27 thoughts on “Such Cynics”

  2. Althouse asserts:

    the President chooses from a large pool of individuals with good enough credentials.

    You’d be hard-pressed to find another Utah Democrat with Matheson’s credentials for the federal bench. Althouse seems to be arguing that the White House should deny him the job and instead choose someone with merely “good enough” credentials in order to protect their political image; does she really believe that?

  3. No Jim, at this point they should choose a candidate who doesn’t look like a political hack’s brother who got the nod because the Dems owe a favor!! I’m not a Democrat, but I know when something looks bad. I have no stake in seeing this administration do well. In fact I abhor most of what they do and stand for.

    But they seem to have lost whatever sense of right and wrong they ever had and it WILL bite them in the boo boo eventually.

    And I’m also not believing this guys credits are so stellar the NO other judge could be chosen. PUHlease!

  5. You’d be hard-pressed to find another Utah Democrat with Matheson’s credentials for the federal bench.

    No you wouldn’t. Not every potential judge candidate has conflicts of interest this big.

  6. You know, Jim might even be right here. Matheson’s credentials (OTHER than his good taste in siblings) are impressive, and I really don’t think that he is to blame here. Would anyone here be complaining if the situation was reversed?

    Look, Obama looks awful here, and yes…he probably did make this decision for the worst of reasons. With that said, he made a good choice for bad reasons, and sometimes you just simply have to live with that.

  7. Would anyone here be complaining if the situation was reversed?

    While Harriet Miers wasn’t the sister of anybody important to pending legislation, I do seem to recall quite a bit of complaint about her nomination to the Supreme Court. Including from me.

    And whereas Lisa Murkowski seems to be no worse than any other U.S. Senator, it does seem to me that the fact she was appointed to her seat by her own father elicited no small amount of disapproval from those very few dextrosphere types who were aware of it at the time. Including me.

    These examples aren’t an exact correspondence to what Obama’s done, but they might offer some guidance.

  8. You’d be hard-pressed to find another Utah Democrat with Matheson’s credentials for the federal bench.

    I’m with Karl — this is bullcrap. We’re all grown-ups here.

  9. Titus,

    I invite either you or Karl to suggest an alternative then. Remember, the alternative has to be plausible, and it must be a Democrat (lets be real here, ANY president is going to be friendlier to his own party here).

    The timing is certainly NOT a coincidence, and that reflects badly on the administration’s incompetence and overally amaturishness (sp?), but there is a big difference between stupid and corrupt. Many on this blog (myself included) have commented at length on the tendency of some hysterical Democrats to find evil intentions in what are more often than not simply poor judgement and bad execution. Let’s not emulate those Dems that we (rightly) despise…

  10. Scott,

    Since I’m not a political consultant, I will have to defer to Karl (who may actually be one – you can’t rule these things out with him) to name names.

    In the meantime, perhaps you could, in a back-of-the-envelope way at most, calculate the absolute dearth of worthy alternatives. Even Drake Equation off-the-cuff nonsense would be acceptable, but please be prepared to substantiate your coefficients…

  11. The question is whether Rep. Matheson will stick with his rationale for voting no. If not, we know his mark.

    He has one Democrat challenger, and potentially a Republican and Independent challenger if he makes it to the general election. A flip/flop on a major vote just after your brother gets a major nod by the President will make for good campaign material.

  12. Titus,

    There are certainly worthy alternatives, this should be obvious. Matheson is an EXCELLENT choice (I submit that you cannot find a serious substantive argument against him other than his family name), and though completely valid criticisms of the timing and execution of this nomination exist (and I endorse them myself), there is a huge difference between incompetence and corruption.

    I am not suggesting that we excuse Obama for this sort of thing, only that we put it in perspective. There are plenty of real issues with The One(tm) which can be used to bash him, this simply isn’t one of them…

    Leland,

    Your point is an execellent one. If Rep. Matheson changes his vote as a result of this nomination, his opponents will use it against him at election time, with what I believe would be quite predictable results. In a sense, the nomination has reduced (though not eliminated) Matheson’s chance of changing his vote, something that wouldn’t have been the case if Obama had made this decision a few months ago, or a few months from now.

  13. The President promotes the brother of a Congressman whose vote he needs to reverse, to a incredibly sought-after Federal Judgeship immediately before the vote.

    Anyone who’s ever taken legal training knows the line about not just avoiding impropriety but even ‘the appearance of impropriety’.

    And now, Scott and Jim show up to defend this apparent bribe/extortion by saying… that the guy who got promotes is qualified (in Scott’s humble opinion; he never names any of the competitors for that judgeship) , and that makes it all okay.

    Wonderful ethics y’all have there.

  14. (I submit that you cannot find a serious substantive argument against him other than his family name)

    Well, AFAIK, the appearance of quid pro quo is the issue. No one’s saying his c.v. is bunk.

  15. I don’t doubt that Obama’s choice of Matheson is not entirely divorced from his sibling in Congress, I am merely saying that the odds are reasonably good that this guy would have been nominated in any case. That is a BIG distinction from simply denying any wrongdoing. Insulting me by lumping me in with apologists like Jim is not helping….

