Gibbs on Romanoff: Yeah, we were trying to avoid a primary challenge with job offer

posted at 8:48 am on June 3, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

Robert Gibbs offered a new written statement on the allegation from Andrew Romanoff that the White House had attempted to get him out of the primary contest against Senator Michael Bennet (D-CO) by offering him a job.  Gibbs denied that the Obama administration did anything wrong.  And then he more or less admitted that White House staffer Jim Messina made the offer to stop Romanoff’s primary run:

Last year, the deputy WH CoS discussed 2 USAID posts and a US Trade and Development Agency job with ex-CO House Speaker Andrew Romanoff (D), if only Romanoff would drop his challenge to Sen. Michael Bennet (D), Romanoff said in a statement last night. It is the second time in as many weeks that the WH will have to answer questions about using the offer of admin posts to clear a Senate primary field.

In a statement released early this morning, WH Press Sec. Robert Gibbs said the WH had done nothing wrong. “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,” Gibbs said. “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. … Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters [emphasis mine -- Ed].”

Er, isn’t that exactly the problem?  If the White House has been offering people paid jobs in the administration in order to “avoid costly battles” in primaries, then that breaks the law.  The allegations surrounding their dealings with Joe Sestak and Romanoff have been all along that the White House attempted to buy off primary challengers to Democratic incumbents in Senate races.  Far from establishing that there has been no wrongdoing, the statement confirms the allegations.

With that said, what is the likelihood of prosecution?  I’d say minimal, but that’s not the big problem for the White House.  Instead, these explosions of scandal expose the Obama administration as corrupt.  Those expressing surprise that a survivor of Daley Machine politics is less than squeaky clean should be considered intellectually suspect anyway, but Barack Obama managed to fool a lot of people in 2008 with his expressions of Hope and Change.  The media refused to vet Obama in the context of his Chicago politics and the backers that propelled him onto the national stage, but they’ll be interested in this scandal, especially because they tie into electoral issues.

Worse, this plays into the growing sense that this administration is incompetent.  Even for those who saw Obama as a Chicago Machine pol instead of an agent of change and reform, no one expected him to be so bad at Chicago-style politics.

Update: Politico’s Jonathan Allen and Carol Lee see the same dangers:

Taken together, the Sestak and Romanoff cases suggest a White House team that is one part Dick Daley, one part Barney Fife.

They undercut the Obama’s reputation on two fronts. Trying to put the fix in to deny Democratic voters the chance to choose for themselves who their Senate nominees should be is hardly consistent with the idea of “Yes we can” grassroots empowerment that is central to Obama’s brand.

And bungling that fix is at odds with the Obama team’s image—built around the likes of Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod, David Plouffe and Obama himself—as shrewd political operatives who know the game and always win it.

“Yes We Can” is turning into “No, we really can’t,” or to paraphrase Casey Stengel, “Can’t anyone here throw this game?”


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2

I just don’t get it. The intense hate some people have for AP and Ed just doesn’t make any sense to me.

Have I agreed with every single thing they’ve posted? Absolutely not. However, they work hard, post a lot of good content, and do it better than most right wing blogs.

blatantblue on June 3, 2010 at 9:36 AM

I hear you Blue, makes me scratch my head as well. These guys clearly put in some long hours, I cant think of any sites that are any quicker to deliver commentary on events. Besides, I can leave anytime I want, I don’t understand why some would keep visiting a site they don’t like?

JusDreamin on June 3, 2010 at 11:37 AM

People who voted for this incredibly sick man got exactly what they voted for.

ORconservative on June 3, 2010 at 11:29 AM

No siree, they voted for a man who would stand by Israel, who would not raise taxes, who would grow the economy and who could make the sea levels fall. The voted for what the MSM presented. True he never corrected the story, but the media was complicit in every way.

