White House: Andrew Romanoff Overtures Don't Mean We Aren't Transparent

Democratic Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff addresses the Democratic Party assembly in Broomfield, Colo., May 22, 2010.

/ AP

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said at his briefing today that White House discussions with Democratic Colorado Senate hopeful Andrew Romanoff do not undercut the Obama administration's claims of transparency.

"I do believe we've been transparent, yes," Gibbs told reporters pressing him about revelations that White House deputy chief of staff Jim Messina called Romanoff to discuss jobs that "might be available" if Romanoff dropped his primary challenge. (In a response, the White House noted that Romanoff had previously applied for an administration job.)

Gibbs said President Obama was not aware that Messina was approaching Romanoff and thus did not sign off on the decision. He also maintained that no actual job had been offered.

"Well, let's be clear: There wasn't a job offer. There wasn't a job promised. Mr. Romanoff applied for a job in government service during the transition," he said. "I think that's -- that's the fact pattern."

Gibbs was asked if the Romanoff discussions - combined with the White House's enlistment of former President Bill Clinton to talk to Rep. Joe Sestak about the possibility of dropping out of the Pennsylvania Democratic primary - represented "politics as usual." The White House has been hammered by Republicans who have cast the administration's claims that it would bring change to Washington as hollow in light of the revelations.

"Well, I think the leaders of parties have long had an interest in ensuring that supporters didn't run against each other in contested primaries," Gibbs replied.

He later added, speaking of the president: "We went through a pretty contested primary. They're not altogether fun things. Does the leader of the party have an interest in ensuring that primaries that tend to be costly aren't had so that you're ready for a general election? Of course."

Asked if there had been other such efforts to clear contested primaries, Gibbs replied, "not that I'm aware of."

[Patriotson]

The Obama Admin. promised to be transparent and an open government. Instead, the tatics used by Reid and Pelosi are being used by the White House. It is pure political slime and should be illegal and impeachable by any low standard of ethical conduct. To influence elections by offering jobs in the White House is preventing the American voter the opportunity to exercise a fundimental right of choice. Obama's hunger for power is becoming evident by these actions.

[thebob-bob]

More Republican Weapons of Mass Distraction. OMG!! Politicians discussed the pros and cons of another politician running for a congressional seat!!!!

Forget two wars, economic disaster, environmental disaster and immigration!!! Stop the presses!!! This is at least as important as when Republicans insisted that Clinton ignore Bin Ladin so that they could find out all about Whitewater (nothing?), no I meant an Oregonian intern who wanted Presidential kneepads. Now THAT was really important.

How about a story on Republicans putting secret holds on unprecedented numbers of Obama appointees preventing government from functioning???

Fear, Hatred, Distortion, Distraction and Division. That's all Republicans can offer.

[steveCHNC]

The White House keeps claiming that the things they do have been done all the time in the past so it is OK. But they were elected because they were going to "change" things and be transparent. The biggest problem with doing what they have been doing is that they are trying to give taxpayer paid jobs in the White House to people based not upon their qualifications, but to people based upon running in a primary against the person that they want.

[architectjoe]

Every time we the people allow the people in power to limit the choices in an election, whether it be a primary or general election, the people in power destroy the free choice of the electorate. It maybe better for the party not to have to spend money getting their preferred candidate elected, but it limits the choices for the people. Incumbents already have the advantage in any election, to have an outside power attempt to affect the process should be illegal and enforced to the maximum extent of the law. To have the Executive Branch of our government try to change a Legislative Branch election, to keep their preferred candidate in office, should be a concern for all citizens. It may not be illegal but it sure is unethical.

[releggneh2]

We are witnessing corruption at its best and some of us voted for this crook & his minions to be in this position! How is the hope & change going for ya! I hope in 2010 & 2012 we will change this nightmare we have as our leader. A man of many suits, too bad they are all empty!!

[pasmalltown]

by releggneh2 June 3, 2010 9:28 PM EDT
"We are witnessing corruption at its best.."
----------------------
You and some others(hannity et al) may be "witnessing corruption" with regard to this subject of illegal job offers, yet others prefer to wait for the facts before deciding guilt for "criminal activities". Make sure you have all your horses AHEAD of the cart before suggesting anything in "your court of public opinion" .........

[Obummer2010]

This administration is transparently crooked. We are seeing this over and over again. Next they will be offering the Rev Wright a job as HR director... Or maybe Wm Aires as security chief. What hope and change?
This is disgusting.

[Goofy1954]

Lie, Lies, Lies Thats who you libs elected and now the transparency of who he really is is coming shining through. Just politics as usual. So hows the whole "CHANGE Thing" working out for you. Obama needs to do a Nixon and scram or maybe he will keep playing games and we can impeach him before he does any more damage

[Goofy1954]

Lie, Lies, Lies Thats who you libs elected and now the transparency of who he really is is coming shining through. Just politics as usual. So hows the whole "CHANGE Thing" working out for you. Obama needs to do a Nixon and scram or maybe he will keep playing games and we can impeach him before he does any more damage

[djaymick]

I look at this situation the same as I do with the Valerie Plame event. Leaking the identity of a CIA agent isn't a crime. However, it exposed an operative in our military (putting her in danger), undermined our intelligence community and Americans had a right to get to the bottom of this. The same should be done here. Maybe a crime was committed, maybe not. But the American people deserve answers and the Fourth Estate (or whatever's left of it) should inform the people of all the facts and demand an investigation.

[MurdochSucks]

You think offering somebody a job is similar to outing an active CIA agent while they are undercover and could be killed? Wow, you are diluted. I'm not defending dirty politics, and an investigation is par for the course, but come on, let's be real about the levity of this situation.

[TheThirdVial]

Transparency, REALLY, TRANSPARENCY? This administration is as transparent as a 5 foot thick cinder block wall!! They tell us one thing and then do another. They pass a healthcare bill that they haven't even read, and try to be transparent about it. How can you be transparent about something YOU KNOW NOTHING ABOUT. Just like the AZ 1070 LAW. You guys didn't even READ it, yet felt obligated to come out against it. You applaud the President of Mexico when he blasts OUR laws. Transparency? How about coming clean on Sestak and this other guy who were BRIBED to drop out of elections? Oh, forgot, you said that that is business as usual!......But wait, didn't Obama PROMISE to CHANGE Washington D.C.? The only thing he has done is raise our debt to the highest levels in American HISTORY, AND HE WANTS TO SPEND MORE. Transparency blaming EVERY THING on BUSH, including the oil spill. This guy takes NO RESPONSIBILITY for ANY THING.Maybe WE THE PEOPLE should take Thomas Jefferson's advice about every 20 years. Go find that one, Obama. Maybe you will learn the Constitution that you say you are a scholar in. Of course you never did say WHICH constitution you were a "scholar" in, did you. Lenin, Stalin, Mao ring any bells?