This appears to be a story of poor judgement as Obama says, not anything illegal.

Sorta like hiring The Chicago Daley Machine's David Axelrod to run a positive campaign, lol!

But since ABC is now going to run with it after having sat on it for a year, we might as well discuss..... everyone else will.

This story has been around for a long time, discussed ad nauseam, and posted here on the DR at least couple of times.

ABC sitting on it for a year? I didn't see anything in the article about that. But since its already been in the MSM, it sure won't be any sort of scoop.

Sorry to see you're still going that direction, Corky.

What direction is that, San An?

Posting from ABC News a story that will no doubt be all over the MSM?

Sorry. I tried to hide it as long as I could....

-ABC sitting on it for a year?

They have known about it for at least as long as we have.

Corky - how could they have been "sitting" on something that has been out there for a long time. Its already been in the MSM and on the DR. Its about as ridiculous as posting an article about Norman Hsu.

I posted this yesterday on one of your threads. Maybe you didn't see it...

"Corky - on the other thread you mentioned your feelings about being called names for your support of Clinton. I know things got a little over-heated there for a while and if I am guilty of that I apologize. But you have to admit you got a little overly zealous at times as well.

Let's try to stick to supporting our candidates positively and not running the other one down. 'Cuz in the end we all have to come back together to support the nominee. Deal?"

I fail to see how regurgitating an old story like this supports your candidate so I guess you didn't accept my proposition.

Corky's big ABC "scoop": the story they've been "sitting on" for a year...

Just a cursory check shows the story was carried widely in the first half of '07. For example - Chicago Sun-Times, NewsMaxx, Media Watch, Real Clear Politics, Illinois GOP website, National GOP website AP, San Francisco Gate, Seattle Times, Chicago Sun Times, etc. etc. etc.

Oops - mentioned Sun-Times twice. Should have been WaPo.

I just think that this is going to be the MSM making up for the critisism of them about fawning over Obama.

Instead of looking at issues and records, they will revive this story big-time.

But they prolly always planned it this way.

CORKY

You're a shameless shill and have no credibility in my blogosphere.

Associated Press | June 25, 2007

NEW YORK --A Chicago lawyer linked to the public corruption scandal involving Barack Obama's controversial political patron planned to co-host a fundraiser Monday for Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Myron Cherry, a longtime Democratic fundraiser, appeared in a federal indictment against Antoin "Tony" Rezko, who faces extortion and fraud charges related to an Illinois public pension fund.


D'OH!

Don't ever worry about the Republicans slinging mud. There won't be any left after Hillary and Corky are done.

Yeah, AU, shoot the messenger, lol!


D'OH!

Told ya so.

D'OH!

Told ya so.

Posted by Corky

Told me what? That someone involved in your "gotcha" story on Obama has been raising money for Hillary? Right.

Ever heard of the Law of Unintended Consequences?

I glad no one ever judged me on the wide assortment of friends and acquaintances I've known over the years.

Corky -- do you work for the Clinton campaign?

"we might as well discuss..... everyone else will."
Corky

Little disingenuous ...
But then you get to repeat, and keep the story alive awhile longer...eh?

I don't know, since you are all whining so loudly, maybe the story has merit.

Lessee, who could I call to buy a piece of land for me, then sell it to me for less than they paid?

The reason this story is out again is that, "Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail."

Sorry, San An

I missed the date on your AP story.

I thought they were repeating the ABC story.

"Lessee, who could I call to buy a piece of land for me, then sell it to me for less than they paid?"

Now Corky, you wouldn't be makin' up stories now would you? 'Cuz it just doesn't say that anywhere in your article.

"Obama then expanded his property by buying a strip of the Rezko land for $104,5000, which the senator maintains was a fair market price."

A STRIP of the lot Rezko bought, not all of it.

I don't think it's real clear what happened, San An.

But I doubt Hil would want to see anyone persecuted for a bum land deal, lol.

You are right Corky, there is no way she wants to go down that road. It would be the biggest pot meet kettle ever.

The point, Brit-ney, is that she wasn't guilty of anything and likely neither is he.

The point, Brit-ney, is that she wasn't guilty of anything and likely neither is he.

