AP Sources: Obama administration talked about jobs with Romanoff, none offered

[davidinalameda]

Source: Star Tribune

Administration officials dangled the possibility of a job for former Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff last year in hopes he would forgo a challenge to Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet, administration officials said Wednesday, just days after the White House admitted orchestrating a similar job offer in the Pennsylvania Senate race.

These officials declined to specify the job that was floated or the name of the administration official who approached Romanoff, and said no formal offer was ever made. They spoke on condition of anonymity, saying they were not cleared to discuss private conversations.

Read more: http://www.startribune.com/politics/95449504.html

[Cleita]

1. This is uncomfortable if true.

Trying to rig elections is wrong.

[JuniperLea]

2. Ah yes... let's crucify the SOB based on an anonymous source...

It's the American way!

:eyes:

This is old news... last I heard, the offer was for a non-paying position... completely different than when Reagan actually gave someone a paid position so they wouldn't run for office. Not the same ballpark, not even the same league.

[Hawkeye-X]

3. If Obama tried to buy off Romanoff, then Obama is a mistake.

:growl:

[GodlessBiker]

4. I see a big difference between offering a job not to take another job and...

offering a job to get a particular vote.

Business offers people jobs all the time so that they don't take other jobs. I might go in to my boss and say I received a job offer from a competitor and that I am going to quit. He might respond by saying that he will give me a new job within the company if I don't take the offered job. I don't see anything wrong with that.

[No Elephants]

8. Private companies are not analogous. They are supposed to thwart each other.

Should Democratic bigwigs take choices away from Democratic primary voters? (Ditto Republicans--Both Parties protect incumbents.) That is the issue.

[GodlessBiker]

11. Who accepts the job offer is the issue, or one of them at least. And I think business and gov't...

are analogous on this point.

Do you really want to vote for someone who would accept such a job anyway? Those who don't accept stay in the primary. Those who accept take themselves out of the primary and we get rid of a candidate who easily sells out for his own private benefit.

There are those who say the President offered a job to Hillary to get her out of the Senate, where she would be able to continue to make connections for a potential presidential run in 2012. If true, I see nothing wrong with it.

[Thrill]

5. Maybe they will learn to stay the fuck out of Primary Elections

Its not for them to decide.

[No Elephants]

6. It would be great if people in both Parties wouldget fired up about that issue, instead of knee jerk

partisan reactions by each side.

This is one reason why the DNC will never see another dollar from me, only individual candidates, both in my state and outside my state.

[donco6]

7. This is what pushed my partner to support Romanoff.

He hadn't really made a choice, but when he saw this in the paper the other day, he asked me to see if I could get a Romanoff yard sign.

[NoodleyAppendage]

9. God, please let it be Rahm! Bye-bye jerk off...don't let the door hit your ass on the way out .

Rahm MUST go! He and is DLC ilk are a cancer upon the Democratic Party and the White House.

If Axelrod is smart (which he is), he would use this opportunity of vulnerability to drive the final stake into Rahm's black heart. Rahm's been weakened since the MA Senate seat debacle.

J

[liberation]

14. If the DLC has to be purged from this admin, then over 80% of its members will be out of a job...

... including Obama.

Also, Alxerod for all intents and purposes is an ad executive. He is no more qualified to dictate policy directions than Rove was. Granted, he is not as misserable of a sociopath than Rove was... but so are 99.9% of humans out there, so not much of an achievement.

For the life of me, I can't understand how placing a DLC bulldog like Rahm Emmanuel to be his chief of staff, and an ad executive as his main policy advisor... is still given the benefit of the doubt by many so called liberals in this place. It is like that hottie in school who told us that it would be a cold day in hell before she goes out with us on a date, and we keep on waking every day checking the weather forecast thinking this could be our lucky day. Enough with the denial.

Obama may be a nice person, and he does indeed look like a fine chap. But he is not interested in anything liberal, and that is not going to change. Let's deal with it and move on already.

[tomhayes]

10. Is this a *real* issue?

I thought this was called HORSE TRADING.

I thought this is what politicians were being paid to do - this - and exactly this.

[O is 44]

13. I know, I thought this went on all the time, I just

thought the Dem Chair (Tim Kaine) would be the one negotiating. Where is he anyway?

[harkadog]

16. Except it is illegal. Most politicians are smart enough to do it in ways not to get caught.

[tomhayes]

17. It's ILLEGAL?????

Really? To say - "Hey, we know your thinking about running for the house but we think you'd make a great addition to this government post."

THAT'S ILLEGAL??

I guess when a Democrat does it it is.

And Clinton LYING is as bad as LYING could ever GET and HE COMMITTED PERJURY (thought never charged) and should be impeached?

G T F O H with that B S.

This is not illegal, not unusual and not (always) unethical.

[harkadog]

18. Sorry but the US code doesn't support you.

18 USC 600 makes it illegal for government officials to offer government jobs in return for political favors. Even Obama's senior adviser, Axelrod, admitted it would have been illegal if Sestak had been offered a job in the manner Sestak said he was. But since you know more than WH lawyers or U.S. prosecutors then let the Justice Dept. know your views. They obviously need your legal help.

[O is 44]

19. I thought we were talking about what the OP posted,

I saw no mention of a job offer.

[harkadog]

20. Oh on my screen the first line mentioned it.

Maybe yours is different.

[tomhayes]

21. Thanks Mr Issa (or is it Mr. Gingrich)

Wish you were around earlier on Clinton - we could have got him impeach before he was elected.

Clearly hat Obama has done can't wait for impeachment. Time for Biden to stage a coup.

FOH with your BS.

[harkadog]

22. Taking my cue from David Axelrod

You can take yours from those other guys.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

23. I'll look forward to you taking your cue from Axelrod over CREW again and again in the future.

On visitor logs, transparency etc.

[harkadog]

24. Don't know who or what CREW is. And don't care.

[CynicalObserver]

25. you will find that there is very little concern for US laws here

when it doesn't support the end-goal of most posters. It is a terrible sign when rule of law has become totally subsurvient to triumph of ideology or the party or whatever. The most acknowledgment here I find (aside from a few people that mention that it is in fact totally illegal, such as you) is to say the republicans do/did it to and so there! They don't seem to realize the same erosion of rule of law is going to erode laws they particularly expect for themselves at some point, at which point it will be far too late (if it isn't already).

Abramoff apparently has the email from the white house guy mentioning 3 possible jobs. This is a pretty open and shut case as far as the guy who sent the email goes. the cover-up on who cleared him to offer those jobs, etc., is where it gets harder.

[tomm2thumbs]

12. *wink wink * nod, nod - that should follow every headline

especially where Rahm is concerned

[Grassy Knoll]

15. AP swings and misses Again.......

[philly_bob]

26. I am convinced this sort of pre-election deal-making goes on all the time.

I didn't think it was illegal, either, although Hark-a-Dog's legal citation upthread says it may be. I would like to see some more discussion of the law he cites: how often is it applied, in what type of cases?

The decision to run for office is a huge decision, and any person thinking about it goes through intense soul-searching and solicits feedback from many people.

I don't recall hearing this kind of scandal under the Bush Administration. Am I to believe that they didn't occur? No, they were just accepted as normal.

I will admit, however, that the administration was on the wrong (anti-progressive) side in both the Sestak and Romanoff cases; but that's a different issue, a different disappointment.

The main problem is falling for right-wing talking points portraying Obama as "Chicago-style" corrupt compared to saints like Nixon, the Bushes, and Reagan.

EDIT: To acknowledge Hark-a-Dog's citation.