On MSNBC’s Morning Joe, Joe Scarborough went toe-to-toe with NBC Political Director and Chief White House Correspondent Chuck Todd, who apparently sees nothing wrong with bribing a candidate to drop out of a political race.

Listening to Todd’s comments, it’s obvious he either doesn’t understand the seriousness of this charge, or he sees it as his job to defend the White House. You be the judge.

Allegations that the White House offered Joe Sestak a job in exchange for dropping out of the Pennsylvania Senate race echo an earlier report of a job offer to candidate Andrew Romanoff in Colorado, according to Newmax’s Jim Meyers.

On Sept. 27, 2009, the Denver Post reported that the Obama administration offered Senate candidate Romanoff a position if he canceled plans to run for the Democratic nomination against incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet.

The paper said the job offer, which specified particular jobs, reportedly was delivered by Jim Messina, Obama’s deputy chief of staff. One position the Post cited was a job at USAID, the foreign aid agency.

Messina contacted Romanoff soon after news leaked in August 2009 that Romanoff, former Colorado House speaker, would make a primary run against Bennet.

Romanoff turned down the offer and announced his candidacy. Obama then endorsed Bennet, who had been appointed in January 2009 to fill the seat vacated when Ken Salazar became secretary of the Interior.

But Romanoff trounced Bennet at last weekend’s Colorado Democratic assembly, winning the top line on the August primary ballot.

The White House denied that Romanoff had been offered a job.

“Mr. Romanoff was never offered a position within the administration,” said White House spokesman Adam Abrams.

Nevertheless, the Denver Post disclosures may have worked against Bennet.

“People in Colorado have an adverse reaction to the external forces coming down and telling them how to think,” said Colorado state Rep. Kathleen Curry, a Romanoff supporter.

And the Post observed: “The timing of Messina’s latest intervention sparked particular concern — because of the appearance that the administration was trying to buy off a nettlesome opponent, to some; to others, because the timing made the effort appear so ham-handed.”

Earlier in 2009, Colorado Democrats recommended Romanoff for a position in the administration, spokesman Abrams acknowledged. But he said that, although “there were some initial conversations, no job was ever offered.”

Observers are taking a fresh look at the Romanoff story amid ongoing controversy over Rep. Sestak’s claim that he was offered a position in the Obama administration in exchange for dropping his primary challenge to Sen. Arlen Specter.

Sestak said the offer came in July 2009, a month before he announced his candidacy.

Fellow Democrat Dick Durbin of Illinois, the Senate majority whip, has called on Sestak to say more about the job offer.

Republicans, meanwhile, are pressuring the White House to divulge details about the offer. Rep. Darrell Issa of California, the ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, has gone so far as to suggest a criminal probe in the matter.

Issa issued a statement saying: “For months, a United States congressman has stated that the White House offered him a job in exchange for not running in an election. We call this a bribe.

“Despite being asked numerous times, the White House has not refuted Congressman Sestak’s allegations, but refuses to disclose who offered what and when. So this administration, that pledged to be a beacon of transparency and change, continues to conceal from the American people the truth about what exactly was said and offered.

“Until we get direct answers, this White House doesn’t have a leg to stand on when they talk about openness and change.”

The White House continues to avoid discussing details on whether Democratic Rep. Joe Sestak was offered a job if he skipped the Pennsylvania Senate primary but spokesman Robert Gibbs said Sunday that lawyers reviewed conversations and found “nothing inappropriate.” 

“I’m not a lawyer. But lawyers in the White House and others have looked into conversations that were had with Congressman Sestak. And  nothing inappropriate happened,” Gibbs told CBS’ “Face the Nation.” 

“I’m not going to get further into what the conversations were. People that have looked into them assure me that they weren’t inappropriate in any way,” he said.

Sestak, a former Navy vice admiral who defeated Sen. Arlen Specter in the Democratic Senate primary last week, months ago said that the White House offered him a job to stay out of the race. 

Sestak refused to bow out then, and still refuses to say now what job was offered.

“I was offered a job. I answered that,” he said on NBC’s “Meet the Press. “Anybody else has to decide for themselves what to say upon their role. And that’s their responsibility.”

Gibbs said Republicans continue to “dredge this up” because Pat Toomey, the GOP nominee challenging Sestak is “already behind in a very important Senate race.” 

The latest Rasmussen Reports poll taken one day after Tuesday’s primary election showed Sestak leading Toomey 46-42 percent with 1 4.5 percent margin of error among 500 likely voters.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele said if Sestak were offered a job, it would behoove the White House to “either corroborate that or call him a liar.”

“Is it proper, ethical and legal for the White House to try to get a sitting member of Congress out of a race because they have other plans? I don’t know. The White House has to answer the question,” Steele said.

Mexican President Felipe Calderon took the unusual step Wednesday morning of criticizing an American law while visiting the White House, saying cooperation is needed to fix the US-Mexican immigration issue but “such laws as the Arizona law that is forcing our people to face discrimination. If we are divided, we cannot overcome these problems.”

In welcoming Mexico’s President Calderon to the White House today, President Obama told him “we are defined not by our borders, but by our bonds.”

The White House is launching a battle against childhood obesity, and DoDEA is helping lead the fight. Plus, defense leaders prepare for a tough road to take back Kandahar from the Taliban.

The White House has apparently drawn the line in the sand, with this message to the GOP: Filibuster healthcare reform and we’ll (the Democrats) proceed ahead without you and do this on our own through “reconciliation”.

That obviously raises the stakes as the Dems are basically daring the Republicans to try and block any healthcare reform.

White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said that no decision has been made on how to proceed, pending the outcome of the summit, but he did add that President Obama’s proposal is “designed to offer maximum flexibility to ensure that we can get an up or down vote if the opposition decides  to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform.”

That folks is codespeak for the Democraps moving on their own.

Speaking of the proposal, here’s some of the details, courtesy of The Plum Line:

• As expected, the plan has no public option — but this does not preclude a reconciliation vote on the public option later.
• The proposal boosts the threshold for the “Cadillac” tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500. That’s actually a better deal than some labor officials were expecting, though some House Dems will still be angry that the tax is being included at all.
• The proposal also preserves the Senate bill’s state-based exchanges, and does not have a national exchange, as the House bill did.
• However, House Dems will be cheered by the fact that Obama’s compromise closes the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap.
• Also, the bill nixes Ben Nelson’s Nebraska deal and boosts Federal financing for Medicaid expansion in all states.
• And finally, as expected, Obama’s proposal creates a Federal panel to monitor and block exorbitant rate hikes and other unfair practices by the insurance industry.

Pfeiffer further stated that the proposal in question was not an agreement between the House and Senate, but is “the President’s bill”.

So if I understand this correctly, the Democrats, including Obama, are telling the Republicans to either accept this proposal or else, with the else being reconciliation.

Assuming this is the case, then this is yet another “dog-and-pony” show, but with a twist. This is supposed to be on television, so I am betting that the Dems are betting that the GOP will not say no to this proposal in front of a potentially large TV viewing audience.

But what the Republicans have been doing and has been noted on the Internet and in news bits on cable TV can easily be done on television, as well.

In essence, this is that “trap” meeting that had been rumored for this summit. The Dems have the condescending mindset that the GOP and the American public doesn’t have a clue in terms of healthcare reform and that they know more.

I am of the hope that when this summit is televised on Thursday, the GOP puts their foot down and expose this proposal for what it really is: a derivative of old healthcare reform that the Democrats have tried to cram down our throats.

Thursday will be an interesting day indeed, and I hope that those of you who read the Republican Temple can find some time in your day to watch the summit. This will be your chance to watch the Dems in action.

This is the ultimate game of “Chicken”; someone will blink inevitably.

By the way, if you want to see the White House proposal, click here.

Jim sent this in:

In an obvious attempt to put a positive spin on an embarrassing development, President Barack Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder may flip-flop on their decision to hold the trials of terrorists — including alleged 9-11 terror attack mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed — in New York City, just blocks away from ‘ground zero.’

The White House began looking for places other than Manhattan to prosecute five terrorists currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba on Friday. News that the Obama Administration was backing down from its original trial plans was met with some relief by many family members who lost loved ones when two terrorist-commandeered planes flew into the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center.

More than a few security and law enforcement experts have said the prosecution of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and his four alleged co-conspirators would require a huge and costly security presence, with estimates as high as $275 million.

A Justice Department spokesman on Friday reported that Holder was considering other locations for the trials, including Newburgh, New York. The New York Times and Washington Post reported that the lower Manhattan federal courthouse was out of the running, citing unnamed administration officials.

After his vitriolic attacks on intelligence agents and his threats against an Arizona sheriff who enforces immigration laws, last year Holder surprised many when he decided the trials against five Guantanamo Bay detainees would be held in a civilian court in lower Manhattan. The rationale for transferring the case from the military courts to the civilian criminal justice system was in part to send a message to the world regarding the fairness of the U.S. justice system.

“When is the United States government going to stop trying to prove to foreigners who hate us that America is a good and just country? Hell, we have Americans who believe America is evil so why should foreigners feel differently,” said a former New York City police detective and US Marine intelligence officer.

“If the Obama White House wants to send a message to the world, they should call Western Union and stop these inane attempts at placating people who hate us no matter what,” said the decorated cop. “How many times does the USA have to prove it is a great and generous nation?”

While he never openly complained about the terror trials being held in his jurisdiction, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said in a press conference that he believed the trials were “unlikely” to be held in Manhattan or the other New York City boroughs.

The decision to flip-flop on the issue of the New York trials came after President Obama faced increased political pressure and polls showing his administration’s decision was unpopular with Americans.

With Obama trying to pass healthcare reform, reduce the unemployment rate, and bring down the national debt and deficit, many believe he’s decided to acquiesce on the issue of terror trials. Also, at first New York’s popular Mayor Michael Bloomberg supported the Obama-Holder decision, but after weeks of facing protests and pleas from the families of 9-11 victims, Bloomberg flip-flopped.

New York Governor David Paterson, who’s facing a tough re-election campaign of his own, has also criticized the decision to have the trials in Manhattan.

“We are worried about the effects of mass law enforcement on lower Manhattan, congestion, traffic, resources that have to be spent,” he told reporters.

In Washington, Republicans have voiced their opposition to having terrorists tried in civilian courts in New York. Several key Democrat lawmakers have voiced their own concerns over planned criminal trials for terrorists, with some such as Senator Diane Feinstein urging that the alleged September 11 plotters be tried in military tribunals instead.

According to Fox News, an official announcement on the status of the terrorism trial is expected on Monday.