CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
June 03, 2010 02:21 PM UTC

White House Issues Statement on Romanoff Job Question

  • 162 Comments
  • by: RedGreen

( – promoted by Colorado Pols)

The White House wasted little time responding to a release last night from Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff on communications between the Democrat and the administration last year when Romanoff was looking for work.

From the White House press office:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

June 3, 2010

STATEMENT FROM THE PRESS SECRETARY ON COLORADO SENATE RACE

Andrew Romanoff applied for a position at USAID during the Presidential transition. He filed this application through the Transition on-line process.  After the new administration took office, he followed up by phone with White House personnel.

Jim Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate.  Months earlier, the President had endorsed Senator Michael Bennet for the Colorado seat, and Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters.

But Romanoff said that he was committed to the Senate race and no longer interested in working for the Administration, and that ended the discussion. As Mr. Romanoff has stated, there was no offer of a job.

Politico’s Mike Allen reported in his overnight Playbook newsletter that the White House plans to release Romanoff’s job application “later today.”

Questions about the dueling statements and a poll follow.

Is the White House statement in agreement with Romanoff’s explanation? And is there a meaningful distinction between “dangling” jobs in front of the job-seeker and “offering” a job? Or, as Romanoff phrased it, “suggest[ing] three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race.”

Romanoff, had already applied for the Secretary of State and Senate vacancies and, word has it, the job of lieutenant governor under the governor who’d already passed him over twice. It’s no surprise he’d also already applied for at least one of the jobs White House fixer Jim Messina discussed with him after news broke he was considering challenging Michael Bennet.

Here’s another thing to consider: Politico blogger Ben Smith, in a post titled “Romanoff’s middle finger,” labels Romanoff’s Wednesday night statement a single-digit salute to President Barack Obama, who, after all, has done plenty to oppose Romanoff’s bid.

Andrew Romanoff’s release of an email from Jim Messina listing three senior government positions does some real damage to the White House, showing governance at its most transactional.

But it’s also a sign of something else: How little Establishment Democrats like Romanoff fear the White House. It’s a remarkable act of defiance. [emphasis added]

After more than a week of “no comment” and “no comment” on why he wasn’t commenting, Romanoff’s “jaw-dropping” statement and the White House response only muddy the waters. Suffice it to say no one’s happy talking about this story except gleeful Republicans screaming for a special prosecutor (hopefully one with a license to probe the Obama administration about anything and everything). Yesterday, Romanoff was “clearly anguished,” The Coloradoan’s Bob Moore reports, and you can bet the Bennet campaign and the administration wish this would all just go away. But, ultimately, is this anything but a distraction? Does the news damage anyone, or is it just politics as usual?

UPDATE: The Fix takes a stab at assessing the political fallout. Upshot: It’s complicated, but Obama suffers the most.

FURTHER UPDATE: The Washington Monthly’s Steve Benen tells everyone — especially scandal-chasing would-be Woodsteins — to calm down:

I hate to disappoint bored political reporters, but this isn’t controversial. It’s not even interesting. Mark Halperin seems especially excited about the “story,” noting the ways in which it’s “potentially more serious” than the Sestak matter. But that’s silly — Romanoff applied for a job, so it’s hardly scandalous to see if he still wanted it.

Does he have a point?

Who Is Hurt Most By This Week's Revelations?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...
Tweet
Share

Comments

162 thoughts on “White House Issues Statement on Romanoff Job Question”

  1. My big questions – is this legal:

    Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters

    as that was clearly stated in terms of the 3 jobs. If that’s legal, then this is a bit of bad press for Obama and nothing more. But if a direct offer to avoid a primary is illegal – this is bad news.

    1. Both Romanoff and the White House are clear on that, and, given the sequence of Romanoff’s job applications and what ensued, events back that up.

      So what was your question?

        1. But the earlier phrase, I think, lists why Messina was calling Romanoff. If there was no primary there would have been no call from Messina. So I’ll agree no direct offer. That’s why I asked if what Messian said is legal.

            1. then people like you Libhater can excuse their illegal behavior as OK.  Funny how you consider any behavior by Democrats as immediately somehow unlawful but can’t find anything wrong when a Republican engages in questionable activities.  It looks like you have some kind cognitive associative disorder.  It called “looking the other way” when one of your kind gets caught.

                1. with legal papers is of no consequence?  If he has nothing to hide then why is he hiding?  Oh I forgot you think anything that is anti-government is patriotic and can be excused because you believe governments are illegal except for those big defense contracts.

                  1. .

                    Maybe we could pick this up on the front-paged diary on this ?  Now where did that thing go ?  

                    And you’ve really got me pegged on my support for no-bid defense contracts.  Especially to Blackwater.

                    .

                    1. that you live in one of the most heavily subsidized cities in the state and at the same time consider it a conservative utopia because you all hate the federal government down there.  It must be something in the water.

                      I was just responding to Libby’s concern troll advice about what is and isn’t election fraud.

              2. I suggested the government was ineffective in trying to serve Bruce 42 odd times. A liberal blogger suggested a bench warrant.

                That blogger is not my legal sherpa, but if s/he’s right then the government should have tried that after the 3rd attempt (or whatever) instead of pissing away money like it was groundhog day. I stated that yesterday.

                Good luck with your flame throwing you little gash.

                2. Bruce is the one involved in election fraud.

                  There is a big difference between trying to entice a politician into not running and cheating on the placing of amendments on the ballot.  

                    2. bigger government through more spending and higher taxes … keep the faith Gilpen

                    3. to find an inane video to match the moment.  You were my inspiration Bubba.

          2. If there is no documentation of a caveat involved then thre is nothing illegal.

            Similarly,I don’t think  that AR used the threat of a primary in either the Governor’s race nor the Senate race in seeking the Lt.Gov’s position last year.

            There is nothing wrong with inquiring about a jobs when one is unemployed.

            1. These DC writers have a man on the street perspective coupled with Obama-Bennet DC Beltway sources.

              Assessing the political fallout of the Andrew Romanoff revelation

              1.The White House released a statement Thursday morning detailing its contact with former Colorado state House Speaker Andrew Romanoff regarding potential positions available if he dropped his primary challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet.

              snip

              “Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters,” said Gibbs, noting that once Romanoff made clear he was “committed to the Senate race and no longer interested in working for the Administration” the conversation ended. “There was no offer of a job,” added Gibbs

              The White House statement comes less than 12 hours after Romanoff released a detailed account of his interactions with Messina.

              The Romanoff back and forth marks the second time in the last three weeks that the Obama Administration’s political operation has been thrust into an unwelcome public spotlight.

              The news that White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina penned an email to Romanoff outlining three potential jobs that might be available to the former legislator if he dropped his candidacy — if not making a specific job offer — came less than a week after the White House was forced to stamp out a controversy over the Administration’s attempt to drive Rep. Joe Sestak out of a primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter. (Sestak, like Romanoff, resisted the entreaties of the White House to step aside and went on to defeat Specter on May 18.)

              Neither incident — on their face — amounts to all that much as this sort of horse-trading is commonplace in the rough and tumble of electoral politics. “Is anyone shocked that a politician offered to give a political job to a politician who helped him politically?,” asked Democratic consultant Paul Begala sarcastically. “Oh, my, I’m getting the vapors.”

              But, context does matter in politics and, in the words of a senior party operative granted anonymity to speak candidly, the Romanoff story “creates a pattern when combined with [New York Gov. David] Paterson and Sestak”.

              Another senior party strategist predicted that “this is going to result in a big spotlight on the political operations and how they have been operating,” adding: “[President Obama] has got to lay down some strict guidelines now on what they can and can’t do and obviously no offers or discussions of federal posts.”

              With Aaron Blake and Felicia Sonmez

              http://voices.washingtonpost.c…

              Either way the anemic Decocratic cause turns out at the primary polls you’re sure to understand this will be a wedge issue exploited by the GOP. For all Bennet’s talk of knowing DC is broke, this surely ties Obama-Bennet to being part of the root transparency problem. As party to these dealings, Romanoff will find it difficult to argue his way out of this pollution should the primary result in his nomination.

              2. Trying to maintain party unity isn’t anything new in politics.

                I think it’s a non-issue really.

                Appearances can be more important than reality. It took me years to accept that.

                  1. That’s very surprising.

                    Fox News is like a colony of Libertads all crawling around on pheromone trails delivering anti-Obama morsels to the cable news nest.

                  2. Fox News has found something to criticize Obama about.

                    Will wonders never cease.

                    I loved how, on KHOW today, Dan Caplis was going on and on about – literally – “Obama’s crimes.” Caplis has already drawn and quartered Obama. Verdict first, then the trial: that’s Caplis’ style.

                    And Craig “Colmes” Silverman was just along for the ride, as usual.

          3. Jim Messina called and emailed Romanoff last September to see if he was still interested in a position at USAID, or if, as had been reported, he was running for the US Senate.  Months earlier, the President had endorsed Senator Michael Bennet for the Colorado seat

            ,

            This says Obama had endorsed Bennet months before the job ‘dangle’ yet all of the press I can find (because I remember it very well)

            was that Obama endorsed Bennet the day after Romanoff entered the primary on Sept 17th.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/…

            1. From the Denver Post in January 2009:

              Gov. Bill Ritter on Saturday appointed Denver Public Schools Superintendent Michael Bennet to fill a Senate vacancy that will be created by the promotion of Sen. Ken Salazar to interior secretary in the Obama administration.

              . . . .

              In a statement from his office, Obama called Bennet an excellent choice who will be “a breath of fresh air in Washington.”

              “Michael Bennet perfectly reflects the qualities of the ruggedly independent state he has been chosen to serve,” Obama said.

              http://www.denverpost.com/brea…

              1. I believe Romanoff made a similar statement of congratulations on the appointment. I often wondered if that technically counted as an endorsement or not.

                I think Wade is referring to the official endorsement that Obama made in September of last year the day after Romanoff officially announced his primary bid.

                1. …that Obama had publicly pledged support for Bennet long before September 2009.  It was no secret, long before Romanoff officially entered the race, that Obama would back Bennet.

                2. There was, IMHO, no need for Obama to step in and endorse Bennet until the primary challenge materialized.  (Not that I appreciate the White House endorsing – but we’ve been over that before.)

            2. But…

              Bennet was an early Obama supporter; he was under consideration for the Education Secretary position in the administration, and the administration has generally backed him since his appointment to the Senate.

              Obama’s official endorsement didn’t come until the 17th as you note, but it was quite clear from what Romanoff said of Messina’s call that the White House had already decided to back Bennet.  My guess is, that decision was indeed “months earlier”.

              So, yes and no.

                1. …was much more clearly a statement that he did and would support Bennet during the ensuing election.  Romanoff’s statement was much more about congratulating Bennet for winning the prize, and much less about how Bennet was perfectly suited for the job.  Romanoff didn’t indicate that he supported Bennet for the job; he merely wished him “great success.”

                  “I called Michael Bennet to offer my warmest congratulations on his appointment to the United States Senate. Michael has been a friend for many years, and I wish him great success representing our state in Washington.” – Andrew Romanoff, outgoing speaker of the Colorado House of Representatives, who had been considered a possible Senate pick

                  http://www.bizjournals.com/den…

                  In any event, as I said earlier, Obama’s statement in September 2009 simply reaffirmed his prior statement of support for Bennet.  The reaffirmation was occasioned by Romanoff’s new primary challenge, but it didn’t provide new information, in my view.

            3. From Romanoff’s statement:

              In September 2009, shortly after the news media first reported my plans to run for the Senate, I received a call from Jim Messina, the President’s deputy chief of staff. Mr. Messina informed me that the White House would support Sen. Bennet. I informed Mr. Messina that I had made my decision to run.

              Why would Messina say that if Obama had already endorsed?  Immediately after Bennet’s appointment, he only said he was a swell guy.  Courtesy endorsement is as good a term as any for that.  But he did not officially pick sides in the primary until Romanoff announced.

    2. That’s not going to help his credibility.

      This whole thing is ridiculous–does Andrew Romanoff really believe he can win a pissing match with Barack Obama?

      Romanoff’s campaign and the White House both should have had the maturity to talk to each other as this thing began to mushroom. Now the White House is facing bad press thanks to Romanoff, which is never good news for an ambitious politician. And Romanoff’s omissions make him look both petty and opportunistic as the full truth starts to come out.  

      1. You mean like when his supporters picketed the Obama fundraiser a few months ago? He’s been in a pissing match with Obama for a while, now it’s just more focused.

          1. He didn’t ask Messina to intervene last summer. It’s not like he applied for the job that was dangled. — Oh, wait …

            At least when he broke his silence, he disclosed he’d already applied for — no, scratch that.

            Never mind.

      2. Obama,

        but there is a real pissing match going on with the people who are moving behind the scenes in Obama’s name.

        When you look at the fields cleared for Gillibrand, the force out of Patterson, the endorsements of Specter, Lincoln and Bennet, then you see that the team coaching Obama on the campaign trail has significantly been altered from the current team with Obama.

        Several stories have already been written about how Obama is the first President since FDR to interfere with Primaries in his own party, which FDR found out has disastrous consequences, and why the practice was, until now, largely abandoned.

        It may have been wise to jump on Patterson’s case because he had no chance to win, but wouldn’t letting a primary play out itself have saved a lot of hurt democrat’s feelings?

        And in the other cases, Obama has come out strongly to support candidates who have marched on to defeat – Specter and next tuesday, Lincoln.

        That’s not smart politics and it is pitting Obama against his own base.

        And, Romanoff only came forward at this time, IMHO, because Repubs like Issa were/are trying to cause a stir and mention words like ‘Impeach’ over this non story. If anything, Romanoff made this issue go away faster and should not have said squat until the White House moved first, which is what they did and what happened.

        I expect the next Senate Primary will not have the same level of Presidential interference.  

          1. to interfere some – Reagan tried to get out Hiakasana in California, Clinton may have endorsed one candidate, but for the most part, most Presidents remained neutral.  FDR’s attempt to primary and get rid of conservative democrats in the 30’s largely backfired and created a bloc of votes in congress comprised of moderate republicans and conservative dems.

            http://www.politico.com/news/s…


            “History warns Obama on primaries”

            The White House promised full support to GOP Sen. Arlen Specter when he switched to the Democratic Party a year ago. So Obama’s team had approached Rep. Joe Sestak, the primary challenger now gaining on Specter, in an effort to ward off this intraparty contest.

            Obama is entangled in other Democratic primaries, as well. His White House has endorsed incumbent moderate Democrats in a handful of key midterm races. It has actively intervened in support of Sens. Michael Bennet of Colorado, Kirsten Gillibrand of New York and Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas.

            …The biggest political debacle in modern times was when President Franklin D. Roosevelt intervened in a series of 1938 midterm primaries.

            FDR considered the 1938 primaries an “act of vengeance against Democrats who had betrayed him” during his 1937 court-packing fight, as Jeff Shesol, author of the new book “Supreme Power: Franklin Roosevelt vs. the Supreme Court,” said in a recent conversation.

            The president’s attempted “purge” of conservatives from Democratic ranks proved a stunning setback for his standing – and his New Deal agenda. FDR speechwriter Sam Rosenman later called the purge a “grave mistake.”

            Losing the court-packing fight hurt FDR so much that “it seemed to crystallize the president’s feelings about the need for a realignment of the liberal forces of the two major parties,” Rosenman said.

            Roosevelt’s preferred primary candidates lost in droves. Democrats also lost seats in the 1938 general election. Conservatives gained congressional strength and administered a substantial political blow to the New Deal.

