|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 12:58 pm Post subject: Why the Rezko scandal is so awful |
 |
|
Guys, you all know I'm an Obama supporter, but I really have to agree with Glenn Greenwald: the Rezko scandal is every bit as bad as Whitewater. How bad was that?
| Quote: |
Throughout the 1990s, the word "Whitewater" was the weapon used continuously by the Limbaugh Right and the establishment press to cast innuendo on the Clintons' financial lives. The word was just tossed around as slippery shorthand for corrupt dealings. It never had any substance. No specific allegations of wrongdoing were ever made about the original "Whitewater" transactions by those throwing the term around. And after $73 million was spent on an endless investigation, no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons was found.
One could read literally thousands of news accounts about the "Whitewater scandal" and never encounter a single, specific charge of impropriety. The word simply stood for a series of confusing, complex, boring financial transactions that were combined with dark and vague innuendo which, repeated enough, led to a "where-there's-smoke- there's-fire" presumption of guilt. Slothful journalists could not get enough of the tactic because tossing "Whitewater" around required no real work, active investigation or critical thought -- the mortal enemies of most establishment reporters -- but instead was just a cheap and easy way to imply that they were pursuing some sort of scandal.
"Rezko" is the Whitewater of the Obama campaign. It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the "Rezko" affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption. But what is it? The reporters throwing the word around quite plainly have no idea. |
Well, I didn't take Glenn's word for it. I looked for myself, starting with the tireless Rezko scandalmonger and pusher of the "Say It Ain't So, Joe" meme, Hugh Hewitt:
| Quote: |
| New media at its finest, enabling a curious public to focus in upon a subject without spending hours or days searching the web, or being forced to rely on one set of editorial judgments about what matters and what does not. The traffic that will be generated by Rezkorama could have gone to the Chicago Tribune or the Sun Times, but they are covering the trial the old-fashioned way by trying to trap traffic at their site when in fact they can't possibly provide the links to the rapidly bubbling story. Ditto the WaPo, RealClearPolitics, PrimeTimePolitics, and Politico --all these groups have to figure out that aggregator newsfeeds that include blogs are the coin of the realm when a big story suddenly breaks. Make it easy for readers to find the details of the stories they want. When I want a choice of analysis, my first stop is Townhall where my preferred columnists are aggregated. When I want news, I go wherever the news is. When I want news on one subject, I wish for a blog/MSM aggregator. The first to put one up and maintain the comprehesive links wins the traffic race. |
He quotes Christopher Hitchens' dire insinuations that Rezko may be "even worse than we thought" (is that even possible?), then finishes up:
| Quote: |
Obama needs to brave the MSM pack on all things Rezko in a much more effective way than on his first try as the Rezko trial coincides with the long march to Pennsylvania, where the Democrats' political Gettysburg is waiting. Not answering every question about the partnership with Rezko is to doom not just his campaign but the Veep slot, and refusing to stand and handle every single question for the hour or two it takes to get repetitive is a disaster. He has to take the scandal and turn it into sympathy --tough but not unheard of, though impossible from behind the walls.
Is Obama just another corrupt Chicago pol? Imagine the despair in the land if it turns out to be that way, a "Say it ain't so, Joe" moment in American politics. Stay tuned to Rezkorama to find out. |
Hmm. No specific allegations? Check. The outright, gleeful admission that all this stuff is just too complicated for the average citizen to follow? Check. Indignant demands that the candidate "come clean" about a "scandal" that may not even be a scandal? Check. The endless gushing descriptions of how bad and sordid it all is, with nary a hint of why it's so bad and sordid? Check. I think Glenn was on to something here.
But let's check out the Rezkorama site that Hugh is pimping so hard. After a quick perusal of the "news items" on the front page right now, it quickly becomes apparent that this site is not about Rezko at all. It's about Obama. It is a laundry list of baseless right-wing smears, running the gamut from "Michelle Obama hates America" to gleeful repetitions of Obama's "failure" to knock out Hillary on March 4 to (get this) an allegation that Obama was somehow connected to the oil-for-food scandal.
And that's about par for the course, isn't it? Like Glenn said, "Rezko" is the new "Whitewater" -- nothing but empty shorthand for "We Hate Obama And We Know, We Just Know Dammit, That He Did Something Wrong".
