« Why the Houses Matter | Main | Do You Want More? »

August 22, 2008

Comments

The problem with this is that McCain was more or less cleared of wrong doing in the Keating scandal by the ethics committee. Then again, no one has offered much in the way of evidence of wrong doing by Obama in Rezko.

Does anybody have a list of addresses of the McCain and Obama properties? I think a zillow of the localities involved would be enlightening.

Maybe even peek at the property taxes....

here's a Google Earth tour of his houses.

Well Davebo, you offered your own rejoinder.

Obama was never even SUGGESTED to have done anything wrong with Rezko. It is all insinuations based on the fact Rezko was later involved in other shady stuff.

MCCAIN himself acknowledged what happened with Keating was wrong even if he ended up escaping punishments (partly because he ratted the others out from what I understand)

What Ben said.

McCain admitted he was wrong. Obama has done nothing wrong.

Follow up: Rezko has all the oomph of Whitewater

Follow up: Rezko has all the oomph of Whitewater

I'm sure given a challenge like that that the New York Times can run up a scandal from whole cloth the same way it did for Whitewater.

Jeff Gerth, a nation turns its lonely eyes to you. Sack up, Timesmen, and Timeswomen, it's Pulitzer time!

How can you say Obama did nothing wrong?

Rezko helped Obama buy his mansion, didn't he? We know that without this help Obama could not have met the purchase price of the house he wanted.

Are you sure there is nothing wrong with a politician accepting help from a convicted felon in order to buy a home?

I think this problem should not be dismissed out of hand. If nothing else it reflects the kind of mistaken judgement Obama has in his choice of people he relies upon.

We know that without this help Obama could not have met the purchase price of the house he wanted.

We do not know that. Do you have a cite?

Ken -- and so?

We already knew Obama associated with Rezko. Just like most of us have some friend or relation who ended up in prison over something. And we're not politicians looking for money from wealthy backers in slum neighborhoods - at that point, the odds that someone you know is going to turn out to be a little dirty go up to about 100%. The question has always been, did Obama do anything wrong? The answer is, no.

The danger in a politician accepting favors is that they may actually be bribes. Here, though, the "quid pro quo" was the deal itself. Obama did not take money from Rezko. He and Rezko participated in a three-way real estate deal in which everyone profited. The seller got a good price for his house, lower than his opening bid but higher than Obama's first two bids. Rezko, who is after all in the real estate business, got a nice piece of land to develop - he wasn't the only bidder for that lot. Obama got a good house at a fair price. No further quid pro quo needed or found.

If I buy a car from a guy who turns out to run a chop shop on the side, that doesn't make me a crook. Same here.

BTW, Obama's "mansion" is a six-bedroom home in the city. It's a nice place, and far beyond my own modest means, but "mansion" is pushing it.

Also, your description of the deal is wrong. Obama didn't need Rezko's help to meet the purchase price of the house. He needed somebody to buy the lot before the owner would close the deal. The owner, reasonably enough, wanted to sell both parcels at the same time.

"Rezko has all the oomph of Whitewater"

Whitewater dogged the Clinton for years.

"Rezko has all the oomph of Whitewater"

Whitewater dogged the Clintons for years.

Whitewater dogged the Clintons for years.

Unfortunately, this is very true. My hope this time around is based on a few things, but it is still just hope:

1. For reasons that I could never understand, the Clintons somehow enraged the press beyond comprehension. Maybe they both killed thousands of reporter children and then ate them and used mind control to cover it up. Whatever it was, the press went nuts. It seems like they don't have quite the same level of animosity to Obama. They still treat him unfairly but the visceral hatred doesn't seem to be there.

2. Rezko donated to both Republican and Democratic politicians.

3. Patrick Fitzgerald investigated the Rezko affair and failed to find anything related to Obama. I'm guessing that since the media treat him like a crazed Inspector Javert (he...made...people...testify! that monster! that animal! we are press! we don't have to testify...testimony is for the little people!), I'm hoping his failure to find anything will have some weight.

4. The local conservative papers in Chicago looked into the whole thing, found nothing, and published that.

That all makes me hopeful that Rezko won't matter much politically.

"Even assuming this Rezko thing has traction, why bring it up for the first time now?"

No one should be surprised the McCain campaign finally brought up Rezko.

Once the Obama camp decided to play ball in the tit-for-tat game, the McCain camp is going to fire back with whatever they've got. That's how it works.

Doesn't look pretty for either candidate, really.

No one should be surprised the McCain campaign finally brought up Rezko.

I think publius was surprised that McCain brought it up now, as opposed to waiting. By bringing it up now, it won't get a lot of play with the upcoming conventions, and later on, when McCain really needs it, the press will have tired of covering Rezko since that is old news ("we talked about that in late August and nothing new has happened!"). The point is, attacking because your feelings are hurt is dumb; you should attack when your attacks will be most effective, since you have a limited number of attacks to launch.

Taking into account Mr Obama's State legislative record, particularly his opposition to the live birth bill, should be enough for anyone to hold their nose as he passes by. He is obviously a staunch believer in killing innocent babies. It is my hope that the Main Stream Media Darling and 'NEW WORLD SAVIOUR' will end up in the historical dust bin of failed Presidential candidates along with the rest of the American Socialists, i.e. John Kerry and Al Gore.

"Are you sure there is nothing wrong with a politician accepting help from a convicted felon in order to buy a home?"

Can I borrow your time machine? I'd like to know who will, several years from now, be convicted of a felony, so I can make sure to have nothing to do with you.

So, yeah, without your time machine, I'm pretty sure, ya troll.

"I think this problem should not be dismissed out of hand."

Few McCainbots would.

Doesn't look pretty for either candidate, really.

It may not look pretty, but I think it looks better for Obama. I think the thing Obama has to do is create a state of mudslinging equilibrium. It is unfortunate, but a significant percentage of the voting public seems very much to feel that the only proper response to an ad hominem attack is an ad hominem rejoinder.

Anyway -- if you reach mud equilibrium, then other differences can start to emerge. This is where Obama's oratory, intellect, and superiority of policy have a chance to make a difference. That's certainly a hopeful scenario, but the alternative is to let the McCain attacks stand and that means something close to certain defeat.

"Are you sure there is nothing wrong with a politician accepting help from a convicted felon in order to buy a home?"

Putting aside that Rezko was not the purchaser of the lot adjoining the Obama home--his wife, Rita Rezko was--as well as the fact that Mr. Rezko had not then been convicted, what does ken think of an acknoweledged (but diverted) drug thief, whose money came from seling a mood-altering substance, buying so many homes for a politician that he loses count of them?

Eric said

Follow up: Rezko has all the oomph of Whitewater

I agree. But recall how that worked out...

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad