U.S. Senate See Full Big Line

(D) J. Hickenlooper*

(R) Somebody

80%

20%

Governor See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse

(D) Phil Weiser

(D) Jena Griswold

60%

60%

40%↓

Att. General See Full Big Line

(D) M. Dougherty

(D) Alexis King

(D) Brian Mason

40%

40%

30%

Sec. of State See Full Big Line

(D) George Stern

(D) A. Gonzalez

(R) Sheri Davis

40%

40%

30%

State Treasurer See Full Big Line

(D) Brianna Titone

(R) Kevin Grantham

(D) Jerry DiTullio

60%

30%

20%

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(D) Joe Neguse*

(R) Somebody

90%

2%

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

(R) Jeff Hurd*

(D) Somebody

80%

40%

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

(R) Lauren Boebert*

(D) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Jeff Crank*

(D) Somebody

80%

20%

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) B. Pettersen*

(R) Somebody

90%

10%

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

(R) Gabe Evans*

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(D) Joe Salazar

50%

40%

40%

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 04:33 AM UTC

Romanoff releases statement on alleged job offer

  • 31 Comments
  • by: RockyMtnModerate

( – promoted by Danny the Red (hair))

It’s being reported in most local and national news that Andrew Romanoff put out a statement detailing the timing of communications from the White House about possible jobs. Romanoff made clear there was not a promise of a job but the timing of what Romanoff says were his contacts with Jim Messina (Deputy White House Chief of Staff) make it pretty clear what the intent was. The call and email from the White House were before he formally announced according to Romanoff’s statement

Romanoff’s statement and the e-mail from Messina that it’s being reported he included with the statement follow the jump

I have received a large number of press inquiries concerning the role the White House is reported to have played in my decision to run for the U.S. Senate. I have declined comment because I did not want – and do not want – to politicize this matter.

A great deal of misinformation has filled the void in the meantime. That does not serve the public interest or any useful purpose.

Here are the facts:

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.

Mr. Messina also suggested three positions that might be available to me were I not pursuing the Senate race. He added that he could not guarantee my appointment to any of these positions. At no time was I promised a job, nor did I request Mr. Messina’s assistance in obtaining one.

Later that day, I received an email from Mr. Messina containing descriptions of three positions (e-mail attached). I left him a voicemail informing him that I would not change course.

I have not spoken with Mr. Messina, nor have I discussed this matter with anyone else in the White House, since then.

Text of the e-mail news is reporting Romanoff attached to the statement:

From: Messina, Jim (e-mail address redacted)

Date: Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:24 PM

Subject:

To: Romanoff, Andrew (e-mail address redacted)

Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean, USAID

As one of five geographic bureaus in the Agency and as a major contributor to the broader U.S. foreign policy objectives in the region, the Bureau for Latin America and Caribbean (LAC) promotes stable democracies, prosperous economies, secure borders, and cooperative neighbors in the Western Hemisphere. The LAC Bureau is taking a proactive approach to maximizing the impact of foreign assistance and continuing its efforts to transform and improve business operations that support Agency-wide reforms. In line with the new Foreign Assistance Framework, priorities include consolidating democracy, fostering growth through free trade and business opportunities, investing in people through education and health, and enhancing security by promoting alternatives to illegal drug cultivation. Additionally, the Bureau is implementing a number of highly visible programs in the Western Hemisphere, including support for the Dominican Republic-Central American Free Trade Agreement (DR-CAFTA); the Andean Counter-Narcotics Initiative; the Global Fund to Fight Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria; and the recommendations for the Presidential commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba.

This position reports to the Assistant Administrator for Latin America and the Caribbean. The position functions as advisor to the

Assistant Administrator, LAC. The position is responsible for oversight and general management of one or more LAC Bureau offices.

Director, Office of Democracy and Governance, USAID

The Director is the chief operations officer of the Office and a principal advisor to senior Bureau and USAID management in defining the scope and objectives of the Agency’s and the Administration’s initiatives to support democracy and foster good governance. Activities of the Director include oversight for all staffing and personnel functions in the Office, as well as oversight of technical officer recruitment, selection, and placement, and direct supervision of the senior democracy and governance advisors for the Agency. The Director provides program definition, design and oversight, and evaluation for USAID’s democracy and good governance programs and serves as a senior advisor in the administration for developing democracy and good governance program strategies. The Director supports democracy and good governance programs in all parts of the Agency and leads in the development of strategic approaches to democracy support and good governance.

