BarackBook, courtesy of the RNC

I just clicked on the Rezko link, and everything there is accurate. And it's an incontrovertably true that Obama has had...
> a 17-plus-year personal and financial relationship with this man...
> helped Rezko get government funding for his slum developments -- causing misery for the residents and fleecing the taxpayers...
> was receiving campaign donations from Rezko and his associates while the residents of Rezko's properties (BO's constituents) were coping with lack of heat, leaking roofs and vermin infestation.
These are facts in the public record. That's what you call "negative campaigning", Frank James?

Older Americans hold the key to this election. The same people that the leftist posters here shamefully call names and degrade. Keep saying it lefties, that's right McCain is old. And your guy is an empty suit. Give me experience any day over "hope" and "change."

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0708/12117.html

Oh, okay! Guilt by association, eh? Not sure this is such a good idea, guys.

Just wait until the Obama campaign does the same for McSame. Only the names will be a lot more scary than an ex-hippie neighbor and Tony Rezko. How about Phil "Nation of Whiners" Gramm? Charles H. Keating (google "Keating 5")? Jack Abramoff? The multiple lobbyists who populate his campaign? and George W. Bush.

I'm waxing nostalgic (whatever that means). Please go back to calling we Democratic military veterans, defeatocrat, cut-n-runner, appeasers, like in years gone by.

You know, kind of like you did to John Kerry - only worse.

This is the very definition of a cheap political trick. Where's the page about his secret Muslim identity? Geez...

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Interesting marketing strategy the RNC has adopted. Rather than talk about their product, they talk about their competition. That says a lot if you think about it the next time you watch a commercial.

First point, if old people are the key to the election, they don't use Facebook.

Second, I hate when people bring up Keating to smear McCain, but the same brush tars John Glenn, who was something of a Democratic hero.

Both were cleared of wrongdoing, but reprimanded for poor judgement.

Hopefully they will include the full story of Obama's relationship with anti-Semite, anti-white, anti-female Louis Farrakhan and his Nation of ISLAM. Maybe Obama will take to wearing bow ties like Farrakhan and his body guards. And for those not knowing, Obama participated in Farrakhan's "million man march" (which was more like 200,000). The question is, what other ties does Obama have to Farrakhan and the NOI?

"Oh, okay! Guilt by association, eh?"
Posted by: athena | July 29, 2008 12:17 PM
No Athena, It's guilt by doing business with a criminal, for many years. It's Obama's guilt by his selling out his own constituencies -- the poor and elderly in Rezko's public housing units; and ALL of the taxpayers of Illinois whose money went to Rezko with Obama's help.

How pathetic is this? I've never seen the Republican Party so desperate and I can't tell you how happy it makes me.

I've got news for the Wingnuts, you're not going to be able to "swiftboat" Obama, to many people are already on to the fact that you have absolutely NOTHING new to offer the American people this time around.

McCain was one of the "Keating Five," congressmen investigated on ethics charges for strenuously helping convicted racketeer Charles Keating after he gave them large campaign contributions and vacation trips.
Charles Keating was convicted of racketeering and fraud in both state and federal court after his Lincoln Savings & Loan collapsed, costing the taxpayers $3.4 billion.
-
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm
-

McCain has just as many questionable connections and friends as Obama does. The difference is that republicans only chance to win is to "go negative." That's all they've got. Attack, attack, attack. They can't talk about themselves because there is nothing positive to talk about. They don't want to talk about it, because our country is going downhill fast, and McCain wants to rely on the same Bush policies and strategies, which have gotten us nowhere. It comes down to if the voters are stupid enough to buy it. Frankly, I'm a little scared.

Barack's REAL Facebook page has 1,223,282 (and climbing) million supporters- which is probably more people than will see this fake site.

So yeah, this is a colossal waste of money

Posted by: MJ | July 29, 2008 1:11 PM

Resident Crybaby,
Still trying to flog the Rezko non-issue, huh?
Rezko already had a trail and Obama's name only came up once...in passing.

Try again, Mrs Jones....

Can you imagine the version of the McCainBook? I hope the democrats are smart enough not to go there. This is silly, appealing to the lowest common denominator, and those people already hate Obama. So not only is it silly but it's pointless.

These are facts in the public record. That's what you call "negative campaigning", Frank James?

Posted by: MJ | July 29, 2008 12:05 PM

The list of questionable characters McCain chooses to associate with is too long to enumerate here-- like McCain's close relationship with those shadiest of the bunch, the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth (Bud Day).
http://cliffschecter.firedoglake.com/2008/05/10/mccains-land-swap-problem-the-questionable-mccain-association-of-the-day/

Didn't DISGRACED Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) refer to John McCain as his mentor and teacher? How many times did McCain wrap his arms around Renzi and endorse him or fundraise for him?