LOL

Leave Brit-ney alone!

""Don't ever worry about the Republicans slinging mud. There won't be any left after Hillary and Corky are done.""

Exactly what is supposed to happen during the primaries. I would much prefer that any and all dirt come out on all the Dems before the nomination. Nothing would be worse than to have a story under wraps waiting for the nomination process to be over and allow the Republicans to bash our candidate with.
If this story is nothing then it will be yesterday's news by the time the Republicans try to use it if Barack gets the nomination.

"Then again, there is this...."

Never say die Corky. I'll give you that much.

Of course, that was actually one of the articles I referenced in my earlier post... information that has been in the MSM for months, about something that happened more than 8 years before Rezko got into hot water, and no quid pro quo established.

Guess you have become completely unable or unwilling to just positively support your candidate.

Hey, has anybody ever seen Corky and Bowa at the same time?

Obama's Achilles Heel?
A 8 BALL OF COCAINE


HIM AND BUSH CAN HAVE A PARTY TOGETHER

"Posted by judas"

Moron alert!

-Guess you have become completely unable or unwilling to just positively support your candidate.


You would prefer those articles being dropped like a nuclear bomb on the general elections voters, 90 percent of which have never heard this story at all, about a day before the election next fall?

Where's my "see no evil" pic of the three monkeys covering their eyes, ears, and mouths?


-Hey, has anybody ever seen Corky and Bowa at the same time?

We've never seen you and Gnubsy at the same time either, but I would never say anything like that about you.

Oops!

CORKY

I'm going to call you 'Shillary' from now on. That's only fair.

All I can say is that a person is known by their enemies, and I'll take that trade-off with you any day.

The Dem nominee needs to be fully vetted.

I suppose you would hire someone who is going to represent you, much less a President, without checking their references?

Are you Rudy Giuliani?

"We've never seen you and Gnubsy at the same time either, but I would never say anything like that about you.

Oops!

Posted by Corky"

With, of course, the main difference being that your recent behavior and posting tactics are quite similar to Bowa's whereas mine bear no resemblance whatever to Gnubsy's hate speech.

Oh well...

I suppose you would hire someone who is going to represent you, much less a President, without checking their references?

Posted by Corky

Huge LOL!!!

I guess Corky thinks he can fool everybody into thinking he posted this out of some altruistic motive to strengthen the party. Unfortunately, with GOTCHA blasting through in bright neon lights, his true motivation is obvious to all.

Old story.
Sad, but not unexpected tactic.

-You would prefer those articles being dropped like a nuclear bomb on the general elections voters, 90 percent of which have never heard this story at all, about a day before the election next fall?

Where's my "see no evil" pic of the three monkeys covering their eyes, ears, and mouths?

Oops again!

Hate repeating myself, but you did not respond to my point.

"You would prefer those articles being dropped like a nuclear bomb on the general elections voters, 90 percent of which have never heard this story at all, about a day before the election next fall?"

Can you back up your 90% contention? This story first appeared in the MSM over a year ago and has been out there in widespread coverage for nearly 8 months. Its not a secret to anybody and nobody is going to be blindsided by it the day before the election.

You put this out for one reason, and one reason only so you're not fooling anyone but maybe yourself.

And what have we learned? (Well, aside from the fact that one of the people listed in the indictment against Reznek continued to raise money for Hillary.)

We've learned that Corky has a penchant for posting negative things to convince people why they shouldn't vote for Obama instead of positive reasons why they should vote for Clinton.

There hasn't been "widespread coverage" all over the TV and the MSM, just a few articles.

OK, 85 percent.

Most voters are like in NH, late deciders. And most won't vote in primaries and won't even tune in until very late.

Sorry, but I don't want any surprises.

I heard this story quite awhile back on the radio while I was driving in my car. I think it was Rush that was discussing it. Seriously. This is old news!

"There hasn't been "widespread coverage" all over the TV and the MSM, just a few articles."

A few articles? Geez, I listed nearly a dozen from a cursory 2 minute search. It was quite prominent the middle of last year.

Well, maybe not to SOME people who thought this was a big new bombshell that ABC had been "sitting on" for a year. LMFAO!

