Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

McCain Targets Obama's Glass House

By Howard Kurtz
The Ad: Barack Obama knows a lot about housing problems. One of his biggest fundraisers helped him buy his million-dollar mansion. Purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford. From Obama, Rezko got political favors including 14 million from taxpayers. Now, he's a convicted felon, facing jail. That's a housing problem.

Analysis: This John McCain ad attempts to drag back into the news Obama's dealings with a corrupt fundraiser, which the senator from Illinois has already described as a "boneheaded" mistake.

The facts are generally accurate. Tony Rezko was an Obama fundraiser, and when Obama and his wife bought their Chicago home in 2005 for $1.65 million, Rezko's wife bought an adjacent side lot for $625,000. Months later, the Obamas bought a small part of that lot for $104,000. Viewers may not realize, however, that Rezko was not under investigation at the time.

As a state senator, Obama did write letters to officials supporting a $14-million Rezko bid to build senior citizen housing, but he was not the decision-maker. While the ad features a Chicago Sun-Times headline -- "Obama Surfaces in Rezko Case" -- he was tangential to the testimony and had no connection to the fraud and money-laundering charges on which Rezko was convicted in June.

The McCain spot, marked by ominous music, was released today hours after an Obama commercial chided the senator from Arizona for failing to remember that he owns seven houses. The counterattack ad attempts to shift the focus off from McCain's wealth to Obama's judgment by reviving a controversy that was fully aired during the primaries.

By Web Politics Editor  |  August 21, 2008; 7:55 PM ET
Categories:  Ad Watch , Barack Obama , John McCain , The Green Zone  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Church and Politics Now a Less Popular Mix
Next: Independent Group Ad Plays Ayers Card

Comments

nmwvtr54tww http://www.829052.com/292029.html 7sg2x5oer

Posted by: yah1o4tl7j | August 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

xuyoocyot http://www.239347.com/187611.html jkay4ow1vs2d1zx7p

Posted by: vccobq45bn | August 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

xuyoocyot http://www.385490.com/109734.html > ht3ro2edqp68sbq5 [URL=http://www.351137.com/205792.html] 8fdnpmsrx7n9 [/URL] jkay4ow1vs2d1zx7p

Posted by: vccobq45bn | August 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

nmwvtr54tww http://www.516455.com/350202.html > e5a0gprju [URL=http://www.199365.com/250973.html] cmpyc664bw7 [/URL] 7sg2x5oer

Posted by: yah1o4tl7j | August 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

nmwvtr54tww [URL=http://www.199365.com/250973.html] cmpyc664bw7 [/URL] 7sg2x5oer

Posted by: yah1o4tl7j | August 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse

xuyoocyot [URL=http://www.351137.com/205792.html] 8fdnpmsrx7n9 [/URL] jkay4ow1vs2d1zx7p

Posted by: vccobq45bn | August 24, 2008 2:22 PM | Report abuse


McBush needs to stop acting like such a spoiled brat and speak positively about his platform--that is, if he knows what his platform is. Striking out at Obama is childish and immature. And we are sick and tired of his filthy campaign.

Posted by: Vampirella | August 23, 2008 11:26 AM | Report abuse

I support McCain but him and Obama needs to grow up; The money they are spending on ads they need to help with gas prices.
They are to busy worrying about each then worrying about us middle class hard working white women and the America people.
Come on McCain get to the real issues.
Jackie
Michigan

Posted by: Jackie Miles | August 23, 2008 1:41 AM | Report abuse

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/23/us/politics/23mccain.html

HouseGate may evoke Rezko but it also begs the question of where McCain got his money. This article almost goes all the way- stopped at Marley, one step away from the Third Rail that marks the intersection of politics and dirty money.

Posted by: Deep Blue | August 23, 2008 1:00 AM | Report abuse

The Six Articles of The Code of Conduct

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way
of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never
surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to
resist.

If I am captured, I will continue to resist by all means available. I will
make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither
parole nor special favors from the enemy.

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners.
I will give no information or take part in any action which might be
harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will
obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me, and will back them up in
every way.

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give
only name, rank, service number, and date of birth. I will evade answering
further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or
written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to
their cause.

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom,
responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my
country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.

Posted by: Matthew 7:1 | August 23, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

Rediculous, again McCain trying to pin a fast one on Obama stating untrue and misleading, wrong statements. No matter what I am not voting for McCain. His attacks have gotten worse and worse and are focusing on Obama rather than what he can offer the country. The fact that Obama may own one house is nothing to the fact of McCain owning upwards of 7 houses. If McCain wins the country will be in shambles. Look what the Repubs have done to it so far.
Fact check before playing. McCain, focus on your self not Obama. So far Obama has shown more class and trust worthiness than you.

Posted by: Carlos | August 22, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

We don't want another president who makes "boneheaded" mistakes.

Posted by: John Q | August 22, 2008 10:15 PM | Report abuse

I SEE WE ARE REALLY IN A PLACE WHERE WE NEED THE TRUTH.....

The RNC/GOP and their WILLING POLITICAL PUPPET MOUTHPEICE got this one all WRONG..It's total lies and total SPIN for PUPPETED ELITIST John McShame....

HERE'S A FACT CHECK FROM factcheck.org


Rezko Reality
August 22, 2008
McCain misfires as he attacks Obama's home purchase.
Summary
On the defensive over the extent of multiple McCain homes, the GOP candidate strikes back. But his TV spot gives an oversimplified and misleading account of how Obama bought his own $1.6 million house in Chicago.

The ad says Chicago power broker Tony Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers." But there's no evidence of any connection to the Obama home purchase. The $14 million was to build apartments for low-income seniors. Obama wrote a letter supporting the "worthy" project, but both men say Rezko didn't ask for the letter.
It says Rezko "purchased part of the property [Obama] couldn't afford." Rezko's wife did buy an adjoining tract but later sold the land at a profit. Obama paid market price for his home.

McCain launched the attack after Obama ran one capitalizing on McCain's inability to recall for an interviewer how many homes the McCains own. Obama's ad says it's seven. The best tally we've seen puts the figure at eight, counting all the apartments and homes owned by McCain's wife, Cindy, and various family trusts, for themselves and their children.
Analysis
On Aug. 21, Barack Obama released an ad chiding Sen. John McCain for his inability to remember how many houses he owns, and McCain responded the same day with a counterattack charging that Obama got help buying his house from a "convicted felon" who got $14 million in "political favors" from Obama. We find McCain's ad is careless with the facts and could easily leave a false impression.

John McCain 2008 TV Ad: "Housing Problem"


Announcer: Barack Obama knows a lot about housing problems.

One of his "biggest fundraisers" helped him buy his million-dollar mansion.

Purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford.

From Obama, Rezko got "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers."

Now, he's a convicted felon, facing jail.

That's a housing problem.

McCain: I'm John McCain and I approved this message.A $14 Million "Favor"?


McCain's ad opens by turning Obama's housing problem attack back on Obama. The narrator says Chicago real estate developer Tony Rezko, one of Obama's "biggest fundraisers" helped Obama buy his "million-dollar mansion" by purchasing property that Obama couldn't afford. The ad goes on to charge that Obama helped Rezko receive "political favors" including "$14 million from taxpayers," and it points out that Rezko is now a convicted felon.

It's untrue that Rezko got "$14 million from taxpayers" for himself, as the ad seems to be saying. The "help" to which it refers is a one-page letter Obama signed in October 1998 urging the city housing commissioner to support an apartment project for low-income senior citizens. A copy went to the state housing development authority. The 97-unit Cottage View Terrace, which opened in 2002, was funded with taxpayer money, and Tony Rezko was involved in developing the project.

But the deal did not put $14 million into Rezko's pocket. That figure represents the total development cost for the project. According to the Chicago Sun-Times, Rezko and his partner, Allison Davis, netted about $855,000. That's not pocket change, but it's a far cry from $14 million. And the tenants of the building benefited too.

Moreover, the ad's claim that Obama wrote the letter as a favor to Rezko is without factual support. Both men deny that Rezko asked Obama to write them, and Obama says his district office frequently sent letters supporting "worthy" community projects, so routinely that "I wasn't even aware that we wrote the letter." Rezko's attorney, Joseph Duffy, told the Sun-Times in 2007 that "Mr. Rezko never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project." And Obama told Sun-Times reporters in a March 2008 interview:

Obama (March 15, 2008): [He] did not solicit that from me. ... This was a project that was well-regarded in the community, has done well, and was supported on its own merits, and it was essentially a form letter of the sort that I did all [the] time.

Can support for a low-income housing project be a "favor" to the developer if the developer didn't ask for it? You decide.


Million-Dollar Mansion


As for that claim about Rezko helping Obama buy his house, well, we've dealt with that one before. The gist of the story: In 2005, Barack and Michelle Obama found a house that they wanted to purchase. The property had been divided into two parcels, one containing a house and the other undeveloped land. The owner had listed the properties separately. After considerable haggling, the seller accepted the Obamas' third bid of $1.65 million for the parcel containing the house. Tony Rezko's wife, Rita, purchased the adjoining lot for $625,000.

When the Obamas wanted to increase the size of their yard, they approached the Rezkos about purchasing a strip of the adjacent parcel. Obama told the Sun-Times that a 10-foot strip of the 60-foot lot appraised for $40,000. The Obamas nevertheless paid Rita $104,500 (or 1/6 of the total purchase price of her lot) for the strip. In 2007, Rita sold the remaining lot for $575,000 (or roughly a $54,500 profit on the overall property).

McCain's ad, however, is worded in a way that could leave a false impression. It says Rezko "helped him buy his million-dollar mansion" by "purchasing part of the property he couldn't afford." That's true, but only because the seller wanted to sell the two parcels as a unit and the Obamas couldn't afford both. Rezko did not make a gift of any property to the Obamas. Furthermore, the fact that his wife sold her lot for more than she paid for it contradicts any suggestion that the Rezkos overpaid for their part of the deal as a way of getting the seller to lower the price to the Obamas for their part.


Convicted Felon


The McCain ad says of Rezko, "Now, he's a convicted felon." That's true; Rezko was indicted in 2006 and convicted of corruption charges on June 4, 2008. But those charges came after the 2005 Obama home purchase and had nothing to do with that or with the $14 million project mentioned in the ad.

Obama has conceded that purchasing the land from Rezko, whom Obama knew to be under investigation at the time, was "boneheaded." As we reported in December, Obama has donated campaign contributions from Rezko and his associates to charity.


What About That Obama Ad?


As we mentioned, McCain's ad was prompted by an Obama attack ad released earlier in the day. In that TV spot, Obama criticizes McCain for not knowing just how many houses he owns. The answer depends on what you count as a McCain-owned home. We're going with our colleagues at PolitiFact.com, who decided that the McCain total is eight.

– by Joe Miller, with D'Angelo Gore

Sources
Gibson, David Jackson and Ray. "Rezko Sells Lot Next to Obama." 24 February 2007. Chicago Tribune. 22 August 2008.

Novak, Tim. "Obama's Letters for Rezko." 13 June 2007. The Chicago Sun-Times. 22 August 2008.

"Press Release: Mayor Daley Opens Cottage View Terrace." 9 February 2002. City of Chicago: Mayor's Office. 22 August 2008.

PolitiFact.com. "Statement: John McCain Has Seven Houses." 20 August 2008. PolitiFact.com. 22 August 2008.

Sun-Times Staff. "Complete Transcript of the Sun-Times Interview with Barack Obama." 15 March 2008. The Chicago Sun-Times. 22 August 2008.


Hmmmmmmmmmmm...Looks like the ELITIST PUPPET MOUTHPIECE FOR THE RNC/GOP Spent a couple million to spin a lie for the 'RELIABLES'

You guys get a clue and go and do your homework...PLEASE!!!!! Will you really support Pinnochio (John Sydney McShame) who is just the soldout WILLING PUPPET for the evil marionette RNC/GOP???

REMEMBER THIS......John McCain has WILLING and WHOLEHEATEDLY SUBMITTED his WILL AND INTEGRITY an very LIFE TO THE RNC/GOP machine...He is THE PUPPETED POLITICAL MOUTHPIECE and nothing more. Whatever happened to COUNTRY-HONOR-CODE-GOD Soldier??

Posted by: need4trth | August 22, 2008 9:10 PM | Report abuse

it appears that the media should give the proper data on mccain. it appears he has one house. cindy has several condos through the trust fund she administers.

i am no fan of mccain but this house thing is stupid. mccain should have had an answer prepared long, long ago.

obama never should have made a deal with rezko (who may be an illegal alien) he came here from syria on a student visa in the 70's. did he ever become a citizen?

Posted by: deroy | August 22, 2008 8:21 PM | Report abuse

Your right about Bush, Cheyney and Halliburton, and throw in Obama and Rezko in while your at it. The three of them should be investigated.

How do you know there was nothing illegal in the Obama/Rezko land deal? US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald spent 5 years probing Illinois pay-to-play schemes and he isn't done handing down indictments yet.

It took those Chicago reporters two years just to get the information I posted and that isn't the half of it. Like I said this is begging for an investigation by reporters. Maybe the Enquirer will do it. You know, I have new found respect for them, they reported what the MSM wouldn't.

Read investigative reporter Evelyn Pringle's Curtain Time for Obama, all 7 parts of it, on the OPED News website. All documented and verified. The MSM is smothering her report.

But it'll all "come out in the wash."

Posted by: J | August 22, 2008 4:50 PM | Report abuse

I've read some of the more "scandalous" accusations here regarding Obama's land transaction with Rezko. Basically, nothing illegal happened. (I'm sure Rezko's wife got the mortgage by using her husband's assets as collateral.) The only thing it illustrates is that Obama and Rezko were friends and neighbors (sort of.) I also know about the letters Obama wrote supporting the $14 million deal to build senior citizen housing, but how is that any different than Bush/Cheney handing over multi-billion dollar contracts to Halliburton? There isn't much difference, especially if Rezko wasn't under investigation for anything at the time. Rezko, at the time, was considered a reliable person to go to for real estate development at that point. In hindsight, yes, it was a bad idea, but Obama shouldn't be penalized for lacking psychic powers.

At worst, Obama made an unfortunate friend. There is nothing connecting Obama to Rezko's fraud or money laundering. The end.

Posted by: Katie | August 22, 2008 2:34 PM | Report abuse

To dumbreddown:

Another good source is Evelyn Pringle. She's an investigative reporter for the OPED-News. She's investigated drug companies, republicans and democrats, she currently has a report on the FDA.

Pringle's report(s) are called "Curtain Time for Obama," I believe it's seven parts.

Everything she writes are from well- documented sources. It's a good read and will enlighten you.

Another tidbit, she's tried to get national attention on her report and she says many readers have asked her permission to get her report out to the public. But the MSM has smothered it.

I just try to do my small part to get the truth out.


Posted by: J | August 22, 2008 1:00 PM | Report abuse

corruption_anon:

First, McCain and the Keating donations:

McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981.[58] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[59] political contributions from Keating and his associates.

By the way, McCain returned all donations.

Now to Obama and Rezko. When I post something on Rezko, I quote actual accounts from mostly the Chicago reporters who have covered (and uncovered) the Rezko - Obama ties for years.

I have quotes in Obama's own words in my postings and from reputable sources which I site. I have posted the information below many times, but Obama supporters ignore it or won't debate it.

The following is a part of my rebuttal to Obama's rebuttal. The page number is from Obama's rebuttal.

Rebuttal Page 21 - Obama downplays the mansion and land deal with Rezko. Obama says he only bought a "strip of land," saying he didn't know that the lot was in Rezko's wife Rita's name. Also saying that Rezko had to put a fence around the property to abide by Chicago code. This is what is NOT said:

Excerpt from Chicago Tribune article dated ll/01/06:

"...He (Obama) said he discussed the house with Rezko but isn't sure how Rezko began pursuing the adjacent lot. BUT OBAMA RAISED THE POSSIBILITY THAT HE (OBAMA) WAS THE FIRST TO BRING THE LOT TO REZKO'S ATTENTION.....Rezko's wife Rita bought the adjoining lot the same day, paying full $625,000 asking price--secured with the help of a $500,000 mortgage.....The Obamas wanted a fence between the parcels. They hired an attorney and architects within a month of their purchase ....Michelle Obama had served on the commission (Landmarks)...and contacted the (commission) staff about the fence...Architect Wil Taubert said in an interview that he dealt only with the Obamas..."I knew somebody owned the corner but I never asked who it was,"Taubert said....Though the Obamas laid the groundwork, Rezko agreed to build and pay for the $14,000 fence...Obama said he (Obama) funded the architectural and legal work..."My (Obama) suspicion is that it would probably be a couple of thousand dollars. On the architectural side it might be more,"he said,"I think legal fees were a couple thousand."....Obama said he pays his landscaper to mow Rezko's 7500 square foot yard. A person can't enter the Rezko lot from the street--but Obama's groundskeeper gets in through the gate that opens from OBAMA'S LOT..."Right now my landscaper who comes and does all my work, I have asked him to go ahead and MOW THE LAWN ON THE OTHER SIDE," Obama said.

Excerpts, Chicago Sun-Times 3/15/08

"...(Obama)But I did bring to his(Rezko) attention, we are looking at this house. We are interested in it. I'd love for us to give(get) your opinion on it....So Tony then arranged with me and Miriam Zeltzerman to take a look at the house because I wanted to get a basic assessment...So my(Obama) response was, and I'll be honest with you, my basic view at that time was having somebody who I knew, a friend of mine, who would be developing the lot if he could, would be great. It would be somebody who we know."

Excerpt, Chicago Tribune, 12/24/06: "And I(Obama) will also acknowledge that from his(Rezko) 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, that it would help strengthen our relationship

The above are just some of the things I uncovered that are omitted in Obama's rebuttal. The whole story appeared in the Chicago Tribune in 2006 and also Chicago Sun-Times. Obama's rebuttal let's you believe there was nothing to it but "only buying a strip of land."

But: Obama (only a next door neighbor) pays for the legal fees, architect fees, mowing and access to Rezko's lot is only through a gate on Obama's property? And Obama says that he may have "possibly" been the first to bring the lot to Rezko's attention.

Also, in the Sun-Times, Obama says Rezko is a FRIEND of his, then in the Tribune he says Rezko probably thought it would strengthen their relationship. Rezko is is real estate developer with million dollar projects. Rezko has been a friend of Obama's for years and Obama's major campaign fundraiser. Question: Rezko has to buy the lot to strengthen their relationship
?

George Stephanopoulos, This Week, 5/13/07:

Stephanopoulos said, "This exact same day several months later you(Obama) bought part of the plot back from him(Rezko). All at that time it was known that he (Rezko) was being investigated for corruption and kickbacks. What were you thinking?" Obama said, "Well, obviously I wasn't thinking enough. You know, I'm very proud of my ethics.”

OBAMA IS PROUD OF HIS ETHICS?


Another aspect, Rezko's wife received a $500,000 mortgage, but her annual salary was $37,000.

The above are just some of the things I uncovered in Obama's rebuttal. I want you to fully digest just this aspect of Obama's rebuttal and the whole story which appeared in the Chicago Tribune in 2006 and also Chicago Sun-Times. Obama's rebuttal let's you believe there was nothing to it but "only buying a strip of land."

Please read Obama's Rebuttal and Google the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times articles. Compare for yourself. If your brave enough.

Posted by: J | August 22, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

J:

Thank you for pointing out the ***ONE SURE THING*** about this Rezko affair.

Rezko WAS under investigation at the time Obama bought his mansion.

Kurtz's wishful thinking can't alter that fact.

Posted by: dumbreddown | August 22, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

J,

If you are going to spread lies based on a false notion that someone *may have* committed an offense... if you are going to attack a man's character without any proof... then J stands for Jacka$$.

You may have done all kinds of things, but until I see proof I'm not going to call you on it. Why are you so prepared to repeat vicious *unfounded* LIES? Bearing false witness is a sin- you people should be ashamed of yourselves.

McCain was busted. He put $112,000 in his pocket and didn't report it. He took a bribe. You cannot deny that. McCain is crooked.

Anyhow, believe what you want. But spread LIES at your own risk. I'm not sure if you believe in the Bible or not, but THOU SHALT NOT LIE or BEAR FALSE WITNESS.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 22, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Corruption_Anon:

How do you know Obama did not break the law?

Obama's long ties with Rezko are just begging for a thorough investigation.

Maybe now somebody will do their job and stop drinking the Koolaid.

Posted by: J | August 22, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Somehow Republicans think that by repeating LIES that they will become the TRUTH.

It doesn't work that way. What part of taking bribes, ie putting money in your pocket and not declaring it on your taxes, don't you understand the illegality of? Perhaps he used influence and got off with a slap on the wrist, but that doesn't make it legal!

And Obama's real estate transaction was legal.

You people are incorrigible! I'll cut to the chase, you are either DUMB - and don't know any better - or you are knowingly spreading LIES. Thou shalt not lie. Yes, that means even Republican so-called evangelicals. Stop lying!

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 22, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

The ad lies.

Rezko did nothing to "help" the Obamas buy the house.

Obama did no "political favors" for Rezko.

Just more lies from McCain.

Posted by: pedestrian | August 22, 2008 12:00 PM | Report abuse

To Independent_Thinker"

As far as the Keating5 and McCain, McCain was cleared of any wrongdoing.

On Wednesday night, the Democratic Prosecuter for the Keating5 investigation, said he told the Democratically controlled investigation committee, at that time, that McCain was innocent and shouldn't be included with the other four. But he said the committee wouldn't do it because McCain was a Republican and without him that would leave them investigating All Democrats. McCain was still cleared anyway.

Now the bigger story is Obama and his "Political Godfather Rezko." Obama used to call Rezko that before Rezko got in trouble with the Feds, according to John Kass, Chicago Tribune.

Posted by: J | August 22, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Look people, McCain put $112,000 in his pocket and didn't declare it. That, in this country, is against the law.

Obama bought a piece of land from a guy with legal issues. Big deal. Obama did not, himself, break the law.

We need a better educational system in this country. We are living in a knowledge-based global economy. And we have too many people who can't read, write and think. It is stupid to keep our people stupid. Maybe the Republicans think that's an elitist attitude. Maybe I think they sold the country out.

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 22, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Kurtz:

Another tidbit to refute your contention Obama didn't know about Rezko's investigation by the FEDS. (Oh, I forgot to mention the Federal Prosecutor's name for Operation Boardgame (as the FEDS called the probe), it's none other than US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, remember him? And Fitzgerald isn't done yet, he's still handing down indictments.)

Here's that tidbit:

George Stephanopoulos, This Week, 5/13/07:

Stephanopoulos said, "This exact same day several months later you(Obama) bought part of the plot back from him(Rezko). All at that time it was known that he (Rezko) was being investigated for corruption and kickbacks. What were you thinking?" Obama said, "Well, obviously I wasn't thinking enough. You know, I'm very proud of my ethics.”

OBAMA IS PROUD OF HIS ETHICS?

Kurtz, keep drinking that Koolaid.

Posted by: J | August 22, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).

After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".

Poor Judgement = "Boneheaded" mistake

It's a wash...

Just in case you have no idea who this Keating guy is:

Charles Humphrey Keating Jr. (born December 4, 1923 in Cincinnati, Ohio) is a retired American lawyer, politician, and banker - best known for his criminal involvement at the center of the savings and loan scandal of the late 1980s. As a result of his actions he is a convicted felon having been found guilty of fraud, racketeering, and conspiracy. His manipulation of five US senators (to whom he had made substantial financial contributions) to argue for preferential treatment from regulators led to those politicians being dubbed the Keating Five in reference to him.

Posted by: Independent_Thinker | August 22, 2008 11:20 AM | Report abuse

Howard Kurtz:

The following paragragh of your "analysis" doesn't hold water.

