The Chicago Way: Judgeships for Demcare votes?
There are no coincidences in Obama world, I’ve joked many times on this blog.
This one looks like a quid pro quo, smells like a quid pro quo, and quacks like a quid pro quo:
Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he’s obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. The White House just sent out a press release announcing that today President Obama nominated Matheson’s brother Scott M. Matheson, Jr. to the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that it is merely coincidence.
Is the White House so fantastically blind and tone-deaf that it failed to detect the blood-red flags and blaring alarm bells that Scott Matheson’s judicial nomination would raise coming on the very day President Obama is wooing his brother, Jim?
Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.
***
Allahpundit reminds us of Obama’s words this afternoon: “I will do everything in my power to make the case for reform.”
Whatever it takes: Borrow, bully, bribe.
It’s the Chicago Way. It’s the Demcare way. And it stinks to high heaven.
***
GOP Rep. Michele Bachmann calls for an investigation: “What in the world is going on in the White House?”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Obama Corruption: Buying Obamacare votes with judgeships? « Sharp Right Turn
- More White House Sleaze – Judgeships Now for Sale | A Small Corner of Sanity
- Obama Selling Judgeships for ObamaCare Votes – Ji’Obama’had – Muslim Woman Refuses Body Scan – Larry Sinclair’s Journey – Inspector General Walpin – WND – Natural Born Citizen – Judicial Corrupti
- The Snooper Report
- Sold! One Judge For One Vote! « The Clampdown
- Urbin Report
- American Youth uses music to speak to Barack Obama « VotingFemale
- Bent Notes » Chicago on the Potomac
- Michele Bachmann: “What in the World is Going On in the White House? – Calls For Investigation « Nice Deb
- The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : Re: Cornhusker Kickback... Pentangeli
- Coincidence? The Chicago Way, Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes (Scott M. Matheson, Jr.) | Scared Monkeys
- Bob Corker’s Senate office number is 202-224-3344 « VotingFemale
- BLUE DOG DEMOCRAT TARGET LIST and Link-fest! « Temple of Mut
- Bribery: It’s What’s For Dinner | Support Your Local Gunfighter
- Rep Stark is out as Chairman of Ways and Means Chair, because… « VotingFemale
- Parents, Teach Your Children Well
- I’ll Make Your Brother An Offer He Can’t Refuse « Around The Sphere
- I’ll Make Your Brother An Offer He Can’t Refuse « Around The Sphere
- » Links To Visit – 03/04/10 NoisyRoom.net: There are two ways to conquer and enslave a nation. One is by the sword, the other is by debt. John Adams
- Michele Bachmann calls for probe into Obama judicial appointment Scott Matheson : Fire Andrea Mitchell!
- Arrogance, Incompetence, Corruption – Why Obama’s Health Scam Is Dead Hillary Is 44
- The Perverted Political Atmosphere Today; Hollywood worships their cult leader while The One buys votes « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Right-Wing Links (March 4, 2010)
- ObamaCare Mixed Messages – Is This Thing Happening Or Not? « Nice Deb
- Schaschlik « abseits vom mainstream – heplev
- How’s That Clean Government Coming Along « Tai-Chi Policy
- Michelle Malkin » The Demcare bribe list, Pt. III
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Corruption,Health care
Doug Ross @ Journal
» Pr·i·us In·sur·rec·tion
Ed Driscoll
» The MSM: Trapped in the Overlook Hotel



Legal Insurrection
» My Shocking Theory On The Delaware Primary
Hot Air
» Quotes of the day
Riehl World View
» A Puzzled Patterico









I have to break this to you Z, but as a leader in a sensitive position of trust or great responsibility, when there are questions about your conduct, you are guilty until proven innocent.
Been there, lived that. You are not “Joe Six Pack.” He wanted the job. Opening up his life and giving up his privacy comes with the job. Anyone giving such a person a pass is a fool. The more powerful the position the more important the vetting. It’s called Due Diligence.
It is not, repeat, not a legal issue, but one of trust. I do not have to provide you with any “evidence” as the topics I brought up one can readily find on reputable internet sources.
None of these items are “tangents,” because they demostrate a CONSISTENT not isolated) pattern of behavior and conduct.
Why should I trust this President when there are DOZENS of statements and incidents that lead one to conclude he should not be?
And yet, strangely enough, the libs can “connect the dots” between a dog vomiting and Geo. Bush’s fault with ’6 degrees of separation.’
To quote our resident ombudsman:
How do you know it’s unlikely? Do you have evidence of its unlikeliness? You admit this looks bad, but then you want the other people commenting here to calm down because the peculiar timing of this move may mean nothing. You can’t blame people for speculating when you are doing so, too.
I won’t dispute the assertion that this may be coincidental, but when something smells as fishy as this does, expect people to ruminate about what is going on. People are way past the point of giving DC politicians the benefit of the doubt. For a bunch of folks who say they want to clean up the place, they have an odd way of showing it.