            Ironically, FDR was trying to use his Presidency to get Conservative Democrats out of the way, (which backfired)

            while Obama has consistently come down on the side of Conservative Democrats (and has been losing)

            so much for the charges that Obama is an extreme left wing President.

            These moves make him appear quite centrist.

            2. Interestingly, back during FDR’s presidency, he thought of intervening in two of Colorado’s U.S. Senate seats. The first time was in 1938 when he had initially targeted Alva Adams, a conservative Democrat, who teamed with Gov. Ralph Carr (gratuitous plug of great Colorado historical figure) to oppose the Arkansas Valley Authority that the administration was trying to implement. FDR backed off when his political advisors told him he couldn’t win. In 1942, he actually convinced former Congressman Ben Lindsey (sp?) to take on Ed Johnson in a Democratic primary. There was some debate on FDR as to who he hated more, Big Ed or Gov. Carr. Johnson quashed Lindsey and then beat Carr in ’42. Carr’s folks always asserted that FDR got the machine to pay voters to support Big Ed under the premise of the devil you know rather than the devil you don’t. Sorry to digress from the conversation but I thought context would be good. Cheers. –Adam

            3. he is a DLC conservative Dem even though he and his supporters try mightily to portray him otherwise. Bennet is more progressive, AR just pretends.

      3. .

        At this particular point in time, Romanoff is winning this particular contest.  Note that his principal adversary, Rahm Emmanuel, is still hiding behind Messina’s skirts.

        Mock him all you want, but Andy is showing more political acumen than the entire 40-person political operation in the WH.  

        If Rove performed this badly Bush would have fired him.  

        .

        You might broaden the sources you consult for your news.  This cycle, “jobs” is sort of a big issue.  Not as many voters as you might think will fault a guy who is out of work for seeking employment.

        .

        1. He could have taken the bar, and assuming he passed, he would have been hired almost immediately by any of the numerous law firms in this state. They would have been crazy not to hire someone as well known, well liked, and intelligent as Romanoff.

          I think most people can tell the difference between a regular schlub trying to find a job, and a career politician looking for another cushy position in the government after his term limits ran out. I’m not trying to say that’s how I’m interpreting it, but I think your idea of how most voters will interpret it is less than correct.

      4. …would attempt the paint the Messina call as merely a follow-up to his job application.

        Do you really think Rahm said to Messina: “Hey, we forget to respond to Romanoff about his job application!  Why don’t you get in touch with him!”

        No, Rahm probably said something like: “We need to get Romanoff out of this race.  Hey, looks like he applied for a job in USAID!  Let’s see if we can find a few jobs like that to dangle in front of him!”

          1. …so your contention is that the Messina call was merely a follow-up to Romanoff’s job application?

            Another (possibly) interesting twist to this story: wasn’t Messina the guy who was supposed to speak at the JJ Dinner but failed to show up?

                1. Or maybe it’s because he had completely forgotten that he applied for it. I mean, he was applying for a lot of jobs at the time.

  2. I’ve been thinking that this whole kerfuffle does not touch Bennet – it’s Romanoff & Obama. But it occurred to me that there is one direction it could go that could significantly harm Bennet.

    It can bring the whole Bennet was anointed to the seat story. You have the White House expending a major effort and offering a nice job to avoid a challenge to Bennet. If this is viewed as a “primaries are bad” move then no biggie. But if this is viewed as insuring Michael Bennet gets this seat, that could hurt him a bit.

    It does strike me as a bit unusual that the White House is so involved in this particular primary. They didn’t get this involved in Hawaii where the division cost them a House seat but here, where the two candidates are politically similar – a major effort. Curious.

    1. Unless Messina was also offering Jane Norton, Ken Buck and Ryan Frazier administration jobs, it’s doubtful anything they could have done would insure Bennet gets the seat.

      There’s no difference between trying to avoid a costly primary and trying to make sure Bennet has a clear shot at the Republicans — the actions are one in the same.

      Besides, the White House pulled a lot of strings in other Senate primaries — remember Sestak? And all the Dems who tested the water and got scared off in New York? One phone call from Messina is hardly undue attention to Colorado’s fragile Democratic Senate seat.

    2. The next logical step for this “scandal” is for reporters to ask what, if anything, transpired between Ritter and the WH regarding the Bennet appointment.

      What we know for sure is that the WH has handled this primary horribly.  

      1. Is for Republicans to use it in smear campaign against Obama, Romanoff, Bennet, and anyone else with a D after their name. If Romanoff wins the primary, it will be used against him, and likewise for Bennet.

        Trying to spin it into ‘the next thing that’s going to happen is Bennet’s going to really get it on the whole appointment story’ is fun though. Did it take you guys all day to come up with that?

        1. It took me all day to get to a computer.  I don’t know who “you guys” is but I am just me.

          Aren’t you curious about how exactly Bennet got appointed?  It will come out someday and this hastens that day, in my opinion.

          1. Governor Ritter met with several people he considered as candidates for the appointment.

            He picked the best person for the job in his judgement.

            The end.

            If there was more to it, we’d have heard about it long ago.  But don’t worry – I’m sure if Senator Bennet is the nominee we’ll hear all about how close to Ritter he is and how bad the appointment process was. And etc.

            But we- you and I – will be working together to get out the vote, right?