The Director represents the Agency at the senior level with other U.S. Government departments and agencies, with senior officials of foreign governments, with senior political officials from host countries, and with senior officials of U.S. implementing organizations. This position reports to the Assistant Administrator for Democracy, Conflict and Human Rights (DCHA).

Director, U.S. Trade and Development Agency (USTDA)

USTDA was first created as part of USAID through the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and made independent in 1991. Their stated mission is to “advance economic development and U.S. commercial interests in developing and middle-income countries.” Unlike Ex-Im , OPIC and other international development agencies, USTDA does not directly finance exports and development. Instead, the agency seeks to achieve its mission by making small grants to fund feasibility studies, reverse trade missions, conferences, trainings, and other technical assistance programs that link U.S. companies to overseas development projects. With a budget of $55.2 million (FY 2010) and a staff of 78 professionals (48 full-time, 25 contractors and 5 foreign-service nationals), USTDA’s success is dependent on being able to seek out new opportunities, leverage its private and government relationships, and find development opportunities for both private business and larger federal foreign assistance/development agencies. A testament of USTDA’s success is its ratio of grant dollars spent versus dollars in exports created, which is nearly 1:35. This position requires Senate confirmation

Tweet
Share

Comments

31 thoughts on “Romanoff releases statement on alleged job offer”

  1. I’ve thought all along- ever since Sep – that this was only a story if AR was offered a good gig and turned it down.

    These sound like three great gigs.  

    As for the law- I’m not licensed to practice.

    Doesn’t sound illegal to me.

  2. .

    Any damage, if there is any, now accrues to the Bennet campaign.

    It sounds like Momma Obama was offering candy to the neighbor kid who was bullying her child.  Or tying a pork chop around Mikey’s neck so that the family dog would play with him.  

    This hints that Obama didn’t think Bennet stood much of a chance mano-a-mano against AR.  What’s up with that ?

    Do I believe the AR press release ?  Not completely.  These offered positions are insults, considering what is at stake.  Rahm Emmanuel, the guy who engineered this proposed deal, knows that as well as AR.  Either AR is lying about what was offered, or the offer was made in order to insult and infuriate AR.  Kinda business as usual for Rahm.  Now way AR could go for the deal.

    .

    1. No it doesn’t. It follows the philosophy Romanoff had when he was running the House. Primaries are divisive and expensive, so they’re best avoided.

      1. Romanoff’s statment made last night is much more unequivocal than “no comment.”

        Just sayin.’

        Though he should have done this days or weeks ago, I think he was concise and timely enough to get the gun pointed at someone else (Obama).

        1. aimed at his own feet?

          Some Colorado Democrats said Romanoff’s account ignores the fact the former Colorado House speaker had been seeking jobs at the same agency, elsewhere in the Obama administration, and in Denver for much of 2009.

          One Colorado Democratic leader said Romanoff had encouraged people to show his rГ©sumГ© to the State Department and USAID specifically, earlier in 2009.

          Romanoff frustrated many state Democratic leaders with half-hearted pursuits of public and private jobs while still flirting, over their objections, with a primary challenge of Bennet. Romanoff was also considered for the vacant Colorado secretary of state position in late 2009, and to be Gov. Bill Ritter’s lieutenant governor if Barbara O’Brien stepped down.

  3. Norm Ornstein basically nails it:

    Why am I struck and bemused? Because to any veteran of the political process, such offers are nearly routine across every administration. If what the Obama administration did was impeachable, then Rep. Issa might want to consider retroactive impeachment action against Ronald Reagan, whose White House directly suggested to S.I. Hayakawa that he would get an administration position if he would stay out of the Republican primary for Senate in California; or call for an investigation and special prosecutor of the Bush White House for discussing a Cabinet post with Democratic Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska to clear the field for their preferred Republican candidate Mike Johanns in 2006. At the same time, Issa might want to call for expulsion of his Senate colleague Judd Gregg, who insisted before he accepted the post of Commerce Secretary in the Obama administration that there be a guarantee that his successor, appointed by a Democratic governor, be a Republican.