Keep deluding yourself that you're doing the "noble" thing for the party.

PS: another 2 minutes found stories in USA Today, Judicial Watch, and the Chicago Trib, as well as segments on both NBC and CBS.

Care to keep trying?

CORKY

I just made another online donation to Obama's campaign. Couldn't do it in your name, but I did think of you as I clicked 'FINISH'.

He thanks you!

This is old news!

Why do people think that's an adequate defense to allegations of impropriety? Politicians should not buy houses they could not afford on their own with the help of other people.

I don't know yet how much Obama would have known about Rezko when he bought the home, but he surely was familiar with Rep. Duke Cunningham's legal troubles -- which were largely about getting a boat, house and other stuff from a defense contractor.

I like Obama, but the deal looks bad and deserves more scrutiny. No matter how old people think it is.

This is old news!

So was Rudy's the security detail for Judith story -- but look how much traction that got. If he loses Florida, that is likely the main reason that sunk his candidacy.

As RCADE said, the deal looks bad and deserves more scrutiny.

Not that I expect Oabama to get that kind of Rudy or even Hillary level scrutiny anytime soon -- most of the Press is way to busy fawning over him.

Rcade - the point is that this was presented as some new story ready to explode like a time bomb. It isn't. The story was widely publicized beginning over a year ago and has been investigated with no impropriety found. Even the state and national GOP floated it out there months ago and apparently found nothing they could sink their teeth into.

If something comes out that sheds new light and warrants further scrutiny, fine. Absent that, it is little more than a standard "gotcha" type ploy rehashing information already out there.

Why do people think that's an adequate defense to allegations of impropriety?

Easiest straw to grasp?

that is likely the main reason that sunk his candidacy.


No. Him being an idiot is what cost him his candidacy.

The story was widely publicized beginning over a year ago and has been investigated with no impropriety found.

really?

"Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. "

A 300K discount to a brand new US Senator -- hmmmm.

I am sure, If he was a Republican, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it

I am sure, If he was a Republican, you wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it

Posted by Bowa


Well for damn sure, no liberal would be talking about corruption or that senator being bought. I know for a fact we wouldn't hear a word about Abramoff or any of the other scandals...

They gave the same curtesy to Duke Cunningham so we have to allow them to let Obama get a pass too... right?

"A 300K discount to a brand new US Senator -- hmmmm."

Wow, a house that sold for 15% under asking price. Why that is completely unheard of anywhere in the real estate world.

What a moronic statement Bowa. Do you know what the market conditions were in that neighborhood at that time? Do you know what the house appraised for then? Do you know if it was overpriced to begin with?

So if you or I went to purchase a home with a $250,000 asking price and negotiated down to get it for $213,000 we should be investigated.

LMAO

As I've said before, if Obama can survive the Clinton political machine, he will be a better candidate in the general election. This is exactly the CHANGE Obama has been talking about. When are we going to lift the level of political discourse in this country from Swift-boating every person that gets in your way to discussing the issues and letting people decide who they want as President based on ideals!

It's obvious the powers that be have a stranglehold on the whole political process and we choose a president based on who the last man/woman standing is!

Rcade - the point is that this was presented as some new story ready to explode like a time bomb. It isn't. The story was widely publicized beginning over a year ago ...

Over a year ago, Obama wasn't a frontrunner for president. Also, stories don't always come out or catch the public's attention in a predictable timeline. Paul's newsletters were known to some liberal bloggers for six months to a year.

What a moronic statement Bowa. Do you know what the market conditions were in that neighborhood at that time? Do you know what the house appraised for then? Do you know if it was overpriced to begin with?

The only thing I KNOW is that if this story was titled: Kickback Suspect Helped Huckabee Buy Home... you would be screaming about corruption... you and every other lib here.

I'm an Obama supporter, but I think this looks bad. Probably won't make me switch to another candidate, but it still bothers me.

"Paul's newsletters were known to some liberal bloggers"

I cited a dozen different major publications, the GOP, and 2 television networks that covered the story. There were more. That's hardly limiting the information to a few bloggers.

Maybe it didn't capture the attention of the public at large, I don't know. I was certainly aware of it even though I was not particularly an Obama supporter at that time.