Was this corruption or stupidity? If it was a coincidence, it was stupid. If it wasn’t a coincidence, then the people deserve to know about it.
Shame on you!Of course there is no quid pro quo,and Mona Lisa was a man.
Obama says we deserve an up or down vote, so why isn’t the House voting TODAY on an up or down vote?
What is the delay. The argument is over, nothing left to say, right, Obama??
Why are all the backroom deals and arm twisting going on if the argument is over? Vote Now, up or down!!
Small world.
There is no way I can disagree with more strongly.
Your statement violates every principle that our country stands for. Your statement is dispicable and offensive.
There are no separate and distinct covenants governing leaders, or the man on the street. ‘Guilt’ and ‘innocence’ are legal terms that can carry penalties, fines and prison terms.
Yes, there are issues of trust surrounding leaders, and they must answers questions. And, once the questions are answered, it is up to you to either accept or reject that answer. Are you willing to accept the answers? Are you willing to accept facts?
I previously asked you these questions and you have yet to address them. There is no rule that you must, though based on your argument it is now fine that I do not trust you.
[NOTE: That is why I do my level best to address every comment and question directed at me. You may not like the answer. You might think I go on too long. But, I am exceedingly forthcoming.]
It completely acceptable not to trust anyone, but it is unnacceptable not to trust the facts.
Yep. And I agreed. Though that leads to the question of where does it stop? Grade School?
Again, another question that I asked that you did not address. Well, maybe your saying, ‘opening up his life and giving up his privacy’ is a broad response to the question. Though I wonder why you couldn’t be more direct and say, ‘Yes, we should have access to his grade school records’.
No one should give anyone a pass. Yes, people should be vetted. Yes, due dilligence is absolutely necessary.
Will you acknowledge that we agree?
Then do not use legal terms like ‘guilt’ and ‘innocence’. When trust is the issue then it must be verified. Once verified, what are you willing to do with the facts? Reject or accept them?
Nope. I asked you to cut and paste your assertion about what you allege I have said about Pres Obama.
How can you be trusted if your assertions are not verified?
The thread is about the potential of any quid pro quo for a judgeship and getting a member of Congress to change their vote. The title of this thread is, “The Chicago Way: Judgeships for Demcare votes?”
I am reluctant to speculate on why you should, or should not, trust someone. Though having your questions addressed is a beginning.
However, I am prepared to ask you again, that when your questions are addressed why are you unwilling to accept the answers?
Is it because you just do not want to believe whatever an individual tells you, on any issue?
I will agree that an individual’s reputation preceeds them, however that does not mean that on every single issue that person is misrepresenting the facts. Even a broken clock is correct twice a day.
Trust but verify. Have Congressional hearings on as many issues that you find necessary. There is no proof of any quid pro quo, and yes, as I have said, the optics are bad. Beyond that I can not help you. You choose not to trust in the face of facts, so be it.
Huh? Ummmm, OK.
Connect These Dots
My evidence is that the White House was asked about it and addressed the question directly. The answer made sense and I accept it.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/briefing-white-house-press-secretary-robert-gibbs-3410
Yes, and I would like to know what the other nine inviduals are recieving for their family members? In the absence of any allegation that the other nine people are recieving any quid pro quo, I maintian my opinion, and reserve the right to revise it when additional information is found out.
Yep, keep asking questions. Nothing wrong with that.
Yep, the optics on this one is bad. Not the first time, and it won’t be the last, that any administration has fumbled and flubbed.
Absolutely, full disclosure and addressing every single question should be the order of the day. The White House was queried and so should Rep Matheson and his brother be asked questions. At a minimum, release a statement and go on record. Well, this is far more important for Rep Matheson, not so much his brother. Though the brother will hopefully be asked about this at his confirmation hearing.
Though at the conclusion of learning all the facts, are you willing to accept the answers?
I think you spelled Bribery wrong.
Might it be BRIBERRY?
Yep, plenty of money for bribes, but he cuts funding to the Coast Guard
Yep, he has his priorities, however, they are not the public’s priority, or need even.
As Ms. Malkin’s often says ‘the Chicago Way’. Let’s hope it doesn’t end the same way Valentines Day did.
Wow. This is a new low, even for you people. Even with all the dumb things President Obama has done, THIS is what gets you people going? You are being played again, kids…
Speaking for no one but myself, yes. But I’m not expecting to hear any more answers. Gibbs dismissed the legitimate skepticism as silly and threw in one Republican’s endorsement (as if the Important Orrin Hatch’s opinion is going to change everyone’s mind), so it would appear as though the administration has no interest in discussing the topic any further.
Per The Final Word’s* link, here’s what Gibbs said, in case anyone was wondering:
I question the timing. I question a lot of things, though. Like what is the smoke monster? And was a more qualified person overlooked when they filled that judge’s seat?
*Not intended as a cut, just as an acknowledgment of zyzzyg’s creative moniker.