  3. I mentioned this on Sirota’s show this morning, but the Ben Smith analysis on “remarkable act of defiance,” while interesting, ignores an important chronology.

    Romanoff for months resisted talking about this. He put out his statement only after unnamed sources in the White House confirmed the job talks to the AP yesterday. That action, I think, meant Romanoff had to say something.

    I first talked to Romanoff at about 9 a.m. yesterday, before the AP story, and asked if he would discuss with me the White House conversations. He said he wasn’t sure but would get back to me later in the day (he was in Fort Collins most of the day yesterday.) Then the AP story broke and I tracked him down at a home in Fort Collins where he was talking with volunteers. He again said he wasn’t sure what he was going to do, but promised to call me before the campaign issued a statement. He did that at about 6 p.m. and the statement came out 5 minutes later.

    I think I was the only reporter with him yesterday; as I said in my story, he was clearly anguished over this. My sense is that he probably would have said something this week because of the mounting pressure, but the White House leak may have sped things up and perhaps led to more details coming out. Just a guess.

    1. I wonder if Smith means the tone and content of Romanoff’s statement, more than its mere existence. But thanks for filling in all those details.

      I don’t think anyone doubts Romanoff would rather be talking about a million other things this week.

    2. or at least counter to the White House’s interests.

      The Atlantic’s Mark Ambinder parses overnight developments and concludes there’s no smoke, no fire, except what little smoke Romanoff helped perpetuate:

      Romanoff’s own account, even as it tried to make the White House look bad, is not out of line with [the White House’s] version of history. And it does not contradict what the White House and others originally told the Denver Post last year. Romanoff owes Messina an apology. By releasing Messina’s e-mail outlining job offers without providing the crucial bit of context that Messina was responding, albeit in a timely fashion, to Romanoff’s job application, his campaign was clearly trying to fuel the fire (which helps Republicans, really, and theoretically makes Romanoff seem like the aggrieved outsider who was the White House tried to force from the race) and not clear the space of smoke. [italics in original]

    3. Between your encounters with Romanoff and the statement his campaign put out later in the day. Looks like the Joe Trippi brain trust have once again demonstrated how going slash and burn on your own president and your own party is such a brilliant strategy to help your client succeed. I wonder if they had Pat Caddell on that conference call just for grins.  

    1. This is the number one story on all the political websites, and has been since the day before yesterday. Of course it’s on TPM.

  5. This story has no legs and it only hurts Romanoff – no matter what the GOP may try to say.

    Romanoff applied for a bunch of jobs, Messina called to see if he was still interested, Romanoff said no and that he was going to try and run for the Senate.

    Done, end of story.  Besides, I don’t recall anyone (other than Canadians) complaining when Bush Jr. appointed a huge campaign donor from Texas as Canadian Ambassador.  Oh, and whose entire Canadian experience prior to that point was visiting Niagara Falls some 20 years earlier.

    1. Where do you think those Candadians fly over on their way to Cancun? Texas!

      If this story continues, someone is going to ask for Romanoff’s resume and determine if he has actually held a paying job, besides being a state representative.

      1. for years. But in any case, his resume ought to be posted along with the job application when the White House releases it later today, so you can check.

  6. …undermines Romanoff’s credibility.  To fail to mention that you had sought the job that was discussed with you in the phone call is deceptive.  And the omission was seemingly calculated to harm others.  I’m surprised at Romanoff’s behavior.

    2. that Romanoff was going around asking for jobs at the state and federal level after he was term-limited out of the House. As for why this would be scandalous, I can’t for the life of me imagine.

      BREAKING: Unemployed man applies for employment! SHOCKING DEVELOPMENT: He turned down one offer to apply for another!

      1. But I do believe it was a deceptive omission to fail to mention that he had applied for the particular position at issue in his press release.  Why would he omit that fact if not for a particular purpose?  

  7. Romanoff, while trying to cover all his bases, was half-heartedly looking for a job, sending out feelers, having friends  give out his resume and he finally gets a call just before filing to run and an e-mail just after telling him what’s available, with no promises, no offers, from the Deputy Chief of Staff.  Trying to turn this in into a major scandal is beyond making a mountain out of a molehill.  It’s not even a molehill.

    You know what really strikes me about this along with the Sestak situation?  It’s how universal it seems to be for pols to want to inflate their resumes in the public eye.  

    The rumor, and it was confirmed to a friend of mine who always has good info by a Romanoff insider, was that AR was offered an ambassadorship.  Sestak’s people were probably behind the rumor that inflated his offer to Secretary of the Navy.  In both cases the jobs discussed were far lower down the food chain, Romanoff’s not even constituting an offer and Sestak’s not even including compensation. Neither one exactly jumped forward to set the record straight.

    And then you have all the pols who like to leave the impression standing that their military service was a lot more heroic than it actually was and some who claim non-existent military service or non-existent sacrifice on the part of late family members. In the age of the internet, the truth always comes out and makes them look pathetic.

    As for AR, it would appear that he never got over his candidate, HRC, losing and that he doesn’t much like the Obama crowd and they don’t, surprise, surprise, much like him.  Besides confirming how squirrely AR was for a while there, making up and changing his mind, hoping for another appointment, this one to  Lt Governor that, like the appointment to Senate, refused to fall in his lap, I don’t think this damages him much.  His supporters will still support him and he still won’t have enough of those to win.  

