Here’s the text of a recent ad from He That We Have All Been Waiting For:
OBAMA: I’m Barack Obama, and I approved this message.
OBAMA: If you are ready for change, then we can go ahead and tell the lobbyists that their days of setting the agenda are over.
ANNOUNCER: In the Senate, Barack Obama challenged both parties and passed tough new ethics laws, reining in the power of lobbyists. And he’s the only candidate refusing contributions from PACs and Washington lobbyists who have too much power today.
OBAMA: They have not funded my campaign, they will not run my White House, and they will not drown out the voices of the American people.
Wow… With that kind of strong, principled rhetoric, there’s no possibility that the candidate would have have gotten millions of dollars for a sweetheart land deal from a British national, is there?
A British-Iraqi billionaire lent millions of dollars to Barack Obama’s fundraiser just weeks before an imprudent land deal that has returned to haunt the presidential contender, an investigation by The Times discloses.
The money transfer raises the question of whether funds from Nadhmi Auchi, one of Britain’s wealthiest men, helped Mr Obama buy his mock Georgian mansion in Chicago.
A company related to Mr Auchi, who has a conviction for corruption in France, registered the loan to Mr Obama’s bagman Antoin “Tony” Rezko on May 23 2005. Mr Auchi says the loan, through the Panamanian company Fintrade Services SA, was for $3.5 million.
Three weeks later, Mr Obama bought a house on the city’s South Side while Mr Rezko’s wife bought the garden plot next door from the same seller on the same day, June 15.
Mr Obama says he never used Mrs Rezko’s still-empty lot, which could only be accessed through his property. But he admits he paid his gardener to mow the lawn.
Mrs Rezko, whose husband was widely known to be under investigation at the time, went on to sell a 10-foot strip of her property to Mr Obama seven months later so he could enjoy a bigger garden.
Mr Obama now admits his involvement in this land deal was a “boneheaded mistake”.
The house-and-garden deal raised questions about whether Mr Rezko, a property developer and fast-food restauranteur, made it possible for the Obamas to purchase a mansion they could otherwise not afford.
Mr Rezko has since been indicted for allegedly scheming to pressure companies seeking business with the state of Illinois for kickbacks and contributions to the governor Rod Blagojevich’s campaign. He goes on trial on March 3.
The New York Times splashes unsubstantiated rumors of concern about suspicions of wrongdoing from disgruntled former employees of the Republican candidate, and we have to travel across the pond to find any kind investigation into this very real scandal on the presumptive Democratic nominee.
Once again, we have Obama talking big about being an agent of change, of ridding politics of undue influence purchased by wealthy donors. Yet his actions speak of business as usual.
February 27th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Oh Kavon,
Are you serious? I come here for months to see Republicans doing politics in what I found to be a remarkably civil manner. Lots of emotion and frayed edges obviously, but for the most part, acting like normal decent people.
Now I see you and DaveG (these being the most remarkable shifts) turning into little slimer-wannabes. Do you really intend to wage this campaign in this manner?
“the candidate would have have accepted millions of dollars for a sweetheart land deal from a British national, is there?”
The candidate accepts millions of dollars?
The millions of dollars was a loan to Rezko.
Obama did not recieve any money from Rezko for this house.
Obama did not buy the house from Rezko.
Obama did eventually buy a slice of the adjoing lot from Rezko, paying market price.
And the remainder of that lot was eventually sold by Rezko to someone else, for market price.
After extensive investigation of this by the Chicago press, and the Clinton campaign, there is not the slightest hint that Obama was able to buy this house with money that came from anywhere other than his own wealth, which he earned through his book sales.
In fact, the very reason that he was not able to buy the adjacent lot was because he could only afford the house.
If you want to criticize the NYT for printing unsubstantiated rumors, why then go out and totally undermine your credibility for printing things that have far less substance than even the NYT article? Unlike that article, there is no one with any knowledge of this situation that is even making unsubstantiated anonymous charges. Yeah, it comes down to going across the pond, to a Rupert Murdoch newspaper where some columnist makes a totally bizarre hint.
Why not show the same class that you have all these months, and lets fight a campaign over the real issues that face this country?