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonath…

    1. I would agree. Sounds like Messyna was very careful to not be promising a job for Romanoff to get out and Romanoff was very careful not to suggest the White House did something criminal.

      1. Didn’t seem to be a need to be that careful because Romanoff was committed to running for Senator.  At least until he considered running to Governor.  But even then he was not reconsidering running to be elected to something.

  4. If it’s all true the way Romanoff spells it out, the words don’t add up to an offense under US law – they’re too vague and with just the right amount of disclaimer; Romanoff’s prior interest in administration jobs won’t strengthen the claim of Obama administration critics, either.

    This is, was, and will remain a witch hunt spurred on by Republicans and disgruntled supporters of campaigns Obama didn’t endorse.

  5. My question is .. WTF is Romanoff doing going out of his way to embarass the White House? Is spitting in the face of the Obama administration really how he thinks he can win the Primary? I am confused here.

    1. Maybe Romanoff decided with all of the articles and editorials he should just come out and set the record straight. Maybe Romanoff saw the White House start to leak it and didn’t want to get thrown under the bus by Rahm in their effort to help Bennet. Maybe he didn’t think there was anything to what happened other than typical Washington games but when the Denver Post makes it a daily story, he thought it was time to let all of the facts be known instead of letting speculation run wild.

      To suggest he was trying to embarrass the White House is a stretch to put it mildly. If that was his goal I don’t think he would have gone out of his way to point out that there was no promise of a job.

      2. This does come across as trying to state what occurred in a neutral way to kill the story. And Romanoff did have a legit worry that the Bennet campaign or Obama administration would try to spin it to their advantage.

    3. .

      obviously helps in the General.  

      If Colorado voters are allowed to choose their own Senator,

      a Senator for the rest of us,

      this will also help in the Primary.  

      .

        1. .

          That’s what Article 5 is for, after all.  

          But I can’t get worked up about it.  The corporations who own your party and the other flavor of your party at the national level also own the state parties.  Neither of the 2 avenues provided in Article 5 for Amendments can possibly work if there’s a hint that the influence of the oligarchs will be tempered.  

          Without campaign finance reform that breaks that insidious and ubiquitous control, that Amendment cannot pass.

          The US today is a centrally governed state like France, no longer a federalist system of national government.  The 10th Amendment is largely inoperative.  I know a lot of folks on this blog really, really believe that the state legislature is where the main action is.  I just don’t agree.

          .

  6. This strikes me as a small plus to Romanoff – he was offered alternatives and still decided to run. That goes to his theme of not letting the powers that be drive his decisions. But I think it’s a small boost at best.

    This also strikes me as a small negative to the Obama administration. Yes “everyone does it” but that doesn’t mean people have a positive view of it.

    As to Bennet, I think this leaves him out of it and so no impact there.

    1. I think that the not-so-small story about Romanoff contemplating dropping out to run for Governor when Ritter decided to retire conflicts slightly with that particular narrative, but overall I think you’re right. However, I think that overall this plays well for him.

  7. boyles who has been spearheading the story for weeks and is taking credit for its national exposure….likes barbara o’

    brien and is reporting that some members of ritter’s administration wanted to “throw her under the bus” and make romanoff the lt. gov.

    I have made many comments suggesting that o’brien should be offered a job in the Obama administration because her background is almost exclusively as a lobbyist on children and family services issues.  I opined that if o’brien were gone, romanoff could be offered position as lt. gov.  Let me make it perfectly clear, I am  not and have never been a member of the ritter administration nor held any office in the democratic party….quite the contrary…I vote.  I show up a lot for the democratic party get-togethers…mainly for the fights and free cookis.  

    And also to reiterate, again, why boyles is important….he controls 20 hours a week of morning drive time radio….he is part of a media loop which includes Fox News, and the national right wing blogasphere…..he links to caplis/silvlerman who link to Wadham and with silverman the Huffington Post….His unique ability is to stir up his audience and have them bombard elected officials with demands.  He creates momentum.

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!