Nevertheless, unless there is new information forthcoming that changes the facts in evidence, what is the purpose of throwing out the same old stuff?

what is the purpose of throwing out the same old stuff?

Expose liberal hypocrisy?

PS to Rcade - the story BEGAN over a year ago, but reached its peak in midyear '07 with stories in almost every media outlet in the country.

"The only thing I KNOW is that if this story was titled: Kickback Suspect Helped Huckabee Buy Home..."

Yes, I know your MO Rob. Because someone else might do something, I am therefore free to abandon all sense of logic and reason.

The Cerberus boys - Rob, Bowa,and Corky.

SA, you're saying if a story broke that a Republican Legislator went throught some shady guy to buy a house saving $300K and then that man he went through ended up on trial, you wouldn't be yelling about corruption, and abramoff, and all the other scandals from the GOP regarding stories like this?

"SA, you're saying if a story broke that a Republican Legislator went throught some shady guy to buy a house saving $300K and then that man he went through ended up on trial, you wouldn't be yelling about corruption, and abramoff, and all the other scandals from the GOP regarding stories like this?"

#1 - This story didn't just break. Its been out there for a long time and nothing improper has been discovered. This article brings nothing new to the table, no new facts, no new light shed on old facts, nothing.

#2 - Under the same circumstances, NO, I would not have been yelling if it was a Republican.

#3 - Even if I did and you consider that wrong or hypocritical, how does that then justify you doing the same thing?

#4 - Are you actually saying that exposing what you consider to be liberal hypocrisy is worth whatever the cost, no matter the tactic, just as long as that result is accomplished?

""When are we going to lift the level of political discourse in this country from Swift-boating every person that gets in your way to discussing the issues and letting people decide who they want as President based on ideals!""

That will never happen. The power of the presidency is huge and the desire by the various political groups is so powerful that they will always, have always done whatever they think will achieve their goal. It is unfortunate but it is also reality.

San

A good majority of people in this country are just now beginning to pay attention to the upcoming election. So old news to you, maybe new news to somebody else.

This story is about 6 months old and nobody found anything wrong with it the first three times they tried to make a federal case of it.

I guess it's a matter of 'if as first you don't succeed......'

That may be true Made.

Nevertheless, I ask again, if no new information is forthcoming, no new light being shed on the circumstances, no refutation of existing, established facts, then what is the purpose of suddenly publishing the same old stuff again, other than to try to damage someone?

-if no new information is forthcoming

The new info according to ABC comes from financial disclosures from Rezko at his bail hearing.

Nevertheless, unless there is new information forthcoming that changes the facts in evidence, what is the purpose of throwing out the same old stuff?

This is the first time the Rezko home issue has been on the Retort's front page.

Nevertheless, I ask again, if no new information is forthcoming, no new light being shed on the circumstances, no refutation of existing, established facts, then what is the purpose of suddenly publishing the same old stuff again, other than to try to damage someone?

Posted by SanAntonioRogue

Don't get me wrong, it is an obvious attempt to damage Obama. Isn't that what politics is all about. Damage your opponent to make your candidate look better.

I don't know if there is any wrongdoing here or not, but after 3 million dollars of Scaife money and 70 million of taxpayer money, we found out there was no wrong doing in another famous land deal.

And it was too late by then, the damage was done.

Obama will need to address this and get it put to bed before he gets the nomination. Afterwards, it could be too late.

The Rethugs know all about this and will hold it back until they are ready to make it look illegal whether it is or not.

"This is the first time the Rezko home issue has been on the Retort's front page."

Not sure what that means.

I wasn't talking about the DR, but the publication of the article containing nothing new, in general.

What a moronic statement Bowa. Do you know what the market conditions were in that neighborhood at that time?

The article said, "when Obama purchased his home under market value". What part of "under market value" didn't you understand.

Also, not only did Obama get a $300,000 discount, but "Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time." And she paid full price -- $625,000.

Rezko pays full price for an empty lot. Obama gets $300,000 knocked off the price of his house.