The “people” had been used to a media that slammed ush and who gave us every salacious detail of Clinton and Monica and who cranked out endless Kennedy exposes. The did not believe that the MSM was so completely malignant. Nobody I know is even aware that the LATimes has tapes of Bama at a pro-palestinian soiree, or that he addressed the crowd. They believe that Obama and Ayers kids only “went to school together” despite the age discrepancies, because that’s what the were told. The were told that that plumber fellow was a liar and that Palin was unbelievably stupid and that Bush contolled the weather (so naturally Obama could control sea levels)

The people who voted for Obama were as gullible and trusted a media that was made of liars.

clnurnberg on June 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM

There are only two things that matter to liberals:
1) Power, and
2) Absolutely nothing else.

Which kind of brings up the question, why Sestak and Romanoff, not Specter and Benet? Was it just an independent WH assessment of their reliability in Congress or was there a promise of a quid pro quo by the latter two if the WH got Sestak and Romanoff to back off a primary?

Dusty on June 3, 2010 at 11:43 AM

Corrupt and incompetent.

Compounding their problems is their ongoing belief in their own wisdom and righteousness, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

novaculus on June 3, 2010 at 11:43 AM

The only reason I still even come…

MobileVideoEngineer on June 3, 2010 at 9:14 AM

Get lost.

John the Libertarian on June 3, 2010 at 11:48 AM

The Sixteen Hundred Pennsylvania Avenue Frog March…

phreshone on June 3, 2010 at 12:00 PM

Culture of Corruption, part 324.

profitsbeard on June 3, 2010 at 12:08 PM

Doesn’t matter. Messina used his government position to attempt to interfere with an election. That’s a clear violation of the Hatch Act. The penalty is removal from your position.

rockmom on June 3, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Never meant to imply otherwise. I just found the argument absurd.

Imagine this.
Recorded Conversation.
Pol 1 while on a Taxpayer funded junket to the Alps: “You know, It would be nice to have a job here in Switzerland. I love to ski.”

Pol 2. “Well if you drop your plans to run for the Senate, I could arrange for an ambassadorship here.”
End Recording
IN court:
Pol 2 “What?! That wasn’t a bribe. He started it! It doesn’t even mention the lift tickets we were going to get him.”

Clowns and Crooks.

OBQuiet on June 3, 2010 at 12:14 PM

I just don’t get it. The intense hate some people have for AP and Ed just doesn’t make any sense to me.
blatantblue on June 3, 2010

It’s part of a odd trend that’s cropped up on other websites. Apparently if an author disagrees slightly with some interpretation or political tactic, then that author must be castigated for thinking for himself.

I’m not sure what motivates this. It could be just the usual case of anonymity breeding stupidity. Or perhaps it that ill variety of cynicism in which conspicuous bitching and moaning is justified as some form of wisdom and thought.

In the end, it’s tedious and puerile.

chimney sweep on June 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM

“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,” Gibbs said. “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. … Messina wanted to determine if it was possible to avoid a costly battle between two supporters

Gibbs should have read his own Miranda rights, because this is really d@mning! Romanoff applied for a USAID job during the transition between the Bush and Obama administrations (which would have been perfectly legal) but Obama/Messina weren’t interested in Romanoff THEN, because Ken Salazar was still in the Senate with four years left in his term!

Only 9 months later, when Salazar was Interior Secretary, and Obama/Messina wanted to protect appointed Senator Bennet, did Messina get back to Romanoff to offer him three White House jobs. Suddenly, when Romanoff is interested in the Senate seat which opened up BECAUSE OBAMA APPOINTED SALAZAR AS INTERIOR SECRETARY, Obama/Messina are eager to offer Romanoff three jobs to lure him away from the Senate. It’s blatantly obvious that someone in the Obama administration is illegally trying to influence elections by offering White House jobs.

The question becomes, why is Romanoff, a Democrat who wants to be a Senator, openly speaking out about this? Couldn’t he, like Sestak, make up some story about an unpaid advisory position to cover both himself and Obama? Does Romanoff know something about corruption in the Obama administration, and WANTS to distance himself from them or even denounce them, and might find more political gain in being a whistle-blower than playing along with Obama? Does Romanoff know something that could cause the Obama administration to drag down the entire Democrat party, and he wants to cut himself loose?