    Don’t see how it damages Bennet at all or the administration much either.  The guy was interested in at least checking out some jobs and they told him there were a few he might qualify for.  No there, there. Romanoff doesn’t look any better or worse than he has from the moment he failed to be handed what he wanted in the first place. I vote wash.

    1. the White House thought Bennet might lose a Primary so wanted to protect him from one.  

      The spin here just amazes me – it’s not at all unusual for people to apply for positions with a new administration (at the federal and state level) during the time of transition.  To me it doesn’t speak well for the Obama Administration that they didn’t hire Romanoff right away.  Being Speaker of a state House of Representatives is a job only 50 people have at any one time, and Romanoff was a leader and a standout when he served as Speaker, plus won national awards for his work.  

      But, he apparently didn’t hear back for 9 or 10 months regarding his “transition” application, and it was then only an apparent attempt to save Bennet from a Primary.  

      It’s not at all unusual to apply with administration transition teams.  Why, I’m still waiting to hear from the Obama transition team and the Ritter transition team (yes, in 2006) regarding my applications (ha).

      1. Do you not see that Romanoff lied? First, he lied to the Post saying that there was no job offer. Then he issued the statement saying that there were three job offers. Now it turns out that he was being offered a job that he applied for.

        No matter what, this doesn’t help any Democrat in this race. I don’t think you can spin this as being worse for Bennet than Romanoff and Obama though.

        1. No he did not lie but thank you for continuing your perfect record of attacking Romanoff and carrying Bennet’s daily talking points.

          You might want to re-read what Romanoff said and when things were said. He apparently told the Post that he was not offered a job and yesterday put out a statement that explicitly says there were no job offers or promises of jobs. In fact, on the radio a guy from the Post said he wasn’t sure if the timing of Romanoff being asked if he had been “offered a job” and Romanoff said “No” was before or after Romanoff apparently got a call from Messina. So either Romanoff had not gotten a job offer or talked with the White House when the Post asked and he said he had not gotten a job offer or after talking to Messina and not getting a job offer Romanoff told the Post he had not gotten a job offer. Months later he and the White House both say they talked just after he filed but before his announcement and in that talk there was no job offer.

          1. And I guess not mentioning in his statement yesterday that it was a job he applied for was… telling the truth?

            Did you not see my initial comment replying to your comment yesterday? I thought it was a transparent statement designed to defuse the situation. I took Romanoff at his word, and got fooled.

      2. The leadership doesn’t like to clear out primary competition only when they think their favored candidate might lose but also, in general, to avoid money that could be used in the general from being drained by primary battles and so that  everyone can get behind one candidate and the DCCC, DSCC etc can start giving financial support early.  

        Lip service: Primaries good, democracy at work, gets people involved.  Reality: Primaries an expensive pain in the ass. Still say wash. Whatever publicity, good or bad, this brings AR it’s going to be very short-lived and too early to do him much good or Bennet much harm in August.

  8. Andrew made the local, state and national news not to mention the lengthy debate on Pols. He’s in a primary and there he is along with BP’s latest and not so great attempt to stem the flow of oil.  He has no money to speak of to advertise.  If I were on his team I’d be smiling.

    2. Not all publicity is good publicity. As a faithful Democrat, I don’t particularly want to elect yet another Senator who seems to go out of his way to score goals against his own team for his own advancement. We have enough of that already.  

      3. Honestly, can everyone just stop feigning outrage over the chess game of politics now? We followed the Obama campaign pretty carefully, from the day it began, and we don’t recall any specific or implied promises to stop trying to position Democrats to win House and Senate races. And no amount of live Politico cubicle video of Mike Allen blinking weirdly on Morning Joe is going to change that.

  9. I just received an email from the Bennet campaign including this statement:

    We’ve set an ambitious goal to knock on 5,000 doors around the state for our Statewide Canvass Day on Saturday, June 12. I’d like you to join us for a walk in your area.

    Can you pitch in to help on June 12? We already have hundreds of volunteers signed up, and we need just 47 more volunteers to help us reach our goal!

    Okay, maybe it’s just a visibility email, but can’t they just call 47 people on the list of 20,000 petition signers?

    2. 47 calls to get 47 people.  They are making calls too.  I was recently called and asked if I could make some of those calls. E-mail another tool and and a way to keep in touch with all those who have already given contact info, volunteered at caucus, county, state, etc.

    3. I signed the Bennet petition and, of course, received a call asking me to be part of the June 12 effort, and other stuff.  But why would you presume that calling from that list precludes an e-mail?

  10. and that’s a non-issue. The White House statement touches upon the fact that they were trying to avoid a primary opponent, that Romanoff had applied for a position, and that this is exactly what it seems to be and nothing more. It’s Politics 101 (not “Chicago style” as Issa would want you to believe) – for better or for worse.

    If Romanoff gains any ground on this, it’ll be offset by his pissing in the punch of the Dem establishment.  

    1. Issa clearly never ran against the Chicago machine. Nor has any clue how it works if this is what he thinks is “Chicago politics”.

      I know he was talking about something else, but this just about sums it up – see Jimmy Malone explaining “the Chicago Way” at 0:31

  11. Is that if you’re pro-Romanoff, this reflects well on Romanoff. If your pro-Bennet, this reflects poorly on Romanoff. The real interesting question is what impact will this have, if any, on the giant chunk of undecided primary voters.