February 27th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Who cares Tano? The fact is, your candidate sucks. Obama is a REALLY weak candidate,
much weaker than John Kerry or Michael Dukakis. That realization will slowly break
over you over the next few months. He beat Hillary, so what? Everyone hates her,
even most of the Manhattan Democrats I know…..Other than that he beat who, Alan Keyes?
Get ready for prime time, you are going to get crushed and you are going to be crying…
February 27th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
Agreed, he started running for president after less than 2 years in the Senate…
And in general, I have one question for him? Accomplish much?
The only thing he was ever able to come up with was that when he was a community
organizer he got some asbestos removed…Then it turned out that somebody else
was the prime mover on that, and got upset that Obama took credit for it….
February 27th, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Seriously folks… Click the link and read the actual article. Then come back and tell me which charges are more substantial.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Obama’s Class-War Court
By Terence P. Jeffrey
CNSNews.com Editor in Chief
February 27, 2008
When the nomination of John Roberts to be chief justice of the Supreme Court came up in the Senate in 2005, Sen. Barack Obama argued that the role of a justice is to favor the “weak” over the “strong.”
When the nomination of Sam Alito came up in January 2006, he made the same argument.
Obama does not want a Supreme Court that preserves the rule of law, he wants a Supreme Court that wages class war under color of law.
During the Roberts nomination debate, he argued that most Supreme Court cases involve no real controversy, “so that both a Scalia and a Ginsburg will arrive at the same place most of the time on those 95 percent of cases.”
In the other 5 percent, he argued, the determining factor is not what the law in question says, or what the Constitution says, but the emotional disposition that the justices deciding the case have toward the parties disputing it. “In those difficult cases,” Obama said, “the critical ingredient is supplied by what is in the judge’s heart.” Roberts and Alito were bad judges, he decided, because their hearts weren’t in the right place.
“The problem I had is that when I examined Judge Roberts’ record and history of public service, it is my personal estimation that he has far more often used his formidable skills on behalf of the strong in opposition to the weak,” Obama said in a floor speech on Sept. 22, 2005.
“When I examine the philosophy, ideology and record of Samuel Alito, I am deeply troubled,” Obama said in another floor speech on Jan. 26, 2006. “There is no indication that he is not a man of fine character. But when you look at his record, when it comes to his understanding of the Constitution, I found that in almost every case he consistently sides on behalf of the powerful against the powerless.”
Implicitly conceding that Roberts would be confirmed, Obama said, “I hope he will recognize who the weak are and who the strong are in our society.”
So, in Obama’s vision, who are the “weak” and who are the “strong”? Who deserves to win the “hearts” of Supreme Court justices? Who does not?
In contrast to his soaring campaign rhetoric about bringing America together, Obama’s Senate speeches against Roberts and Alito revealed a polarizing vision of America. Minorities, women, employees and criminal defendants were among the weak, majorities, men, employers and prosecutors were among the strong.
“In his work in the White House and the Solicitor General’s Office, he seemed to have consistently sided with those who were dismissive of efforts to eradicate the remnants of racial discrimination in our political process,” Obama said of Roberts. “In these same positions, he seemed dismissive of concerns that it is harder to make it in this world and in this economy when you are a woman rather than a man.”
Alito had a similar problem, only with different preferred victim classes.
“If there is a case involving an employer and employee, and the Supreme Court has not given clear direction, Judge Alito will rule in favor of the employer,” Obama said. “If there is a claim between prosecutors and defendants, if the Supreme Court has not provided a clear rule of decision, then he will rule in favor of the state.”
Obama expressed disappointed that when he interviewed John Roberts he could not get the judge to reveal more of his personal feelings. “Judge Roberts confessed that, unlike maybe professional politicians, it is not easy for him to talk about his values and deeper feelings,” Obama said. “That is not how he is trained.”
Rather than trying to get up-close-and-personal with Roberts, Obama should have listened more carefully to the judge’s testimony in the Senate Judiciary Committee. It clearly explained why judges must not consider who is “weak” and who is “strong” in a case, or consult their personal sympathies in making decisions that must be based on the facts and the law.
“Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them,” said Roberts. “I will decide every case based on the record, according to the rule of law, without fear or favor, to the best of my ability. And I will remember that it’s my job to call balls and strikes, and not to pitch or bat.”
