Michelle Malkin » The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

The Obama way: Bluster, bully, bribe

By Michelle Malkin • March 5, 2010 10:46 AM

My syndicated column looks at the White House bribe-a-thon. On a related business-as-usual note: Campaign Donors Working On Policy At The White House. On another business-as-usual note: Cashing out of the Obama administration.

***
The Obama Way: Bluster, bully, bribe
by Michelle Malkin
Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2010

The White House took great offense this week when conservatives suggested President Obama might be trading a judicial appointment for a wavering Democrat’s vote on his health care reform plan. “Absurd,” a miffed administration official told Politico.com. Wherever could the American people get such an impression? Let us count the ways.

On Wednesday, the very day President Obama hosted ten swing Democrats who had opposed the expansive health care takeover bill in November, the White House issued a press release trumpeting the nomination of Scott M. Matheson, Jr., to the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals. Matheson just happens to be the brother of Democrat Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah – one of the 10 invitees invited to sip wine and nosh on calorically-correct appetizers with the arm-twister-in-chief.

The seat on the 10th Circuit has been vacant for nearly a year. When one of the judges, Michael McConnell, resigned to take a lucrative post at Stanford Law School last summer, Matheson – Rhodes Scholar, law school professor, and dean — let the White House know right away he wanted the job. For nearly a year, there was no action. Liberal groups have been complaining for months about the glacial pace of Obama’s judicial nominations – a predicament they blame not solely on obstructionist Republicans, but on Obama’s own team of incompetent, indecisive foot-draggers who put the issue at the bottom of their priority list. (It’s worth noting that Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch supports Matheson’s candidacy.)

As the National Law Journal pointed out at the beginning of this year, the Obama administration has been slower than the Bush administration in sending judicial nominations to the Senate, “ submitting 12 circuit nominations last year compared with 28 for Bush in 2001. The White House last named a circuit nominee on Nov. 4.”

Now, out of nowhere, comes announcement of Matheson’s nomination – in the heat of White House vote-grubbing to salvage the Democrats’ government health care designs? To quote Dana Carvey’s old Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live: How conveeenient.

Let us consider the possibility, for a brief moment, that this is all 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 was wooing his brother, Jim? Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.

The perception of a Judgeship-for-Obamacare-vote deal is, of course, horribly unfair to Matheson, who seems more than qualified for the position. But full blame for creating that unmistakable perception lies squarely at the feet of the rank opportunists in the White House whose timing is worse than a broken metronome.

This debacle comes on the heels of damning disclosures about other possible White House bribery. Democrat Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania admitted to veteran Philly newsman Larry Kane that Team Obama dangled a “high-ranking” position in the administration if he dropped out of the Senate race and left incumbent Republican-turned Democrat Sen. Arlen Specter alone. In Colorado, the Denver Post reported last fall that Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina “offered specific suggestions” for an Obama administration job to far Left Democrat Andrew Romanoff if he withdrew his challenge to White House-backed incumbent Democrat Sen. Michael Bennet.

And earlier this month, the Washington Times noted that Mary Patrice Brown, the person assigned by Justice Department to oversee an internal investigation into the shady dismissal of the New Black Panther Party voter intimidation cases, is now “the leading candidate for a federal judgeship – for which she is being vetted by some of the same offices she supposedly is investigating.”

So, wherever did we get the impression that pay-for-play is the Obama way? Somewhere, Chicago corruptocrat Rod Blagojevich – who wanted to play, but didn’t get paid — is laughing bitterly.

~ For the latest breaking news, be sure to join Michelle's e-mail list ~

Posted in: Corruption,Democrats,Health care

Printer Friendly

comments (26)

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.

Comments

#1

On March 5th, 2010 at 10:53 am, et said:

Can the last American standing in congress add a Independent or Special Prosecutor amendment to some must pass legislation?
#2

On March 5th, 2010 at 10:55 am, bloghooligan said:

I’m just going to add: “cry”, “whine”, “pout”, and “stomp”.
#3

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:00 am, granite said:

Incorrigibly corrupt or incorrigibly stupid. Take your pick.

Choosing is not at all necessary.