There may be other shoes waiting to drop…

Steve Z on June 3, 2010 at 12:24 PM

clnurnberg on June 3, 2010 at 11:38 AM

I agree with most of what you said, but…….

If a person is voting, it is their personal responsibility to know the issues, know the candidates, know their records, know their past, present, and what they want for the future. Know that associations mean something.

I find it so sad, that so many were dependent on the msm’s for their info. In this world of computers, the world wide web, blogs, and people who were willing to vet both candidates, that some chose not to listen. Rather, they held stead fast, to empty promises, and platitudes. They wanted hope, and change so much, they didn’t bother to listen to the truth that was out there for everyone to learn.

The msm’s should be ashamed yes. But so should every voter that voted, based on some kind of utopian dream, and believing a mere mortal like Obama could deliver!

capejasmine on June 3, 2010 at 12:33 PM

Gibbs should have read his own Miranda rights, because this is really d@mning!… There may be other shoes waiting to drop…
Steve Z on June 3, 2010 at 12:24 PM

No liberal has ever felt guilty for anything he’s ever done, and none ever will.

If liberals are making admissions, there is always a REASON for that. This is the political equivalent of reactive armor: admitting this wrongdoing is designed to blunt the impact of the REAL crimes once they can no longer be covered up.

logis on June 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM

ORconservative on June 3, 2010 at 11:29 AM

Absolutely, positively true.

betsyz on June 3, 2010 at 12:41 PM

logis on June 3, 2010 at 12:38 PM

true and then they expect the gop folks to resign immediately or call for special prosecutors if something should occur on their side of the aisle…

cmsinaz on June 3, 2010 at 12:47 PM

I agree with the Bush operative today who said, it’s not technically illegal, it is, business as usual.

His credibility has been damaged. That’s substantive.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:55 PM

It’s part of a odd trend that’s cropped up on other websites. Apparently if an author disagrees slightly with some interpretation or political tactic, then that author must be castigated for thinking for himself.

I’m not sure what motivates this. It could be just the usual case of anonymity breeding stupidity. Or perhaps it that ill variety of cynicism in which conspicuous bitching and moaning is justified as some form of wisdom and thought.

In the end, it’s tedious and puerile.

chimney sweep on June 3, 2010 at 12:18 PM

My take on this blog is that it’s really very mainstream GOP, and it’s taking a beating right now.

With good reason.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM

I want to see Rahm frog marched out of the West Wing

clnurnberg on June 3, 2010 at 1:14 PM

Why is no one talking about how Reagan did the same thing in 1981? This sort of thing was never considered illegal before Obama. The law does not specifically state that offering a job is prohibited. No one ever thought it was before.

Magically, when Obama does it, the right screams that it’s illegal.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM

My take on this blog is that it’s really very mainstream GOP, and it’s taking a beating right now.

With good reason.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Why are you still here? My God you are tiresome!

AsianGirlInTights on June 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM

I watched closely in the primary. Obama has always been one to slip around corners.

It’s his nature. It’s opposite of someone, like Palin, for example.

The press seems to beat up on those who are forthright, and they dance with those who slip around corners.

I think this is the result of decades of really a good economy, lightweight politics, etc.

We simply aren’t there today. We can’t afford the eels.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 1:20 PM

Instead, these explosions of scandal expose the Obama administration as corrupt.

No, it means he’s done what every other president has done.

Yes, it’s status quo. And I think it’s pretty weak the play the “he promised to change washington” line. He never specifically said he wouldn’t engage of something like this. The whole “messiah” thing was created by the right wing, and now they’re claiming he must be perfect to live up to that image. It’s BS.

This is yet another example of a small story made bigger because of a overblown right-wing freak out.

If this wasn’t so serious it would be funny.