I'm looking for a viable alternative to McCain and the Republicans and obviously Obama isn't it. His public life is a history of corruption without significant achievement. Any time I point this out here, somebody tells me about Keating Five.
Huh? Excuse me, but that's not a reason to vote FOR Obama. So once again we face the choice of the evil of two lessers.
And when we compare each candidate's record for dirty dealing Obama's seems worse. Although his history is shorter his graft was a horrific betrayal (see my post at 12:05 PM)
And when we compare political achievements McCain's record is better (albeit checkered).

I'm curious: How does bringing up the Keating Five defend Obama? How does that make Obama's dirty past go away?
If your argument is that Obama is not dirtier than any other dirty politician, then what is the compelling reason to vote for him?
I'm also curious as to why Democrats (who like to think of themselves as compassionate and champions of the little people) don't seem to care that the poor, elderly and disadvantaged suffered in the housing projects built by Rezko with Obama's help? If you don't care about the waste of tax dollars, why don't you at least care about these people?

would j mac's book have joey bananas listed as a friend? remember how mccrazy couldn't attend the crime bosses birthday party so he sent him a card?

MJ,
I don't know why we have to hold your hand and explain this to you but.....John McCain was cited by an Ethics investigation for Questionable conduct. Many families lost their homes and investments as a result of Keating Five fallout. Barack Obama has not been the subject of ANY illegalities, irregularities, or inappropriate actions. Just partisan smears that try to link him to Rezko's crimes. I repeat, Rezko's crimes, not Obama's.

MJ,

Democrats care about the little people because we are socialists according to many republicans. We like to balance things out, take from the rich and give to the poor.

I do agree with you that both candidates are corrupt. But what politician isn't? They wouldn't get very far is it didn't come into play.

I'm also curious as to why Democrats (who like to think of themselves as compassionate and champions of the little people) don't seem to care that the poor, elderly and disadvantaged suffered in the housing projects built by Rezko with Obama's help? If you don't care about the waste of tax dollars, why don't you at least care about these people?

Posted by: MJ | July 29, 2008 4:07 PM

This is hilarious, even his own (MJ) parties nominee (McCain) has stopped crying about the Rezko non-issue because there's nothing there and because McCain knows that his own past is filled with dealing with shady characters, some of whom are currently working for his campaign.

Fellow Swampers, I'd suggest not even responding to "MJ" anymore about this because this guy has been trying to make a big deal about this non issue on here all the way back to when he used to call himself "Juanito".

Let him wallow all alone...

Nobody has answered answered the important questions:
1) What is there about Obama to counter the corruption? Give one reason to vote FOR him. Just one.
2) Why do you seem to not care about the victims of the Rezko affair? My God, John E even BRAGS about not caring!
Nobody has answered.

"Barack Obama has not been the subject of ANY illegalities, irregularities, or inappropriate actions. Just partisan smears that try to link him to Rezko's crimes. I repeat, Rezko's crimes, not Obama's."
Posted by: jo | July 29, 2008 5:29 PM
Jo,
I don't know why I have to hold your hand and explain this to you, but:
1) Rezko was a huge financial contributor to Obama's campaigns from the begining.
2) Obama helped Rezko get state funding for his shoddy public housing -- with heat that didn't work, leaking roofs, no basic repairs or mainenance etc.
3) While Obama's constituents lived in these conditions and their complaints went unaddressed, Rezko and his business Associates continued to make monetary contributions to Obama.
Now please explain to me why that is not a problem. Don't tell me it's not a crime -- I know that -- explain to me why you are not outraged.

Not being honest about how much Rezko donated to him, and then not paying it all back when it was said to be $250.000.00 bothered me.
Maybe his mind was busy from all the 'BLOW' (where kids are concerned,bad choice of words for that in his book), oh , or was that in college.

More McWho. I can't find any conservative site that touts the Republican nominee. Everything is about Obama: MSM, blogs, comedy shows, emails. McWho cannot get more than tumbling applesauce coverage. The best that can be said about his campaign: Rolling Blunder. Now this site has backfired on the real facebook review page. The Gophers took down the comments section. Good grief. Somebody please, tell us why McWho should be da man.

The swiftboats are about to leave the dock.
When is the artillery up on Obama Ridgegoing to wake up!
Forrestal fire . Keating Five. Vickigate. The Divorce Files.
Who's in charge of the big guns up there?

