Romanoff confirms White House job discussions

Discussion in 'Politics' started by jficquette, Jun 3, 2010.

  1. "U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff said publicly for the first time Wednesday that a White House deputy discussed three specific jobs that "might be available" if Romanoff dropped a primary challenge to a fellow Democrat, Sen. Michael Bennet."

    "Romanoff, responding to increased pressure from national media and Republicans attacking the Obama White House, released an e-mail sent to him Sept. 11, 2009, by administration deputy chief of staff Jim Messina describing two possible jobs with the U.S. Agency for International Development, affiliated with the State Department, and one with the U.S. Trade Development Agency. "




    is a term applied to a government that takes advantage of governmental corruption to extend the personal wealth and political power of government officials and the ruling class (collectively, kleptocrats), via the embezzlement of state funds at the expense of the wider population, sometimes without even the pretense of honest service. The term means "rule by thieves".

    - Wikipedia
  2. Yannis



    "We now know that Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff, called Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff in September, 2009, to offer him one of three enumerated jobs if only he would drop out of the Democratic Senate primary in which he was challenging appointed Senator Michael Bennet. But the question is why?

    In the case of the Spector/Sestak bribe, the answer is obvious: The Obama Administration wanted the Pennsylvania Senator to switch parties so that they would have a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. To persuade him to switch, the White House had to do its utmost to clear the field and assure him a safe path to the Senate nomination in his new political party. So, Rahm Emanual asked former President Bill Clinton to dangle positions in front of Sestak to get him to drop out of the race.

    But Michael Bennet was no great friend of the White House. Having never been elected to a statewide position, he lacked a political base and was never a particularly strong candidate. He only got the Senate seat as an appointment to fill the seat vacated by Senator Ken Salazar who gave up the seat to become Secretary of the Interior in the Obama Administration. So why was the Obama Administration trying to clear the field for Bennet and assure him of the nomination?

    The answer likely lies in the politics of health care. Bennet had been a question mark from the beginning of the health care debate. The Huffington Post reported, on November 22, 2009, that he was willing to lose his Senate seat if he had to in order to back health care reform. The Post reported that his dramatic announcement ended months of silence on the subject and relieved White House concerns that he was not going to back the bill.

    Funny how Bennet’s announcement came less than two months after Romanoff was offered a job to drop out of the race!

    If a connection can be documented between the offer and the vote (no other motivation seems credible) the transaction becomes particularly sickening. Trading a job for a vote is the crassest and most obvious form of bribery. But what else can account for Bennet’s sudden morph from being on the fence over health care to an ardent supporter who would lose all rather than see it die?

    In any case, we need to help Jane Norton, Colorado’s former Lt Governor, beat either Bennet or Romanoff in the general election in the fall. She holds a lead and we need to throw this kind of horse trading bribery politics out of office."
  3. Oligarchy trumps Kleptocracy. As a matter fact oligarchy makes kleptocracy possible.

  4. Mnphats


    The 0bama administration made many back door deals to get this health care bill through, in plain sight. This should come as no surprise, welcome to Chicago politics.

    This needs to be investigated more deeply and charges brought if necessary.
  5. Yannis


    IMAO: Bribing: Where’s My Outrage?

    "So Obama apparently is making it a regular habit to bribe people with jobs to get them to drop out of races. And what’s the biggest offense here: The illegal bribing or that he does it so unsuccessfully? So far we only have instances of people rejecting the bribe. If you’re going to break the law, at least have some reasonable expectation of success. Now Obama just looks both corrupt and impotent.

    And apparently this is all illegal and he could be impeached over it. I was a little surprised by that; it’s hard to tell what’s just the usual scummy political stuff from what’s actually illegal. I’ve never been too keen to impeach Obama because then we end up with Biden, but I think I realize now it would be really really hard to do worse than Obama, plus every so often Biden makes sense.

    Still, it seems illegitimate to demand Obama be thrown out over this, because I can’t pretend I’m outraged over Obama incompetently trying to hand out crappy jobs in his administration. To me this is just something I want to make fun of him for, not a source of outrage. It would be like seeking impeachment over him having big funny ears that stick out.

    So what do you say? Should we take this very seriously and seek Obama’s head or just continue laughing at him and mocking him?"

    :) :) :)
  6. I think the Republican party should be happy that some minor semi-legitimate administration issues are being fed into the minds of the base instead of having their far right elements fantasize about birther cases.
  7. We could just make him Court Jester.