The two descriptors are by no means mutually exclusive.
#4

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:00 am, Buy Danish said:

Ha! Love the sales job from TIME:

Read my entire story here, or buy a copy at the newsstand. The layout is better in print.
#5

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:01 am, spaceycakes said:

‘bluster, bully, bribe…

browbeat, breakdance, baby-mama.
#6

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:05 am, letget said:

What I find hard to believe, this bho thinks we American’s are so stupid we can’t see this for what it is! I guess this bho having all those around him who are stupid, thinks we are all!
L
#7

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:12 am, stevevvs said:

I hate to say this but isn’t this the same thing that was done in the Bush Years to pass nearly everything? Two “Stimulus’s, TARP, Prescription Drugs, War funding, and on and on.

I don’t like it, but I’ve seen it all my life. And now we have 107 Trillion of Unfunded Liabilities: http://www.usdebtclock.org/

18 Trillion for Bush’s Drug Bill alone.

What are the big differences in the two parties again?
#8

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:16 am, MacEamonn said:

Incorrigibly corrupt or and incorrigibly stupid. ~~Take your~~ No need to pick.

I fixed it
#9

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:21 am, cicerokid said:

Warriors, come out to play…
#10

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:25 am, J S Ragman said:

Coincidence, I think not.
#11

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:28 am, MarcoPolo said:

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:05 am, letget said:

What I find hard to believe, this bho thinks we American’s are so stupid we can’t see this for what it is!

No. They don’t care about that. They know that we’re simply powerless to stop them.
#12

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:33 am, letget said:

MarcoPolo,
I pray come Nov. we will have power to stop them, if it isn’t too late to fix this gosh horrible mess.
L
#13

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:52 am, WaterBoyz said:

MM said: …(It’s worth noting that Utah GOP Sen. Orrin Hatch supports Matheson’s candidacy.)

Anyone figure out why Orrin is doing this?
Politicians don’t do anything because it just feels good.
#14

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:56 am, Dimsdale said:

We need a political Eliot Ness right about now….
#15

On March 5th, 2010 at 12:24 pm, dan708 said:

One gets the strong feeling that when bribery dollar$ are changing hands, BOTH people are smiling! GGRRRRRRR!
#16

On March 5th, 2010 at 12:31 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

Freshly dug up stinky slime over IG Walpin firing and Kevin Johnson, former basketball player and very corrupt Demonrat and friend of Obama.

Chicago Way goes nationwide…
#17

On March 5th, 2010 at 12:34 pm, spaceycakes said:

…blow, barbituates, bong…
#18

On March 5th, 2010 at 12:34 pm, Ed Mahmoud abu al-Kahoul said:

We need a political Eliot Ness right about now….

The ACORN/Working Families Party endorsed Corruptocrat New York City DAs? The Demonratically led Congressional committees? Eric Holder’s DoJ?

See above with Walpin, when someone does try to keep the corruption down, Obama fires them.

Makes Nixon firing Archibald Cox seem pristine.
#19

On March 5th, 2010 at 12:35 pm, txvet2 said:

When you think about it, a judgeship is pretty cheap compared to the bribes for Nelson et al.
#20

On March 5th, 2010 at 3:00 pm, AniMEL said:

Bush nominated an old friend for a post on the SCOTUS. She was not well-qualified, and in fact had absolutely zero judicial experience. It only took a few hours for that to be illuminated, though, and when it was the MSM was all over it like flies on a cowpie. They were right for doing it.

Now, however, their darling is doing far worse and they’re burying it. Only FOX has prominently reported on the scheme. And we’re supposed to believe they’re not horribly biased to the left wing…?
#21

On March 5th, 2010 at 7:24 pm, happyscrapper said:

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:12 am, stevevvs said: I hate to say this but isn’t this the same thing that was done in the Bush Years to pass nearly everything? Two “Stimulus’s, TARP, Prescription Drugs, War funding, and on and on.

Thanks for your “insightful” repetition of the same old, tired, liberal talking points. Duh, Bush did it. So, Duh, what’s wrong with Obama doing it? Duh. Get your head out of your a$$ and try to post something original. But then, you probably aren’t able to do that.
#22

On March 5th, 2010 at 7:40 pm, Chief RZ said:

Just happens. Something else “just happens” too.
#23

On March 5th, 2010 at 11:22 pm, ITookTheRedPill said:

To quote Dana Carvey’s old Church Lady character on Saturday Night Live: How conveeenient.

Obama has spent his entire life associating with, and being mentored and advised by, Communists.

Church Lady: Isn’t that special?!

Who could have influenced him to do that?

Church Lady: Could it be…. SATAN?!
#24

On March 6th, 2010 at 9:14 am, stevevvs said:

Dear Happy Scrapper,

You may call what I wrote “Liberal Talking Points,” but I’m not a liberal writing them. I’m a true conservative, in the Jeffersonian Tradition.

For some honest evaluation, might I suggest reading The Dollar Meltdown by Charles Goyette, or Meltdown, by Thomas E. Woods.

Perhaps it’s time to learn.

And do have a nice day. Take Care
#25

On March 6th, 2010 at 10:25 am, happyscrapper said:

On March 6th, 2010 at 9:14 am, stevevvs said:
Dear Happy Scrapper,

You may call what I wrote “Liberal Talking Points,” but I’m not a liberal writing them.

Then why do you sound like a liberal? Just asking. It is hard to tell by your post that you are a conservative, when you use that tired old argument…Bush did it. I’m just going by what I read in your post. It just sounded like the same old “blame Bush” crap and I am tired of hearing it. Yes, Bush made mistakes, LOTS of them. But that doesn’t mean Obama gets a pass for doing the same!! Didn’t he campaign on the promise that he was NOT Bush? Your post just annoyed me no end.
#26

On March 6th, 2010 at 1:47 pm, Wethal said:

Dangerous Negotiations Over Abortion [Grace-Marie Turner]

America’s Catholic bishops are being used in a negotiating ploy that could lead to enactment of Obamacare and to federal funding of abortion.

Representatives of the bishops reportedly are working with the White House and Democratic leaders in Congress to write legislative language that would “fix” the liberal abortion provisions in the Senate health-care reform bill. They are being told that congressional leaders will pledge to enact their abortion protections as separate legislation amending the Senate bill after it’s passed. That is a smokescreen designed to keep the bishops at the negotiating table while the real action to enact Obamacare takes place in the House.

President Obama and his congressional allies are meeting with House Democrats to convince them that they must pass the Senate’s version of the bill “to keep the process moving.” But it’s more than just one step in a process; if the House passes the Senate bill with a simple majority of 216 votes, Obamacare will become the law of the land.

Once that happens, the Senate may, or may not, pass a second bill to “fix” the original bill’s abortion language. It’s far from certain that this will happen; in fact, it would be extremely difficult to do so. Abortion provisions historically have been barred from the 51-vote Senate reconciliation process as being not germane to the budget, and there are not 60 pro-life votes in the Senate to pass such a bill through regular order.

It would be the scam of all time if House members were talked into going first and voting for the Senate bill “to keep the process moving” toward passage of a reconciliation package, only to find that they have put Obamacare over the finish line with no guarantee of any changes. If the House passes legislation identical to the Senate bill, the president will surely sign it, and it will become law. That means House Democrats will have voted for a bill that clearly allows federal funding for abortion, which the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops solidly opposes. Any promises that this would be fixed later on won’t be worth the paper they might, or might not, be written on.

The National Right to Life Committee issued a strong statement on Friday saying:

When all of the pro-abortion provisions are considered in total, the Senate bill is the most pro-abortion single piece of legislation that has ever come to the House floor for a vote, since Roe v. Wade. Any House member who votes for the Senate health bill is casting a career-defining pro-abortion vote. A House member who votes for the Senate bill would forfeit a plausible claim to pro-life credentials. No House member who votes for the Senate bill will be regarded, in the future, as having a record against federal funding of abortion . . .

House members who vote for the Senate bill will be accountable to their constituents for what the Senate bill contains, including its pro-abortion mandates and subsidies, without regard to . . . solemn assurances that Congress will revisit the issue in future legislation.

The bishops must insist that the House never votes on the Senate bill, but instead starts with new health-reform legislation that protects against federal funding of abortion. They will have leverage only if protections against abortion are explicitly included as part of a larger health-reform bill.

The House could vote anytime on the Senate bill, and the bishops must not be part of this deceptive and dangerous strategy.

NRO Critical Condition.

With the bishops, it’s asmooth-talking con job. “Of course, we’ll get 6o votes in the Senate to take out the Senate language….some day.