So the amount of the "gift' the new US Senator, Barack Obama, got from "well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko" is almost $1 million dollars since Obama couldn't have gotten the house without Rezko purchasing the empty lot.

Or do you think that Rezko's wife just fell in love with the empty lot and have to have it so much that she needed to get it right then and pay full price for it?

LOL

Shortly after election to the Senate,

Sure didn't take too long after he got elected for Obama to get into a shady real estate deal, did it?

The next question becomes, what are the chances Sen Obama will be called to testify in Rezko's trial sometime this year, in the middle of a Presidential campaign?

Not sure what that means. I wasn't talking about the DR, but the publication of the article containing nothing new, in general.

Just looking at how I cover stuff like this here. I try to be even-handed, and sometimes give a scandal time to prove itself relevant. Paul and Obama get hammered this week; next week could be Huckabee and Edwards' turn.

from the NY Times article:

"Mr. Obama has portrayed Mr. Rezko as a one-time fund-raiser whom he had occasionally seen socially. But interviews with more than a dozen political and business associates suggest that the two men were closer than the senator has indicated."

On other words, Obama lied about their relationship.

Hmmmm.

"The article said, "when Obama purchased his home under market value". What part of "under market value" didn't you understand."

No it didn't. It said $300,000 under the ASKING price.

And yes, Mrs. Rezko paid asking price for the lot. But if you're not too lazy to read page 2, you'd know that the house had been on the market for a long time with no offers, and the vacant lot had a competitive bid on it.

"Or do you think that Rezko's wife just fell in love with the empty lot and have to have it so much that she needed to get it right then and pay full price for it?"

No, I expect she did it as a favor for the Obama's. She then divided the lot and sold them a strip of it for $104,000. I haven't seen for sure, but she probably resold the rest and recouped her investment.

Would you do that for a friend if you were able? Sure. And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, why do we assume something shady?

Nice try with the misquote, though.

If he loses Florida, that is likely the main reason that sunk his candidacy.

Bowa, it has nothing to do with crooked business partners, abortion/gay rights positions anathematic (?)to the GOP base,lying about experience and campaigning on the one thing he doesn't have-foreign policy experience?
Or the whole sleeziness of "noun-verb-9-11"?

Nice try with the misquote, though.

San, I pulled the quote from the summary at the top of the thread.

Would you do that for a friend if you were able? Sure.

I'm not a US Senator, and I don't have any friends who are well-known political fixers under indictment. If you think that Rezko was just a friend...then so be it. The NY Times article suggests otherwise.

And in the absence of evidence to the contrary, why do we assume something shady?

Because Obama is a democrat. Isn't that the reason you always assume Republicans are shady?

Obama doesn't appear to have reaped any financial advantages from the transactions.

Are you nuts?

He got almost a million dollar kickback. And was able to buy a house way beyond his means because of it.

I think you are right, San An.

He didn't appear to make any money on the deal, just got the parcel he wanted.

But as he said, it was a boneheaded thing to do at the time. Especially considering the close work/financial/political relationship he has had with Rezko for so many years, how much Rezko seems to have profited from that relationship, and all the money Obama has had to return.

Or the whole sleeziness of "noun-verb-9-11"?

The only thing sleazy is the attempts to slime Rudy for pointing out his heroic actions on 9/11. It is part of his record and experience -- so he should have every right to acknowledge it, the same way that the other candidates point to their experience.

if you want to talk about the "the whole sleeziness of "noun-verb-9-11" then lets talk about the "the whole sleeziness of Obama constantly saying the word Change over and over again.

"San, I pulled the quote from the summary at the top of the thread."

That's why you should read the article. That quote is contained in the actual article. I don't know where the summary came from, but not the article linked.

"I don't have any friends who are well-known political fixers under indictment."

Rezko wasn't under indictment at the time.

"He got almost a million dollar kickback."

I didn't see that in the article either, Bowa.

"Obama doesn't appear to have reaped any financial advantages from the transactions."

Oh, and that's from factcheck.org, not my opinion.

On other words, Obama lied about their relationship.


Hmmmm.

Posted by Bowa


"In other words" you are willing to say Obama lied, but never that Bush lied.

"The NY Times article suggests otherwise."

