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.