Quid pro what? No, no, there's no "quo" to see here...

Is the President corruptly buying votes for Obamacare?

Tonight, Barack Obama will host ten House Democrats who voted against the health care bill in November at the White House; he's obviously trying to persuade them to switch their votes to yes. One of the ten is Jim Matheson of Utah. 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.

Somewhere, there's a line between political accomodation ("you compromise on this, I'll compromise on that, we both get some of what we want") and outright corruption. Maybe, just maybe, Scott M. Matheson, Jr., is a) the very best possible candidate for that seat on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, b) someone who was already the top candidate before it became apparent that his brother's vote might be needed on the Obamacare bill and, therefore, c) nominated in a move which is completely, utterly and totally disconnected from the political efforts to persuade Jim Matheson to support Obamacare.

But, given Obama's Chicago background, given what we've already seen done (the "Cornhusker kickback" and the "Louisiana purchase" being just two of the "purchased" votes) in this effort to take over the health care system, how can you possibly believe it? How can one not look at this nomination and think that it represents good government as opposed to outright corruption?

As I said, there's a fine line between something that looks OK, and something that just stinks to high heaven. This is so far over that line that you can't see it with a telescope. And, as pathetic as he looks making this nomination, how pathetic will the Washington Post and New York Times look tomorrow as their cries of outrage are, yet again, missing from the front pages?