• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Obama Administration Bribery?

From the Denver Post

The Denver Post


U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff acknowledged tonight that he discussed three possible jobs with the deputy chief of staff of the Obama administration — all contingent upon a decision by Romanoff not to challenge U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet.

...

"Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race," Romanoff wrote in a statement.

...

Romanoff tonight released an email from Messina, outlining two positions at USAID, and a third as director of the U.S. Trade and Development Agency that could be available to him if he weren't running for Senate.
Click to expand...

Good God. Are they that incompetent that they don't even know to be circumspect when explaining the quid pro quo in an email?
 
leftysergeant said:
Prove that that was the position offered
Click to expand...

You seem to be in the know, lefty.

So if the NYTIMES was wrong, what was the position that was offered?

It seems everyone in the administration is being very coy about that.

Odd, given it was all totally innocent and above-board. :sarcasm:
 
Obama's group of thugs would not call this bribery. In Chicago it's called politics as usual.
 
Supercharts said:
Obama's group of thugs would not call this bribery. In Chicago it's called politics as usual.
Click to expand...


Apparently in California too. Like when Reagan did it. Or in Texas/Connecticut. When George W. did it. Or as Bush's own ethics lawyer put it,
"The problem with the so-called bribery theory, or quid pro quo theory, is that automatically if you take those jobs, any full-time government job, you're prohibited from running for public office under the Hatch Act," said Painter. "So it's a necessary position subsequent to taking the job... you have to withdraw from the Senate race. So I don't see how you could describe that as a quid pro quo at all."

Painter described the Obama administration's conduct in this case -- as when it offered an advisory position to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-Penn) to get him to drop his bid for the Pennsylvania Senate seat -- as traditional politics. The outrage coming from the GOP, he said, is largely drummed up and insincere.
Click to expand...
Keep trying, Teabaggers.
 
What's the deal with Illinois politicians and under-the-table job offers ...

Blagojevich, Burris, Obama, Daley ...


I recall when Obama communicated with the Illinois Governor's office about who might be appointed to his seat, but, of course, "nothing unethical or inappropriate transpired."

I recall how Obama's Democratic challengers for the primary (of his Senate run)... all dropped out of the race with incredible timely job offers...

Now candidate Romanoff in Colorado is claiming White House job discussions...

...coupled with Sestak's claims ...
 
Remember:

It is only evil and wrong if the Democrats do it.

If the Republicans do it, Then it was the proper and patriotic thing to do.
 
Shalamar said:
Remember:

It is only evil and wrong if the Democrats do it.

If the Republicans do it, Then it was the proper and patriotic thing to do.
Click to expand...

Darrell Issa certainly thinks so, as shown by the fact that he's all over the Sestak thing, yet was remarkably quiet when Karl Rove offered a Cabinet job to Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, which would have meant that Nelson would not only be prevented from running for re-election but would have to resign his existing Senate seat, and the empty Senate seat could then be filled by an appointment by the Republican governor of that state (and said Republican appointee would then be the incumbent candidate in the re-election campaign).

(The above happened in 2004. Darrell Issa was first elected to the US House of Representatives in 2001)
 
ANTPogo said:
Darrell Issa certainly thinks so, as shown by the fact that he's all over the Sestak thing, yet was remarkably quiet when Karl Rove offered a Cabinet job to Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, which would have meant that Nelson would not only be prevented from running for re-election but would have to resign his existing Senate seat, and the empty Senate seat could then be filled by an appointment by the Republican governor of that state (and said Republican appointee would then be the incumbent candidate in the re-election campaign).

(The above happened in 2004. Darrell Issa was first elected to the US House of Representatives in 2001)
Click to expand...

I am a diehard Democrat but I see a difference here. If a President offers a job to someone running for Senate, that by itself has nothing wrong with it. Presidents offer jobs to Senators all the time. Had Bush said, "I have a job for you if you don't run" then it would be the same.

Ben made the choice to take or not take the job as he saw fit. Ramifications of taking the job are besides the point.

Let's not get illogical in our defense of our preferred party.
 
Is there anyone outside of the GOP echo chamber who even cares about this?

Regardless of whether the guy has "D" or an "R" after his name, I personally couldn't care less about what job he was offered, and I have a hunch my opinion reflects that of the majority of the electorate.

Here's a thought, Republicans: Instead of railing against some non-scandal that can easily be tu-quoqued right back in your faces, why not actually come up with a substantial counter-platform to that of the administration? Otherwise, you look petty and partisan, and tend to turn off independent voters.
 