If it’s so serious, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate your opinion of Reagan.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 1:24 PM

My take on this blog is that it’s really very mainstream GOP, and it’s taking a beating right now.
AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Why are you still here? My God you are tiresome!
AsianGirlInTights on June 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Are you kidding? The trolltards aren’t just “still here.” Inside their warped, twisted crazyass little minds they honest-to-God think the real posters are all sitting around with bated breath wondering what the moonbats’ “take” on us is!

logis on June 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM
Why are you still here? My God you are tiresome!

AsianGirlInTights on June 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM

Oh please, your remarks are the tiresome ones. They lack content, nearly 100% of the time.

You graduated in snark, only.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM

Oh please, your remarks are the tiresome ones. They lack content, nearly 100% of the time.

You graduated in snark, only.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 1:25 PM

At least they are short and empty, as opposed to long and empty like yours.

AsianGirlInTights on June 3, 2010 at 1:27 PM

His credibility has been damaged. That’s substantive.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:55 PM

He’s never had any credibility with me. Unless the MSM runs with this, it won’t do any damage to his credibility with the lemmings.

ladyingray on June 3, 2010 at 1:34 PM

At least they are short and empty, as opposed to long and empty like yours.

AsianGirlInTights on June 3, 2010 at 1:27 PM

If you take out her stupid double spacing, hers get a lot shorter.

Her posts remind me of a lazy student leaving a lot of space between words so the essay being written looks longer.

ladyingray on June 3, 2010 at 1:35 PM

Why is no one talking about how Reagan did the same thing in 1981? This sort of thing was never considered illegal before Obama. The law does not specifically state that offering a job is prohibited. No one ever thought it was before.

Magically, when Obama does it, the right screams that it’s illegal.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM

Mr. Tu Quoque Shitley, you’re not the first troll to bring this up. The answer is that it was GOP members who did it, not Reagan. Fact checking is not your strong suit, apparently, and your arguments are logically fallacious.

fossten on June 3, 2010 at 1:37 PM

Now I understand the seemingly inflated “jobs created” number!

Oink on June 3, 2010 at 1:42 PM

No, it means he’s done what every other president has done.

Oh, and of course, you have PROOF of that! Besides, you’re using a fallacious argument known as Tu Quoque, which negates any credibility you might have.

Yes, it’s status quo. And I think it’s pretty weak the play the “he promised to change washington” line. He never specifically said he wouldn’t engage of something like this.

So you’re making excuses for Obama by praising his technique of being unclear his entire campaign? How proud you must be.

The whole “messiah” thing was created by the right wing, and now they’re claiming he must be perfect to live up to that image. It’s BS.

No, it was created by Louis Farrakhan. Fact check much? I’ll wait for you to supply proof that the right wing did, in fact, create the ‘messiah’ meme. Obama himself stated that the oceans would stop rising when he was elected. Sounds messianic to me. Your deflection is nothing short of sophomoric.

This is yet another example of a small story made bigger because of a overblown right-wing freak out.

I can tell you’re typing fast and angry because your spelling and grammar suffers.

If it’s so serious, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate your opinion of Reagan.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 1:24 PM

I’d love to see some proof that Reagan did this.

fossten on June 3, 2010 at 1:43 PM

Why is no one talking about how Reagan did the same thing in 1981? This sort of thing was never considered illegal before Obama. The law does not specifically state that offering a job is prohibited. No one ever thought it was before.

Magically, when Obama does it, the right screams that it’s illegal.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 1:15 PM

People are talking about it:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2010/06/from-the-fact-check-desk-did-reagan-offer-a-senator-a-job-if-he-agreed-to-not-run-for-reelection-in-.html

If it were thirty years ago, I would expect that to have received some careful scrutiny…I would say, esp. because, from what I understand, Reagan’s daughter was involved, so there were some potentially high profile politics there.

As it stands, though, I’m glad the current situation is receiving the scrutiny it is receiving, but you seem to be acting somewhat inconsistent and defensive…maybe I’m mistaken, though, and you can clear things up?