    1. so I’d say us undecided voters think it’s a completely stupid nontroversial scamdal, and that Romanoff’s and the White House’s statements don’t contradict each other or make the other look bad.

      And if I can get one more person to agree with me, we’ll have data!

      1. (I’ve been working all day and hit this while wolfing down a sandwich so I haven’t been living this all day.) Ok, the Obama administration offered Romanoff a job to keep him out of the primary, but did so in a way that kept it legal. This shit happens, doesn’t make it nice, but it happens.

        And Romanoff to his credit was not bought off and stayed quiet on it until it blew up from elsewhere. Nothing to ding Romanoff for.

        And the Bennet campaign appears to not be involved in either the offer or everyone suddenly talking. So no impact on them.

        Hopefully in a day or so this will blow over and we can get back to discussing the differences between Bennet and Romanoff that matter for this election.

      2. aren’t following this very closely and won’t be paying much attention for a while.  By that time the story will have been buried by all the new breathlessly reported stories.  

    2. I’m pro-Bennet, but I think this a non-story. It’s trivia.

      It bothers me that it forced the Romanoff campaign off message again, but even with hindsight I’m not sure if or how they could have avoided it.

      1. In hindsight – it seems so clear.

        As part of his announcement, not the poll he put out last Spring, not the rumor phase in Aug, but at his announcement, he should have explained his thought process: I was term limited, but I wanted to continue to serve… I thought long and hard about how best to do that… I talked with many people and evaluated many opportunities and …etc and so on and I applied for several positions, including three USAID gigs with the current administration… none were a good fit or the right time or something…. and then I realized what I really want is…. etc  

        It would have been a story for 15 minutes – or about the time it took to drive from Pueblo to Wash Park.

  12. I’m not even going to pretend I can speak on the legality of this issue, although from what I can tell, there is technically no wrong doing. What I can gather, only through skimming articles and posts, is that it is possible that Romanoff elected to not make this an issue until it was necessary. He then came out, told his story – one that coincides with the WH story – and that was that. It should be a non-story from here.

    Problem is, it is definitely not a non-story. And I think it will come down to perspective. Here’s what I believe will eventually stick:

    Romanoff applied for a position.

    The WH skipped over him for that position.

    Romanoff runs for Senate.

    The WH then comes back to offer him the original position.

    If he was offered the position after first applying, back before he chose to run for Senate, and he turned it down, there’s no issue here. Problem is, he wasn’t offered the position, so he went after the Senate seat, then the WH called. There is the “ethical” problem in my eyes.

    1. Did the WH, or whoever, give the job to someone else?  I was under the impression that the position hadn’t been filled yet, and AR’s application was still under consideration at the time the WH learned that AR might seek another job (i.e., US Senator).  Thus, they called to see if AR was still interested in the position for which he applied.

      1. And apologies if I am. I’m personally very interested in this race, but work has me crazy busy, so I haven’t been able to read everything closely. From the NYT’s article:

        The White House tried to put more of the onus on Mr. Romanoff by saying he had been the one who first sought an administration job, albeit many months earlier.

        It said that Mr. Romanoff had first sought a job at the Agency for International Development during the 2008-9 presidential transition, filing an application through the incoming administration’s online process. Mr. Romanoff later followed up with a phone call to the new White House personnel office, the White House said.

        I guess it’s a matter of convenience. The WH didn’t contact the candidate until after it was rumored he was running for the Senate seat. Again, I don’t think there were any legal wrong doings here, but the question becomes, will voters think there was any ethical misconduct?

        1. The job or jobs were still available.  And the WH contacted him about the job for which he applied after hearing that he might seek another job….in part because the WH wanted to avoid a primary for the Senate seat.  It seems clear to me, and not ethical misconduct.  I have no idea what the voters will think, though.

          Anyway, the bit about AR going through the website still gives me a chuckle.  As Wonkette put it:

          Why did this gangster White House Chicago thugs think it was “good” for the existing Democrat senator to avoid a primary that would make it harder to keep the seat in November? Only Satan and Reagan and all other American political leaders in history know for sure, but it appears that Romanoff – who couldn’t run again for his state House seat because of term limits – applied for some USAID job in Mexico through a website, and then he didn’t get it (?!?!), and then he was all “well I’ll show that website I’ll just run for my fellow Democrat Michael Bennet’s seat in the Senate, nobody will notice.”

          Read more at Wonkette: http://wonkette.com/415771/whi…

            2. Sometimes you apply for a job and don’t hear anything, and you assume you didn’t get it. Messina seemed to be calling him to tell him he was still in consideration. At that point Romanoff said he had already decided to pursue something else.

              Anyone who has ever applied for a professional job probably has a similar experience. Republicans seem to think it’s a big deal since the Burger King usually doesn’t take more than a couple of days to evaluate your job application.

    2. So I don’t know that “skipped over him for the position” is the correct description of what happened.  Because the Republicans are/were slow-rolling approval of Obama’s nominations, these positions were apparently still open when Messina came to Romanoff in September 2009.

      This to me is all a political tempest in a teapot.  The pundits are all jumping over it, goaded on by Republicans calling for an independent prosecutor that they won’t get because Congress let the statute expire (and rightfully so, IMHO).

        1. .

          and were done vetting most of them.  

          Those 3 jobs were already encumbered at the point that Emmanuel told Messina to contact AR.  Specific people had been tapped, and those selected had served notice that they would resign from their employment.  Many had already resigned and were performing as “Special Assistants” in the offices they were going to take over.  

          However, Rahm would have gone back on any promises made to them if it would have protected MB from the rigors of his first ever electoral campaign.

          This is speculation; I cannot provide any proof.  But if I have this wrong, if 10 months after starting the transition, almost 20% through his Term, Team Obama still hadn’t accomplished what I stated above, then they were grossly incompetent.  

          .

          1. Only the one position (not with USAID) required Senate confirmation.  The other two were direct hires within the Administration.

            The Obama administration has been criticized for not having more of its positions filled quickly.  A lot of this has to do with the confirmation process being slowed down by GOP Senators.  And a number of direct hire / no confirmation required positions may have been kept open because the person who was supposed to do the hiring wasn’t confirmed.

            The Republican Party has become expert at leaving our government under-staffed; from judicial seats to mid-level bureaucrats, Republican stall tactics have hurt our government’s ability to perform the functions Congress has dictated to it.

    3. but in the public square?   And both sides agree he was not promised any position at any time. Also, according to the Post story he got the phone call on the 9th, filed to run the 10th then got what could be seen as afollow up e-mail the 11th.  All told, it will be very hard to keep this on the public scandal screen.

  13. Not much difference between what Obama was trying to do and Blagovich did in Chicago.  It sounds like it is just business as usual for people from Chicago.

    1. it’s everywhere.

      You’re kidding yourself if you honestly believe that this isn’t common amongst all parties in all regions. The thing that’s obvious, though, is that Dems on the national scene aren’t as good at keeping stuff like this under wraps as the Chicago Dems are…

        1. .

          what’s so unusual about this, or even Blago’s alleged solicitations of contributions.  

          It’s how the El Paso County GOP has operated for at least the last 40 years.  

          .

    2. solid red bible belt Oklahoma.  When I lived there in the early 80s here is what was going on:

      In 1981, Daxon cooperated with the Federal Bureau of Investigation in its probe of many Oklahoma county commissioners. By the end of the investigation in 1984, more than 200 people (mostly county commissioners) from 60 of Oklahoma’s 77 counties had been convicted of crimes. Most were convicted of taking kickbacks paid by suppliers on orders for county road-building supplies. More than 70 sitting commissioners had to resign in connection with the probe. 69 counties had commissioners resign in the wake of the probe, and 13 counties lost all three of their commissioners in connection with the scandal.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T…

      Many southern states and eastern states such as New Jersey are also pretty notorious for corruption. It’s as if the righties all saw the Elliot Ness movie and have never gotten over it. At least  it seems that way since Obama was elected out of Illinois, or Kenya, take your silly ass pick. I will admit my home state of Illinois does have a very high number of former governors finding their way to the slammer but couldn’t possibly compete with 80s Oklahoma for sheer volume of indictments and resignations of public elected officials en masse.  

      1. Corruption is part of the cost of doing business.  It’s even part of the cost of living there and paying taxes.

        If people in New Jersey were offended by corruption, they’d live in Pennsylvania, no, New York, no, Connecticut, no, Massachusetts, no, Rhode Island.  Hell, you get the idea.

        1. Yes we get some corruption, but it tends to be pretty small compared to most states. And we have a large number of people with both integrity and smarts – on both sides of the aisle. We should probably tell them thank you once in awhile…

    3. Or my guess is that you decided that blending the name of someone you don’t like (Obama) with a bribery-disgraced politician (Boagojevich) is such clever and sophisticated political commentary that you’ll take even a ridiculous analogy between the two?

      Hey, watch, I can make names into funny funny blends too — like with “Michael Dorsett MD”:

      * Michael Douchebag MD

      * My Cow Does It, MD

      * Michael Dorsett – Empty

  14. Part of his mantra was to avoid business as usual. This seems like business as usual.

    But the key thing that “Judge-Jury-Executioner” Dan Caplis totally and reprehensibly failed to tell his listeners today was that Romanoff had ALREADY APPLIED FOR THE JOB he was contacted about BEFORE HE ANNOUNCED FOR SENATE.

    Guaranteeing a job for someone in return for dropping out of a race may or may not be a crime. The law is vague. But it’s certainly stupid and smells bad.

    Asking someone who’s already applied for a job whether they’re still interested in it, after hearing that they’re running for Senate… that’s no crime, except in the minds of fevered right-wing fanatics.

  15. “so the FP editors and guest diarists won’t likely be penning a piece to put directly on the Front Page.”

    indeed

    …and the fact AR applied for a job is immaterial.  The fact he was “offered” something as a carrot to get out the Senate race isn’t.

    And wasn’t Patterson (Gov-NY) “nudged” to get out of his reelection bid?  This administration is rotten to the core, sorry.

    1. The fact Penry was “offered” something as a carrot (and was “threatened with” something as a stick) to get out of the governor’s race is material. And wasn’t McInnis “nudged” out of the Senate race last time? Frazier was “pushed” out of the Senate race this time, the same as Buck, except that Buck “pushed” back and stayed in (same as Romanoff!). The Colorado Republican Party is rotten to the core, sorry.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

143 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!