Grasping at straws. Its our specialty.

I read Scott Matthewson's qualifications and was surprised he decided to take the job. He is over qualified to be a federal judge and could easily make multiple times a Circuit Judge's salary in private practice. I honor him his public spiritedness.

Is Jim DeMint reading my mind?

"Matheson." Sorry I know a guy named Matthewson. Odd name, but that is what I typed,

Meanwhile, lets do put those unspent stimulus funds to work in the districts of members needing encouragement to vote for HCR.

The GOP are masters of projection. They would offer a judgeship to secure a vote, so they assume everyone else would or should do the same. I mean, it's not like the GOP to offer 100s of thousands of dollar in support for a representative's son's campaign if the rep voted for, let's say, a drug benefit for a medicare bill.

some awkwardness in the postscript -- seems to concede the 2010 election...

Obvious question (not, as far as I could see, addressed): how did he vote the first time around?

So, how long before Hatch, Bennett or Chaffetz switch to condemning the nomination?

You know why they jump on these things? because in the republican world, everything is about who you know and how you're connected.

Since it's the norm for them, they think it's the norm for everyone else. Plus they love to pull stuff out of the ass.

...Bachmann...Beck...DeMint....

Talk about your three stooges*....

*with profound apologies to the spirits of Larry, Curly, Moe, Shemp, et. al.

Obvious question (not, as far as I could see, addressed): how did he vote the first time around?

He voted no. Fairly likely for a Utah Democrat.

"Also remember, if Republicans had the congressional majority right now,... This was the model from 1995 to 2000, and it would be just as ridiculous next year."

This assumes that Republicans will enjoy majorities next year in Congress. Steve, know anything we don't?

I think the point here is there's a difference between voicing the question... and repeating the charge once the question's been answered; at a time when vote-getting on various issues is a big deal... it's not surprising the question would come up. Once answered... then that's that. Except that with Republicans, it isn't. The "Matheson Matter" will come up again and again, rehashed, reanswered... and never entirely go away, like birth certificates and all the rest.

And that said, I'd also point out that there is a reasonable underlying question here that should give pause: it's troubling, I think, that both parties have such narrow, family-based connections across a variety of offices and positions in public service. I'm sure Matheson's a fine judge and lawyer and his brother's a fine Representative... but still, can't Democrats get beyond this kind of scope? That's what helps perpetuate a narrative of insider dealing, and the sense of an educated elite separate from the rest of the population.

"It's out there..."

Somewhere today, Cokie Roberts is smiling.

Perhaps President Obama should nominate Harriet Myers to the court. The GOP might like her better this time around.

I'm trying to remember who it was that axed all those US attorneys for political reasons a few years ago. What was that guy's name again?

weboy:

can't Democrats get beyond this kind of scope?

In Utah, probably not.

Seeing the Michelle Bachmann/Alan Grayson debate on HCR on Larry King Live last night, what I found most intersting (and offensive) was not just that Bachmann brought it up, but HOW she brought it up. For those that didn't see it, Larry King was allowing a back and forth twixt Bachmann & Grayson, Bachmann would stay something stupid and false, Grayson would point out WHY it was stupid and false without ever calling Bachmann a liar. They were actually quite polite to each other. She waited until there was about a minute and change left in the segment (nothing like 6 minutes to discuss something as trivial as heath care reform am I right?), and thend ropped the bombshell that a Rep's brother was up for a judgeship and that Rep was at the White House being courted/wooed by Obama at that moment and an investigation into possible corruption charges MUST be filed. Grayson, admirably, called it out for what it was, a distraction designed to stop talk about health care reform, and Senora Smug-Ass insisted that possible charges of corruption are ALWAYS pertinent and shouldn't be dismissed just because it has no bearing on the subject at hand. Typical GOP douchebaggery, and yes, quite a reminder of the meandering road from Whitewater to Monicagate. SOP for the GOP, keep accusing your political enemy of wrongdoing, keep the base enraged. And hey, you might get lucky and a charge might stick, but that's the icing, not the cake.

"I question the timing."

Hey Senator Demint: They don't THINK you're stupid. They KNOW it.

They guy was dean of the law school, here and a former US Attorney, for God;s sake!!

have these people no shame? Oh. of course. No, they don't have any shame....

"They really do think we're stupid."

Not necessarily. But they do think you're dicks.

Look, it's all very simple. If the Republicans get the House back this November, Obama gets impeached. They'll impeach him for the sake of pure power, for the sake of their base of dumb proles, and for the simple fact that it's a majority vote.

Personally, I'm waiting for the GOP to impeach Obama for some completely bullshit, made-up charge. Something like the birth certificate. If we're all crashing towards extinction anyway, we might as well have some laughs on the way down.

Sure, Obama and his allies are as pure as newly fallen snow.

Nope, sorry, but the presumption is that if you nominate a congressman's brother to anything, its a kickback for something. that goes double in a process supposedly designed to reduce the cost of healthcare, but includes the louisiana purchase, the cornhusker kickback and not a jot about tort reform.

"Is there any evidence -- anything at all -- to suggest the Matheson nomination is related in any way to getting his brother's vote on health care?"

Yes. The timing.

You can say what you like about Judge Matheson's qualifications, which everybody admits are impressive, but with Chicago Obama and his track record of patronage policy, the timing is suspect, and that is a real consideration. Sorry, but it's a fact. Deal with it.

The progressives' defensive response to this nomination is sort of like a kitten arching its back, mewing "Back off!"

There is a clear appearance of impropriety here. We don't need to see an exchange of e-mails outlining the specifics of the quid pro quo. It's enough to say 1) Rep. Matheson's vote might be crucial; 2) Rep. Matheson loves his brother; 3) President Obama bestowed a high office on Rep. Matheson's brother.

It would certainly look worse if the brother wasn't very qualified for the judgeship. But it still looks bad, and you can't really fault the health care bill's opponents for raising the matter. You would too, if the president was a Republican and the bill was something you opposed.

Let's put it this way. If the appointment of the brother was going along on a completely separate track and truly had nothing whatsoever to do with currying the congressman's favor, it should have been postponed for a month. Not having done so has handed the GOP an irrefutable charge to level against the president. So it was stupid. At best.

I don't think this accusation should simply be swept under the rug. Whatever your party affiliations are corruption in government is a serious issue. We shouldn't want our own party partaking in it any more than the other party, perhaps less. Obama is from Chicago (as am I) and this is the way Chicago politics work.

The fact that a Rep. who formerly voted "no" was brought to a session attempting to change his vote and that his brother was simultaneously nominated for a judgeship isn't a joke. He put in for the position 9 months ago, why wait nine months to appoint him? Unless you were trying to sway the vote of a congressman.

I think whether or not this is truly a bad thing is up for debate though. The president is elected by the public as a whole (unlike members of congress) and it might be good for him to use the party apparatus to pass programs the public supports.