    I fully agree that there is an appearance of a quid pro quo, and in fact there might even be a quid pro quot, but the outrage on this strikes me as awfully arch. If the circumstances were reversed, and a Republican president was nominating a well-qualified candidate (anyone want to suggest that Matheson isn’t qualified?) for a plum position, and that candidate happened to be related to a critical vote for upcoming legislation, do you think that the Left would do anything other than call for impeachment? I think that we are better than that, and that we can acknowlege that this isn’t entirely a black and white matter.

    The appearance of impropriety is often used as a blanket excuse to attack our political enemies engaging in behavior we don’t like, or would rather discourage. Without some proof of impropriety, this turns into a political version of a heckler’s veto, which benefits nobody. Why not use this opportunity to tone down the dialogue (this is small potatoes, after all…this one congressthing’s vote isn’t nearly as crucial as many believe it to be), and use this as an example of how the GOP wants to change the terms of the debate? The voters will reward/punish Rep. Matheson for his behavior, ultimately that should prove deterrent enough.

  16. Why not use this opportunity to tone down the dialogue…and use this as an example of how the GOP wants to change the terms of the debate?

    Scott, you’re taking the high road, and while that is laudable, it is ill-timed. We are not in a period of domestic detente – we are hurtling toward crisis era struggle. The very compositions of one or both parties is likely to change dramatically in the near term, and every opening will be seen as fair game in this (thankfully yet bloodless) civil war.

  17. Titus,

    I won’t deny the truth of what you are saying, but unless you believe that a civil war (not likely to stay bloodless forever you know…they never do) is inevitable, sometimes one side must made a gesture to turn down the heat. This is one opportunity to do so at a relatively moderate cost.

    Pelosi doesn’t have the votes, and Obama’s clumsy timing only embarasses himself for no real purpose. Matheson isn’t going to change that calculus no matter what he does, so why not take the high road here and given Obama and the Dems a chance to climb this thing down and limit the damage? We have already won this particular skirmish and are likely to win the battle…let’s given the other side a chance to retire gracefully.

    Perhaps nothing will come of it, and the Dems will simply ignore this gesture the next time around, in which case we have lost very little by making it. Perhaps they will remember, however, that we did make it, and tone things down the next time, in which case we have both one.

    During WWII, the fighting on the Western Front was brutal, but considerably less inhuman than that on the Eastern Front. One important reason for this was that on the Eastern Front, both sides considered the other inhuman and quickly through away even the most elementarry rules of restraint in combat, while in the West there was some sense of common norms. If we are to have this civil war (and sadly, I think we are moving in that direction), lets at least try to get to the West Front model…

  18. FWIW, I believe that simply keeping this thing front-and-center in the daylight is all that’s required by the GOP to maximize their gain and minimize their causalities.

  19. I believe we agree on that. Mention that it is sleazy, certainly…suggest that the administration has created a problem with appearances, absolutely… Just don’t call it a crime….

  20. I think both Scott and Titus have hit upon the right tact here, exposure is enough.

    I do have a tiny disagreement with Scott though. I believe you can indeed be stupid, incompetent, and corrupt at the same time. It doesn’t always happen that way of course, but when it does, all three become glaringly obvious.

  21. Just don’t call it a crime…

    Naturally. Men with Power do not go about accusing each other of crimes unless they can prove it not just in a court of law, but in the court of public opinion. (q.v. the Lewinsky debacle.)

  22. Is it possible that President Obama is smart enough to make this appointment as a warning to others that if they do not vote the way he wants he will trash their integrity the way he has done with Matheson?
    People are now assuming that Matheson is corruptible because his brother was appointed. His chances of being reelected have apparently been reduced.

  24. Chris,

    Of course it is possible to be stupid, incompetent, and corrupt at the same time, but without convincing proof (and though the circumstantial evidence here is compelling, it is not proof), it seems that exposure and shaming is the appropriate response. Turning every pecadillo into a criminal crusade is not healthy for the country in the long run, and if we want to get the Democrats (not the Left, who I believe to be irredeemable) to join us in turning away from this dangerous dance, we must first show good faith ourselves.

    Frank,

    Let me make sure that I understand this…Obama is going to send a warning to the other potentially useful Dems that they had best fall into line by giving a plum political appointment to his chosen target’s brother? Seems a bit too subtle for me…

    The biggest problem that I can see with this technique is that Matheson (the Congressman) can simply vote ‘no’, and demonstrate his independence while his brother pockets the putative ‘bribe’. That leaves Obama looking like a fool, and no real negative (possibly small positive) impact on Congressman Matheson.

  26. cthulhu,
    I guess that is the problem for Obama. Once you have been seen as willing to do anything to get something through, nothing you do will look innocent. One of the many things he has lost in this fight is the presumption of innocence.

  27. The idea of the other side remembering your forebearance and etc…

    Is. Crap. (JMNSHO).

    The Republicrats gave with relatively good grace on Ginsberg after getting run down over Bork, Thomas, and Scalia. Anyone here remember how much good will that got them with the various Judicial nominations the Scrub made (including his Supremes)? Anyone at all?

    Just sayin’…

Comments are closed.