Please note that article is from the middle of last year. There are numerous articles which I have cited from Nov. 06 through Sept. 07, all of which contain exactly the same information as the one heading this thread. And yet no wrongdoing even alleged, let alone proven in all that time.

"Obama doesn't appear to have reaped any financial advantages from the transactions."

It really doesn't matter if he did or not, the impression that the GOP can make on voters is what is important. They will try to paint this as a crooked real estate deal which, obviously, it isn't but it won't matter when the Attack machine goes to work. Better to have this reported now, make sure every voter hears about it so that when the GOP tries to use it, it'll be old news.

"but he's also a lousy businessman."

I have no idea what that means.

Ya know, Floyd the Barber on the Andy Griffith Show wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed.

"Someone just realized this story may be making a Dem look bad.. link has been pulled suddenly from the main page.. oh well.. gone for now."

I rest my case. LMAO.

Its still there Floyd.

I didn't see that in the article either, Bowa.

$300,000 off the price of the house, + the $625,000 Rezko paid for the empty lot that had to be part of the deal for Obama to get the house = a $925,000 "gift" that Rezko put together for Obama.

Rezko wasn't under indictment at the time.

You are correct, he was only "under active federal investigation" at the time. He has now been indicted.

"This appears to be a story of poor judgement as Obama says, not anything illegal."

Corky:

I agree. It was poor judgment, nothing more.

But seeing as how we've had seven fucking years of poor judgment coming out of the White House, I was rather hoping for something better out of Madrassa Man.

Been using Vernon's calculator again, Bowa?

The only way you could figure that Obama received a $625,000 "kickback" on the deal is if Rezko had given the lot to him.

But what actually happened? Rezko sold Obama 1/6 of the lot at fair market value ($104,000), and eventually sold the rest, making $54,000 on the deal.

There is nothing about Rezwork being involved in the purchase price of the house, and going from $1,950,000 to $1,650,000 for a house that has been on the market a while is certainly not considered sinister in the real world.

You really are a piece of work.

"But seeing as how we've had seven fucking years of poor judgment coming out of the White House, I was rather hoping for something better out of Madrassa Man.

Posted by MaryTylerWhore"

I'm thinking this whole situation would have to get waaaaaaaaaay worse, involve the deaths of tens of thousands of people, and cost around a trillion dollars before it can be accurately compared to the Bush (mis)administration.

And just an FYI - "madrassa" is the Arabic word for "school" and has no religious connotation in and of itself. Painting it as something extreme and frightening is a common misconception, including in the media.

It really doesn't matter if he did or not, the impression that the GOP can make on voters is what is important.

oh Please danni --- with all the accusations, rumors, speculation that are launched against Republicans and reported as 'truth" by Democrats you are going to have the nerve to complain about this story.

It is a shady land deal, because the guy that got Obama the deal is shady...and then apparently Obama lied about the extent of he and Rezko's relationship.

That is fair game in the political climate we are in now.

And Obama admits to using poor judgemnt, calling it "a bone-headed mistake."

I wonder of Chris Matthews and the rest of the Obama-loving liberal press is going to rake Obama over the coals for his poor judgement the way they raked Rudy over his poor judgement over Kerik.

I doubt it.

And speaking of poor Rudy, he's had to ask his senior staff members to work without pay, retroactive to 1/1.

The only way you could figure that Obama received a $625,000 "kickback" on the deal is if Rezko had given the lot to him.

It was $925,000.

Because Rezko helped him -- Obama was able to get a land deal with a price of $2,575,000 for $1,650,000.

"Because Rezko helped him -- Obama was able to get a land deal with a price of $2,575,000 for $1,650,000."

That is incorrect. (But you already knew that) The only way you could even remotely make a claim like that is if Obama got the vacant lot. He didn't. He got a house below asking price, but not ridiculously so, and a piece of the lot for which he paid fair market value.

And speaking of poor Rudy, he's had to ask his senior staff members to work without pay, retroactive to 1/1.

Rudy has run a very poor campaign since the beginning of December. His ads have been mediocre at best, as has his debate performances.

But he can still win Florida, so he's not out of it yet.

