I think today’s Jolt is among my best yet. Just one of its many offerings:

The Romanoff Lie-nasty
The Denver Post: “U.S. Senate candidate Andrew Romanoff acknowledged tonight that he discussed three possible jobs with the deputy chief of staff of the Obama administration — all contingent upon a decision by Romanoff not to challenge U.S. Sen. Michael Bennet.”
Allahpundit: “Not only does he name names — as the Denver Post originally reported, it was indeed deputy chief of staff Jim Messina who contacted him about dropping out — but he’s actually released Messina’s e-mail from last year describing the jobs they had in mind for him. The one key omission? Any acknowledgment by Romanoff that he himself lied to the Post when initially asked whether anyone had offered him a position.”
Melissa Clouthier: “The administration, and President Obama would like to escape being tagged for this overt action to buy the certain kind of political situation that will help him. This all may well be illegal. Will the press actually dig down and get an answer from either of these men? Doubtful, but this could be a slow drip on the Obama Presidency. In addition, will Sestak’s refusal to answer the questions about the job offer harm him politically? He certainly wants the issue to go away now that he’s won the primary.” Her reaction to the USAID Deputy Assistant Administrator for Latin America and Caribbean, USAID Office of Democracy and Governance Director or U.S. Trade and Development Agency Director: “These are PAID JOBS, no? That was the distinction the administration went through pains to avoid with the whole Sestak mess, right? So the paid part is the illegal part, if we’re parsing and not pretending to be in Chicago, right?”
Chicago? Forget it, Melissa, it’s Chinatown.
I hate to be such a cynic on this, but I am so far from surprised at allegations of using federal appointee positions as bargaining chips that the light from “surprised” takes several years to reach me. Appointing people to cushy federal jobs is a form of power, and you use that power to . . . expand your power and network of allies. This is all very Alinsky. Not only do I think this goes on regularly in the Obama White House and more openly than its predecessors, I think they laugh a bit at the current outcry that the executive branch is being used as a consolation prize every time the DSCC can’t persuade the locals that the incumbent’s done a swell job. Who the heck is going to investigate and punish them over bribery, Eric Holder? Heck, he probably got the Attorney General job in exchange for not backing Hillary and a couple of baseball cards.
Dan Riehl: “I think it’s safe to say, Obama is more interested in creating jobs for politicians he wants out of a race, than he is in creating private sector opportunities for hard working Americans. The economy be damned, it’s all government all the time with this bunch. Things won’t truly improve until we throw them and him out.”
Time’s Mark Halperin lays it out so clearly, even his fellow members of the MSM can’t ignore it: “This case seems potentially more serious than the Sestak matter for at least three reasons: the dangler was a government official and not a private citizen/intermediary; the jobs dangled were paid positions (unlike the unpaid advisory slot dangled to Sestak); and Romanoff is not obviously as qualified for these jobs as Sestak was for the position discussed with him.”
At Red State, James Richardson reminds us: “White House legal counsel say administration officials did not act improperly in the Sestak matter. But today’s revelation of White House electioneering manipulation is far more difficult to sweep under the rug. Federal statutes prohibit the exploitation of government-funded positions, appointments or contracts to advance partisan interests. 18 U.S.C. § 600 reads in full: ‘Whoever, directly or indirectly, promises any employment, position, compensation, contract, appointment, or other benefit, provided for or made possible in whole or part by any Act of Congress, or any special consideration in obtaining any such benefit, to any person as consideration, favor or reward for any political activity or for the support of or opposition to any candidate or any political party in connection with any general or special election to any political office, or in connection with any primary election or political convention or caucus held to select candidates for any political office, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.’”