The entirety of the Rezko "scandal" is this: Rezko is a bad guy who is currently on trial in federal court. He was, at one time, a friend of Barack Obama and a client of Obama's law firm. He raised $150,000 for Obama's campaign, which Obama donated to charity following Rezko's indictment. Once, Obama and Rezko purchased adjoining Chicago lots on the same day, and Obama got a good deal -- he paid $1.65m, $300,000 less than the asking price. The seller has publicly stated that he accepted Obama's third bid on the home and that it was in no way a favor to anyone.
Quick version: Obama got a good deal on a house that happened to be next to a lot Rezko was buying at the same time.
That's it.
The Times of London has an accurate, factual overview here. (The only slippery language is that it says, at the time of Obama's home purchase, "it was known" that Rezko was under investigation. What it should say is that Rezko knew he was under investigation. There is no reason to suspect Obama knew anything about it at that time.)
Obama has never been charged with, much less convicted of, any wrongdoing in connection with Rezko. There is not the slightest bit of evidence that Obama ever did any illicit favors for Rezko, accepted any illicit favors from Rezko, or engaged in any corrupt business dealings with Rezko. There is no "there" there.
That is exactly why the Rezko scandal is so awful: because, like Whitewater, it is not a scandal at all.
Of course, Obama hasn't been attacking Clinton on Whitewater. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The "White Knight' from Chicago ain't as pure as he would have you believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| W.T.Carl wrote: |
| The "White Knight' from Chicago ain't as pure as he would have you believe. |
I was gonna post what I heard about your mom, but modesty forbids. 
This is exactly the kind of crap I'm talking about. Dire insinuations, backed up by zero evidence. Put up or shut up, Carl. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ANYTHING that comes out of the Dailey machine has a taint to it! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 3:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Obama ought to just donate everything to charity including the home and that ought to be the end of it.
This campaign ought to be about issues.
Last edited by Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee on Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:07 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sweetheart deals are not exactly new in politics. I say, "Big deal". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
W.T.Carl
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| We all know that anything that comes out of the Dailey machine stinks like whorehouse. But what really bothers me is that joker's conection with the likes of William Ayers and others of his ilk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Obama ought to just donate everything to charity including the home and that ought to be the end of it. |
If Obama has to donate $1.65 million to charity every time his political opponents make baseless smears against him, he's gonna be pretty far in hock before the campaign ends. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mistermasan
Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Location: 10+ yrs on Dave's ESL cafe
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
whadda expect out of the CHITown democrat machine?
who has the nation's highest sales tax? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
| Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee wrote: |
| Obama ought to just donate everything to charity including the home and that ought to be the end of it. |
If Obama has to donate $1.65 million to charity every time his political opponents make baseless smears against him, he's gonna be pretty far in hock before the campaign ends. |
Well just sell the house and donate the profits to charity. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stillnotking
Joined: 18 Dec 2007
Location: Oregon, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yeah, 'cause nothing says "toughness" like selling your house because your opponents started telling lies about you.
Thanks for the concern troll, Joo, but no thanks. What Obama needs to do is go on the offensive. Nixon's "Checkers" speech would be a good model.
If Hillary were a Democrat instead of a Clinton, she'd circle the wagons with him instead of pointing fingers and screeching about the appearance of impropriety. Especially in light of the fact that she has her own Rezko troubles.
Jesus, this primary can't end soon enough. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee
Joined: 25 May 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| stillnotking wrote: |
Yeah, 'cause nothing says "toughness" like selling your house because your opponents started telling lies about you.
Thanks for the concern troll, Joo, but no thanks. What Obama needs to do is go on the offensive. Nixon's "Checkers" speech would be a good model.
If Hillary were a Democrat instead of a Clinton, she'd circle the wagons with him instead of pointing fingers and screeching about the appearance of impropriety. Especially in light of the fact that she has her own Rezko troubles.
Jesus, this primary can't end soon enough. |
No I hope the primary goes on a long time.
By the way I don't think there is anything much to this , just like I don't think there was much to Whitewater or several other scandals by Republicans either. Nevertheless Obama is a public figure and public figures have problems even when something doesn't look good and they are innocent.
Obama wants to be president and dealing with this sort of thing even if it is mostly nonsense is par for the course. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