He got almost a million dollar kickback. And was able to buy a house way beyond his means because of it.

Posted by Bowa at 2008-01-11 12:04 PM | Reply | Flag:


Now you're just plain making shit up.

Congratualtions! Your certificate from the 'Rove School Of Politics' is in the mail.

The only way you could even remotely make a claim like that is if Obama got the vacant lot. He didn't.

No. I am making that claim because the owner made the lot part of the deal for the house...but Obama only wanted the house so he needed rezko to buy the empty lot. Without rezko buying the lot, Obama wouldn't have gotten the house. Without rezko, buying the lot -- Obama wouldn't be able to get a sweetheart deal later on and have a friend who would sell him a strip of it.

BTW: a $300,000 discount on a house worth almost $2 million for a guy who says he was just a regular middle-class guy a few years ago is a considerable chunk of change.

The point is San, that you seem to be so sure that everything Obama and the now indicted rezko did was above board -- but if this had been a republican politician you would be raising the same issues that I am raising now. And probabaly even more.

Now you're just plain making shit up.

No I'm not.

If you had a friend that got you a land deal with a price of $2,575,000 for $1,650,000, then you would say that you got a benefit worth $925,000 from that friend.

I wonder of Chris Matthews and the rest of the Obama-loving liberal press is going to rake Obama over the coals for his poor judgement the way they raked Rudy over his poor judgement over Kerik.

I doubt it.

Posted by Bowa at 2008-01-11 12:53 PM | Reply | Flag:

The two are nowhere near comparable, but keep telling yourself they are.

You lose credibility with each keystroke.

"The point is San, that you seem to be so sure that everything Obama and the now indicted rezko did was above board --"

Nope. I'm just saying there is no evidence to the contrary, despite the crap you keep making up.

"BTW: a $300,000 discount on a house worth almost $2 million..."

Is about 15% off the asking price. Certainly not unusual if a property has been on the market for a long time. Again comparing that to something you and I might find more comparable - negotiating for a house with an asking price of, say, $250,000 and get it for $214,000.

The two are nowhere near comparable, but keep telling yourself they are.

That's true. Both admit to poor judgement -- Obama for fully knowing that Rezko was under investigation when he got into this shady land deal with him. While Rudy, had no knowledge of Kerik's misdeeds, and should have vetted him better.

"If you had a friend that got you a land deal with a price of $2,575,000 for $1,650,000, then you would say that you got a benefit worth $925,000 from that friend."

Are you thick, or just unable to admit you are ridiculously off base?

Obama did not get a land deal worth $2,575,000. He got a house with an asking price of $1,950,000 for $1,650,000. Rezko got land deal worth $625,000 which she later turned for a profit.

negotiating for a house

You obviously don't get it do you? The point is not that Obama got a discount -- it is who is the person who negotiated that discount and what were their motives. Rezko. That is what makes the deal shady, not just the amont of the discount -- which is still considerable not matter how you try to spin it.

"Obama for fully knowing that Rezko was under investigation when he got into this shady land deal with him."

Poor judgment, yes. The deal shady? Not at all. It only becomes shady if a quid pro quo can be established. Thus far, after a year of the story being out there, none has been. If new information comes to light showing otherwise, I'll be the first to express my disappointment and demand he come clean.

Are you thick, or just unable to admit you are ridiculously off base?

You are the one who is thick.

the owner would not sell the house as a stand alone property --- the empty lot was a part of the deal -- Obama could not have gotten the house unless rezko bought the empty lot.

You don't really believe that of all the empty lots that are on the market, he just happened to want to buy that one, at that particular time? Come on.

He bought the lot, to help Obama get the house -- that he may have been able to sell it later on was incidental to the original reason for buying it in the first place.

And becuase Rezko is shady -- it makes both he and Obama's motives in their collaboration shady too.

"You obviously don't get it do you? The point is not that Obama got a discount -- it is who is the person who negotiated that discount and what were their motives."

No, you don't get it. There is NOTHING in this article, nor any of the others I have seen indicating Rezko was involved in the negotiation for, or purchase of the house. Only in the related adjacent lot deal. According to facts in evidence at this time, the Obama's put in a bid on the house, but couldn't swing the price of the extra lot when the owner's made simultaneous sale part of the deal. That's when Mrs. Rezko got involved.

