CO Senate Candidate Romanoff offered job by WH

Denver Post

The Denver Post last September quoted unnamed sources that said Obama's deputy chief of staff, Jim Messina, contacted former state House Speaker Romanoff, who hadn't yet announced his candidacy, with specific suggestions for Washington jobs in exchange for his staying out of the race against appointed Sen. Michael Bennet.

The White House denied any such offer, but sources told The Post's Michael Riley: "Romanoff turned down the overture, which included mention of a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency."

Obama endorsed Bennet the day after Romanoff formally announced he was in the race.

We read Riley's story with particular interest. Only days before it ran, after hearing whispers of a Romanoff job offer, we asked the former House speaker directly whether he had been offered a job by the White House to drop out of the race.

He told us unequivocally that he had not been offered a position.

The matter dropped off the political radar until Sestak admitted on the campaign trail that he was offered some sort of job.

Romanoff now refuses to answer questions about whether he was, in fact, offered a job. In fact, Romanoff refuses even to offer an explanation for why he won't answer the question. And yet, like Obama, Romanoff's campaign theme has been to run against the Washington way of doing things.

We don't know what to make of all the secrecy. Without an explanation, voters are left to wonder who to believe. And if Obama doesn't mind the position in which that places Romanoff, he ought to care about where it places him.

Hmmm. Another person offered a job in exchange of staying out of a race against the president's "choice". I guess the more crap that comes to light, the less I'm surprised.

I'm sure this is probably happening on both sides, however it all depends on the spin you put on it that really determines the outcome.

Does it seem malicious to you? Then it's malicious.
Does it seem benign to you? Then it's benign.

King

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
I'm sure this is probably happening on both sides, however it all depends on the spin you put on it that really determines the outcome.

It may be happening on both sides, and to that I have to say "so what?" Just because someone else may have committed a crime, it does not excuse you to commit the same crime. Too much malfeasance among our leaders has been justified with "everyone does it." It is time for the American people to say enough and that we don't care if everyone does it; if you are caught, you are going to be punished.

Originally posted by DoomsdayRex

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
I'm sure this is probably happening on both sides, however it all depends on the spin you put on it that really determines the outcome.

It may be happening on both sides, and to that I have to say "so what?" Just because someone else may have committed a crime, it does not excuse you to commit the same crime. Too much malfeasance among our leaders has been justified with "everyone does it." It is time for the American people to say enough and that we don't care if everyone does it; if you are caught, you are going to be punished.

My thoughts exactly. Every time I go to say something about the POTUS I get, "Well someone else already did it!". Last time I checked, when you point a finger there's three pointing back at you. And I constantly say, the first time I got to vote was in the last election therefore what happens now IS relevant to me.

Notice a pattern here?

He wants to keep out Populist Progressives. Romanoff declared that he would not take money from anyone except the people for his campaign, not even labor unions.

They don't want non-traditional people in office or it will break their lifestyle. Same goes with Joe Sestak, he was a Populist Progressive.

I think you missed my point. We are saying the same thing in different words.

I am not condoning the behavior, I am simply stating that it is not always slanted to one side specifically and that, just as you stated, there are people out there who will do things simply because someone else is doing it, then try to blame the other party.

It's called politics.

King

I, however, do not believe that perspective has anything to do with the impropriety of this practice.

The nature of public office demands consent of the governed, not some 'deal' cut to ensure the "right" people run... in exchange for 'access' to the people's teat.

In effect, the political machinery of our nation has become as corrupt and decadent as some of the framers of the Constitution suspected they might.

It is not a nation of citizens that is represented by them. They value their agenda and machinations over any national interest, and frequently engage in subverting the popular will by trickery and deceit.

Further, the name calling and accusations are part of the play. Neither of the people who pretend to be of different ideologies are prone to purity, nor they seem disinclined to say precisely what it takes to maintain their control.

Including the mantra: "It's just politics."

That's all it is to them, but our nation's welfare is not the trifling matter that political gamesmanship should be dependent upon, and the sinfully sad thing is, they know that, yet they consider themselves beyond our ken.

I see a trend here!

www.sunherald.com...

Looks like the WH made the same offer to Sestak.

reply to post by signal2noise


Yes, they most certainly did.

I heard a comment on some news show that they considered him stupid for bragging about the offer at the time.

Interestingly, the political parties don't seem interested in exploring this issue under media scrutiny.... perhaps considering it 'family business.'

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
I think you missed my point. We are saying the same thing in different words.

I am not condoning the behavior, I am simply stating that it is not always slanted to one side specifically and that, just as you stated, there are people out there who will do things simply because someone else is doing it, then try to blame the other party.

It's called politics.

King

Agreed my friend. Wasn't directing my last post towards you. And yes, this was the same exact situation with Sestak. Meaning, when will the people finally have enough of what was deemed to be the most transparent administration ever?

never dude 3 times- 3 times so far that we know of.


if bush had done anything like this they would be calling for bushs head by now but really all there is -is silence.


the left can do no wrong-obama can do no wrong----which in my opinion is bs.

rigging elections is illegal but not if ur liberal.

Originally posted by Kingalbrect79
I'm sure this is probably happening on both sides, however it all depends on the spin you put on it that really determines the outcome.

Does it seem malicious to you? Then it's malicious.
Does it seem benign to you? Then it's benign.

King

Since - among many other things - obama promised more "openness" in his administration ...

It sounds like another lie!

[edit on 6/3/2010 by centurion1211]

Well sir, that is why I choose not to frequent the political sections except on rare occasion an interesting topic meets the newest posts of the day and catches my eye.

In my humble opinion there never will be a fair shake in politics or in any part of the government until the two parties stop spending more time blaming the problems on what the other one did and start thinking about the people instead of their own pocketbooks.

Brother: She touched me!
Sister: He touched me first!
Mother: Just go outside!

Sound familiar?

King

Obama seems to be favoring CORPORATE DEMOCRATS.

That's the real story here. Whether he's making these decisions is up in the air though. It could EASILY be Rahm Emanuel.