I would ask you, if this is the status quo, then why the subterfuge, obfuscation and deceit, that seems to be so woefully rampant with this transparent administration? It’s odd that the question would even be raised to begin with — if the practice is as common as you suggest — and even on the off-chance it had been raised, why not just have Gibbs offer a “yea, what of it?” type response, if it’s no big deal.

Also, I’m curious why did you picked a 30 year old annecdote to prove your point of status quo behavior? Are you trying to establish a basis for ignorning this now by drudging up an example from 30 years ago? That seems like a peculiar argument.

BlueCollarAstronaut on June 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM

The answer is that it was GOP members who did it, not Reagan. Fact checking is not your strong suit, apparently, and your arguments are logically fallacious.

Boy, are you dumb.

I’d love to see some proof that Reagan did this.

See link above.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM

This is either a nation of LAWS or it is not. If Obama admin broke the law they need to be held accountable. In fact considering that the Obama admin is the countries top law office they should be held to a higher account than everyone else. they should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

the federal gov is not the law, they are not above the law. This is a prime example of limited government.

unseen on June 3, 2010 at 2:08 PM

BlueCollarAstronaut on June 3, 2010 at 1:54 PM

My point is that this kind of thing was not a big deal until Obama did it and Republicans FREAKED OUT over it even though their patron saint did the same exact thing and no one freaked out about it when he did it.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM

I wonder if chicken-brain Gibbs could tell us how much Zero paid Harvard to hide his grades and how much Zero paid Hawaiian officials to hide his long form birth certificate?

viking01 on June 3, 2010 at 2:16 PM

Truth must be getting too close for comfort because I see one of Obama’s useful idiots is already busy trying to pimp the “they all do it” excuse.

viking01 on June 3, 2010 at 2:22 PM

My point is that this kind of thing was not a big deal until Obama did it and Republicans FREAKED OUT over it even though their patron saint did the same exact thing and no one freaked out about it when he did it.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Your point is still pathetic and moot considering that it’s still against the law and your boy just broke said law.

Tu quoque does nothing for your argument.

fossten on June 3, 2010 at 2:23 PM

Boy, are you dumb.

See link above.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 2:07 PM

Hayakawa said in a statement, “I have not contacted the White House in regard to any administration or ambassadorial post, and they have not been in contact with me.”

FAIL.

fossten on June 3, 2010 at 2:26 PM

My point is that this kind of thing was not a big deal until Obama did it and Republicans FREAKED OUT over it even though their patron saint did the same exact thing and no one freaked out about it when he did it.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM

Well, Tom, that’s not really a valid argument. If you think the issue is a non-starter, you’re definitely entitled to think that, but all you’re doing here is making speculative ad homimens. You’re basically arguing that the issue is a non-starter because Republicans are hypocrites (which you really don’t establish by simply asserting that they’re suddenly “FREAK[ING] OUT”)…both of those statement may (or may not) be true, but they’re not really logically linked, and their truth is independent of each other.

I don’t know that I was very clear, but my questions were trying to illustrate the reason that (aside from being fallacious to begin with), your argument is refuted by the connotations of your annecdote. If the practice is so common, why must you dig up an example from 30 years back, and if the practice is such an innocuous one, the how are people even able to dig up an example from 30 years back?

IOW, it sounds like what’s being presented is that it’s such a forgettable, and excusable practice, that Democrats have been storing this little gem from the Republican “patron saint” in the back of their minds for the past 30 years for just such an occassion. That doesn’t seem to add up.

BlueCollarAstronaut on June 3, 2010 at 3:00 PM

This whole shabby episode is starting to make Watergate look good.
Slow drip from Gibbs does not help.Where is deep throat when we need him?

Col.John Wm. Reed on June 3, 2010 at 3:15 PM

My point is that this kind of thing was not a big deal until Obama did it and Republicans FREAKED OUT over it even though their patron saint did the same exact thing and no one freaked out about it when he did it.

Tom_Shipley on June 3, 2010 at 2:10 PM

So?