Stop making stuff up if you can't argue on the merits of the facts.

If new information comes to light showing otherwise, I'll be the first to express my disappointment and demand he come clean.

Posted by SanAntonioRogue at 2008-01-11 01:28 PM

a move Obama now calls a "bone-headed mistake."


How much more proof do you need it was a shady deal?

"You don't really believe that of all the empty lots that are on the market, he just happened to want to buy that one, at that particular time? Come on."

Of course not. They did it to help the Obamas out, and ultimately made a profit on the deal. Nobody has argued otherwise.

But there are no facts in evidence that the deal was shady. If you want to assume it because of the other trouble Rezko got into, fine. But you are trying to create your own "facts" to support your argument... and they are wrong unless something new comes to light.

It only becomes shady if a quid pro quo can be established.

Easy access to a US Senator is quid pro quo. Had Rezko not been indicted, and this land deal flown under the radar -- Rezko, the "well-known political fixer's", relationship with Obama would have been even more strengthened.

Since his relationship with Rezko goes back many years, I am sure that as we speak people are combing the records of the IL senate to see if there are any legislative connections between Obama and Rezko.

"How much more proof do you need it was a shady deal?

Posted by crispee_oc"

Well, a whole lot since what Obama was saying is that, in hindsight, it wasn't a good idea to have taken help from someone under investigation, not that there was anything unethical or illegal about the transaction itself.

Is The Tombs still named after Rudy Giuliani confidante, fixer, and general asswipe Bernie Kerik?

"I am sure that as we speak people are combing the records of the IL senate to see if there are any legislative connections between Obama and Rezko"

Maybe so, and if something new comes out then fine, it can be dealt with appropriately.

But a great deal of investigation was already done by 2 local Chicago TV stations, the Sun-Times, and the Trib. (Not to mention all the others outside Illinois) Plus, both the Illinois GOP and the national GOP had it on their website, and in their sights months ago.

In the meantime, I'll again request you deal with the facts at hand, and not attempt to make up your own "facts".

If you want to assume it because of the other trouble Rezko got into, fine.

San, that is the only thing that makes this deal shady on its face. Rezko is the one who is under indictement -- so all his political relationships are suspect. As they should be. That's politics.

Kerik was a decorated detective who became a brilliant corrections commissioner, who then became a very good police commissioner. There's no proof that Rudy had anything to do with his shady dealings -- But that doesn't stop people from accusing Rudy with being complicit in Kerik's crimes. I think it's unfair, but that's politics.

Rudy, as the chief executive, who ran the 4th largest economy in the US for 8 years, made thousands and thousands of more good decisions, exercising good judgement then Obama ever has and directly involving the lives of millions of people-- but his admitted poor judgement over vetting Kerik has likely hurt him.

In that light, Obama, who has far less experience, and no executive experience and admits that his land deal with Rezko was a "bonehead mistake", has a lack of judgement that is quite troubling. Not to you maybe -- but to Hillary's people surely -- and to us over here in the GOP.

Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.



So he just happened to ask this guy for advice? Because he couldn't swing it on his own, he seeks help from a known criminal. How could anyone think that was a shady deal? Even though it comes straight from the horses mouth that it was a mistake?

"San, that is the only thing that makes this deal shady on its face. Rezko is the one who is under indictement -- so all his political relationships are suspect."

That's fine then Bowa. Argue that point as much as you want to. Discuss and debate what you consider appearance of impropriety. Just don't continue to make stuff up to bolster your position.

When is Giulianni going to release a complete list of the clients he milked by capitalizing on 3,000 dead?

not that there was anything unethical

San, You don't believe that there was anything "unethical" about Obama reciving such a huge benefit from doing this land deal with a guy who is now under indictment for bribes and kickbacks?

OK...whatever.

Newsflash:

For the first time in American real estate history a house was sold for 15% below market value. Never before has the American public been witness to such a landmark deal. Heretofore in American real estate annals has anyone ever been able to receive that kind of a discount on the purchase of a personal residence.

In addition, it has also been discovere