s skippy the bush kangaroo: obama is not rezko-operating

skippy the bush kangaroo



Friday, February 15, 2008

obama is not rezko-operating

taylor marsh points out that it's not hillary that needs transparency about her finances:

today howard wolfson let it rip with linda douglas for the national journal "on air" show, which airs tomorrow. here's the transcript:

much is known about her finances. there's an awful lot of information disclosed by her, and if senator obama is actually, really interested in transparency, there are many questions -- for instance, about his relationship with indicted political fixer tony rezko that he could answer, that he has not. what was the exact nature of his relationship with mr. rezko? how many fundraisers did mr. rezko throw for him? how much money did mr. rezko bundle for him? how many business meetings did senator obama attend that mr. rezko was at? what was he doing at those business meetings? what favors did senator obama perform for mr. rezko? so there's an awful lot of information that, if senator obama is interested in transparency, that he could come forward and offer the american people.
if you're unaware of mr. rezko's, shall we say, questionable background vis-a-vis his relation to sen. obama, check out the uk times online:

an undeclared $3.5 million (£1.8 million) payment from a corrupt iraqi-british businessman has landed barack obama’s former fundraiser behind bars.

the payment, disclosed in court papers, is the first time that mr obama’s long-serving bagman antoin “tony” rezko, a syrian immigrant to the united states, has been linked to nadhmi auchi, the iraqi-born billionaire who is one of britain’s richest men. the relationship is a potential embarrassment for mr obama, who has made his opposition to the iraq war a central plank of his campaign.

court papers describe mr rezko as a close friend of mr auchi. the two are involved in a large chicago land development together. but it is unclear how long the two men have known each other or whether they were linked before the 2003 iraq war. neither side would discuss their relationship.
the times has, however, discovered state documents in illinois recording that fintrade services, a panamanian company, lent money to mr obama’s fundraiser in may 2005...

[rezko] has already been an embarrassment to mr obama’s campaign. the presidential challenger has tried to dampen criticism by paying $150,000 to charity to make up for donations from mr rezko. the illinois senator has said that he made a “bone-headed mistake” to get involved in a property deal with mr rezko at a time when he was known to be under investigation.

Labels: , , ,

posted by skippy at 7:11 PM |

21 Comments:

i'm not seeing what the controversy is, though, without more linking barack obama to something improper. this looks like a whitewater investigation in the making.
commented by OpenID michael, 8:12 PM PST  
I'm of the same mind as Michael.

Other than another reason to just throw some dirt on Obama's rep, I don't see how this pertains to the election. Guilt by association is a slippery slope to base an argument on.

I want to focus on the issues that each candidate brings to the table and judge them accordingly. Garbage, slime, and innuendo don't belong in that discussion. We have no business going down that road, only Republicans live there.
commented by Blogger David Aquarius, 1:40 AM PST  
Yeah Skip, I have to agree that this approach to going after Obama is a little scummy.

When I have posted about Hillary, I have stuck to her policy decisions, her campaign tactics, and her obvious manipulations. I have resisted talking about conspiracy theories against her or bringing up shady contributers, who are now facing federal charges.(Norman Hsu anyone?)

I will cop to posting the saccharine coated, seizure inducing "Hillary 4U&Me", but in my defense it really was irresistible.

But Skip if Rezko is all the Clinton campaign can dig up against Obama they might as well gift wrap the nomination and hand it to him.

Just my opinion buddy.
commented by Blogger Gryphen, 6:43 AM PST  
Out of fairness, I hope you'll also post this

In the Wall Street Journal, Michael Zeldin compares the questionable but ultimately insubstantial legal work Clinton did for Jim McDougal in Arkansas that was later investigated by Kenneth Starr to the legal work Obama did for "slumlord" Tony Rezko that Clinton is now using as an attack line her stump speeches. After discussing the truly insignificant nature of the Rezko situation, Zeldin writes:

No one who has ever practiced law, let alone Mrs. Clinton, could argue, with a clear conscience, that these five hours on behalf of a church group that partnered with a man who at a later point in time would be alleged to be a scoundrel equated to knowingly representing a Chicago slumlord. Yet she could not resist leveling the accusation.

I suggest that this provides a window into Mrs. Clinton's character because notwithstanding the enormous suffering she had to endure when accused of wrongful conduct in her representation of Madison Guaranty — a representation that appears to have been no more than a routine business transaction — she is willing to behave no differently than did her Whitewater accusers if she can gain politically.
commented by Blogger Renee in Ohio, 9:08 AM PST  
Michael et al,

Barack Obama accepted campaign money (loaned) from an Iraqi oil billionaire via a Panamanian company.

That's a felony.

And you don't see anything wrong with it?
commented by Blogger Carl, 4:25 PM PST  
The recent hating on Obama is astounding.
Keep sliming Obama.
You all are gonna love President McCain after he destroys Clinton in the election.
I will not vote for Clinton. I will vote for my congressman and go home.
commented by Anonymous King Quaker, 6:37 PM PST  
Not for nothing, but is Taylor Marsh on Clinton's payroll? Geez, talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. It's like Obama is Satan and Hillary is RFK. Please. Obama's not perfect. Of course, no politician is. But let's get a grip. The Rezko thing has been a knee-jerk talking point of the Clinton camp whenever anyone brings up Sen. Obama's suggestion that she reveal her tax returns. Which is a completely reasonable question/request. Hillary says she'll reveal her finances after she gets the nomination. OK. Why? In typical fashion, the MSM lets her get away with her answer being an evasive attack on her opponent. And also in the typical fashion of the way the Clinton camp has run their campaign (with total sleaze balls like Mark Penn at the helm), they attack even when someone is asking a viable question. It's one thing to hit back at the Swift Boat crap, it's another to be evasive and slimy. A viable answer to "Why don't you show your tax returns now?" is not to bring up something else, anything else. It's political dodge 101. If Taylor Marsh isn't on Hillary's payroll, maybe we should all start to raise donations for Taylor, because she's getting ripped off.
commented by Anonymous Brad J., 9:09 PM PST  
Carl, do you really believe Obama is the sleazier of the two candidates? I could give you a laundry list on her voting record alone, such as voting against the 2006 proposed ban to use cluster bombs in civilian areas, the Iraq War authorization, the Kyle/Lieberman amendment to once again make way for another potential war of choice with Iran. That's just a snapshot of her fabulous senatorial voting record. Look into how beholden she is to Big Telecom (the two leading lobbyists for telecom amnesty are old friends of the Clintons; Wolfson also has direct ties to Big Telecom...any surprise that Hillary did not show up to vote on that last week, even though, as Jonathan Turley noted on Countdown, she was right in the vicinity on that day). She's deep into the pockets of NRG/Entergy, which is why she did nothing to close down Indian Point here in NY. Look into her speeches and ties to AIPAC (part of why voted against banning cluster bomb use in civilian areas). Trust me, I could go on and on.

My point is not that Obama is some messiah - though I don't think most of his supporters or people who look at him more favorably than Hillary actually see him as such (seriously, the "inspiration=cult" meme could not be more cynical and, at this point, overplayed; and notice the media is playing along with it). But, rather, if you really believe that Hillary has a cleaner record than Obama, you need to look at the facts, dig a little deeper. The MSM has done a horrendous job presenting her actual voting record, let alone her corporate ties. Did I mention her old boss Wal-Mart?

Finally, shouldn't Obama also get some points for not accepting money from lobbyists.

Some things to think about when many people who are supporting Hillary are beginning to lose sight of her actual voting record and corporate ties.
commented by Anonymous Brad J., 9:44 PM PST  
This is much ado about nothing. I've never read Taylor Marsh, has she always been this unhinged? This seems like pretty thin "evidence."

Much ado about nothing.

