Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Interesting accusation, but wrong.
Rita Rezko bought the lot for $625,000. She sold 1/6 of the land to Obama for $104,500. That's just shy of 1/6 the cost of the land.
Gosh, can you imagine what Obama would do in the White House? Maybe he'd have sleepovers there for campaign donors! Can you imagine? Oh, wait, that's so been done. Maybe that's part of the White House experience HR Clinton was talking about bringing to the job.
as a potential SC nominee in an Obama administration.
But, aside from that, what does this have to do with...anything?
While few sentient TV viewers would consider morning show entertainment TV as an example of journalism; still, many good 'ol, solid American citizens who watch, biding time until the Jerry Springer Show comes on, see vacuous, spong brains like Matt Lauer play banal little visual "gotcha" games like this one. Lauer likely thinks that the crap he is told to present on TV by the producers are red hot political exposes, but he hasn't got the necessary intelligence or judgement to distinguish a transparent, stupid stunt from a Michael Savage outrage.
Our TV screens are now full of mindless career pursuing idiots like Blitzer, Russert, Glen Beck, Arianna, those trained seals on Fox News, bottom feeders like Limbaugh and Imus, the - - well - - the list seems endless.
The answer: DON'T WATCH.
Let the "mainstream" media, especially TV, fill the air with excrement, but ignore the stupid parade. Forget about the "debates", dump bozos like Lauer, and read a good book instead.
The problem, however, is that those good 'ol solid American citizens who watch Springer and pro wrestling also VOTE !
Obama’s real problem is the land deal. There was a house and a lot adjoining which were put up for sale by the same seller to be sold together. Obama could not afford both. So his long time friend and patron Rezko (through Rezko’s wife) bought the lot for full price, while Obama bought the house for $300,000 off the asking price. The purchase was coordinated (and both sales closed on the same day); if Rezko did not buy, Obama would not have been able to buy. Moreover, it would seem that Obama got the full benefit of the negotiated reduction in price.
What Obama did here was to put himself in a position where he certainly appeared to be (if not in fact was) beholden to a known influence peddler.
By the way, this is not ancient history. It happened only two years ago!
That was an egregious lapse in judgement, at minimum. Even he admitted it was “boneheaded”.
So the question for the Democrats is whether this who you want running against the Republicans. If you think Hillary’s attacks are bad, what do you think they will do with this?
If Mark Brown has evidence that Obama was knowingly involved in something illegal or even untoward then he should spit it out. If not then STFU.
This "leaves me wondering if there's more here than meets the eye instead of less" crap is smear-boating at it's quintessential best.
It is not incumbent on Obama to defend himself from nonexistent accusations. Grow up Brown.
Each side has had some contact with indicted fundraisers. (Clintons - Hsu)
Barack has called his involvement "boneheaded" and has donated all the money away. In other words, he admitted he made a mistake and took personal responsibility for it. The Sun-Times is an old-fashioned muckraking newspaper with a crack political reporting squad that is known in Chicago as VERY well-connected and plugged in. If there were more out there on the Rezko thing, we'd know; the Sun-Times has been investigating this story for YEARS.
Has Hillary ever admitted ANY mistake? Has Hillary returned ALL the illegal donations she has received? No. Her Royal Highness is unable to admit mistakes. She is infallible. It's a good self-image to have if you're the Pope, but not if you're President.
Notice how my comment doesn't fall into the trap of "everyone does it, the Clintons are worse." No. The argument isn't that "Clintons did it too," but that "Clintons can't admit these mistakes." By the way, go to Rezko's Federal Election Commission records (available online) and scroll down the list. He's donated to most of the Democratic and Republican politicians in Illinois. Move along, nothing to see here.
It's not unusual for a neighbor to sell a neighbor a piece of adjoining land ... assuming the price was reasonable market value ... I see nothing unusual.
The only question that remains for me is did Rezko buy the land IN ORDER TO sell the strip to the Obamas who otherwise would have been unable to "enlarge their side yard" which they otherwise would not have been able to do on their exising lot... and unfortunately, that sounds like more than a neighborly "favor" ... that sounds like a fairly serious investment IN ORDER TO do this "favor" (it's not the money, I know Rezko is rich, it's the time/effort machinations involved).
It may amount to nothing in real life ... but, yes, this story SHOULD have gone away ... and, yes, there are some "favors" one should decline simply to avoid the appearance of impropriety and, yes, this seems to have been one of them ...
I really want to know what happened to the rest of the Rezko lot and if any zoning variances were required to split the lot.
Such a "favor" certainly falls in the category a deal that's "too good to be true" for most people ... at least without someone expecting something at some time in the future.
The commenter that talked about the Sun-Times being the Windy City equivalent of the NY Post is absolutely correct. It's a rag that's two steps above a tabloid when it comes to actually reporting news. And it's owned by Conrad Black, one of the most corrupt right wing news moguls in the country. So please, anything the Sun-Times reports, take it with a grain of skepticism. They're out to destroy any democratic candidate for President.
The reality is Chicago politics is awash with dirty money, and there's no way for politicians to know who is or isn't dirty until someone gets indicted. I've heard every explanation Obama's given for his relationship with Rezko, since this started, and he's been very forthcoming about how he views it. He returned the money. He ended his professional relationship with the guy. It's what we expect our senators and representatives to do. He's not taking money now. What more of an explanation do you want? He's admitted (in previous interviews) that he was friends and professional acquaintances with the guy, and when the indictments were handed down he promptly stopped doing business. Did he give contracts to Rezko's company? was he one of many Illinois reps to do so? Is Rezko one of many sleazy dirtbags milking Illinois taxpayers for their money? Yes to all of the above. But, he RETURNED THE MONEY. What else is he supposed to do? Provide phone records and transcripts of every conversation he had with the guy?
What you didn't publish was that the Sun-Times ran an article several days ago linking Hillary to Rezko. Now, maybe they were using the same photo Lauer used (which is bupkus), but if the Sun-Times reported it, doesn't that make it just as valid as their reporting on Obama?
You want to solve this problem? Vote for public financing of elections.
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
