Thursday, March 4, 2010

Bachmann Calls For a Probe into Scott Matheson's Appointment

Given the 'interesting timing' of Scott Matheson's judicial appointment, Bachmann is calling for an independent probe.

Video embedded below.

Grayson says that she is going off on a tangent. While Grayson knows a thing or two about tangent (see past related posts below), he is wrong here.

Past Alan Grayson posts:
Berman Post: Alan Grayson (D) - "The Republicans Want You to Die Quickly if You Get Sick"
Berman Post: Alan Grayson (D) Not Sorry For His "The Republicans Want You to Die Quickly if You Get Sick"
Berman Post: Grayson (D) Triples Down - Not Sorry For What he Said, Sorry For Not Voting Sooner to End This Holocaust
Berman Post: Alan Grayson - "Republicans Probably Wish There Was a Nobel Prize For Fear ... Hatred ... Racism"
Berman Post: Alan Grayson (D) Called a Female Lobbyist a "K Street Whore"
Berman Post: Cavuto Fires Back at Grayson (D)
Berman Post:
Berman Post: Alan Grayson (D) Wants His Critics Jailed For Five Years


  1. I really don't want to defend the Obama administration, as this is a pretty baseless rumor anyway.

    Other than the timing of the press release announcing Scott Matheson’s appointment and his brother’s meeting at the White House, there is absolutely no evidence that the administration set up a quid pro quo. Rep. Matheson’s spokeswoman denied the story to Politico, calling the allegations, “patently ridiculous.”

    Two Utah Republicans have vouched for Scott Matheson’s judicial qualifications. “I approve of that nomination. Scott is a very fine fellow,” said Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT), former chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee. Republican Congressman Jason Chaffetz also praised Matheson’s nomination, saying, “His distinguished scholarship as an attorney and law school dean, and his devoted public service to Utah and to the United States, make him an excellent nominee. Good choice, Mr. President. Good choice.”

    In reality, this is a pretty good example of the kind of Yellow Journalism that The Weekly Standard trades in. They do this kind of thing pretty often; they are a propaganda organ of the Republican Party and the Conservative movement that underlies the Republican Party. Their management, editors and writers sit comfortably within the right-wing welfare state of policy boards, Republican campaign advisor ships, consulting firm positions, public relations firms, right-wing publishing houses, paid “contributor” jobs on things like CNN and Fox News, paid Corporate speaking events, right-wing Political action committee positions etc. They know someone like Matt Drudge, who serves as something of an epic-center for the rest of the right-wing echo chamber, will pick it up. Right-wing media figures and politicians come across it and apparently feel like it is then something to talk about. Thus begins the distraction, obfuscation, Lying etc. It’s just what they do. It’s not what they “say” they are doing. But its what they do. Its a pretty standard propaganda technique world over.

  2. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - it is not just the timing of the press release but the timing of the appointment. What sort of evidence do you think there would be; a letter signed by Obama saying that he will appoint the guy's brother only if he agrees to change is vote to yes? No one, well no one who has made it to any significant level of politics, is that stupid. I have already said that he appears to have the right credentials.

    This is not Yellow Journalism, it is asking a legitimate question that would rightly be asked by Democrats if the parties were reversed. This by no means supports a rush to judgment, but the question is a legitimate one.

  3. I have no idea what kind of proof would exist, and that's the point- there really is no reason to believe there is. Anybody can speculate endlessly about something as tenuous as this. Were still waiting for Mcarthy's list of card carrying Communists. The implication being made by the hack writers at The Weekly Standard is a "quid pro quo", in essence corruption.

    Apparently Michelle Bachmann is that stupid and she's a house rep! That's like the major leagues of public policy making, and yet what she is apparently concerned about is a rumour!

    I think your right that the Democrats would do things like this too, you could argue if such examples are more or less tenuous but who cares, that doesn't make it any less yellow journalism.

    That's like the Glenn Beck defense, "What? I'm just asking questions?". Fine ask questions that aren't based in nothing and a political agenda, and we'll all be better off.

  4. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - The implication being is a quid pro quo which here would be corruption. Such an allegation, especially given the suspect timing is worth looking into. Do I think they will find anything, probobly not. Does that mean that there is nothing worth finding, I certainly hope so.

  5. yes that is a quid pro quo-and it is Yellow Journalism (been with us since Hearst) because it makes an implication based in nothing. The Spanish didn't actually blow up the Maine, but the lack of evidence didn't stop Hearst from making the implication based on tenuous connections if it meant he could sell papers and push his political agenda- like The Weekly Standard. "conservatism"-especially "conservative media" is an industry, like Evangelism .

    Again, its only suspect to the Weekly Standard, and I guess you as well because you have a political agenda.
    If you reasonably feel they won't find anything, which by all means is a reasonable thing for you to say, why then is this at all interesting to anyone?

    If the timing is so suspect to you, it would be nice if you took the same level of suspicion to things that actually mattered.

  6. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - The implication is not made on nothing, it is made on the timing. That is the whole point.

    "If the timing is so suspect to you, it would be nice if you took the same level of suspicion to things that actually mattered." - Care to give an example of something I should be posting?

  7. yes I know that is what the implication is made on, the timing. Which you seem to understand is tenuous and a waste of "point making" as far as i can tell.

    haha I can't tell you what to be interested or concerned with, only you can do that.

  8. @Ian Spencer Dubrowsky - send me or comment with something close; that will peak my interest.


Related Posts with Thumbnails

Like what you read; Subscribe/Fan/Follow