(I’ve waited years for an appropriate place to try a liberal argument tacatic….but it’s not nearly as fun as using facts)

BobMbx on June 3, 2010 at 3:24 PM

Anyone who thought the Obama campaign was about “grassroots empowerment” must have been reading their brochures. It was mainly about playing the Democratic primary system in the caucus states to amass an overwhelming advantage in delegate count (the McGovern plan from 1972, just after his commission “reformed” the rules) despite losing the overall popular vote. Then it was about collecting huge amounts of campaign cash and not asking where it came from, and finally relying on a compliant media too busy high-fiving each other (“Can you believe it? A black guy, how cool is that!!?”) to ask any questions about his qualifications, if any.

Adjoran on June 3, 2010 at 5:21 PM

My take on this blog is that it’s really very mainstream GOP, and it’s taking a beating right now.

With good reason.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Is this an opinion? Is it too much to ask that you expand on you reasoning? I could write “the moon is really cheese” With out any more information it stands as well as you statement.

IowaWoman on June 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM

you-your

IowaWoman on June 3, 2010 at 5:59 PM

My take on this blog is that it’s really very mainstream GOP, and it’s taking a beating right now.

With good reason.

AnninCA on June 3, 2010 at 12:57 PM

Why are you still here? My God you are tiresome!

AsianGirlInTights on June 3, 2010 at 1:18 PM

My sentiments exactly….I thought she had probably changed names by now….

theaddora on June 4, 2010 at 8:24 AM

Are you kidding me? Some of you commenters are crazy. How many times does Allah have to post the law? IT IS ILLEGAL. What Ed & AP agree on is, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ILLEGAL, no one is going to prosecute this OR should prosecute this. Fine. They have every right to believe that even though certain LAWS are BROKEN people should look the other way. That this is good for America and makes us and our Government better do so. I also have a right to vehemently disagree with this meme.

What is breathtaking to me is how very little of you SO-CALLED Republicans act like the ELEPHANT in the room. You know what elephant’s are known for? LONG MEMORIES.

Any of you remember Kevin Johnson and the Special Prosecutor? Remember Americorp? Remember Acorn? You start conceding stuff then they’ll walk right through you. You are, I’d like to use a more vulger term but I won’t, “SISSYS” with no spines.

Think about it. Clinton held off because people said the economy was good and it was ‘old news’ or, in the case of Hillary firing people, ‘business as usual’, except THEY didn’t allow ‘business as usual” with Estrada nomination or Bush ‘firing’ lawyers. But what the heck, this is ‘business as usual’ for DEMOCRATS! Republicans don’t MIND that. They like it and expect them to do it and get away with it. They’ll ACTUALLY sit in their hands JUST to do it!

Then there is the Media Control of News Stories. Which should make you realize things are ALWAYS worse than they seem in these incidences. Go look at the polling data over CLINTON’S IMPEACHMENT. See how many people WANTED impeachment during the trials in Congress while media controlled the story that ‘everyone does it’ AND ‘it’s's business as usual’. Then look at the polling after Clinton LEFT OFFICE and the public FIGURED OUT the TRUTH! Now THAT’S the point of why conceding things so QUICKLY is plain stupidity.

This Administration is gonna make Nixon’s & Clinton’s look like Good Samaritans. The difference between conceding business as usual is the difference between whether Special Prosecutors get to stay at their jobs long enough to get the goods. I don’t know about you but if this is the tip of the iceberg I wanna know what’s under the water. AND I’d rather found out know instead of 2 years from now when the clean up from it will make this oil spill look easy.

Sultry Beauty on June 4, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Oh and this is also why guys like O’Keefe and the girl who does undercover at Family Planning are so special AND shocking to you all. The undercover investigator is usually a DEMOCRAT working for CBS going after EVIL CORPORATIONS. Conservatives can’t be bothered with investigating. They’re always leaving it up to others. I used to think AP was more like O’Keefe back around 2003-2004. He must have had his wiretape incident. I just hope O’Keefe doesn’t turn into Eeyore.

Sultry Beauty on June 4, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Comment pages: 1 2