Monday, May 31, 2010

Non-scandal ensnares Romanoff in its non-clutches

In Sunday's Denver Post, Mike Littwin tries to tie Andrew Romanoff to Sestak-gate, or whatever the hell we're calling it.  The link is that Romanoff was allegedly offered a position in the Obama administration to keep him from running against Michael Bennet.  But Romanoff doesn't want to talk about it.  As Littwin says,
But Romanoff won't answer the question. And it's worse than that. According to Romanoff spokesman Roy Teicher, not only does Romanoff refuse to answer the question, he won't even say why he refuses to answer the question.
I suppose this is what happens when you run for office pledging transparency.  Basically, every reporter and critic out there suddenly thinks they're entitled to know everything about you, and if you decline, it's a) a cover-up; and b) a broken campaign promise.  Yes, I know, they say it's always the cover-up, not the crime, but if there's no actual crime, every denial of wrongdoing can be perceived as a cover-up.  Remember Whitewater?

So Littwin wants to know why Romanoff isn't saying anything about being offered a job.  Well, I'm just going to guess it has something to do with the fact that Romanoff a) went to law school; and b) remembers the Clinton impeachment.  The Republicans seem to think they've found a nut.  Should they end up in the majority, they'll definitely pursue impeachment.  Count on it.  And if that happens, Romanoff will be one of the first people subpoenaed.  And, of course, if you're forced to testify before a special prosecutor, the less you say, and the less you've said publicly before that, the better.

Update: So much for that theory.

No comments: