Does anyone care that Tony Rezko was convicted today in Chicago on 16 of 24 counts of corruption? Besides Rod Blagojevich, 40th governor of Illinois (and probably the 30th corrupt one)?
Punch the link from the Chicago Tribune and tell me what you think.
8 comments:
I don't think Obama will get the scrunity from either the prosecutorial authorities or the media that someone like, say, Congressman Randy Cunningham got.
Obama has a long history of association with too many people of questionable character from his formative years to the present, including his wife, for voters not to be at least wary.
A hypothetical: Suppose Obama applied for a government job that required a fairly high security clearance. Would he pass a standard background investigation that is normally required to get such credentials? I certainly wouldn't bet the house on it.
I find it personally fascinating that the Democratic Party has chosen this obviously corrupt man as their star upon which to hitch for the future. Combine this past with questionable stands on issues, and you've got the set up for an interesting election, and an even more interesting presidency should he win the election. Is there enought "Chicago politics" in his past to bring him down? The bet here is yes, but all of that most likely won't come to roost until long after the elections.
The double standard is alive and well. It sure seemed like any Republican that happened to have been seen in the same city as Jack Abramoff was immediately suspected of corruption by the mainstream media and was challenged to prove their innocence.
The double standard is alive and well. If Obama was a white Republican he would more than likely at least be under investigation if not indictment for what appears to be a thinly camouflaged bribe via the way Rezco helped him acquire his palatial estate. Don't forget he had an association with this guy for nearly 20 years. It definitely doesn't pass the smell test.
At the very least it indicates that Obama is not a very good judge of character given how much he had missed in his assessment of Rezco, Wright, Pfleger, and several other shady characters.
- D
All,
I really don't want to play the moral equivalency game, so I will try to stick to the facts.
Right Hook,
Randy Cunningham is a self-confessed convicted felon. He sold a house worth 800,000 or 900,000 to a government defense contractor for 1.8 million in exchange for political/financial favors. He also lived for free in a yacht owned by the same contractor. Once the Feds in Bush's Justice Department found out he was living rent free in the contractor's yacht, the case practically wrote itself. So trying to portray Cunningham as a victim, or pretending he got caught because of undue scrutiny seems a little far fetched.
Daria,
Ditto Jack Abramoff. He was a GOP operative of the highest order, and one of the most high profile K Street lobbyists in Washington. Crimes have been uncovered, and multiple people have, in fact, been implicated and convicted. And as far as I know, they have ALL been Republicans. Is George Bush forcing the DOJ to only go after the Republicans who got dirty with Abramoff, and not the Dems? One of the things he was notable for was his partisanship. He barely spoke with Democrats, but operated at the highest levels in the GOP, even getting to personally write laws.
As for scrutiny regarding Obama/Rezko, you guys must not live in or read Chicago newspapers, because this is one of the biggest stories in this city. The Rezko conviction has brought on one of our favorite past-times in Illinois: An indictment watch. And Obama's interactions with Rezko have been poured over. So, while you are correct to say that Obama showed a lack of judgement in his dealings with Rezko, no one expects an Obama indictment, but we are expecting a Blagoevich indictment any day. And the reason you hardly have a smoking gun on Obama is that the case has been vetted by the Feds, and there wasn't much to it.
Obama wanted to purchase his wife's dream home in Hyde Park, but the owner wanted to sell the home and an adjoining lot as a package and wouldn't break it up. After several months of continued interest in the house, during which Obama's interest in the property was brought to Rezko's attention, Obama bought the house for $1.65 million ($300,000 below the original asking price, but the highest of 2 serious bids that the owner had entertained), and Rezko's wife Rita, a realestate developer, purchased the adjoining lot from the seller for the full price of 625,000. Investigators were able to corraborate that the reason Rezko's wife paid full price for the second lot was that Rezko's bid was matched by another offer, also of $625,000. This description of the purchase was all confirmed by the previous owner of the house.
A year after the original purchase, Obama purchased an additional 10 foot wide strip of the Rezko's property for $105,000, which was $60,000 above the assessed value, but admittedly, still a little rum because it made the Rezko property less attractive for development, hence the 60,000 markup. Obama has acknowledged that the exchange created the appearance of impropriety, and considers it to be a mistake on his part. In December of 2006, the Rezkos sold the remaining property for $575,000, which, when combined with the $104,500 sale to the Obamas, amounted to a net profit of $54,500 over the purchase price. So Mrs. Rezko made out a little bit better than the defense contractor who sold Duke Cunningham's home at about a 1 million dollar loss.
As I stated earlier, I don't want to play the moral equivalency game. Obama made a bad judgement call, but it doesn't appear that he committed a felony, and an examination of the details of this case, especially in contrast to the Cunningham case, proves that out. Sounds to me like he made a bad call on about the same level as McCain's involvement in the Keating 5 scandal. No felonies were committed, but it certainly didn't smell too good and he should have known better.
Also, regarding the Abramoff scandal vs. the Rezko scandal, these are apples and oranges. As previously noted, Abramoff only worked with GOP operatives, where as Rezko worked both sides of the aisle. Rezko has raised funds for both Democrats and Republicans. While Rezko's greatest benefactor has been Gov. Blagojevich, he has also contributed to or fund-raised for Dem Controller Dan Hynes, Dem Attorney General Lisa Madigan, Dem Lieutenant Governor Pat Quinn, Dem Chicago Mayors Daley and Washington, Dem Cook County Board President John Stroger, Repub Governors Jim Edgar and George Ryan, Repub Rosemont Mayor Don Stephens and Repub President George W. Bush in 2003. He is a very different animal than Abramoff.
Finally, let's talk about some of the groundless claims made here: Right Hook, you cast aspersions on Mrs. Obama's character. Upon what is that based? Her 'Proud of My Country' comment? Is that a 'character' issue, or a bad judgement call, or a comment taken out of context? It's not like she dumped her physically impaired husband for a millionaire 20 years his junior or something. And Anonymous, you say Obama is an 'obviously corrupt man.' Upon what do you base that. Has he been convicted of or even charged with a crime? Has he been been credibly accused of something morally outrageous? These are pretty serious claims and shouldn't be thrown around lightly. I understand that this is how smearing works, but I can call BS on someone. If I am wrong, please let me know, but please back up your charges with something substantive.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
If you want to call bullshit on RH, Daria, etc., I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with you accusing them of smearing your guy in the same comment where you say "It's not like she dumped her physically impaired husband for a millionaire 20 years his junior or something." You'll have a lot more credibility if you dispense with that sort of thing. Okay?
And as far as what was said, look at it again. RH said "Obama has a long history of association with too many people of questionable character from his formative years to the present, including his wife, for voters not to be at least wary." RH is certainly entitled to call Mrs. Obama questionable. He may be wrong, but he can do that. And on the matter of his association with Rezko, there's no question about that RH is on exceptionally solid ground. The point is pretty simple, Rich -- Obama is marketing himself as a new kind of politician. I would have thought that a new kind of politician wouldn't be hanging around with the likes of Tony Rezko. Right?
And Daria isn't wrong, either. I will stipulate (and I would imagine that Daria would stipulate to this as well, although I won't speak for her) that there were Republican congressmen who were corrupt. Bob Ney in Ohio is the one example that immediately springs to mind, although I could probably come up with a dozen more with one Google search. I would note that Bob Ney isn't running for president. Obama is.
You are hearing a lot about Rezko in Chicago, but here in the Twin Cities any articles at all about Rezko have run on about Page 17A of the local papers. It is not on the radar screen nationally. It should be. Which was my point in posting this in the first place. Obama deserves a lot more scrutiny on a national level than he is getting now, or is likely to get. If I could get Carol Marin to run the news division at one of the major networks, it would be different. But that's not going to happen.
For the record, I was not claiming Cunningham to be a victim. He got what he deserved. I was more in tune with Mark's comment that the coverage in the press on anyone even remotely linked to Abramoff was page one material. Obama's real estate deal was "cozy" to say the least. I can't prove it, but I sense that a Republican in the same situation would have been ridden much harder by the mainstream media.
I stand by my assessment of Obama's association with many people of questionable character (e.g. Frank Marshall Davis, David Axelrod, Reverend Wright, etc.). I predict that Obama is in for some tough questions down the road by the Conservative media, though McCain probably doesn't have the stomach for it.
Michelle Obama, in addition to her famous "proud of her country quote" has appeared in forums with the likes of Louis Farakhan's wife preaching radical "black liberation theology". It's been reported by a media source on "The War Room" radio program who has a very good track record on such matters that video exists where she gets into some pretty intense denounciation of "whitey". The source, who is apparently a congressional aid to a Democrat, assured host Jim Quinn that he saw some of the video in a presentation Bill Clinton gave to some super delegates which included his boss.
I can't help but think that this will become public at a time close to the convention. Admittedly it's hearsay as of now, but this source has been dead-on right on most things for a long time and I would hesitate to bet against him. We shall see.
Michelle Obama also sat in Reverend Wright's congregation for 20 years along with Obama and apparently did not sense anything wrong.
Mark,
the victimology of the right is really becoming quite amusing. Fox news is the #1 news channel in the nation, the WSJ is the #1 newspaper, you guys own the radio waves and are competive on the internet. Big Business has your back, and you've controlled all three branches of government for 4 of the last 6 years, and 2 out of three branches for most of the last 40 years. At what point does the chip come off your collective shoulder? Man, was Richard Hofstadter ever right.
And of course, everyone here is entitled to their opinions. I merely pointed out that when you denigrate someones character, especially when that person is being attacked for being a relative of the object of your derision, it should be backed up with a little more than hearsay and innuendo. I slammed McCain, but I didn't say anything that Nancy Reagan, Ross Perot, and old friends of the McCain's haven't said. And I attacked McCain, not his spouse. Moreover, McCain also holds himself up as a maverick, a man of character and integrity, and a different kind of politician, so isn't it fair to point out something that seems to conflict with that image?
Right Hook,
Thank you. You just proved my point. I thought you might be thinking of the Michelle Obama 'whitey' urban myth when you impuned her character. you can't be serious about this. Even a whack job like Michelle Malkin is debunking the Michelle Obama rumors:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/06/03/where-is-the-purported-michelle-obama-whitey-video/
This story was started by fanatical Hillary supporter/blogger Larry Johnson last month, and NO ONE can come up with any evidence of Michelle Obama having said anything like this, or even of her having been on a panel with Farrakhan. It now appears that Johnson has been spreading misinformation in a last ditch attempt to help HRC.
Here's the timeline:
Johnson starts getting attention for this story on May 26, recounting intel from "someone in touch with a senior Republican." Johnson states on his blog,
"I know for a fact that Barack and Michelle Obama would like the tape of her blasting “whitey” during a rant at Jeremiah Wright’s church to never see the light of day."
On May 31, Johnson fires up the speculation by promising an update by 9 a.m. on June 2. "Now I know why people who have seen the videotape say it is stunning." Immediately, right-wing blogs and talk radio start spinning. Rush and Hannity start implying, Roger Stone appears on Fox News on June 1st and says he's heard rumors about a Michelle Obama tape. The Right wing immediately claim that Stone has given Johnson's story "new credence," etc. Now, the story has legs.
On June 2, Johnson reveals his 'smoking gun'. He says he KNOWS OF "five separate sources who have spoken directly with people who have seen the tape."
and that it features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes intemperate remarks about whitey!
The right-wing noise machine kicks into high gear. A few possible "transcripts" of the speech start making the rounds.
On June 3, Democratic pundit and HRC supporter Bob Beckel goes on Fox News and speculates that "there might be a big shoe dropping on Michelle Obama tomorrow." and a photo of Michelle Obama at a June 28, 2004 luncheon from the Rainbow/PUSH Coalition convention in Chicago, posing with 7 other women. Among them, several other wives of Illinois state office holders, Louis Farrakhan's wife, and Iraq War POW Shoshanna Johnson. It kicks off another wave of speculation.
On June 4, a blogger at "HillBuzz" posts a new explanation of what's on the tape and claims it was actually recorded at this luncheon. Hillbuzz claims that "For about 30 minutes, Michelle Obama launched into a rant about the evils of America, and how America is to blame for the problems of Africa. Michelle personally blamed President Clinton for the deaths of millions of Africans and said America is responsible for the genocide of the Tutsis and other ethnic groups. She then launched into an attack on "whitey", and talked about solutions to black on black crime in the realm of diverting those actions onto white America. Her rant was fueled by the crowd: they reacted strongly to what she said, so she got more passionate and enraged, and that's when she completely loses it and says things that have made the mouths drop of everyone who's seen this."
On June 5th, arch conservative blogger Jim Geraghty of the National Review Online starts calling BS on the HRC supporters and right-wing pundits perpetuating this story. He finds the schedule of the Rainbow/PUSH event and notes that nothing is adding up: First, the event was held at a Sheraton 14 miles away from Trinity United, yet Hillbuzz claims that Trinity United hosted the event on site and was selling a tape of this on the church web site. Second, Geraghty notes that Bill Clinton spoke at the conclusion of the conference, days after this event, so the notion of Mrs. Obama raging against Clinton at the event seems suspect. Third, Obama wasn't even a speaker at luncheon: Rev. Jesse Jackson was. Michelle Obama was, along with freed POW Shoshanna Johnson, a "special guest." Lastly, there was no panel, so it seems strange that a state senator's wife would give a 30-minute speech during a 2-hour luncheon at which she wasn't even a speaker.
Later in the day on June 5, Larry Johnson whines that pro-Obama bloggers are causing a "diversion." Johnson now states that that a tape exists of Michelle Obama in a racist rant while part of a panel discussion, but now, he no longer knows where this occurred.
Until someone comes out with a video tape that shows at least one of the many rumored "Michelle speeches," I think ve've heard enough from Larry Johnson, Shaun Hannity, Rush, Hilbuzz, etc. This story is total crap. And if you are willing to apply a modicum of objectivity, you will see that.
On a final note, I've spoken separately to two African American friends of mine who are both well educated and well informed. They both dismissed this story, actually laughed it off, based on the grounds that no politically astute and well educated African American would ever use the term 'whitey' in public or private discourse. It would be incredibly embarassing. A social misstep of the highest order.
Regards,
Rich
Rich,
Spare me the Richard Hofstader - that cuts both ways and you know that. There's at least as much paranoia on the port side as the starboard.
Pointing out the bias of the MSM is not engaging in victimology. I'm guessing you've seen the recent polling that Rasmussen did - people understand that the MSM is in the bag for Obama. That doesn't mean McCain is a victim, or that I am, or RH, or anyone else. It just means that Republicans generally have to work extra hard to get their message out, especially someone like McCain who is hardly universally beloved on the Right.
And you know what? If Nancy Reagan, Ross Perot et al. said those things about McCain, they were wrong to do so. If they were posting stuff like that on my forum, I'd call bullshit on them, too. Perhaps I wasn't explicit enough about it last time. I don't want it here. Okay?
Post a Comment