Multiple personality disorder Teresa MJ Jeff Bruce Sybil or whoever you is today,

Get a real life.

I sued Rezko, took his deposition, and saw his check register for a period in the 90's. He gave money to EVERY politician in Illinois, but piddly chicken---- amounts.

$100, $500.

That attempt to pump it up to a quarter million in Barack's case just won't wash.

But of course you knew that.

You're just making up lies, hoping something will stick.

Look to your own candidate:

Forrestal fire--wet started his engine to flame out the pilot in line behind him, killed 131 sailors, had to be spirited off the ship, sanitized his file because dad was admiral at the time.
Keating Five
Vickigate
etc.

And you think you're going to tarnish Barack over a couple of $500 contributions???

Get a life. Or, if you must continue , get a raise from the RNC.

Rezko and his business Associates continued to make monetary contributions to Obama.

Now please explain to me why that is not a problem. Don't tell me it's not a crime -- I know that -- explain to me why you are not outraged.

Posted by: MJ | July 29, 2008 6:32 PM

I see you're still on here whining about Tony Rezko, I figured the McCain campaign would have hired someone smarter than you by now.

Here are 10 myths debunked about Obama and Rezko:

Myth #1: Obama did legal work for Rezko

Claim: Hillary Clinton during a debate denounced Obama for "representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum landlord business in inner city Chicago."

The truth: According to Factcheck.org, "Obama was associated with a law firm that represented the community groups working with Rezko on several deals. There's no evidence that Obama spent much time on them, and he never represented Rezko directly. So it was wrong for Clinton to say he was ‘representing ... Rezko.’ That's untrue."

Myth #2: Obama knew Rezko was a slumlord

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times reported that in 1997, Rezko’s company failed to turn the heat back on in one of his buildings, while giving $1,000 to Obama’s campaign fund.

The truth: There’s no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko’s buildings. A state senator doesn’t deal with tenant complaints, and the Chicago newspapers never reported on Rezko’s problems as a landlord until after he was indicted. According to the Chicago Tribune, "in the years before 2005, Rezko enjoyed a reputation in Illinois as an up-and-coming, even enlightened entrepreneur with a strong interest in the risky low-income and affordable housing markets."

Myth #3: Obama underpaid for his house in a deal with Rezko

Claim: Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote: "Rezko paid more than the asking price for the side lot, and Obama paid less than the asking price for the big house. It’s the Chicago way." Kass claimed that Rezko was "Obama's Real Estate Fairy" and this is "the story of the dream house the Obamas wanted and couldn't quite afford and how the Rezkos helped."

The truth: None of this is true. The seller decided to divide the lot in offering it for sale, not Obama or Rezko. Rezko had paid the list price for his lot, not an excessive amount (as the resale value later proved). The owner reportedly had already been offered $625,000 for the side lot, so Rezko didn’t offer any more money and there was no way Obama could have gotten a special deal this way. The only special arrangement Rezko provided was selling the two lots on the same day, which simplified matters for the seller. Obama paid $1.65 million for a house originally priced at $1.95 million. His was the higher of two bids for the main property. It’s not unusual at all in the Chicago real estate business to see a 15 percent price cut on an expensive house that’s been on the market for four months. Nor is it unusual that a vacant lot next door would sell to a condo developer without such a discount. In the Hyde Park market, there are a lot of upper-middle-class residents making six figures, but not very many millionaires (it’s not Lincoln Park or the Gold Coast). Therefore, a pricey mansion is very difficult to sell, while a $300,000 townhouse is very common.

Myth #4: Rezko’s lot was a front (yard) deal

Claim: One blogger declared it was "a $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator" because "the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land."

The truth: It’s insane to think that Obama arranged for Rezko to buy the lot as his front yard, and never intended for anyone to develop it. If Obama had arranged such a deal, it would be crazy for him to spend $104,500 to buy part of the land from Rezko. There is not even the slightest evidence to support this notion.

Myth #5: Obama underpaid (or overpaid) for the slice of Rezko’s lot

Claim: John Kass declared: "Obama’s appraiser told him the fair market value of that slice was $40,500. Since that’s one-sixth of the Rezko side, it means Rezko paid $625,000 for property that was actually worth $243,000. That would make Rezko a complete fool. But he’s no fool." Fox News Channel incorrectly reported that Rezko "sold half that lot to Obama for 1/3 its original value."