Taylor Marsh isn't as over the top as Larry Johnson (No Quarter) but this doesn't appear to be illegal or unethical, so why are they grabbing for straws? Panic is my guess.
commented by OpenID thegrandpanjandrum, 9:49 PM PST  
brad j. said...
Carl, do you really believe Obama is the sleazier of the two candidates? I could give you a laundry list on her voting record alone, such as voting against the 2006 proposed ban to use cluster bombs in civilian areas, the Iraq War authorization, the Kyle/Lieberman amendment to once again make way for another potential war of choice with Iran.

I note that Obama ducked the Iran vote, was not present for the Iraq vote, even if he swears on a stack of Bibles he would never have voted for it, and has voted to fund the war every time since.

Plus, he's accepted funds, as the article skippy links to, from an Iraqi oil billionaire.

Doesn't that worry you, even a little? Meanwhile, Obombers have gone out of their way, as you have, to show their hate of Hillary at each turn.

So yea, I'm calling him sleazy. Is that a problem?
commented by Blogger Carl, 9:40 AM PST  
Finally, shouldn't Obama also get some points for not accepting money from lobbyists.

Except, of course, from Iraqi oil billionaires. Maybe you should go read the article.
commented by Blogger Carl, 9:41 AM PST  
Let me draw a map, for the mapless: Iraqi oil billionaire lends money to President, President repatriates oil assets, oil wells need guarding.

American troops stay.

Clearer now? Then what are you going to do, impeach the bastard?
commented by Blogger Carl, 9:46 AM PST  
i am really amazed that simply bringing up the question, any question, about obama, results in a slough of "obama-hating" accusations.

any readers of this blog know i dump on clinton as well, and i sure am not endorsing either one.

certainly, hillary does not have clean hands, but it's not a dichotomy here: i "slime" obama, so i must luv hillary.

i hate them both equally.
commented by Blogger skippy, 5:13 PM PST  
Skip, You ought to read my column from today. Whoa.
commented by Blogger Carl, 7:22 PM PST  
The only issue for me in this campaign was restoration of the Constitution; goofy bastard Kucinich was the ONLY candidate to mention that "quaint document," and, as well, the only candidate working for impeachment of the war criminals in the Executive [and it is becoming apparent that the Democratic inaction in the Senate is a product of their culpability for war crimes, through prior knowledge and acquiescence].
Count on War All The Time from any of them; all we have left to export are Death and the American Jesus. On the bright side, here's a particularly impassioned bit on the Corporate Hillary:
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article19320.htm
commented by Anonymous Edwin Hensel, 9:33 AM PST  
Receiving stolen property, Money laundering = campaign funds

Funny how mr obama knew right where to look for that money. (he would of kept it, if Rezko hadn't been charged.

Plus lets guess mr obama side tracked legislation, aided legislation to assist his good buddy while in office
In Illinois senate or US Senate.


At first mr obama said he did not associate with Rezko, now he is,
An 18 year friendship, Obama. Obama was a organized, for hospitals and community. He voted against bills and sat on bills in the hospitals favor.

The house deal, The Realitor said the house-lot was one deal. Had to be sold together. Mr Rezko did not magically come up with the money, magically walk into buying that propriety, on that day. Obama knew exactly what was going down, and did it.

Obama is not saint and should be investigated himself. You would be, I would be. He wants to be the President, even more reason to Now, than have a crook in office.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 5:21 AM PST  
How do we know he didn't
accept money from lobbyists?
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 7:03 PM PDT  
Go Barack...
This is ridiculous.Can anyone come up with things Obama did as a politician or government servant that ties him to any wrongdoing?
Does McCain have to answer to statements made by Rev John Hagee?
Does president Bush have to answer to Bob Jones beliefs ..???
If this is all people can find against Barack, he must be doing very well....
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 8:34 PM PDT  
Since they can't find anything meaningful on him....GUILTY BY ASSOCIATION!

Meanless, baseless accusations!

Let's get back to the issues.
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 6:05 PM PDT  
commented by Blogger titi, 12:07 AM PDT  
commented by Blogger 版主支持你, 6:32 AM PDT  

Add a comment