Last edited:
Lurker said:
I am a diehard Democrat but I see a difference here. If a President offers a job to someone running for Senate, that by itself has nothing wrong with it. Presidents offer jobs to Senators all the time. Had Bush said, "I have a job for you if you don't run" then it would be the same.
Click to expand...

Clinton offered Sestak a job that, if accepted, meant that Sestak couldn't hold a Senate seat, making a Senate run pointless (meaning that any kind of direct "if you don't run, I'll give you a job" offer would be needlessly moot, if not massively troublesome)

Rove, likewise, offered Nelson a job that, if accepted, meant that Nelson couldn't hold a Senate seat, making a Senate run pointless (meaning that any kind of direct "if you don't run, I'll give you a job" offer would be needlessly moot, if not massively troublesome).

Let's be honest - Rove wasn't offering Nelson the Cabinet post because the Administration thought he'd do a bang-up job. He offered Nelson the post to get him out of the Senate and to ensure that the Republican appointed to replace him would be the incumbent candidate in the upcoming election, giving him an edge in both the primary and the general. In other words, the job offer to Nelson was just as much about "influencing" an upcoming Senate race as the offer to Sestak (and I use the word "influencing" skeptically, since in both cases the "influence" came before there was even a primary, much less a full election, making these efforts somewhat akin to trying to rig the World Series by offering a job to a pitcher during Spring Training).

Ben made the choice to take or not take the job as he saw fit. Ramifications of taking the job are besides the point.

Let's not get illogical in our defense of our preferred party.
Click to expand...

This is less about a defense of a "preferred party", and more about highlighting the inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy of Issa. Either what Rove did is just as bad as what Clinton did, or it's not. If they're both bad (or both perfectly acceptable), why did Issa stay silent when it was a Republican administration doing this, but is going on cable news channels now that it's a Democratic administration doing this?

Me, I think both events are standard politics, and while I have no love for Rove or Bush, neither one of them would have deserved accusations of bribery and threats of impeachment over the offer to Nelson any more than Clinton and Obama deserve them over the Sestak thing.
 
johnny karate said:
Is there anyone outside of the GOP echo chamber that even cares about this?

Regardless of whether the guy has "D" or an "R" after his name, I personally couldn't care less about what job he was offered, and I have a hunch my opinion reflects that of the majority of the electorate.

Here's a thought, Republicans: Instead of railing against some non-scandal that can easily be tu-quoqued right back in your faces, why not actually come up with a substantial counter-platform to that of the administration? Otherwise, you look petty and partisan, and tend to turn off independent voters.
Click to expand...

You even name the logical fallacy and yet you use it. Regardless of whether the guy has "D" or an "R" after his name, corruption should be stamped out. I don't particularly buy the "it's business as usual" argument. If someone wants to argue that the law should be changed, I'll listen to that argument (I honestly don't know how I feel about that, this particular activity seems borderline to me - my issue is the use of taxpayer money to buy a desired political result), but to argue that a clear violation of existing law is no big deal strikes me as just partisan apologia.

We have too much corruption at all levels of government, and it afflicts both major parties. It needs to be rooted out.

I don't particularly like how this might turn out if these 2 cases actually are fully prosecuted. I'm not one of those people who wants to "destroy" a president or other elected official with whom I disagree about governing philosophy. I'm not one of those people who hopes that Obama fails; I fear that some of the policies he advocates will be damaging to the country, but I don't hope for that damage just to discredit those policies. Obama is my President, too, and if there actually is more than just smoke here, it is not just damaging to Obama, it will cause lasting damage to the entire country. I actually hope that nothing illegal was done by Obama, and if anything illegal was done, that it was done without his knowledge or consent. That would be the best result for the country. That being said, corruption is utterly corrosive, and if there were actual violations of law, those responsible should be prosecuted. Whether or not current law needs to be changed is an entirely different discussion.
 
Unabogie said:
== exactly what Bush and Reagan did?
Click to expand...

Wow. Where did that come from? Alexander Hamilton had some questionable appointments, too.

The hoops some folks jump through in order to rationalize bad behavior never seems ceases to amuse me...

Corrupt politics is bad for democracy. Period.

...also, some Democrats actually want a hand in picking their candidates ... instead of Obama forcing the establishment stooge down their throats.
 
NoScotsman said:
Wow. Where did that come from? Alexander Hamilton had some questionable appointments, too.

The hoops some folks jump through in order to rationalize bad behavior never seems ceases to amuse me...

Corrupt politics is bad for democracy. Period.
Click to expand...

Some of us just find it a tad disingenuous that this newfound zeal on the part of Republicans for "anticorruption measures" against things like this only appears during the Obama administration.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom