Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Obama Now Selling Judgeships for Health Care Votes?

Did Jim Matheson vote against Obama's healthcare bill?

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.

S&F for having the stones to throw it out there.

As to my comment, this crap makes no sense at all to me. The only bipartisanship relating to the health bill is that everyone seems to agree that it's a big bag of excrement. With that general consensus why is it such a "hot button" issue.

Everyone who votes for it is almost certainly guaranteed to be voted out of office yet Pelosi rallies the troops with "Suicide for all".

What the hell is going on here. There's got to be a lot more than "health care" involved because in forty years of watching this Washington nonsense I've never seen anything top this. There more I see the more suspicious I get.

With even a negligible understanding of the political weasel it is unfathomable to see so many so willing to commit political suicide and for what? A piece of legislation that both parties acknowledge is an abortion. I can't wait to see what's really driving this insanity. On second thought maybe I can- it's gotta be bad.

Selling judgeships- at this point he seems so desperate he'd sell relatives to get it voted for. WTF!!

Yes..lets star and flag a blog on some right wing rag.
Nothing like hard facts, aye?

reply to post by CmdrZero



Perhaps it all somehow ties into the whole bailout and tarp dealio ... the hidden economy - with the potentially-affected industries Needing this in order to sustain the same. (?)



[edit: to add]

of epic proportions comes to mind.




[edit on 3-3-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

Our fellow ATSer just posted the following:

Obama Administration Set to Seize Millions of Acres

Lawsuits regarding land seized in Utah and surrounding areas will be heard in the Tenth Court of Appeals.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by checkers]

reply to post by checkers


From the article:

Consider Congressman Matheson's record on the health care bill. He voted against the bill in the Energy and Commerce Committee back in July and again when it passed the House in November. But now he's "undecided" on ramming the bill through Congress. .

Well then is Obama selling judgeships for votes? There certainly is no evidence that he is doing such a thing. We are welcome to speculate just about anything put the cold hard facts are needed to make an acccusation. The source cites its suspicions upon the fact the congresman changed his mind on healthcare reform and therefor Obama must have gotten to him! These suspicions dont prove anything beyond just that, suspicions. There were a number of opponents to the healthcare bill last year that included the public option. Over time that bill has been chopped, redone and tweeked to get more support so it should not be a surprise that some people changed their minds. I will agree though this healthcare bill is much weaker than the one presented last year.

Originally posted by checkers
Our fellow ATSer just posted the following:

Obama Administration Set to Seize Millions of Acres

Lawsuits regarding land seized in Utah and surrounding areas will be heard in the Tenth Court of Appeals.



[edit on 3-3-2010 by checkers]

Great job connecting the dots.

Some right wing blog

SG, hard evidence? No. Regardless, he voted against the bill previously and is now on the fence. Then his brother is nominated for a US court of appeals position when the health care bill is nearing critical mass? Coincidence?

The man cut his political teeth in Chicago. Would the idea of "I'll rub your back, you rub mine" really surprise anyone? Criminy, that's part of the political tenet of probably 80-90% of the legislative and executive branch. It's how most of them get in office. To voters: "If you vote for me, this is what you'll get." To unions, special interest groups, lobbyists and corporations: "If you contribute to or endorse my campaign, this is what you'll get." The only difference is, the former don't usually get what was advertised while the latter do. Pork and favors to pass legislation isn't the exception, it's the rule.

No, this doesn't prove anything concretely but the way politics works, it's less likely that it's a coincidence, at least in my opinion.