home

Obama on Ethics

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:14:47 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

What do you think about this Op Ed?:

This past Election Day, the American people sent a clear message to Washington: Clean up your act.

. . . It would be a mistake, however, to conclude that this message was intended for only one party or politician. The votes hadn't even been counted in November before we heard reports that corporations were already recruiting lobbyists with Democratic connections to carry their water in the next Congress.

. . . Americans put their faith in Democrats because they want us to restore their faith in government -- and that means more than window dressing when it comes to ethics reform.

. . . The truth is, we cannot change the way Washington works unless we first change the way Congress works. On Nov. 7, voters gave Democrats the chance to do this. But if we miss this opportunity to clean up our act and restore this country's faith in government, the American people might not give us another one.

< Some Would Have You Believe David Brooks Is An Airhead | Duke Lacrosse Accuser Gives Birth Early >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama on Ethics | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Ive suspected for some time.. (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:23:06 AM EST
    that the allegeded "liberal credentials" are just a ruse to get a troll pass. What better way to be able to cosistently pass on whatever the Powerline talking point of the day is,(99% of what you've ever done here), than to hide behind a flimsy liberal facade.

    Rush couldnt do better (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:04:40 PM EST
    As I said before, a bogus "liberal" whose sole modus operendi is attacking liberals and defending conservatives(who dont conserve anything).

    Jondee says nothing. (1.00 / 3) (#48)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:42:33 PM EST
    What is your comment about??

    Do you think that elections funded by the TAXPAYER is a slam dunk liberal issue? If so, why?

    What protections in the law do you think should be built to keep the Demos and the Repubs from preventing a new party ever getting anyone elected by not lettimg them have any of the money?

    Have you considered how both sides use reapportionment to create almost 100% safe congressional seats?

    If the money is free, what cam we do to prevent elections running full time? (It's almost there now.) I could add some others, but won't.

    Jondee, instead of just being snarky, why don't you debate? Do you have anything to say?

    Parent

    Caesar's Wife (1.00 / 1) (#2)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:36:21 AM EST
    Obama has his own problems back in Illinois that needs to be examined before we think he can be the bus driver to lead us to a squeaky clean world.

    Having noted that, the point that we need things cleaned up is agreed with.

    I just want the bus driver to be squeaky clean.

    This from someone (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:41:55 AM EST
    who backs Bush unconditionally, has never seen a case of torture, etc, etc. We can be sure that PPJ will hold Obama to standards he would not dare impose on the Bush cabal. Hypocrisy thy name is ppj.


    Parent
    SD (1.00 / 1) (#6)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:56:13 AM EST
    Can you please try and be accurate?

    I have commented many times on my support for NHC, gay rights, etc.... So how could I possibly support Bush unconditional?

    I again note. I support Bush because of his position on national defense. With out that you won't have a country to have NHC, gay rights, etc...

    Parent

    dont be obtuse and misleading (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by soccerdad on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:09:19 AM EST
    You know exactly what I mean.


    Parent
    SD (1.00 / 1) (#26)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:07:48 PM EST
    You made the charge, so I rather think it is up to you to prove your point or apologize.

    But of course you will not do that, you will just make off topic smears.

    Parent

    the truth is not a smear (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by soccerdad on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 10:47:07 AM EST


    Parent
    Off topic troll post. This is about the editorial. (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:01:36 PM EST


    Parent
    Bill A (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:11:10 PM EST
    And the platform of the Demos (don't laugh people) is for ethics reform.

    And one of the leading Demos being widely discussed as running for President is Obama.

    Now, do you see the connection betweem the ed and my comment?

    No? Well that's no surprise.

    Parent

    Off topic troll post. This is about the editorial. (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:00:18 PM EST


    Parent
    blah... (none / 0) (#5)
    by mindfulmission on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:51:26 AM EST
    There was absolutely no ethical violation.  There was a business deal with a friend who happened to be shady.  If that is the worst trouble that Obama gets in, he will be a saint compared to the rest of Washington.

    Parent
    mindful (1.00 / 1) (#7)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:59:58 AM EST
    Uh a very nice real estate deal for Obama..

    You define the problem quite well.

    You'll accept a little problem from your guy...

    The Repubs will accept a little problem from their guy...

    Glad I'm an Independent..

    Parent

    Off topic troll post. This is about the editorial. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:02:13 PM EST


    Parent
    jimminy nofacts strikes again (none / 0) (#11)
    by Sailor on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 12:43:31 PM EST
    Obamas bought a 10-foot-by-150-foot piece of the lot for $104,500. An appraisal put the value of the strip at $40,500, a spokesman said, but Obama considered it fair to pay one-sixth of the original price for one-sixth of the lot.
    only in ppj's bizarro world would losing money on a transaction be called ' a very nice real estate deal for Obama.'

    Parent
    Actually sailor is wrong. (1.00 / 0) (#28)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:22:57 PM EST
    From Slate:

    In June 2005, Obama used the money to purchase a $1.65 million Georgian revival home on Chicago's South Side--$300,000 less than the asking price. On the very same day, Rezko, a Democratic Party fund-raiser and developer, bought the adjacent empty lot at the asking price from the same owner (the house and the lot were previously owned by the same person). Rezko, who had raised money for Obama and known him since the senator attended Harvard Law School, did not develop the empty lot.
    In January 2006, he sold a 1,500-square-foot slice of it to Obama for $104,000, a fair sum in that market.

    Slate

    Now since I know you will be incapable of undersatnding the question, again from Slate:

    Here's the question: Did Rezko orchestrate his same-day purchase of the lot at full price so that the seller would give Obama a break on the price of the adjacent house? Was Obama in on the deal? And did Rezko never intend to develop the lot, giving Obama a nice roomy side yard, a favor which he'd call in later?

    Obama says he did talk to Rezko before the purchase,



    Parent
    wrong again ppj (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 10:28:12 AM EST
    obama bought the house after it'd been on the market for months. and the owners dropped the price ... just like anyone does when their house has sat for months w/o selling.

    And the slate article is nothing but a hit piece designed that cherry picked a couple of facts and presented them misleadingly, e.g trying to tie it in with clinton and whitewater when in fact clinton was absolved of any complitcity in whitewater. It's an opinion peice with its daggers out swiftboat style, not a news article.

    I told TL I'd try to take it easy on you but it sure is hard when you constantly resort to such slimy techniques.

    Parent

    sailor (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    sailor - Your comment is pure speculation. The Slate piece is factual. My comment is only that it looks bad, I don't claim to know what actually happened. And I didn't mention Clinton. You did.

    I would be interested to see some comparables, and I would really like to see if the lot next door that Rezko bought at full price was on the market for the same time.

    I think it was, but can't find the source of my memory, so I won't make that claim. But if it was, that makes the transactions even more interesting.

    See my response to peacrevol's comment covering his wife's $195,000 raise and his book deal.

    I know America is the land of opportunity, but doesn't all of this bother you just a little bit??

    If the Demos want to vent and pound their chests about this issue they should get a better spokesman than Obama.

    Parent

    now we know what the swiftboaters' ... (none / 0) (#37)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:35:29 AM EST
    ... talking points will be.
    The Slate piece is factual.
    No, it was opinion and speculation after quoting other factual accounts and cherrypicking dta to reinforce it's own POV ... just like you do.

    I'm not even going to bother to fact check your silly swiftboating, even assuming what you quote is true (and that's ALWAYS a huge assumption with you), people get book deals, it paid for his house. People getting promotions from whatever to a VP position generally get a large raise.  At my institution from faculty to VP is about 300%. Of course it's still not anywhere what a coach makes.

    It's a non-issue except rethugs will continue to try to make it an issue ala swiftboats. I can't wait for the dem congress to start investigating actual crimes; e.g. bush lyying about imminent danger and WMDs; no-bid contracts to buddies where billions went unaccounted for in iraq; no-bid contracts to bushco buddies that hired illegal labor in Katrina aftermath; bush's illegal and unconstitutional signing statements giving himself the power of king; etc etc etc.

    Your increasing repetition of the non-sensical talkingpoints handed out by your wrongwing uberlords is becoming amusing.

    Parent

    Sailor (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:17:20 PM EST
    Swiftboaters? Not factual? The purchase of the house, the $300,000 reduction in price, the purchase of the lot at full asking price by Rezko is not factual?

    The raise isn't factual? The book deal doesn't exist??

    When I read things like this I think of a child putting their fingers in their ears and saying..

    "Dont wanna hear it. Dont wanna hera it.'

    But it won't go away sailor because it is factual. The Demos and the Left have created Obama, and now they are going to have to live with their creation.

    And the Left understands full well these happenings don't past the smell test.

    Parent

    Well.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by peacrevol on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 09:15:51 AM EST
    Still COMPLETELY irrelevant. Sounds to me like Obama made a wise real estate purchase. Asking prices are asking prices and have nothing to do with purchase prices. I could ask 700 bajillion dollars for a 200 square foot corner of a lot in the middle of nowhere. Buyers would be more or less unimpressed.

    If the buyer is willing to sell to Obama for less than his asking price, it's his own business. Maybe he could have held out and sold both lots for full price. If he thinks he could have done that, which apparently he did or he would have had lower asking prices. So what is his incentive to sell to Obama for $300,000 below asking price just to sell/close on the same day with Rezko at full asking price? AND as for the 1500 s.f. sold to Obama at a later date, 1500 s.f. is not that much. 10 feet wide? I know of some encroachments that are WAY bigger than that...it's immaterial, well...almost immaterial. So even with that scenario, I'm not convinced that there is an ethics violation.

    Parent

    peacrevol - Are you kidding? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:01:20 AM EST
    We have a $300,000 reduction on the same day that Rezko buys the lot next door for full price from the same seller. And Obama admits to talking with Rezko on that day.

    That appears to be an easy way to put money in Obama's pocket.

    Is it? I don't know.

    Want more? From USA Today:

    Officials at the University of Chicago Hospitals say a promotion and large pay increase given to Sen. Barack Obama's wife shortly after the Democrat was elected to Congress.... in March 2005, when Michelle Obama was promoted to vice president for external affairs and had her annual salary increased from $121,910 to $316,962.

    Huh? A $185,000 raise shorty after her husband was elected? That big of a raise means that she was promoted several levels at once, and over many other people at once.

    How many people do you know that ever got a 160% salary raise? (% approx)

    Link

    Then we have the book deal.

    Book royalties and advances brought in about $1.2 million for the senator-author. In late 2004, Obama landed a three-book deal worth $1.9 million.

    Sun Times

    Again we have questions. Obama is an author who has no real track record, and who's popularity seems to be based on his being young, his election to the senate and the possibility he might be nominated as the first black candidate to run for President.

    Maybe that makes sense to the book industry, but it doesn't to me. Anybody???

    Does any of the above violate any standard of ethics? Was anything done that was wrong?

    Again, I don't know. But if Obama wants to talk about ethics to me, he had better avoid things such as this. They don't pass my smell test.

    Parent

    People get raises (none / 0) (#39)
    by peacrevol on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:06:34 PM EST
    and people buy real estate. it's not a big deal. at all...if you want to find some dirty money in washington, i suspect that you wont have to look that far to find some much more unethical kickbacks.

    Parent
    peacrevoal (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:26:03 PM EST
    You are trying to whistle past the graveyard. The issue is this.

    Why did Obama get a $300K reduction at the same time  Rezko was paying full price, why? If you use the excuse that the property had been on the market for a period of time, why didn't Rezko get a reduction??

    And how many people get $185,000 raises shortly after their husband is elected to the US Senate?

    Parent

    PFHHFHHFh (none / 0) (#46)
    by peacrevol on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:37:51 PM EST
    Perhaps the buyer found out that Rezko was willing to pay the asking price and wouldnt let him have it for less.

    As for the pay raise, a promotion and a pay raise generally tend to go hand in hand. Also, generally speaking vice presidents are highly compensated employees. Maybe, just maybe, her company started paying her what she's worth. $300kish is not all that much money for high level execs. You cant take anything away from her b/c she's a senator. Coincidental? Maybe. But to assume that it's b/c Obama was elected to office is disrespectful to the work that his wife has put forth to get her promotions and pay raises.

    Parent

    AND (none / 0) (#40)
    by peacrevol on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:07:25 PM EST
    I still do not concede that the RE deal was unethical.

    Parent
    peacrevoal - I think you just did. (none / 0) (#45)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    You wrote:

    I still do not concede that the RE deal was unethical

    You also wrote:

    if you want to find some dirty money in washington, i suspect that you wont have to look that far to find some much more unethical kickbacks

    Uh. I thnk you just did.

    Me? I don't know. It doesn't pass my smell test.

    Parent

    Holy Crap Man (none / 0) (#47)
    by peacrevol on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 01:40:06 PM EST
    Are you serious? Are we going to get all lawyery and technical now? It depends on what the definition of is is.

    Parent
    PPJ's (none / 0) (#42)
    by aw on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:23:22 PM EST
    smell test:  He passes!!

    Parent
    She's as worth it as the other 17 VPs (none / 0) (#49)
    by aw on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    In moving up from executive director for community affairs, Michelle Obama became one of the hospitals' 17 vice presidents, a spokesman said.

    Obama said in an interview last week with the Associated Press that his wife, who, like him, is a Harvard Law School graduate, was deserving of the promotion and raise.

    Her previous position was less demanding, he said, and because his Senate campaign had ended and she had more time to devote to her work, she was more marketable with her educational background and other strengths.

    "You can't fault her for being smarter and better-qualified for all sorts of jobs than I am," he said. "She shouldn't be penalized for that."

    The spokesman said vice-presidents at the hospitals generally have yearly salaries in the $290,000 to $350,000 range. He said Michelle Obama is responsible for handling relations between the hospitals and the immediate, surrounding neighborhood, with a focus on making health care more accessible to low-income families.


    Chicago Business

    Parent
    aw - Nice attempt to change the subject.. (none / 0) (#50)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 02:43:07 PM EST
    but the issue isn't salary balance among the VP's, or even how smart she is.

    The issue is the promotion from a $121K job to a $300K+ job a few days/weeks after her husband was elected.

    Kinda makes me wonder. You should too.

    Parent

    the hijacker objects to facts (none / 0) (#51)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 03:01:36 PM EST
    ppj hijacks a thread and then calls someone else a hijacker when theey refute his crazy conspiracy theories with facts.

    Bill Arnett was right:

    Off topic troll post. This is about the editorial.

    Parent

    sailor (none / 0) (#53)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Jan 06, 2007 at 08:53:16 AM EST
    sailor - I again note that the purhases, reductions and  non-reductions all happened.

    The book deal is real and their is no doubt about the raise.

    You claim to have no concern about the issue these raise.

    Instead you dance and mutter darkly about this and that.

    Okay. Just don't expect anyone to take the Demos seriously over ethics.

    Parent

    Well................. (none / 0) (#16)
    by peacrevol on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:07:53 PM EST
    Maybe it was a really nice real estate deal for Obama. There's no telling what other benefits the extra compensation may have paid for. Maybe the lot was right next to a high school buddy of his. Maybe he wanted to own the piece of property positioned at that exact longitude and latitude. Maybe he thought there might be buried treasure under the surface of the sod. You can never tell with real estate transactions why somebody paid the price that they did. Or maybe...just maybe he relatively logically assumed that 1/6 of a lot should be worth 1/6 of the price of the lot as a whole. It's a pretty common mistake. People dont always think about tree coverage, road frontage, visibility, water frontage, accessibility, utility, topography, etc. when they price real estate. The appraisal that estimated the value at $40,500 may have come after the purchase had closed or at least after it was too late to do anything about. Or, he may have been convinced that the property was worth $104,500 to him. An appraisal estimates what a property is worth to the market, not what it may be worth to a specific individual. So given that little tidbit of information from Sailor, the real estate deal does not concern me from an ethics standpoint.

    Parent
    Ooops (none / 0) (#17)
    by peacrevol on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:10:23 PM EST
    People dont always think about tree coverage, road frontage, visibility, water frontage, accessibility, utility, topography, etc. when they price real estate.

    I should clarify. They think about it sometimes, but they often dont understand how much it affects the market value.

    Parent

    Well... (none / 0) (#1)
    by peacrevol on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:21:40 AM EST
    The first step is admitting you have a problem. If he is truly sincere about cleaning up politics, it would be hard to not vot for him. However, politicians have been preaching this for several years and nothing has been done to improve it.

    More than anything, our govt needs to get away from trying to make a law to fit every possible scenario. It seems that the govt is slowly but sholy trying to control bigger parts of everyday lives of ordinary citizens by dreaming up scores and scores of new laws every year. That's what I'd look for in a presidential candidate. Anybody got any suggestions?

    Well said.P.... (none / 0) (#4)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 10:49:33 AM EST
    the first candidate who says we have way too many laws on the books is the first candidate I satrt listening closely too.

    With a special emphasis on getting drug prohibition laws off the books...they should be the first to go.

    Any attempt at reducing corruption must be coupled with an attempt to reduce govt.

    Parent

    kdog (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:23:52 PM EST
    Any attempt at reducing corruption must be coupled with an attempt to reduce govt.

    Lately they are the same thing aren't they?

    Parent

    Yep... (none / 0) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:50:30 PM EST
    Thats what I was getting at.  

    Govt. is too big right now to even coral the corruption.  Too many federal Indians, too many federal Chiefs.  First we gotta get the numbers down.  Less people in govt. means less people that can be corrupted.

    Parent

    well, ummmm... (none / 0) (#20)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 03:28:19 PM EST
    First we gotta get the numbers down.

    you mean become republicans??? They're for small gummint, right? ;-)

    Parent

    And they have (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Edger on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 03:34:11 PM EST
    republican ethics... sort of...

    Why not just reduce the size of (cull) republicans? That should take care of the majority of the problem, no?

    Parent

    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 05:05:51 PM EST
    Repubs for small govt...nice one edger...lol

    I just see a two-headed monster that needs slaying. I don't see a D congress giving the DEA less money, or god forbid put 'em outta business; or ever leaving Iraq fully, and the like.

    I'd love to be proved wrong, but I give up on the D's. Try not to vote for them...but sometimes you gotta with the R's being so dispicable.  

    Parent

    ppj (none / 0) (#8)
    by jondee on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:03:08 AM EST
    You're supporting a group that is not only opposed to all those things, but possibly the most opposed of any political faction with any real power.

    Keep enabling these people and we wont have a country worth defending.

    Jondee why are you off topic? (1.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:33:05 PM EST


    Parent
    Good observation, jondee, I recommend a... (none / 0) (#15)
    by Bill Arnett on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 02:04:43 PM EST
    ...simple "Off topic troll post" for everyone to use every time PPJ attempts to hijack the thread.

    Be my guest (1.00 / 3) (#29)
    by jimakaPPJ on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 11:29:56 PM EST
    you're only proving that you can't debate.

    Parent
    Off topic troll post (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Sailor on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 03:02:26 PM EST


    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#22)
    by Patrick on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 03:45:15 PM EST
    But if we miss this opportunity to clean up our act and restore this country's faith in government, the American people might not give us another one.

    It's hooey (If that's a word).  We go back and forth plenty.   I think that's because neither party really represents the majority of the people on the majority of the issues, and once in power futher alienates those that put them there by focusing on consolidation of power vs doing the right thing.  my $.02

    It's a word in my book.... (none / 0) (#25)
    by kdog on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 05:17:50 PM EST
    and I agree.  Consolidating power and reaping the windfall of said power for their friends/contributors.  And as if we are going to have any other choices besides D/R in 2,4,8,12 years.

    It's simply too big...there is no incentive for either party to remove themselves from the teet, so to speak.  Nothing will change much.

    Parent

    I hope (none / 0) (#23)
    by aw on Thu Jan 04, 2007 at 04:12:30 PM EST
    Obama is pushing publicly financed elections.  That seems to me to be the only way to clean up their acts (and waaaay less expensive for the taxpayers in the long run).  It's time they represent we the people and not their commercial sponsors.

    This should be their number one legislative priority.

    aw (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 11:14:37 AM EST
    We already have public funded elections.

    Look at your 1040E.

    Oh, you want to pass a law?


    Parent

    Deeply fos (none / 0) (#41)
    by jondee on Fri Jan 05, 2007 at 12:08:14 PM EST
    See post at the top.

    Obama on Ethics | 53 comments (53 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment