creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Michelle Malkin
Michelle Malkin
17 Sep 2014
The Spread of Rocky Mountain Jihad

Something's fouling Colorado's crisp air — and I'm not talking about the pot smoke. In my adopted home state,… Read More.

12 Sep 2014
Post-9/11: Protect the Freedom To Warn

"If you see something, say something." That's what our homeland security apparatchiks incessantly preach. But … Read More.

10 Sep 2014
The Jihadists' Eternal Plan

Here's the first and last rule of Islamic jihad: If at first you don't succeed, plot, plot again. 9/11 wasn't … Read More.

The Obama Way: Bluster, Bully, Bribe

Comment

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 Obama hosted 10 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 Democratic Rep. Jim Matheson of Utah — one of the 10 Dems 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 was 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 the 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 Obama was wooing his brother? 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. Democratic 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-Democratic 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 Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet.

And earlier this month, The Washington Times noted that Mary Patrice Brown, the person assigned by the 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.

Michelle Malkin is the author of "Culture of Corruption: Obama and his Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks & Cronies" (Regnery 2010). Her e-mail address is malkinblog@gmail.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

2 Comments | Post Comment
I guess bribery is ok, if you support a radically left agenda. Quite a series of cawinkeedinks huh? How is it possible that a President with such a long list of widely hated policies and shady dealings, hasn't been called infront of a congressional panel for explanation? I don't believe the White House staff has bad timing. They're not held accountable by the press for any of their blatantly unsavory politics. So they don't care how it looks they realize that the press corp is in support of whatever it takes to get the Presidents freedom accosting legislation passed. How long before the public takes to the streets and demands answers and holds this Government accountable? Is anyone following all the liberty we've lost? Does anyone care? This administration shows no reverence for public opinion or the 18 enumerated powers set forth by the Constitution. Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Durban, should all be held accountable for attempting to rob from us of our LABOR and our ability to seek happiness and property. That's right property as in PRIVATE PROPERTY!!! In 15 months this president has been extremely successful at enslaving the tax payer to the socially entitled. In that respect he has been an unpresidented success. However at what cost to our liberty?
Comment: #1
Posted by: Mike McColgin
Sun Mar 7, 2010 3:49 PM
yyjutytfgghfgfdfdhhmkyyumkudym bhuvbgffc
Comment: #2
Posted by: sara
Mon Mar 8, 2010 6:06 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Michelle Malkin
Sep. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Author’s Podcast
Laura Hollis
Laura HollisUpdated 18 Sep 2014
Matt Towery
Matt ToweryUpdated 18 Sep 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 18 Sep 2014

19 Mar 2014 Revolt Against the Testing Tyrants

14 Nov 2007 The Politics of Racial Insult: Who Decides?

2 Nov 2011 Occupy Oakland's Dangerous “Strike” Follies