deliberately or otherwise — the playful nature of modern political discourse.

McCarthy concedes that "[t]he Justice Department has huge problems that have to be addressed." But, in his view, "Trump needs a strong, experienced hand who is widely respected for his or her legal acumen and bureaucratic know-how — specifically in the Justice Department." Because we all know there's nothing like a Washington insider to get things done, challenge the status quo and undo a generation of injustice. This is the thinking that had the "serious adults" nodding wisely at Merrick Garland's appointment.

Surely even the National Review can do better than this. I guess they just don't want to.

In any event, win, lose or draw, Mr. Gaetz looks like just the chap to shake things up a bit. All power to him. (At least in the interim, since the Republican Senate has already set out its stall as the Disloyal Opposition.)