What To Make Of The White House 'Job Offer' To Sestak

Ken Rudin writes in NPR What To Make Of The White House 'Job Offer' To Sestak.

I guess I don't understand the big deal. Part of offering an job from the administration is what position that person is giving up. When discussing Cabinet appointments it was a consideration what district a congressman or state a governor came from and for senators the part of the governor of the state since they might appoint a successor and that could change the balance in Congress. If someone is in a primary, isn't that just the same?

Even George Will on This Week didn't think it was an issue at all.

And yeah, this is completely different than the allegations against Rod Blagojevich who supposedly offered the senator position for money or other gain.

What does it even mean to say we'll give you this job if you drop out of an election? Offer the job and if they take it they drop out.

Now I read "Earlier today, according to ABC News' Jake Tapper, all seven Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder, calling for the appointment of a special prosecutor to investigate the matter. Their argument: that the job offer "would appear to violate federal criminal laws, including 18 U.S.C. 600, which prohibits promising a government position 'as consideration, favor, or reward for any political activity' or 'in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office.'"

There is of course this problem that Peter Baker writes in the New York Times. "Even if the conversations were perfectly legal, as the White House claims, the situation challenges President Obama’s efforts to present himself as a reformer who will fix a town of dirty politics. And the refusal to even discuss what was discussed does not advance the White House’s well-worn claim to being “the most transparent” in history."