The truth: The appraiser was clearly wrong (probably basing the low value on the fact that 1/6th of the lot was too small for any house, which would dramatically reduce its value standing alone). That’s why Obama decided to buy 1/6th of Rezko’s lot for 1/6th of what Rezko paid for it ($104,500). A year after the 10-foot-wide strip of land was sold to Obama, a Rezko business associate bought the rest of the lot for $575,000, resulting in a profit for the Rezkos of $54,000 from the two land sales. This sale proved that Obama paid fair market value for his portion of the land.

Myth #6: Obama hasn’t returned all the money linked to Rezko’s donations

Claim: The Chicago Sun-Times accused Obama of downplaying the $50,000–$60,000 in donations he received from Rezko (Rezko, before his legal troubles started, had cohosted a fundraiser for Obama). The newspaper claimed the actual amount was $168,000.

The truth: The Sun Times came up with that figure by counting every donation to Obama from anyone ever associated with Rezko, even if there was no evidence Rezko prompted the donation. Obama donated additional money to charity, but he’s under no obligation (legal or even moral) to return every dollar ever linked to Rezko. If you play a game of "six degrees of separation" with Rezko, he’s linked to almost every politician in Chicago.

Myth #7: Rezko had a special relationship with Obama

Claim: The Clinton campaign denounces "Sen. Obama's 17-year relationship with the indicted influence peddler."

The truth: Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians. Rezko donated money to every major Democratic politician in Illinois, then helped organize a $3.5 million fundraiser for President George W. Bush in 2003. After giving large campaign donations to Democratic Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, Rezko arranged to have his buddies appointed by Blagojevich to state boards such as the Teachers’ Retirement System Board and the Illinois Health Facilities Planning Board. With his friend Stuart Levine, Rezko threatened to hold up a $220 million deal to invest teachers’ pension fund money unless $2 million was paid to Levine or $1.5 million was donated to Blagojevich’s campaign. Rezko and Levine also demanded a $1 million cut from a developer to build a hospital. Rezko was indicted for pretending to sell his Papa John’s pizza restaurants while secretly maintaining control of them, and fraudulently using the transaction to get $10 million in loans. It is Blagojevich, not Obama, who did favors for Rezko. Rezko’s eye for scouting political talent was amazing, but he did not capitalize on Obama’s influence. Obama said he had known Rezko for twenty years and "he had never asked me for anything. I’ve never done any favors for him."

Myth #8: Obama did favors for Rezko

Claim: Chicago Sun-Times revealed that in 1998, Obama wrote a letter endorsing a low-income housing development for which Rezko was a codeveloper. As the Sun-Times put it, "NOT A FAVOR? As a state senator, he went to bat for now-indicted developer’s deal." Chicago Tribune columnist John Kass wrote, "No favors? When you transcend politics and walk on water, I guess it all depends on what your definition of favor is."

The truth: The common definition of a favor in this context is a political action done in exchange for donations. Rezko’s lawyer reported that Rezko had not asked Obama to write the letter. Instead, Obama (along with a local state representative and an alderman) endorsed the project because it had widespread community support. It’s difficult to imagine any politician on the south side of Chicago who wouldn’t have a routine letter written to endorse government funding for affordable housing and social services for low-income senior citizens in that area. When it came to political influence, Obama didn’t do any favors for Rezko. The Chicago Tribune reported, "when Rezko pushed for passage in Springfield of a major gambling measure, Obama vocally opposed it."

Myth #9: Obama should have known about Rezko’s sleazy background

Claim: The Chicago Tribune, although endorsing Obama, wrote: "His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004."

The truth: At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko’s problems. When Obama bought a small strip of Rezko’s land in 2006, rumors were swirling around Chicago that the federal government was investigating Rezko, but he wasn’t indicted until October 2006. The Tribune stories before 2006 reveal that Rezko was a tightly connected political player, but the evidence of criminal misconduct wasn’t proven.

Myth #10: Obama hasn’t been forthcoming about his mistakes with Rezko

Claim: The Chicago Tribune editorialized, "Obama has been too self-exculpatory."

The truth: Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him. Obama declared, "I am the first one to acknowledge that it was a boneheaded move for me to purchase this 10-foot strip from Rezko, given that he was already under a cloud of concern. I will also acknowledge that from his perspective, he no doubt believed that by buying the piece of property next to me that he would, if not be doing me a favor, it would help strengthen our relationship." Obama’s mistake was in allowing the appearance of impropriety. He never actually did anything wrong. And that’s the key issue here.

Despite all of these rumors about Obama and Rezko, none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing. Conservative Republican Tom Bevan called the evidence against Obama "pretty darn weak." Conor Clarke of the New Republic reported that Obama’s real estate deal with Rezko was a "nonscandal." According to Clarke, "journalists have followed the smoke and haven’t found the fire. At that point, accusing someone of something that looks wrong stops making sense."

An artillery report is heard.
Thanks, good night & good luck.

I guess Pelosi (the house) apologized for slavery and Jim Crow.

The Investors Business Daily (july 28) did and explosive story this week, regarding a man named Frank that Obama mentions in one of his books. I guess he never gave the mans last name, for good reason. IBD investigated and found that this man lived in Hawaii (but a Chicago native) and was a very close mentor to Obama in his impressionable teens. This guy has been charged with tax fraud and something else (?), but the interesting part is that this mentor is a very radical socialist. Later, of course , we all know that Obama went from college to Chicago to (as I've read) seek out radical socialist and Marxist friends to surround himself with. I think the IBD is a weekly mag so I am going to try and pick it up. There is a lot more to the story. I guess businesses are scared to death of Obama because of the degree in which they've learned, that he will re-distribute wealth. He wants, as his buzz word would suggest, ' economic justice'. It's code for wealth redistribution, as many out there, the ones he's talking to, already know.

Posted by: JohnKWilson | July 29, 2008 11:57 PM
Well Troll, I see you're still pretending to be a writer, and still just another paranoid twit accusing everybody who doesn't toe the party line of being a paid blogger.
And I see you're still copying and pasting your specious "debunkings" which include many points that nobody brings up. OK, I'll skip those and deal with what I've been talking about:
There's no evidence that Obama knew about problems with Rezko�s buildings. A state senator doesn't deal with tenant complaints...
> It was not his job to be aware of his constituent's problems? If you say so. But what about Barack the Community Activist? The Champion of the Poor and Oppressed? What about the New Approach to Politics? So you're agreeing with me that that is BS. Got it!

The truth: Rezko attached himself to lots of politicians.
> So what? How does that exonerate the Messiah? You're telling me that Obama is just one more bought and paid for pol. I'm not imporessed.
Obama didn't do any favors for Rezko
> Cuz John K. Wilson said so, right? Oh wait, so did Obama and Rezko's lawyer. Hmm... there certainly is an appearance of quid pro quo and reasonable people will ask if favors were done. You'd better come up with something better than "Cuz Obama and I said so" if you want to assuage their concerns.
The truth: At the time Obama bought his house, there was no public indication of Rezko�s problems.
>False: Rezko's problems were well publicized at the time. Even Obama admits that.
Obama has been honest about the mistake he made, and the fact that Rezko was trying to buy future influence with him.
> Well only after having his feet held to the fire by a few intrepid journalists FOR 16 MONTHS! Once more, I'm not impressed. Oh and "mistake" should be plural, "mistakes".
none of the evidence indicates any actual wrongdoing
> Of all of you're flabby rhetoric this is the flabbiest by far. By "wrongdoing" you're implying criminality. Barack hasn't been charged or convicted of a crime, ergo he hasn't done anything "wrong" [nudge, wink]. Any school child knows that right and wrong and statutory criminal guilt often don't coincide. Obama's constituents suffered as a direct result of his actions and/or inactions. That alone won't put him in prison, nevertheless it's "wrongdoing".
Try again, chuckle head.

"That attempt to pump [Rezko's monetary contributions] up to a quarter million in Barack's case just won't wash."
Posted by: ornery | July 29, 2008 11:32 PM
Uhhh... A quarter of a million dollars is the amount that Barck Obama himself admits to.
D'OH!

MJ,
How do you contribute a quarter of a million dollars to a candidate? Aren't there limits per election cycle?

How do you contribute a quarter of a million dollars to a candidate? Aren't there limits per election cycle?
Posted by: jo | July 30, 2008 10:01 AM
It didn't come all at one time. Also, Rezko's business associates cut checks after Rezko reached the legal limit (which is a common trick.)

I read that amount on several different sites, and they is the amount he raised from several donors. However, it is said that Obama never paid the entire thing back. The site I saw said he paid only 150,000.00. I think the site was Sweet Lynn or something like that, but once you look it up, that number above is all over the sites.

I found two of the articles by the Investors Business Daily. They will have new articles all week. Here is , it's pretty stunning stuff. http://www.ibdeditorials.com/series8.aspx

Message from the far left:
FISA vote, funding faith based initiatives, equivocation on marriage rights, duplicity on reproductive rights, capital punishment support, class action (un)fairness vote, business as usual on healthcare issues, abandonment of campaign and election financing reform, ..., and on, and on.

Obama's a pile of crap