EXPLOSIVE: IS WHITE HOUSE BRIBING CANDIDATES TO DROP OUT?

At some point, this saga has got to play out in the form of Republican talking points this election year. There is strong evidence that two candidates for political office - one former and one current - were offered jobs in the Obama administration in return for dropping out of their respective races. One of them, Joe Sestak, who is running against Democrat Senator Arlen Specter in the Pennsylvania primary didn't take the gig and is making the claim strongly and publicly.

When these instances are lumped in with the Louisiana Purchase, the Cornhusker Kickback, and Gator-Aid - not to mention the Blago scandal - we have quite the Chicago-style trend going on. The central question involves the degree and blatancy of its illegality.

Courtesy of the American Spectator:

For the second time in five months, the Obama White House is being accused -- by Democrats -- of offering high ranking government jobs in return for political favors. What no one is reporting is that this is a violation of federal law that can lead to prison time, a fine or both, according to Title 18, Chapter 11, Section 211 of the United States Code.

The jobs in question? Secretary of the Navy and a position within the U.S. Agency for International Development.

The favor requested in return? Withdrawal from Senate challenges to two sitting United States Senators, both Democrats supported by President Obama. The Senators are Arlen Specter in Pennsylvania and Michael Bennet in Colorado.

Interestingly, Joe Sestak is coming forward about being asked to drop out of his race with Specter and Andrew Romanoff is not commenting one way or the other about being approached, though he did drop out of his race as well.

Sestak is standing by his story. Romanoff refused to discuss it with the Denver paper. In both instances the White House has denied the offers took place. The Sestak story in the Philadelphia Inquirer, reported by Thomas Fitzgerald, can be found here, While the Denver Post story, reported by Michael Riley, from September 27, 2009, can be read here.

Isn't it logical to ask what Sestak would have to gain by making such a claim if it weren't true? Similarly, why wouldn't Romanoff roundly deny such an accusation if it were slanderous? Someone is lying and with this president's track record, it should be obvious what is most likely.

Be sure to read it all, paying attention to the list of Watergate-like questions that the White House may have to answer.

American Spectator