home

Rezko A Non-Issue

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:54:20 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Speaking for me only

With this story coming out that Obama was the politician who received contributions of illegally gotten funds from an associate of corruption accused Tony Rezko, let me state my view that like the Norman Hsu contributions received by various pols, including Clinton and Obama, it is clear that Barack Obama did absolutely nothing wrong and this should be an absolute non-issue. It would be wrong of any campaign to try and make hay of this. I hope they do not.

< Nevada and Disenfrancisement of Religious Voters | Mitt Romney Wins Nevada Caucus, Ron Paul and McCain Close >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Rezko A Non-Issue | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    It will certainly be an issue, IMO (none / 0) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:03:20 PM EST
    Clinton doesn't need to bring it up though.
    Check out Susanhu's piece:
    http://mydd.com/story/2008/1/19/135536/368
    It seems Obama has been caught in a lie already.


    Sorry (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    But Susan is wrong in that diary.

    And I deplore her trying to use this issue against Obama.

    Parent

    Is she wrong about Amaranda? (none / 0) (#11)
    by MarkL on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:14:55 PM EST
    I just skimmed her piece---that's the problem I was referring to in my comment though.

    Parent
    Wrong in what sense? (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:21:15 PM EST
    She is wrong to impute something unseemly by Obama.

    It is a bad diary.

    Parent

    Well, I am sure this will hurt Obama. (none / 0) (#16)
    by MarkL on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:24:06 PM EST
    To what degree, I don't know. It seems to me there are legitimate questions. The relation between Obama and Rezko is nothing like that between Hillary and Hsu.

    Parent
    Actually (none / 0) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:25:29 PM EST
    it is quite similar.

    Parent
    Did Hsu (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by RalphB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:33:25 PM EST
    help Clinton buy a home?  I don't think this will hurt in the primary, because it's likely there's no 'real' corruption here.

    However, in the general election, can you seriously say the republicans won't beat him about the head and shoulders with it?   Remember Whitewater and the $70 million spent looking for criminal acts by the Clintons there.


    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#21)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:37:47 PM EST
    And none of quid pro quo with Obama.

    Parent
    If Obama wins the nomination, will (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    Republicans want to keep his relationship w/Resko in the news, given the inevitable comparison with Randy "Duke" Cunningham (R-CA)?

    Parent
    Really? any evidence of quid pro quo (none / 0) (#18)
    by MarkL on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    between Hsu and Hillary? Did he help her buy a house?

    Parent
    That was no quid pro quo (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:38:09 PM EST


    Parent
    Your confidence seems unsupported by (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:39:22 PM EST
    the paucity of evidence to date. I will wait and see.

    Parent
    If there was evidence (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:43:25 PM EST
    implicating Obama it would be known by now.

    It does NOT exist.

    Parent

    Not similar. . . (none / 0) (#24)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:40:16 PM EST
    Rezko was a longtime friend and fundraiser for Obama.  They had numerous business (Obama's law firm did work for Rezko's real estate companies) and personal (see the house deal) ties.  Obama himself has stated that the house deal could well cause people to believe that Rezko had done him a favor.

    None of that contains anything that could be called a quid pro quo but the men were obviously much, much closer than Clinton and Hsu who, to the best of my knowledge, never met each other aside from a single fundraising event.

    Parent

    Similar in the relevant section (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:42:44 PM EST
    Donors who gave illegally gotten funds without the candidates knowing it.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:11:10 PM EST
    Hard for Obama to keep asserting he is above the fray.  Of course it is legal to rely on bundlers and of course some people who raise money for politicians from others subsequently reimburse the "donor."  Just looks bad, including the property deal. Perception.  

    P.S. Best part of link:  Chicago weather today:  "BLUNT."

    Parent

    What do you agree with? (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:12:33 PM EST


    Parent
    I agree "It certainly will be an issue." (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:14:06 PM EST
    Doesn't mean the issue is valid.

    Parent
    Ok (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:20:37 PM EST


    Parent
    The only way I see it as an issue. . . (none / 0) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    is to whack the down-with-Hillary crowd when they launch their "sleazy donors" attacks.  There's no evidence that there was any kind of quid pro quo, nor that Obama knew the money he was receiving may have come from corrupt endeavors.  But he was certainly much closer to Rezko personally than Clinton was to (say) Hsu.  If Clinton is "corrupt" due to her association with Hsu, Obama is perforce doubly so.

    Neither is corrupt (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:10:42 PM EST
    I denounced the attacks on Clinton related to Hsu and I denounce these attacks on Obama related to Rezko.

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#6)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:12:10 PM EST
    However, I see no problem with flinging the Rezko situation in the face of those who cynically used the Hsu media frenzy against Clinton.

    Parent
    Calling out hypocrisy (none / 0) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:13:14 PM EST
    is always right.

    I just did so to Kid Oakland at MYDD.

    Parent

    Off the deep end, I see (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:11:51 PM EST


    Parent
    That Would Be Obama's Campaign (none / 0) (#30)
    by BDB on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:55:18 PM EST
    It was the Obama campaign who pushed the Hsu story (and pushed and pushed).

    I think Rezko sounds a little sleazier because of Obama's personal connection to him, but I agree that so far (and probably in the end result) there is no there there and the donation is basically on the same level with Hsu.

    To that extent, it seems like the right answer is to hit Obama not for the donation kerfluffle, but for his campaign's holier than thou attitude in pushing the Hsu angle.  E.g., he's not corrupt, he's just a hypocrite.

    There's nothing new here - in either Obama pushing Hsu or being a hypocrite about it.  It was politics pure and simple.  Just like it will be politics if and when Clinton attacks Obama on this.      

    Parent

    Why should (none / 0) (#9)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:13:33 PM EST
     the willing (if not eager) cooperation  of politicians with corrupt and/or criminal associates for the sole purpose of political advantage not be an issue?

      Sounds like a pretty big issue to me. If some  people  accept the explanation that the politician did not know of the corruption or criminality and therefore should be excused for cooperating such persons that's up to them, but why the desire to sweep stuff under the rug?

    Obama supporter. (none / 0) (#12)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:16:18 PM EST


    Parent
    not really (none / 0) (#13)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:19:30 PM EST
      Edwards is my preferred candidate but,  if forced to choose solely between Clinton and Obama, I would chose Obama.

     In any event, I think the associations of any politician with any other persons should be fully explored and questionable associations are very valid reasons for forming opinions about that politician.

    I was referring to BTD, not you. (none / 0) (#27)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:43:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Speculation? (none / 0) (#20)
    by miriam on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:34:18 PM EST
    I don't think there's anything definitive yet and until there is I hope we don't blow this up out of proportion. There are several troubling potentials, however.  If Rezko's trial goes on for weeks, or months, the speculation about Obama's friendship with him will continue. I don't see this as being helpful in any way to the Democratic party's '08 campaign for the White House. And we don't have any idea what the prosecutor has found in the area of evidence.  It does seem particularly bad judgement on Obama's part that, according to the ABC news report, he continued his business association with Rezko (purchase of house and land) even though Rezko's indictment was already news.  But, it may turn out to be as innocent as the Whitewater deal.  Innocent or not, that story (Whitewater) had extremely negative significance for the Clintons, which continues until this day.  

    Correction (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by miriam on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:53:32 PM EST
    Obama's house purchase took place when Rezko was under investigation, not indictment as I wrote in above comment.  Sorry for the error.

    Parent
    Why is it that no one (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:04:04 PM EST
     wants to address the significance of purportedly intelligent and experienced politicians becoming tied to people at whom even a cursory glance shows red flags waving prominently in plain view?

      Even if we were truly  naive enough to ignore the possibility that the politicians saw the red flags and associated despite them  because they calculated the  money and influence they were sure to get outweighedthe bad publicity that they only might get, wouldn't you be troubled  simply by the inability of these politicians to see or gave people around them capable of seeing these people are instantly recognizable as suspect?

    Associations (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by miriam on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:30:31 PM EST
    Given the graft that seems so intrinsically tied to politics everywhere, not just in America, I would think associations with known skirters of the law are almost considered, unfortunately, as part of business as usual.  Where it becomes glaringly significant, however, is when a candidate builds his entire campaign around his intention to change business as usual.  When this is seen as hollow rhetoric, the hypocrisy becomes very distasteful.  Obama correctly perceived Americans' longing for at least semi-honest government, supported by the exit polls of the '06 election which named "corruption" as a main issue.  So, like every good opportunist, he seized the issue and made it his own--or attempted to.  But, as some of us have noted before, Obama appears to have a very selective memory when it comes to history.

    Perhaps he thought his long friendship with Rezko would not be uncovered.  Perhaps he thought it wouldn't matter, because by the time it did become public he'd already be so far ahead that his momentum couldn't be stopped.  So here is yet another politician who is now potentially threatened by his own hubris.        

    Parent

    re (none / 0) (#34)
    by Deconstructionist on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:48:31 PM EST
    "I would think associations with known skirters of the law are almost considered, unfortunately, as part of business as usual."  

      That is sadly true,  and much of the blame for that lies with the enablers who attempt to justify or excuse the choices made by politicians rather than using their voices to make the case for why we should demand more from those who seek to be our leaders.

      The constant refrains of:  well everyone does it, or you have to do it in order to win, or it's OK as long as there is a degree of plausible deniability of direct participation in crime or... can beconme self-fulfilling prophecies.

      We have a corrupt system because we accept the corruption and we accept it in part because of partisan cheerleaders who try to convince people it's not really corruption, just politics.

      We won't ever eliminate corruption but we won't reduce it unless we start making it a priority. Sadly, very few people have that priority. Most, as evidenced here, just want their guy or gal to win.

    According to previous articles in (none / 0) (#35)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 03:16:20 PM EST
    Chicago Sun Times, Rezko and his partner not only renovated buildings used as low income housing, their company also managed the buildings post-renovation.  Many of the buildings ended up in foreclosure.  Many ended up with no heat and the company purportedly didn't have enough assets to provide heat but, at the same time, provided donations to campaigns, including Obama's.  In one of his books (quote in link to prior Sun Times article) Obama cites his work getting buildings rennvated as an example of what he did for low income families.  

    Wait untill October (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 08:35:06 AM EST


    Rezko A Non-Issue | 36 comments (36 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment