I am days behind on posting all the items I'd like to make sure
get enough attention, but I really must highlight Michelle
Malkin's
great column from last Friday. She pulls together some of the
great reporting by Jeff Lord right here at the Spectator with
the news of the Utah judicial nomination that looks timed to
coincide with the need to attract his brother's vote on health
care, and with some of the
reporting done by us at the Washington Times about another
probably judicial nomination with likely conflicts of interest.
Do read Malkin's column, and see if the pattern doesn't start to
look a little too much like more than mere coincidence. Jobs for
political favors? Read it and decide for yourself.
Now, to add purely rank speculation to this mix, without ANY
evidence at all, I'll throw this in. Professional ethics do not
allow me to publish details of the rumors, or even for what state
the rumored events took place, bt suffice it to say that a number
of weeks ago, long before these judgeship or Senate controversies
started getting serious attention, I was hearing very, very
similar rumors that involved another set of elections: who would
stay in the elections, who would get out, and why the Obama WHite
House was believed to be involved. I dismissed the stories at the
time because there was no known way to check them. But now --
again, with no evidence other than highly logical speculation
based on the otherwise unexplainable nature of certain events --
now, as I say, I am starting to believe those other rumors were
true.
What is interesting is that those other rumors tracked so closely
to some of the stories Malkin and Lord highlighted -- but they
came out long before Jeff wrote his piece here at the Spectator.
What this means is that people should be on the lookout for other
instances of candidates surprisingly entering or leaving various
races, or of other apparent conflicts of interest involving
nominees -- and if anything looks suspicious, to immediately
start investigating with the vigor I wish I had devoted to
investigating the rumors I heard in this other, unexamined case.
I know these last two paragraphs sound vague. I wish I could say
more, but I do not believe in publishing names with regard to
mere rumors. Regardless of the case I refer to, I do commend
Malkin's column. I think the Obama administration political
dealings stink to high heaven.