If Obama becomes president, he will try to stack the court not with umpires, but with players who put their heart in every game — consistently pitching and batting for Obama’s favorite teams.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Aron. . . That article in #5 explains exactly why I’ve been saying for a long time now that despite my misgivings about Sen. McCain, I would never consider staying home or voting 3rd party in the hopes that in just four short years, Conservatives will come back stronger than ever to continue making the world a better place. The fact is, a lot can happen in four short years under Clinton or Obama, actions which could take decades to overturn. SC rulings rarely get overturned, and often lead to other more far reaching decisions at lower-level courts which affect us all. Even if Clinton or Obama serve just one term, they most surely will nominate at least one and possibly up to four new justices to the Court, not to mention appointments to the many lower-level courts. With a Democratic-controlled Congress, their nominees will sail through the approval process. It is for this reason more than any other that I will happily pull the lever for McCain. I may not like some of his key decisions in the past, but there is no question in my mind as to which type of Justice he would nominate to the SC, despite what some Conservatives will tell you.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
As a complete aside, when I came to my current firm, one of my first cases involved a Lanham Act case against a guy who had taken his Papa John’s restaurants and changed the name to “Papa Tony’s.” That man was Tony Rezko. Not even joking.
February 27th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Wow, this site and Ayatollah Kavon have become hatemongers. I don’t know what it is about kooky Iranians but a little power goes to their heads. I suspect traffic will plummet even more.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:07 pm
Goodbye Axel, Racial smears aren’t cool, maybe in you’re next blogging life you’ll realize that. Accusing Kavon of being the Ayatollah isn’t cool eith
February 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
“Your” next blogging life I should say.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Well at least Axel revealed that he sees the world through racially tinted glasses.
That helps to explain his support of Obama when he purports to be a libertarian.
February 27th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
I supported Thompson before he dropped out. And the racial smears are being launched by Kavon and the supposed grad student who shows no knowledge of economics.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Who do you support now Axel? I’ve been wondering for a good while. It seems like Obama, but that’s 50 millions miles from Thompson, so who???
February 27th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
Axel after making a bigoted ethnic smear, you’re not in a position to be troating out ad hominem attacks on me.
As far as I know you’re the only one who’s crossed the line and said bigoted things about Kavon’s and my own ancestry. Obama’s race has never been an issue to conservatives it’s always been an issue to liberals who see him as a way to realize their guilt.
February 27th, 2008 at 6:54 pm
Its bigoted to point out that some Iranians are kooky? Surely you realize that you and your relatives took Americans hostage and are threatening the destruction of Israel? Perhaps you prefer if I just call you extremists or jihadists.
February 27th, 2008 at 7:08 pm
Geez, Axel, I thought the first one was just a mistake, but now you repeat it. You really are a bigot, aren’t you?
Too bad this blog doesn’t have an “ignore” button.
February 27th, 2008 at 8:41 pm
So we go blow up Iran for making baseless threats?
February 27th, 2008 at 11:00 pm
My relatives have served in the American armed forces. My cousin Atif served in Iraq just last year.
Axel G, your ethnic bigotry is undermining any credibility you had left.
February 28th, 2008 at 12:23 am
I go away for several hours and still don’t get to see a banning – I’m waiting…
February 28th, 2008 at 4:29 am
Axel is a joke. Just a few days ago he called me a racist simply for suggesting that part of Obama’s success to date is because the media wants to see an articulate black man succeed. No one except Axel disagreed (and if we’re talking simply about the Democrat side it’s pretty clear which Democrat the media has favored).
February 28th, 2008 at 9:19 am
“Surely you realize that you and your relatives took Americans hostage and are threatening the destruction of Israel?”
Axel,
1. Do you even know who Kavon is, beyond a name on an internet blog? Obviously more than I did, as you knew he’s Iranian, but do you know any more than that?
2. If #1 is yes (you know substantial information about him), then do you have evidence that he or his family have done what you said? By family, of course, I mean more than just ethnicity, as it’s just pure ignorance to claim “every Iranian does X,” or “every Muslim believes Y.” Imagine inserting ANY other race/gender/belief structure in those claims.
3. If #2 is yes, why haven’t you gone to the police?
Of course, I imagine #1 is no, showing your warped sense of reality in making such baseless and inflammatory charges. Try getting a life.