"The facts are generally accurate. Tony Rezko was an Obama fundraiser, and when Obama and his wife bought their Chicago home in 2005 for $1.65 million, Rezko's wife bought an adjacent side lot for $625,000. Months later, the Obamas bought a small part of that lot for $104,000. Viewers may not realize, however, that Rezko was not under investigation at the time."

That last sentence of yours above is incorrect.

The following Q&A was reported on November 5, 2006, in an article about the Rezko/Obama ties and Obama's responses to the reporters' queries.


Q: Does it display a lack of judgment on your part to be engaging in real estate deals with Tony Rezko at a point his connections to state government had been reported to be under federal investigation?

A: ...."With respect to the purchase of my home, I am confident that everything was handled ethically and above board.

But I regret that while I tried to pay close attention to the specific requirements of ethical conduct, I misgauged the appearance presented by my purchase of the additional land from Mr. Rezko. It was simply not good enough that I paid above the appraised value for the strip of land that he sold me. It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe that he had done me a favor.."

I've been working on a rebuttal to Obama's Rebuttal because Obama leaves out pertinent information. Below is a tidbit from one of my rebuttals. The page number is from Obama's Rebuttal:


Rebuttal Page 20 - Meet the Press, Tim Russert, ll/ll/07:

“Russert asked, “Is he (Rezko) still your friend?” Obama said, “You know, I have not talked to him since he got into trouble with the law.” Russert confirmed, “Period.” Obama said, “Never had a conversation with him.”

However, in the Chicago Sun-Times, 3/l5/08, this is what Obama says to a reporter’s question.

“Q. “Have you and Tony Rezko ever discussed this federal investigation that began to move against him or the criminal charges?”


“A. (Obama) Yes. When, I don’t remember exactly the dates, but I remember when we first contact about this story and the lot (2006), I called him to let him know that, “Look you may be getting inquiries about this and so it’s important for you to be able to talk to folks about your intentions in terms of development and so forth. At that point, I do remember saying to him how’s it going because I’m reading these problems. And his response was that his lawyers had been talking to the U. S. Attorney’s office and it’s all getting resolved. That was the sum total.

Question Mr. Kurtz: Who did Obama lie to - Tim Russert or the reporter from the Chicago Tribune?

Drink the Koolaid Kurtz, but sooner or later it's going to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

Posted by: J | August 22, 2008 11:13 AM | Report abuse

How is it that we ordinary folks are more aware of what REALLY happened than Kurtz is?

Kurtz **goes out of his way** to say the public is unaware that Rezko was not under investigation at the time Obama purchased his mansion.

In reality, it WAS known that Rezko was under investigation at that time.

That's why Obama finds it necessary to say it was "boneheaded" for him to get involved with buying the land.

Posted by: dumbreddown | August 22, 2008 10:34 AM | Report abuse

sorry lisa, it's not the simple

Rezko sold a portion of the lot to Obama ..
that's true, it wasn't a whole lot.

but selling that portion made the lot unbuildable, thus giving Barack the privacy of 2 two lots for 1/6th the price.

Also Rezko toured Obama's house before he purchased it... the deal was made.

what did Barack promise Rezko.

It's dirty..Obama is dirty

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse


"Rezko's wife bought an adjacent side lot for $625,000. Months later, the Obamas bought that lot for $104,000. "

Those facts are just flat wrong, Howard. Obama did not buy the entire lot. He bought 1/6 of the lot for exactly 1/6 of the price the Rezkos paid for it. You need to fix this error because your statement makes it sound like they bought a $625,000 lot for only $104,000 which is NOT TRUE.

Posted by: Lisa | August 21, 2008 8:02 PM

Thank You Lisa. I did not realize how often Howard gets it wrong. Each time it seems to be against Obama. Could be these are random errors, but they are signs of professional deficiency.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

I may be out of touch but this one and the Ayers ad won't impact voters.


Posted by: Gator-ron | August 22, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

The lavishly-furnished custom Boeing 727 airliner (727PX) which ferried Senator John McCain on four occasions during his Presidential run in 2000 also flew Saudi Royals out of the U.S. right after 9/11, carrying an entourage of Saudi Royals from Las Vegas to London six days after the 9/11 attack in a controversial operation later scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.
The 727 figures in the current tempest over his relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman, who provided and flew with McCain on the plane.
With hundreds of air charter companies and airliners to choose from, the Saudis chose a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc., turning to Paxson Communications, a “Christian broadcaster” which owned the plane, to make its corporate jet available to spirit the Saudi princes and their entourage out of the U.S. six days after 9/11.
The Saudi Royal party made good their escape from Las Vegas on an airliner sporting a Christian symbol of peace, a dove, on it’s tail, an intriguing detail and compelling human interest story—Muslims flying Air Jesus—that has to date been reported nowhere but in the MadCowMorningNews. Go figure.At the time, the controversial evacuation of rich Saudis prompted charges of special treatment and inadequate screening of passengers by the FBI.The FBI, of course, denied it, but in uncharacteristically colorful language. “I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage," an FBI official wrote in a 2003 internal note. “Red-carpeting the entourage” may be the least of it.The McCain lobbying scandal has been called as “silly as a blonde joke,” and an “assault on working women,” although the nature of the ‘work’ being engaged in by the working women under assault was left unspecified. But it may not be as silly as it appears on the surface. You can learn a lot about the players in political scandals these days by remembering the catch phrase from the old TV show Fantasy Island, which each week had an improbably-dressed midget in a tuxedo calling out: “De plane, boss! De plane!”
Lobbyist Vicki Iseman, McCain's very own “Campaign Suicide" Blonde, nestled cozily beside Big John McCain on a 727 tricked out to suit the garish tastes of Saudi Royal Princes. A year later this same plane will become one of six flying Saudi evacuation flights which would be scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.The connection between the Saudi Royal Family and a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc. is not immediately apparent.

Posted by: Sam | August 22, 2008 4:42 AM | Report abuse

The lavishly-furnished custom Boeing 727 airliner (727PX) which ferried Senator John McCain on four occasions during his Presidential run in 2000 also flew Saudi Royals out of the U.S. right after 9/11, carrying an entourage of Saudi Royals from Las Vegas to London six days after the 9/11 attack in a controversial operation later scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.
The 727 figures in the current tempest over his relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman, who provided and flew with McCain on the plane.
With hundreds of air charter companies and airliners to choose from, the Saudis chose a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc., turning to Paxson Communications, a “Christian broadcaster” which owned the plane, to make its corporate jet available to spirit the Saudi princes and their entourage out of the U.S. six days after 9/11.
The Saudi Royal party made good their escape from Las Vegas on an airliner sporting a Christian symbol of peace, a dove, on it’s tail, an intriguing detail and compelling human interest story—Muslims flying Air Jesus—that has to date been reported nowhere but in the MadCowMorningNews. Go figure.At the time, the controversial evacuation of rich Saudis prompted charges of special treatment and inadequate screening of passengers by the FBI.The FBI, of course, denied it, but in uncharacteristically colorful language. “I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage," an FBI official wrote in a 2003 internal note. “Red-carpeting the entourage” may be the least of it.The McCain lobbying scandal has been called as “silly as a blonde joke,” and an “assault on working women,” although the nature of the ‘work’ being engaged in by the working women under assault was left unspecified. But it may not be as silly as it appears on the surface. You can learn a lot about the players in political scandals these days by remembering the catch phrase from the old TV show Fantasy Island, which each week had an improbably-dressed midget in a tuxedo calling out: “De plane, boss! De plane!”
Lobbyist Vicki Iseman, McCain's very own “Campaign Suicide" Blonde, nestled cozily beside Big John McCain on a 727 tricked out to suit the garish tastes of Saudi Royal Princes. A year later this same plane will become one of six flying Saudi evacuation flights which would be scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.The connection between the Saudi Royal Family and a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc. is not immediately apparent.

Posted by: Harry | August 22, 2008 4:41 AM | Report abuse

The lavishly-furnished custom Boeing 727 airliner (727PX) which ferried Senator John McCain on four occasions during his Presidential run in 2000 also flew Saudi Royals out of the U.S. right after 9/11, carrying an entourage of Saudi Royals from Las Vegas to London six days after the 9/11 attack in a controversial operation later scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.
The 727 figures in the current tempest over his relationship with female lobbyist Vicki Iseman, who provided and flew with McCain on the plane.
With hundreds of air charter companies and airliners to choose from, the Saudis chose a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc., turning to Paxson Communications, a “Christian broadcaster” which owned the plane, to make its corporate jet available to spirit the Saudi princes and their entourage out of the U.S. six days after 9/11.
The Saudi Royal party made good their escape from Las Vegas on an airliner sporting a Christian symbol of peace, a dove, on it’s tail, an intriguing detail and compelling human interest story—Muslims flying Air Jesus—that has to date been reported nowhere but in the MadCowMorningNews. Go figure.At the time, the controversial evacuation of rich Saudis prompted charges of special treatment and inadequate screening of passengers by the FBI.The FBI, of course, denied it, but in uncharacteristically colorful language. “I say baloney to any inference we red-carpeted any of this entourage," an FBI official wrote in a 2003 internal note. “Red-carpeting the entourage” may be the least of it.The McCain lobbying scandal has been called as “silly as a blonde joke,” and an “assault on working women,” although the nature of the ‘work’ being engaged in by the working women under assault was left unspecified. But it may not be as silly as it appears on the surface. You can learn a lot about the players in political scandals these days by remembering the catch phrase from the old TV show Fantasy Island, which each week had an improbably-dressed midget in a tuxedo calling out: “De plane, boss! De plane!”
Lobbyist Vicki Iseman, McCain's very own “Campaign Suicide" Blonde, nestled cozily beside Big John McCain on a 727 tricked out to suit the garish tastes of Saudi Royal Princes. A year later this same plane will become one of six flying Saudi evacuation flights which would be scrutinized by the 9/11 Commission.The connection between the Saudi Royal Family and a company that owns “Worship Ministries” and Christian Network, Inc. is not immediately apparent.

Posted by: Sam | August 22, 2008 4:40 AM | Report abuse

If you heard that John McCain dumped his first wife for a rich socialite who helped launch McCain's political career... well, that's pretty much true. McCain came back from Vietnam to find his wife had been in a horrific car accident. As a result, she had gained some weight. Perhaps, the story goes, her altered physical appearance was a factor in his pursuit of 25-year-old socialite Cindy Hensley, who he would soon marry, after securing a tidy, uncontested divorce from poor Carol.
McCain's second wife, Cindy, has also been smeared as a former drug addict. Between 1989 and 1992 she became addicted to painkillers. She admitted to stealing pills from a charitable organization she ran at the time. Cindy McCain was never prosecuted and allegations that McCain intervened on her behalf have never been substantiated. No worse behavior than, say, a certain popular talk show host that really dislikes Cindy McCain's husband.

Posted by: Harry | August 22, 2008 4:38 AM | Report abuse

The Keating Five were five United States Senators accused of corruption in 1989, igniting a major political scandal as part of the larger Savings and Loan crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s. The five senators, Alan Cranston (D-CA), Dennis DeConcini (D-AZ), John Glenn (D-OH), John McCain (R-AZ), and Donald W. Riegle (D-MI), were accused of improperly aiding Charles H. Keating, Jr., chairman of the failed Lincoln Savings and Loan Association, which was the target of an investigation by the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB).
After a lengthy investigation, the Senate Ethics Committee determined in 1991 that Alan Cranston, Dennis DeConcini, and Donald Riegle had substantially and improperly interfered with the FHLBB in its investigation of Lincoln Savings. Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly but were criticized for having exercised "poor judgment".
All five of the senators involved served out their terms. Only Glenn and McCain ran for re-election, and they were both re-elected.
Circumstances
See also: Savings and Loan crisis
The U.S. Savings and Loan crisis of the 1980s and 1990s was the failure of 747 savings and loan associations (S&Ls) in the United States. The ultimate cost of the crisis is estimated to have totaled around $160.1 billion, about $124.6 billion of which was directly paid for by the U.S. taxpayer.[1].
The concomitant slowdown in the finance industry and the real estate market may have been a contributing cause of the 1990-1991 economic recession. Between 1986 and 1991, the number of new homes constructed per year dropped from 1.8 million to 1 million, the lowest rate since World War II.[2]
The Keating Five scandal was prompted by the activities of one particular savings and loan: Lincoln Savings and Loan Association of Irvine, California. Lincoln's chairman was Charles Keating, who ultimately served five years in prison for his corrupt mismanagement of Lincoln.[3] In the four years since Keating's American Continental Corporation (ACC) had purchased Lincoln in 1984, Lincoln's assets had increased from $1.1 billion to $5.5 billion.[4] Such savings and loan associations had been deregulated in the early 1980s, allowing them to make highly risky investments with their depositors' money, a change of which Keating took advantage.[4] Lincoln's investments took the form of buying land, taking equity positions in real estate development projects, and buying high-yield junk bonds.[5]
Corruption allegations
The core allegation of the Keating Five affair is that Keating had made contributions of about $1.3 million to various U.S. Senators, and he called on those Senators to help him resist regulators. The regulators backed off, to later disastrous consequences.
Beginning in 1985, Edwin J. Gray, chair of the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB), feared that the savings industry's risky investment practices were exposing the government's insurance funds to huge losses.[5] Gray instituted a rule whereby savings associations could hold no more than ten percent of their assets in "direct investments",[5] and were thus prohibited from taking ownership positions in certain financial entities and instruments.[6] Lincoln had become burdened with bad debt resulting from its past aggressiveness, and by early 1986,[5] its investment practices were being investigated and audited by the FHLBB:[7] in particular, whether it had violated these direct investment rules; Lincoln had directed FDIC-insured accounts into commercial real estate ventures.[4] By the end of 1986, the FHLBB had found that Lincoln had $135 million in unreported losses and had surpassed the regulated direct investments limit by $600 million.[5]
Keating had earlier taken several measures to oppose Gray and the FHLBB, including recruiting a study from then-private economist Alan Greenspan saying that direct investments were not harmful,[5] and getting President Ronald Reagan to make a recess appointment of a Keating ally, Atlanta real estate developer Lee H. Henkel Jr., to an open seat on the FHLBB.[5] But by March 1987, Henkel had resigned, upon news of his having large loans due to Lincoln.[5]
It appeared as though the government might seize Lincoln for being insolvent.[6] The investigation was, however, taking a long time.[7] Keating was asking that Lincoln be given a lenient judgment by the FHLBB, so that it could limit its high risk investments and get into the safe (at the time) home mortgage business, thus allowing the business to survive. A letter from audit firm Arthur Young & Co. bolstered Keating's case that the government investigation was taking a long time.[8] Keating now wanted the five senators to intervene with the FHLBB on his behalf.
By March 1987, Keating and DeConcini were asking McCain to travel to San Francisco to meet with regulators regarding Lincoln Savings; McCain refused.[8][6] DeConcini told Keating that McCain was nervous about interfering.[6] Keating called McCain a "wimp" behind his back, and on March 24, Keating and McCain had a heated, contentious meeting.[8]
On April 2, 1987, a meeting with chairman Gray of the FHLBB was held in DeConcini's Capitol office, with Senators Cranston, Glenn, and McCain also in attendance.[6] DeConcini started the meeting with a mention of "our friend at Lincoln."[6] Gray told the assembled senators that he did not know the particular details of the status of Lincoln Savings and Loan, and that the senators would have to go to the bank regulators in San Francisco that had oversight jurisdiction for the bank. Gray did offer to set up a meeting between those regulators and the senators.[6]
On April 9, 1987, a two-hour meeting[4] with three members of the FHLBB San Francisco branch was held, again in DeConcini's office, to discuss the government's investigation of Lincoln.[8][6] Present were Cranston, DeConcini, Glenn, McCain, and additionally Riegle.[6] The regulators felt that the meeting was very unusual and that they were being pressured by a united front, as the senators presented their reasons for having the meeting.[6] McCain said, "One of our jobs as elected officials is to help constituents in a proper fashion. ACC is a big employer and important to the local economy. I wouldn't want any special favors for them.... I don't want any part of our conversation to be improper." Glenn said, "To be blunt, you should charge them or get off their backs," while DeConcini said, "What's wrong with this if they're willing to clean up their act? ... It's very unusual for us to have a company that could be put out of business by its regulators."[6] The regulators then revealed that Lincoln was under criminal investigation on a variety of serious charges, at which point McCain severed all relations with Keating.[6] Glenn continued to help Keating after that revelation, by setting up a meeting with then-House Majority Leader Jim Wright, which turned out to be the only questionable thing Glenn did throughout the whole affair.[9]
The San Francisco regulators finished their report in May 1987 and recommended that Lincoln be seized by the government due to unsound lending practices.[6][4] Gray, whose time as chair was about to expire, deferred action on the report, saying that his adversarial relationship with Keating would make any action he took seem vindictive, and that instead the incoming chair should take over the decision.[5] Meanwhile Keating filed a lawsuit against the FHLBB, saying it had leaked confidential information about Lincoln.[5] The new FHLBB chair was M. Danny Wall, who was more sympathetic to Keating and took no action on the report, saying its evidence was insufficient.[4][6] In September 1987, the Lincoln investigation was removed from the San Francisco group and in May 1988, a new audit of Lincoln began in Washington.[6]
News of the April meetings between the senators and the FHLBB officials first appeared in National Thrift News in September 1987, but was only sporadically covered by the general media for the next year and a half.[10]
Failure of Lincoln
Lincoln stayed in business; from mid-1987 to April 1989, its assets grew from $3.91 billion to $5.46 billion.[5] During this time, the parent American Continental Corporation was desperate for cash inflow to make up for losses in real estate purchases and projects.[11] Lincoln's branch managers and tellers convinced customers to replace their federally-insured certificates of deposit with higher-yielding bond certificates of American Continental; the customers later said they were never properly informed that the bonds were uninsured and very risky given the state of American Continental's finances.[11]
American Continental went bankrupt in April 1989, and Lincoln was seized by the FHLBB on April 14, 1989.[4] More than 21,000 mostly elderly investors lost their life savings. This total came to about $285 million.[citation needed] The federal government was liable for $2 billion to cover Lincoln's losses when it seized the institution.[11]
Keating was hit with a $1.1 billion fraud and racketeering action, filed against him by the regulators.[4] Asked whether his contributions had bought him influence, Keating said: “I want to say in the most forceful way I can: I certainly hope so.”[12]
When the former chairman of the FHLBB went public about the Senators' assistance to Keating, that set off a series of investigations by the California government, the United States Department of Justice, and the Senate Ethics Committee. The Ethics Committee's investigation focused on all five senators, who soon became known as the "Keating Five". The initial charges against the five Senators were brought by Common Cause, a public interest group, and the Senate’s inquiry subsequently lasted 22 months.[13]
Relationships of senators to Keating
Once Lincoln failed, the relationships of all the senators to Keating came under intense press scrutiny.
Cranston had received $39,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1986 Senate re-election campaign. Furthermore, Keating had donated some $850,000 to assorted groups founded by Cranston or controlled by him, and another $85,000 to the California Democratic Party.[4]
DeConcini had received about $48,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1988 Senate re-election campaign.[4] In September 1989, DeConcini stated he would return the money.[4]
Glenn had received $34,000 in direct contributions from Keating and his associates for his 1984 presidential nomination campaign, and a political action committee tied to Glenn had received an additional $200,000.[4]
McCain and Keating had become personal friends following their initial contacts in 1981.[8] Between 1982 and 1987, McCain had received $112,000 in lawful[14] political contributions from Keating and his associates.[15] In addition, McCain's wife Cindy McCain and her father Jim Hensley had invested $359,100 in a Keating shopping center in April 1986, a year before McCain met with the regulators. McCain, his family, and their baby-sitter had made nine trips at Keating's expense, sometimes aboard Keating's jet. Three of the trips were made during vacations to Keating's opulent Bahamas retreat at Cat Cay. McCain did not pay Keating (in the amount of $13,433) for some of the trips until years after they were taken, when he learned that Keating was in trouble over Lincoln.[6][16]
Riegle had received some $76,000 from Keating and his associates for his 1988 Senate re-election campaign.[4] Riegle later announced in April 1988 he was returning the money.[5]
Conclusion of investigation
The Senate Ethics Committee's report regarding the Keating matter came out in August 1991, and addressed each of the five senators.[17]
Cranston: severely reprimanded
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Cranston had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[17] He had received more than a million dollars from Keating, had done more arm-twisting than the other Senators on Keating's behalf, and was the only Senator officially rebuked by the Senate in this matter.[18]
Cranston was given the harshest penalty of all five Senators. In November of 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee voted unanimously to reprimand Cranston, instead of the more severe measure that was under consideration: censure by the full Senate. Extenuating circumstances that helped to save Cranston from censure were the fact that he was suffering from cancer, and that he had decided to not seek reelection, according to the Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Democratic Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama. The Ethics Committee took the unusual step of delivering its reprimand to Cranston during a formal session of the full Senate, with almost all 100 Senators present.[13]
Cranston was not accused of breaking any specific laws or rules, but of violating standards that Heflin said “do not permit official actions to be linked with fund-raising.” The Ethics Committee officially found that Cranston’s conduct had been “improper and repugnant”, deserving of "the fullest, strongest and most severe sanction which the committee has the authority to impose." The sanction was in these words: "the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, on behalf of and in the name of the United States Senate, does hereby strongly and severely reprimand Sen. Alan Cranston.”[13]
After the Senate reprimanded Cranston for repugnant conduct, Cranston took to the Senate floor to deny key charges against him. In response, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, the Republican Vice-Chairman of the Ethics Committee, charged that Cranston’s response to the reprimand was “arrogant, unrepentant and a smear on this institution," and that Cranston was wrong to imply that everyone does what Cranston had done. Alan Dershowitz, serving as Senator Cranston's attorney, alleged that other Senators had merely been better at “covering their tracks.”[13] Likewise, political historian Lewis Gould has written that, “the real problem for the 'Keating Three' who were most involved was that they had been caught.”[19]
Riegle and DeConcini: criticized for acting improperly
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that Riegle and DeConcini had acted improperly by interfering with the investigation by the FHLBB.[17]
DeConcini later charged that McCain had leaked to the press sensitive information about the investigation that came from some of the closed proceedings of the Ethics Committee.[6] McCain denied doing so, although one congressional investigator concluded that McCain had been one of the main leakers during that time.[6]
Glenn and McCain: cleared of impropriety but criticized for poor judgment
The Senate Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of Glenn in the scheme was minimal, and the charges against him were dropped.[17] He was only criticized by the Committee for "poor judgment."[20]
The Ethics Committee ruled that the involvement of McCain in the scheme was also minimal, and he too was cleared of all charges against him.[18][17] McCain was criticized by the Committee for exercising "poor judgment" when he met with the federal regulators on Keating's behalf.[6] The report also said that McCain's "actions were not improper nor attended with gross negligence and did not reach the level of requiring institutional action against him....Senator McCain has violated no law of the United States or specific Rule of the United States Senate."[14] On his Keating Five experience, McCain has said: "The appearance of it was wrong. It's a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do."[6]
Several accounts of the controversy contend that McCain was included in the investigation primarily so that there would be at least one Republican target.[21][22][23][9] Glenn's inclusion in the investigation has been attributed to Republicans who were angered by the inclusion of McCain, as well as committee members who thought that dropping Glenn (and McCain) would make it look bad for the remaining three Democratic Senators.[21][23] Democrat Robert S. Bennett, who was the special investigator during the scandal, suggested to the Senate Ethics Committee that it pursue charges against neither McCain nor Glenn, saying of McCain, "that there was no evidence against him."[22] The Vice Chairman of the Ethics Committee, Senator Warren Rudman of New Hampshire, agreed with Bennett, but the Chairman, Senator Howell Heflin of Alabama, did not agree.[9]
Regardless of the level of their involvement, both senators were greatly affected by it. McCain would write in 2002 that attending the two April 1987 meetings was "the worst mistake of my life".[24] Glenn has described the Senate Ethics Committee investigation as the low point of his life.[7]Reactions
Not everyone was satisfied with the Senate Ethics Committee conclusions. Fred Wertheimer, president of Common Cause, which had initially demanded the investigation, thought the treatment of the senators far too lenient, and said, "The U.S. Senate remains on the auction block to the Charles Keatings of the world."[25] Joan Claybrook, president of Public Citizen, called it a "whitewash".[25] Jonathan Alter of Newsweek said it was a classic case of the government trying to investigate itself, labelling the Senate Ethics Committee "shameless" for having "let four of the infamous Keating Five off with a wrist tap."[26] Margaret Carlson of Time suspected the committee had timed its first report to coincide with the run-up to the Gulf War, minimizing its news impact.[25]Aftermath
Cranston left office in January of 1993, and died in December of 2000. DeConcini and Riegle continued to serve in the Senate until their terms expired, but they did not seek re-election in 1994. DeConcini was appointed by President Bill Clinton in February 1995 to the Board of Directors of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation. [27]
Glenn did choose to run for re-election in 1992, and it was anticipated that he would have some difficulty winning a fourth term in the Senate. However, Glenn handily defeated Lieutenant Governor R. Michael DeWine for one more term in the Senate before retiring in 1999.
After 1999, the only member of the Keating Five remaining in the U.S. Senate was John McCain, who had an easier time gaining re-election in 1992 than he anticipated,[28] and who ran for president in 2000 and became the Republican presumptive nominee in 2008. McCain survived the political scandal by, in part, becoming friendly with the political press, and in part by not letting the controversy detract from his work as a senator.[28]
The scandal was followed by a number of attempts to adopt campaign finance reform—spearheaded by U.S. Sen. David Boren (D-OK)—but most attempts died in committee. A weakened reform was passed in 1993. Substantial campaign finance reform was not passed until the adoption of the McCain-Feingold Act in 2002.

Posted by: Tom | August 22, 2008 4:36 AM | Report abuse

The truth is, you can take Obama entire net worth and it would only pay Mccains wife's AMX bill for a few months. Obama total worth could not afford to pay the up keep on Mccains plain for one year. In fact, I doubt Obama could pay the taxes on Mccains properties. I suspect Obama is one of the poorest members of the senate.

------------
Why would McCain criticize Obama for making 4 million last year because of his best selling books, when McCain think 5 million makes you rich? By McCain standards Obama is a pauper.
Posted by: McCain can't be trusted | August 22, 2008 2:51 AM

Posted by: ccccccccccccc | August 22, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

The truth is, you can take Obama entire net worth and it would only pay Mccains wife's AMX bill for a few months. Obama total worth could not afford to pay the up keep on Mccains plain for one year. In fact, I doubt Obama could pay the taxes on Mccains properties. I suspect Obama is one of the poorest members of the senate.

------------
Why would McCain criticize Obama for making 4 million last year because of his best selling books, when McCain think 5 million makes you rich? By McCain standards Obama is a pauper.
Posted by: McCain can't be trusted | August 22, 2008 2:51 AM

Posted by: ccccccccccccc | August 22, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

The truth is, you can take Obama entire net worth and it would only pay Mccains wife's AMX bill for a few months. Obama total worth could not afford to pay the up keep on Mccains plain for one year. In fact, I doubt Obama could pay the taxes on Mccains properties. I suspect Obama is one of the poorest members of the senate.

------------
Why would McCain criticize Obama for making 4 million last year because of his best selling books, when McCain think 5 million makes you rich? By McCain standards Obama is a pauper.
Posted by: McCain can't be trusted | August 22, 2008 2:51 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 3:12 AM | Report abuse

The truth is, you can take Obama entire net worth and it would only pay Mccains wife's AMX bill for a few months. Obama total worth could not afford to pay the up keep on Mccains plain for one year. In fact, I doubt Obama could pay the taxes on Mccains properties. I suspect Obama is one of the poorest members of the senate.

------------
Why would McCain criticize Obama for making 4 million last year because of his best selling books, when McCain think 5 million makes you rich? By McCain standards Obama is a pauper.
Posted by: McCain can't be trusted | August 22, 2008 2:51 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

The truth is, you can take Obama entire net worth and it would only pay Mccains wife's AMX bill for a few months. Obama total worth could not afford to pay the up keep on Mccains plain for one year. In fact, I doubt Obama could pay the taxes on Mccains properties. I suspect Obama is one of the poorest members of the senate.

------------
Why would McCain criticize Obama for making 4 million last year because of his best selling books, when McCain think 5 million makes you rich? By McCain standards Obama is a pauper.
Posted by: McCain can't be trusted | August 22, 2008 2:51 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 3:04 AM | Report abuse

Why would McCain criticize Obama for making 4 million last year because of his best selling books, when McCain think 5 million makes you rich? By McCain standards Obama is a pauper.

Posted by: McCain can't be trusted | August 22, 2008 2:51 AM | Report abuse

"Rezko's wife bought an adjacent side lot for $625,000. Months later, the Obamas bought that lot for $104,000."

This is false. He bought a fraction of the lot. I would like to see a description of the "Mansion" next to each of McCain's four residencies. Sg.ft vs Sg.ft.

Come on Howard! at least change the words from McCain's talking points

Posted by: thebob.bob | August 22, 2008 2:15 AM | Report abuse

Best thing that could have happened. Now the Keating 5 can come out again. Wife's drug use. mccains misuse of his office getting the prosecutor fired who was prosecuting his wife and then the law suit he won against Mccain. Mccain had to pay a few million to try to keep it quiet, Lots of dirt

----------
Nice diversionary tactic by the McCain camp. They've probably had this ad in the can for weeks, waiting for an opportunity like this. Wonder why? They really want to change the subject. The more people focus on John McCain and his flip-flopping, the more unappealing he becomes--and that's even without gaffes like the ones he comes out with so often.

Posted by: BParker | August 22, 2008 12:49 AM

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 12:55 AM | Report abuse

Mad man Mccain

WASHINGTON — Senator John McCain arrived late at his Senate office on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just after the first plane hit the World Trade Center. “This is war,” he murmured to his aides. The sound of scrambling fighter planes rattled the windows, sending a tremor of panic through the room.


Erik Jacobs for The New York Times
John McCain said he had consulted Henry A. Kissinger on foreign policy before and after the Sept. 11 attacks.

Within hours, Mr. McCain, the Vietnam War hero and famed straight talker of the 2000 Republican primary, had taken on a new role: the leading advocate of taking the American retaliation against Al Qaeda far beyond Afghanistan. In a marathon of television and radio appearances, Mr. McCain recited a short list of other countries said to support terrorism, invariably including Iraq, Iran and Syria.

“There is a system out there or network, and that network is going to have to be attacked,” Mr. McCain said the next morning on ABC News. “It isn’t just Afghanistan,” he added, on MSNBC. “I don’t think if you got bin Laden tomorrow that the threat has disappeared,” he said on CBS, pointing toward other countries in the Middle East.

Within a month he made clear his priority. “Very obviously Iraq is the first country,” he declared on CNN. By Jan. 2, Mr. McCain was on the aircraft carrier Theodore Roosevelt in the Arabian Sea, yelling to a crowd of sailors and airmen: “Next up, Baghdad!”

Now, as Mr. McCain prepares to accept the Republican presidential nomination, his response to the attacks of Sept. 11 opens a window onto how he might approach the gravest responsibilities of a potential commander in chief. Like many, he immediately recalibrated his assessment of the unseen risks to America’s security. But he also began to suggest that he saw a new “opportunity” to deter other potential foes by punishing not only Al Qaeda but also Iraq.

“Just as Sept. 11 revolutionized our resolve to defeat our enemies, so has it brought into focus the opportunities we now have to secure and expand our freedom,” Mr. McCain told a NATO conference in Munich in early 2002, urging the Europeans to join what he portrayed as an all but certain assault on Saddam Hussein. “A better world is already emerging from the rubble.”

To his admirers, Mr. McCain’s tough response to Sept. 11 is at the heart of his appeal. They argue that he displayed the same decisiveness again last week in his swift calls to penalize Russia for its incursion into Georgia, in part by sending peacekeepers to police its border.

His critics charge that the emotion of Sept. 11 overwhelmed his former cool-eyed caution about deploying American troops without a clear national interest and a well-defined exit, turning him into a tool of the Bush administration in its push for a war to transform the region.

“He has the personality of a fighter pilot: when somebody stings you, you want to strike out,” said retired Gen. John H. Johns, a former friend and supporter of Mr. McCain who turned against him over the Iraq war. “Just like the American people, his reaction was: show me somebody to hit.”

Whether through ideology or instinct, though, Mr. McCain began making his case for invading Iraq to the public more than six months before the White House began to do the same. He drew on principles he learned growing up in a military family and on conclusions he formed as a prisoner in North Vietnam. He also returned to a conviction about “the common identity” of dangerous autocracies as far-flung as Serbia and North Korea that he had developed consulting with hawkish foreign policy thinkers to help sharpen the themes of his 2000 presidential campaign.

While pushing to take on Saddam Hussein, Mr. McCain also made arguments and statements that he may no longer wish to recall. He lauded the war planners he would later criticize, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney. (Mr. McCain even volunteered that he would have given the same job to Mr. Cheney.) He urged support for the later-discredited Iraqi exile Ahmad Chalabi’s opposition group, the Iraqi National Congress, and echoed some of its suspect accusations in the national media. And he advanced misleading assertions not only about Mr. Hussein’s supposed weapons programs but also about his possible ties to international terrorists, Al Qaeda and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Five years after the invasion of Iraq, Mr. McCain’s supporters note that he became an early critic of the administration’s execution of the occupation, and they credit him with pushing the troop “surge” that helped bring stability. Mr. McCain, though, stands by his support for the war and expresses no regrets about his advocacy.

In written answers to questions, he blamed “Iraq’s opacity under Saddam” for any misleading remarks he made about the peril it posed.

The Sept. 11 attacks “demonstrated the grave threat posed by a hostile regime, possessing weapons of mass destruction, and with reported ties to terrorists,” Mr. McCain wrote in an e-mail message on Friday. Given Mr. Hussein’s history of pursuing illegal weapons and his avowed hostility to the United States, “his regime posed a threat we had to take seriously.” The attacks were still a reminder, Mr. McCain added, of the importance of international action “to prevent outlaw states — like Iran today — from developing weapons of mass destruction.”

Formative Years

Mr. McCain has been debating questions about the use of military force far longer than most. He grew up in a family that had sent a son to every American war since 1776, and international relations were a staple of the McCain family dinner table. Mr. McCain grew up listening to his father, Adm. John S. McCain Jr., deliver lectures on “The Four Ocean Navy and the Soviet Threat,” closing with a slide of an image he considered the ultimate factor in the balance of power: a soldier marching through a rice paddy with a rifle at his shoulder.

“To quote Sherman, war is all hell and we need to fight it out and get it over with and that is when the killing stops,” recalled Joe McCain, Senator McCain’s younger brother.

Vietnam, for Senator McCain, reinforced those lessons. He has often said he blamed the Johnson administration’s pause in bombing for prolonging the war, and he credited President Richard M. Nixon’s renewed attacks with securing his release from a North Vietnamese prison. He has made the principle that the exercise of military power sets the bargaining table for international relations a consistent theme of his career ever since, and in his 2002 memoir he wrote that one of his lifelong convictions was “the imperative that American power never retreat in response to an inferior adversary’s provocation.”


But Mr. McCain also took away from Vietnam a second, restraining lesson: the necessity for broad domestic support for any military action. For years he opposed a string of interventions — in Lebanon, Haiti, Somalia, and, for a time, the Balkans — on the grounds that the public would balk at the loss of life without clear national interests. “The Vietnam thing,” he recently said.

In the late 1990s, however, while he was beginning to consider his 2000 presidential race, he started rebalancing his view of the needs to project American strength and to sustain public support. The 1995 massacre of 5,000 unarmed Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica under NATO’s watch struck at his conscience, he has said, and in addition to America’s strategic national interests — in that case, the future and credibility of NATO — Mr. McCain began to speak more expansively about America’s moral obligations as the only remaining superpower.

His aides say he later described the American air strikes in Bosnia in 1996 and in Kosovo in 1999 as a parable of political leadership: Mr. McCain, Senator Bob Dole and others had rallied Congressional support for the strikes despite widespread public opposition, then watched approval soar after the intervention helped to bring peace.

“Americans elect their leaders to make these kinds of judgments,” Mr. McCain said in the e-mail message.

It was during the Balkan wars that Mr. McCain and his advisers read a 1997 article on the Wall Street Journal editorial page by William Kristol and David Brooks of The Weekly Standard — both now Op-Ed page columnists at The New York Times — promoting the idea of “national greatness” conservatism, defined by a more activist agenda at home and a more muscular role in the world.

“I wouldn’t call it a ‘eureka’ moment, but there was a sense that this is where we are headed and this is what we are trying to articulate and they have already done a lot of the work,” said John Weaver, a former McCain political adviser. “And, quite frankly, from a crass political point of view, we were in the making-friends business. The Weekly Standard represented a part of the primary electorate that we could get.”

Soon Mr. McCain and his aides were consulting regularly with the circle of hawkish foreign policy thinkers sometimes referred to as neoconservatives — including Mr. Kristol, Robert Kagan and Randy Scheunemann, a former aide to Mr. Dole who became a McCain campaign adviser — to develop the senator’s foreign policy ideas and instincts into the broad themes of a presidential campaign. (In his e-mail message, Mr. McCain noted that he had also consulted with friends like Henry A. Kissinger, known for a narrower view of American interests.)

One result was a series of speeches in which Mr. McCain called for “rogue state rollback.” He argued that disparate regional troublemakers, including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia, bore a common stamp: they were all autocracies. And as such, he contended, they were more likely to export terrorism, spread dangerous weapons, or start ethnic conflicts. In an early outline of what would become his initial response to the Sept. 11 attacks, Mr. McCain argued that “swift and sure” retribution against any one of the rogue states was an essential deterrent to any of the others. But Mr. McCain’s advisers and aides say his “rogue state” speeches stopped short of the most sweeping international agenda put forth by Mr. Kristol, Mr. Kagan and their allies. Mr. McCain explicitly disavowed direct military action merely to advance American values, foreswearing any “global crusade” of interventions in favor of relying on covert and financial support for internal opposition groups.

As an example, he could point to his 1998 sponsorship of the Iraqi Liberation Act, which sought to direct nearly $100 million to Iraqis who hoped to overthrow Saddam Hussein. The bill, signed by President Bill Clinton, also endorsed the ouster of Mr. Hussein.

Mr. McCain said then that he doubted the United States could muster the political will to use ground troops to remove the Iraqi dictator any time soon. “It was much easier when Saddam Hussein was occupying Kuwait and threatening Saudi Arabia,” the senator told Fox News in November 1998. “We’d have to convince the American people that it’s worth again the sacrifice of American lives, because that would also be part of the price.”

Hard Calls

Mr. McCain spent the afternoon of Sept. 11 in a young aide’s studio apartment near the Capitol. There was no cable television, nothing but water in the kitchen, and the hallway reminded him of an old boxing gym. Evacuated from his office but stranded by traffic, he could not resist imagining himself at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue. “There are not enough Secret Service agents in the world to keep me away from Washington and New York at a time like this,” Mr. McCain told an adviser.


Over the next days and weeks, however, Mr. McCain became almost as visible as he would have been as president. Broadcasters rushed to him as a patriotic icon and reassuring voice, and for weeks he was ubiquitous on the morning news programs, Sunday talk shows, cable news networks, and even late-night comedy shows.

In the spotlight, he pushed rogue state rollback one step further, arguing that the United States should go on the offensive as a warning to any other country that might condone such an attack. “These networks are well-embedded in some of these countries,” Mr. McCain said on Sept. 12, listing Iraq, Iran and Syria as potential targets of United States pressure. “We’re going to have to prove to them that we are very serious, and the price that they will pay will not only be for punishment but also deterrence.”

Although he had campaigned for President Bush during the 2000 general election, he was still largely frozen out of the White House because of animosities left over from the Republican primary. But after Mr. Bush declared he would hold responsible any country condoning terrorism, Mr. McCain called his leadership “magnificent” and his national security team the strongest “that has ever been assembled.” A few weeks later, Larry King of CNN asked whether he would have named Mr. Rumsfeld and Colin L. Powell to a McCain cabinet. “Oh, yes, and Cheney,” Mr. McCain answered, saying he, too, would have offered Mr. Cheney the vice presidency.

Even during the heat of the war in Afghanistan, Mr. McCain kept an eye on Iraq. To Jay Leno in mid-September, Mr. McCain said he believed “some other countries” had assisted Osama bin Laden, going on to suggest Iraq, Syria and Iran as potential suspects. In October 2001, when an Op-Ed page column in The New York Times speculated that Iraq, Russia or some other country might bear responsibility for that month’s anthrax mailings, Mr. McCain interrupted a question about Afghanistan from David Letterman on that night’s “Late Show.” “The second phase is Iraq,” Mr. McCain said, adding, “Some of this anthrax may — and I emphasize may — have come from Iraq.” (The Federal Bureau of Investigation says it came from a federal government laboratory in Maryland.) By October, United States and foreign intelligence agencies had said publicly that they doubted any cooperation between Mr. Hussein and Al Qaeda, noting Al Qaeda’s opposition to such secular nationalists. American intelligence officials soon declared that Mr. Hussein had not supported international terrorism for nearly a decade.

But when the Czech government said that before the attacks, one of the 9/11 hijackers had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence official, Mr. McCain seized the report as something close to a smoking gun. “The evidence is very clear,” he said three days later, in an Oct. 29 television interview. (Intelligence agencies quickly cast doubt on the meeting.)

Frustrated by the dearth of American intelligence about Iraq, Mr. McCain’s aides say, he had long sought to learn as much as he could from Iraqi opposition figures in exile, including Mr. Chalabi of the Iraqi National Congress. Over the years, Mr. McCain often urged support for the group, saying it had “significant support, in my view, inside Iraq.”

After Sept. 11, Mr. Chalabi’s group said an Iraqi emissary had once met with Osama bin Laden, and brought forward two Iraqi defectors who described terrorist training camps and biological weapons efforts. At times, Mr. McCain seemed to echo their accusations, citing the “two defectors” in a television interview and attesting to “credible reports of involvement between Iraqi administration officials, Iraqi officials and the terrorists.”

Growing Impatient

But United States intelligence officials had doubts about Mr. Chalabi at the time and have since discredited his group. In 2006, Mr. McCain acknowledged to The New Republic that he had been “too enamored with the I.N.C.” In his e-mail message, though, he said he never relied on the group for information about Iraq’s weapons program.

At a European security conference in February 2002, when the Bush administration still publicly maintained that it had made no decision about moving against Iraq, Mr. McCain described an invasion as all but certain. “A terrorist resides in Baghdad,” he said, adding, “A day of reckoning is approaching.”

Regime change in Iraq in addition to Afghanistan, he argued, would compel other sponsors of terrorism to mend their ways, “accomplishing by example what we would otherwise have to pursue through force of arms.”

Finally, as American troops massed in the Persian Gulf in early 2003, Mr. McCain grew impatient, his aides say, concerned that the White House was failing to act as the hot desert summer neared. Waiting, he warned in a speech in Washington, risked squandering the public and international support aroused by Sept. 11. “Does anyone really believe that the world’s will to contain Saddam won’t eventually collapse as utterly as it did in the 1990s?” Mr. McCain asked.

In retrospect, some of Mr. McCain’s critics now accuse him of looking for a pretext to justify the war. “McCain was hell-bent for leather: ‘Saddam Hussein is a bad guy, we have got to teach him, let’s send a message to the other people in the Middle East,’ ” said Senator John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts.

But Mr. McCain, in his e-mail message, said the reason he had supported the war was the evolving threat from Mr. Hussein.

“I believe voters elect their leaders based on their experience and judgment — their ability to make hard calls, for instance, on matters of war and peace,” he wrote. “It’s important to get them right.”

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 12:51 AM | Report abuse

Nice diversionary tactic by the McCain camp. They've probably had this ad in the can for weeks, waiting for an opportunity like this. Wonder why? They really want to change the subject. The more people focus on John McCain and his flip-flopping, the more unappealing he becomes--and that's even without gaffes like the ones he comes out with so often.

Posted by: BParker | August 22, 2008 12:49 AM | Report abuse

I wish Mccain would just drop dead.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 22, 2008 12:30 AM | Report abuse

America is finally waking up. Watch the polls--McCain 2008.

Posted by: jcvette | August 22, 2008 12:19 AM | Report abuse

Kurtz says that Rezko was not under investigation at the time Obama bought the house.

BUT

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4315880

says Rezko was known to be under investigation when Obama showed him the mansion, before he bought it.

Posted by: dumbreddown | August 21, 2008 11:55 PM | Report abuse

McCain is clueless about the economy, his wife steals cookie recipes, and steals from her own charity, the money that financed all this wealth came from Cindy's dad - a felon, with mob ties...
And they try to paint Obama as elitist?

I don't think so - if you believe the McCain campaign I have a bridge in Brooklyn I'll sell you - cheap.


MONEY! It's a blast...get your hands off Grampy McCain's stash...Sing Along Everyone!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7PfSEtiXPw

Posted by: GOP - The Angry Old Rich White Guy Party | August 21, 2008 11:47 PM | Report abuse

This article fails to mention that the owner of the property would not sale it unless it was purchased as a package with the lot. So Obama bought the house at a 300,000 discount and Rezko bought the lot next door at full price the next day. So why did Rezko help Obama? Well of course, just from the goodness of his heart.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 11:45 PM | Report abuse

Yes, we do need to drill. Had we drilled 10 years ago we would not be paying the price today. So now we drill so we are not sitting in this same spot 10 years from now! Drill! We must be Independent. As a nation, it is in our best interest!
The Democrats took control over congress 2 years ago and then ALL fell apart! So now it is time for the Democrat controlled congress to do something!

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 11:39 PM | Report abuse

The Haves, the Have Mores and John McCain


Eight years ago, then Governor George W. Bush revealingly joked about his backers at the 2000 Al Smith Dinner. "This is an impressive crowd - the haves and the have-mores," Bush said, adding, "Some people call you the elites; I call you my base." With his own quip Saturday night that "$5 million" is his definition of "rich," John McCain made no mistake that he is Bush's natural heir.


Now, there is nothing wrong with being happily rich and utterly detached. Nothing, that is, unless you make criticizing your political opponent as "elitist" and "out of touch" a centerpiece of your campaign. Rick Davis, speaking on behalf of his $100 million man John McCain, earlier this month offered the latest formulation of Barack Obama as an effete, aloof denizen of the upper class:

"Only celebrities like Barack Obama go to the gym three times a day, demand 'MET-RX chocolate roasted-peanut protein bars and bottles of a hard-to-find organic brew - Black Forest Berry Honest Tea' and worry about the price of arugula."

Of course, Davis' "arugula war" is just another attempt at misdirection. After all, John McCain's $5 million threshold where "you move from middle class to rich" is just the latest episode of his enduring disconnect from the real lives of the American people.


For starters, McCain in April declared that there had been "great progress economically" during the Bush years. On more than one occasion, he diagnosed Americans' concerns over the dismal U.S. economy as "psychological." (Phil Gramm, McCain's close friend and adviser supposedly excommunicated over his "whiners" remarks, was back with the campaign last week.) McCain, a man who owns eight homes nationwide, in March lectured Americans facing foreclosure that they ought to be "doing what is necessary -- working a second job, skipping a vacation, and managing their budgets -- to make their payments on time." And when all else fails, McCain told the people of the economically devastated regions in Martin County, Kentucky and Youngstown, Ohio, there's always eBay.


In his defense, McCain's shocking tone-deafness may just be a matter of perspective. When you're as well off as he is, anything below a $5 million income (a figure exceeding that earned on average by the top 0.1% of Americans) seems middle class.


*The $100 Million Man*
-Courtesy of his wife Cindy's beer distribution fortune (one her late father apparently chose not to share with her half-sister Kathleen), the McCains are worth well over $100 million. (In the two-page tax summary she eventually released to the public, Cindy McCain reported another $6 million in 2006.) As Salon reported back in 2000, the second Mrs. McCain's millions were essential in launching her husband's political career. Unsurprisingly, the Weekly Standard's Matthew Continetti, who four years ago called Theresa Heinz-Kerry a "sugar mommy," has been silent on the topic of Cindy McCain.


*The Joys of (Eight) Home Ownership*
-While fellow adulterer John Edwards was pilloried for his mansion, John McCain's eight homes around the country have received little notice or criticism. His properties include a 10 acre lake-side Sedona estate, euphemistically called a "cabin" by the McCain campaign, and a home featured in Architectural Digest. The one featuring "remote control window coverings" was recently put up for sale. Still, their formidable resources did not prevent the McCains from failing to pay taxes on a tony La Jolla, California condo used by Cindy's aged aunt.


*The Anheuser-Busch Windfall*
-As it turns out, the beauty of globalization is in the eye of the beholder. While John McCain apparently played a critical role in facilitating DHL's takeover of Airborne (and with it, the looming loss of 8,000 jobs in Wilmington, Ohio), Cindy McCain is set to earn a staggering multi-million dollar pay-day from the acquisition of Anheuser-Busch by the Belgian beverage giant, In Bev. As the Wall Street Journal reported in July, Mrs. McCain runs the third largest Anheuser-Busch distributorship in the nation, and owns between $2.5 and $5 million in the company's stock. Amazingly, while Missouri's politicians of both parties lined up to try to block the sale, John McCain held a fundraiser in the Show Me State even as the In Bev deal was being finalized.


*McCain's $370,000 Personal Tax Break*
-Earlier this year, the Center for American Progress analyzed John McCain's tax proposals. The conclusion? McCain's plan is radically more regressive than even that of President Bush, delivering 58% of its benefits to the wealthiest 1% of American taxpayers. McCain's born-again support for the Bush tax cuts has one additional bonus for Mr. Straight Talk: the McCains would save an estimated $373,000 a year.


*Paying Off $225,000 Credit Card Debt, Priceless*
-That massive windfall from his own tax plan will come in handy for John McCain. As was reported in June, the McCains were carrying over $225,000 in credit card debt. The American Express card - don't leave your homes without it.


*Charity Begins at Home*
-As Harpers documented earlier this year, the McCains are true believers in the old saying that charity begins at home:

Between 2001 and 2006, McCain contributed roughly $950,000 to [their] foundation. That accounted for all of its listed income other than for $100 that came from an anonymous donor. During that same period, the McCain foundation made contributions of roughly $1.6 million. More than $500,000 went to his kids' private schools, most of which was donated when his children were attending those institutions. So McCain apparently received major tax deductions for supporting elite schools attended by his children.
Ironically, the McCain campaign last week blasted Barack Obama for having attended a private school in Hawaii on scholarship. That attack came just weeks after John McCain held an event at his old prep school, Episcopal High, an institution where fees now top $38,000 a year.


*Private Jet Setters*
-As the New York Times detailed back in April, John McCain enjoyed the use of his wife's private jet for his campaign, courtesy of election law loopholes he helped craft. Despite the controversy, McCain continued to use Cindy's corporate jet. For her part, Cindy McCain says that even with skyrocketing fuel costs, "in Arizona the only way to get around the state is by small private plane."


*Help on the Homefront*
-In these tough economic times, the McCains are able to stretch their household budget. As the AP reported in April, "McCain reported paying $136,572 in wages to household employees in 2007. Aides say the McCains pay for a caretaker for a cabin in Sedona, Ariz., child care for their teenage daughter, and a personal assistant for Cindy McCain."


*Well-Heeled in $520 Shoes*
-If clothes make the man, then John McCain has it made. As Huffington Post noted in July, "He has worn a pair of $520 black leather Ferragamo shoes on every recent campaign stop - from a news conference with the Dalai Lama to a supermarket visit in Bethlehem, PA." It is altogether fitting that McCain wore the golden loafers during a golf outing with President George H.W. Bush in which he rode around in cart displaying the sign, "Property of Bush #41. Hands Off."


And so it goes. John McCain proclaims $5 million finally makes you rich. Meanwhile, ABC's Charlie Gibson thinks a $200,000 income makes you middle class. And his colleague Cokie Roberts claims Barack Obama's vacation to his home state of Hawaii was "exotic."

Posted by: OHIOforOBAMA | August 21, 2008 11:35 PM | Report abuse

Obama is not a different kind of politician. He is a politician and a Chicago style politician at that. He cheated his way into the State Senate by being so cut throat that he had no competition. He ran against noone!
And this glass house he lives in, all by the hand of convicted felon Rezko, is about to break! 14 million dollars! How many houses does that buy?

Posted by: DEM now IND | August 21, 2008 11:32 PM | Report abuse

McCain thinks $3 million income is middle class:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8Qr3LjRUA
.


McCain, Founding Member of the Keating Five:
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. His convictions were overturned on technicalities; for example, the federal conviction was overturned because jurors had heard about his state conviction, and his state charges because Judge Lance Ito (yes, that judge) screwed up jury instructions. Neither court cleared him, and he faces new trials in both courts.)

Though he was not convicted of anything, McCain intervened on behalf of Charles Keating after Keating gave McCain at least $112,00 in contributions. In the mid-1980s, McCain made at least 9 trips on Keating's airplanes, and 3 of those were to Keating's luxurious retreat in the Bahamas. McCain's wife and father-in-law also were the largest investors (at $350,000) in a Keating shopping center; the Phoenix New Times called it a "sweetheart deal."


McCain Mafia ties:
In 1995, McCain sent birthday regards, and regrets for not attending, to Joseph "Joe Bananas" Bonano, the head of the New York Bonano crime family, who had retired to Arizona. Another politician to send regrets was Governor Fife Symington, who has since been kicked out of office and convicted of 7 felonies relating to fraud and extortion.


McCain has been screwing over middle class and poor people for years.
http://www.realchange.org/mccain.htm

Posted by: McCain is an out of touch elitist | August 21, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Whoa! I think I must have come to the wrong website. I was looking for the Washington Post and instead I logged onto the Aryan Nation.

Posted by: Oooops | August 21, 2008 11:10 PM | Report abuse

Obama has dealings with another crook! So what else is new???

Obama's personal and political judgements throughout his life have been so sullied that there is no doubt before long there'll be more scum to come to the surface.

And to think he's the one who claims to be the agent of change and a "new and different" kind of politician? Indeed!

Posted by: pouran-Doukht | August 21, 2008 11:08 PM | Report abuse

People of color have no place in the White House. We must keep the people of color in their place, in the swamp.

Vote McCain

Posted by: Bob | August 21, 2008 11:02 PM | Report abuse

McCain stinks like a mule.
Go Obama 08!

Posted by: Mary | August 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama is the poster boy for affirmative action and how it can destroy our country. Admitted to Columbia, How? No doubt about it: affirmative action. Given the job of editor, Harvard Law Review, how? Affirmative action - what did he write during that tenure ? Nothing. His wife the same, an affirmative action admittee at Princeton - her 3rd grade writing level in her thesis was shown on the internet for all to see. Obama is an eloquent speaker, he's an eloquent teleprompter reader. He & his wife are NOT self-made; rather their entire adult lives are beneficiaries of affirmative action.

Posted by: Jimmy | August 21, 2008 10:58 PM | Report abuse

I personally find McSame to be a phoney and just like all the other lame republicans.
Obama is a breath of fresh air after 20 years of having to deal with the sleaze of the clinton era.
Obama is a brilliant man with a fresh take on the problems we face, an amazing speaker and the best candidate we've had in several generations.
McSame is just Bush all over again and the clintons brand of politics is poison and they are part of yesterday.
It's a new century and time to cut the old, washed up politicos like the Clintons and McSame off and begin with a new generation and new ideas.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 10:57 PM | Report abuse

Jane wrote:
A lot of people are just tuning into this election. Ayers, Rezko and Wright are all fresh news to these independents. Oh, and isn't his middle name Hussein? That sure doesn't help.

what's Obama's middle name got to do with anything.
as for Ayres, that is such ancient history that the only people who care the old school, old baby boomers who still live in the 1960s culture wars.
Newsflash: it's a new century and no one cares what some young kid did back 40 years ago.
That would be like asking the old baby boomers to relate to the depression of their parents time.

Posted by: vw hussein Cat | August 21, 2008 10:54 PM | Report abuse

tom wrote:
Professor Obama needs to stop talking so much and start drilling. And telling us that drilling is bad is like saying that sex is bad

what an ignorant ass you are. If anyone began drilling today we would not see oil for 10 years and it would do nothing to the price.
Try learning something outside of the republican talking points.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 10:51 PM | Report abuse

So this is all they've got. Oh wait, there is that scary story about the suspicious white powder arriving at McCain offices that the McCain campaign called out to the press to run also. And there's that other 527 ad saying that Obama hangs with terrorists. A lot of shots for one day, don't you think? Desperate times call for desperate measures and the McCain campaign is looking a little desperate.

Some will say, how dare I question the timing or the accuracy of the white powder story. Well, we've already proven that John McCain will lie for political advantage. So excuse me for being cynical. I think it is warranted.

Posted by: Mary | August 21, 2008 10:49 PM | Report abuse

Obama was a Muslim until the age of 7. The media is completely in the tank for Obama, and refuses to tell the American public the truth. Wake up, America, and stop this Islamist takeover.

Posted by: Mary | August 21, 2008 10:46 PM | Report abuse

Professor Obama needs to stop talking so much and start drilling. And telling us that drilling is bad is like saying that sex is bad. Whatever, just man up and start drilling.

Posted by: Tom | August 21, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

Hooosein needs to stop playing so much basketball, and start getting serious. That boy's gotta shape up and stop using so many big funny university words.

Posted by: Bob | August 21, 2008 10:37 PM | Report abuse

Obama's not even an eloquent speaker anonymous. Have you ever heard him when he's not reading a telepromter?

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 10:35 PM | Report abuse

A lot of people are just tuning into this election. Ayers, Rezko and Wright are all fresh news to these independents. Oh, and isn't his middle name Hussein? That sure doesn't help.

Posted by: Jane | August 21, 2008 10:33 PM | Report abuse

The sleazy NObama is now using Clinton years as a testament to how he will govern? Did n't he compare Clinton to Nixon and held up his admiration for Reagan when he ran against HRC? Does this guy have no shame?

Well I take that last question back.

I can only hope and pray that the Nob somehow did not settle on HRC. That would be a disaster.

The best part of my day was when I opened my copy of the Journal and saw that 52% of all CLinton supporters don't support Nob, and will either sit home or vote Mac. Bravo! The rest of my fellow CLinton supporters, don't be shy, don't be browbeaten by the thugs of the Dem party (yes, the same thugs that blithely looked the other way as the Nob campaign and his prostitute media pals piled on HRC using all kinds of dirty race and sex cards) that somehow you need to unite and vote the Nob, and forget all that happened.

Nothing has changed; just read the daily column of the media prostitute Mo Dowd; she is still spouting anti-Clinton venom till today, even as the Nob is praising HRC for her trail blazing campaign. You know who is sincere and who is not between them; the venom is real. This is how all the gutter rat groupies of Nob feel towards the CLintons. As soon as the Nob is elected, he will throw CLinton under the bus (heck, he did that to his fine grandma and his beloved pastor of 20 years).

Posted by: intcamd1 | August 21, 2008 10:31 PM | Report abuse

Mecane steels people heart by telling his captivitu in vetnam and when he talks about it he thinks makes his listeners to belive he is the only vetran from that wrongly started war and finished shmefully.
He uses it like a currency to buy peoples heart, ear and now their vote AMERICA WAKE UP BEFORE CRYING FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS.

MACANE STOP USING YOUR EXPERIANCE IN VETNAM AS ACURRENCY TO BY PEOPLS HEART BECAUSE YOU ARE FROM RICH FAMILY AND GOT A CHANCE TO BE ON NATIONAL STAGE DONT MAKE MONY AND STATUS WITH THAT EXPERIANCE. THERE ARE MANY VETRACE WHO DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE LIKE YOU AND CANNOT CASH IN TELLING THEIR STORY. WE ARE TIRED OF LISTING YOUR BLABLA BLA .....VETNAM......BLABLA.... TALK REALITY NOW.

Posted by: jojo | August 21, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Obama says there is 57 states hahaha

Posted by: Paul | August 21, 2008 10:27 PM | Report abuse

Lol, yes that idiot Obama shouldn't throw stones...
he's made of glass.

Obama thinks there is 57 states !!!
(but he was mixed up with Islamic states right?)

Posted by: paul | August 21, 2008 10:26 PM | Report abuse

The issue may have been aired during the primaries but how many people were actually paying attention.

Just wait for the 10 days before Election Day - and you thought Mickey D's and Coke advertised a lot - it's gonna be all candidates all the time and 10 days prior to pulling the lever will be enough time for people to remember their doubts about either candidate.

It is easier to vote 'no' than to vote 'yes', for a 'no' all you have to do is sow the seeds of doubt.

Posted by: JMAN | August 21, 2008 10:22 PM | Report abuse

i cant believe in the united states of america someone as shady and fake as obama is with all the corrupt and questionable associates that this deceiver has could be considered for a school princaples job let alone the president is beyond me ....in a way i hope he does win and really rocks the boat ie "change"...you can only push so hard and then SNAP! thats when things could get real interesting

Posted by: JoJo | August 21, 2008 10:14 PM | Report abuse

THINGS ELITIST JOHN MCBUSCH CAN'T REMEMBER:


He can't remember:
-------------------

How many houses he owns

...but we can, SING ALONG EVERYONE!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhuMgUkiVOY


That it's now the Czech Republic


That his wife lied about Mother Theresa imploring her to take the babies home (Mother Theresa was not in the orphanage on that day)


That he voted against tax cuts for the rich


That he voted against torture


That he said Roe v Wade should not be overturned


Where all the Abramoff documents are by the millions


That he said his health records would be available for review then gave people just 2 hours


That he voted w/Bush 100% of the time in 2008 but he's a maverick


That middle class is not people who make just under $5 million a year


That he was a member of the Keating 5


That he cheated on his first wife


That his current wife stole drugs from her charity

----------------

What CAN McCain remember...that he was a POW

Possibly the only thing that other fellow POW's would like to forget and are loathe to discuss


Posted by: McCain = Elitist and Chief | August 21, 2008 10:06 PM | Report abuse

McCain doesn't own 7 houses. He and his wife have a pre-nuptial agreement and she apparently owns all the real estate.

Posted by: paul | August 21, 2008 9:52 PM | Report abuse

JakeD just got himself a John McCain Ballwasher with his McCain points. Its name is Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: Ken | August 21, 2008 9:51 PM | Report abuse

Wapo, did murdoch buy you guys? the way you are always promoting McCain as some kind of wonderful guy and trashing Obama all the time I am wondering.
Does Murdoch own the Wapo now?
It sure is not the papaer of the great Woodward and Bernstein. This Wapo would be covering up for Nixon.

Posted by: vwcat | August 21, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

Guys, why don't you check with the Trib and Sun Times. The facts are not at all what you claim them to be. Let the grown ups with all the info tell the story.

Posted by: WaPo or WaTimes | August 21, 2008 9:49 PM | Report abuse

"The underlying assumption -- that McCain's personal wealth makes him insensitive to the struggling economy -- is highly debatable."

Okay, lets's debate it. Has Mccain ever been subjected to the vissiscitudes of the economy and been without a job? Has he ever had to work a second job to pay his mortgage? Has he ever had to negotiate for health insurance in the private sector?
No, to each of these things that many Americans have to worry about each and every day.

It is little wonder that a guy like Howie Kurtz finds these things "debateable" because only elitist snobs and apoligists for inherited wealth like Kurtz, who are themselves worth millions need to protect their own from accusations of indifference to the plight of their countrymen.

The worst thing about it is that Mccain never did a thing to acquire his riches but to say "I do." And those riches did not come from his wife's labor either because the only reason she got them was that she was born.

Posted by: kuvasz | August 21, 2008 9:44 PM | Report abuse

AJ,

You Repubs are gonna have to do better.

Does Obama owe his brother money? By the way, this only highlights the fact that Obama came into money two years ago! Yep, go back more than two years ago and he was still paying off college loans.

Rezko and Ayers are old news. Investigated ad naseum. You guys will need something new.

And who knows, Hillary may join the ticket. I hope that if she does you will decide to join us and vote...

Obama 2008.

Posted by: Chris Stewart | August 21, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: Corruption Anon | August 21, 2008 9:43 PM | Report abuse

this is a game changer, like GHWB's comment that he didn't know what a supermarket scanner was. McCain is a rich guy out of touch with our problems.

And Kurtz always leans conservative; he won't let the facts get in the way of his daily message; just read his stuff.

Posted by: SPENCER | August 21, 2008 9:42 PM | Report abuse

What's funny about the McCain ad is that it doesn't even make sense: "Now that's a housing problem?" Huh? What is? Rezko's being in federal prison? Obama's purchase of part of a yard? What is "the housing problem" the ad refers to.

Fortunately for McCain, most of his followers and swing voters are stupid enough that this illogic flies right over their head, and all they can think is: "wait, that black dude's richer than I am. I don't like him."

Posted by: English major | August 21, 2008 9:39 PM | Report abuse

Obama is going to lose this race for us!!! Don't blame ME...I voted for the Women-American candidate!

Posted by: gaypastor | August 21, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

And now the campaign with Hillary starts to become of benefit.... Rezko is old news.


However, McCain's wealth and blue blood has not yet been addressed. It's funny, the person the public really doesn't know yet is John McCain (i.e., after Vietnam).

Obama 2008.

Posted by: Chris Stewart | August 21, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

The facts:

1. Barack Obama's brother lives in extreme poverty, while Senator Obama earned $4 million in book sales alone last year.

2. Barack Obama has publicly admitted that he made a mistake in working with Rezko, who is now a convicted felon. The details of the shady deals have yet to be exposed, but we do know that Rezko will be sentenced one week before the elections are held.

3. Barack Obama called William Ayers, a terrorist, "mainstream" and he and Ayers have personal connections.

4. Barack Obama is more liberal and extreme than NARAL, in that Obama opposed a bill that would ban infanticide in hospitals ("Born Alive Infant Protection Act").


I encourage the Democratic superdelegates to nominate this man! DO NOT SWITCH OVER TO HILLARY.

Posted by: AJ | August 21, 2008 9:37 PM | Report abuse

The Rezko thin is a ripe controversy, but McCain is playing defense here. That's a shift from even the morning. The house thing is clearly a blow for him.

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

Posted by: matt | August 21, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Gee, my single level 3 bedroom home on less than a quarter acre in a suburban California neighborhood is worth about that much.

Does that mean I'm rich and living in a mansion? My wife and I have built two businesses and we pay a healthy share of taxes. Too bad they fund tax exemptions for Corporate America and an illegal war.

The Obamas are hard working people who did well enough to buy up in an expensive city. That isn't a crime is it?

When will Senator McCain explain his relationship with Charles Keating and the money he got to play ball in the Senate on Lincoln Savings?

Posted by: Ca Homeowner | August 21, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

Sweet, this is down and dirty I love it. McCain is in for a big surprise when Obama can out spend him 3 to 1 soon. He won't be able to defend against the piles upon piles of mud that is ready to be dropped on his head. All he is going to be able do is cry that Obama isn’t running a clean campaign .

Posted by: Creamsykle | August 21, 2008 9:21 PM | Report abuse

When you have enough money to buy a $1.6 million "home", maybe you can also help your brother who lives with $1 a day in Kenya.

Obama, are you going to treat us the way you treat your family?

Scary!!!!

Posted by: Charles | August 21, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

He did not buy the whole lot you yellow journalist. Read the Obama interview with the Chicago Tribune.

Also, you need to refer the Keating Five if you're going to start talking scandal...

Posted by: Robc | August 21, 2008 9:18 PM | Report abuse

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politics/blog/2008/08/mccain_ad_ties_barack_obama_to.html

To Howard Kurtz Rezko was under investigation at the time of the land deal.

Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2008 9:14 PM | Report abuse

Next up: the Keating Five scandal.

Posted by: Mike Meyer | August 21, 2008 9:12 PM | Report abuse

Last January, aiming to increase the size of his sideyard, Obama paid Rezko $104,500 for a strip of his land.
The transaction occurred at a time when it was widely known Tony Rezko was under investigation by U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald and as other Illinois politicians befriended by Rezko distanced themselves from him.

To Howard Kurtz Obama did a land deal with Rezko while Rezko was under investigation.

Stop covering for Obama.

Posted by: Jason | August 21, 2008 9:11 PM | Report abuse

He has the least experience of any major party candidate for President in almost 200 years.

The guy is an eloquent speaker, but that's it. Wake up America!

Posted by: Smitty87 | August 21, 2008 8:46 PM

And you think Bush's time as governor - where he did little else but put 153 people in the electric chair, gaining experience? Come to think of it, he is like the grim reaper, isn't he?

I'll take brains over experience any day. Bush has already proven that neither can exist in a president, much to the detriment of America.

Posted by: Anonymous | August 21, 2008 9:02 PM | Report abuse

Since when did a $1.6M home become "multimillion"? Only in the McCain propaganda rovian political world, my friend.

Posted by: ToKnow | August 21, 2008 8:58 PM | Report abuse

yes Smitty but he like Roosevelt have a directional objective different from the robber barons. They've had their run... a guy making $200K (McCain) socked away $14 million in property. How'd you do? Wake-up indeed.

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 21, 2008 8:57 PM | Report abuse

Here are the real facts about Obama from a resident of his home state of Illinois-

Obama was less than medicore as a State Senator and did absolutely nothing notable while in office here.

Obama has done nothing notable as a US senator other than try to attach his name to other Senator's work.

Although obama talks about bringing the parties together to create a concensus on hot topics he has never done anything while holding office which would indicate that will ever happen.

He has the least experience of any major party candidate for President in almost 200 years.

The guy is an eloquent speaker, but that's it. Wake up America!

Posted by: Smitty87 | August 21, 2008 8:46 PM | Report abuse

get it out early so as they can all be waiting patiently for their "whitey" tape. Maybe with the talking heads spinning this somewhere it gets said... 7 houses!!!

Posted by: angriestdogintheworld | August 21, 2008 8:37 PM | Report abuse

If you think this is bad, just wait until after the GOP Convention ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 8:31 PM | Report abuse

The FACT is that your guy admitted it was "BONEHEADED"!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 8:27 PM | Report abuse

mccain ia a bezerker- yes obama is doing well, but- because in horatio alger fashion he is self-made. while mccain got into the naval academy due to family ties (and did poorly). he did serve our nation grandly by getting shot down though. and before campaign finance reform his only notable event was being involved in the keating 5. oh, he was smart enough to marry into a wealthy family ( is he proud of that) ? what exactly are john mccain's gifts either natuaral or self- developed ?
we don't need and older less educated W.

Posted by: jacade | August 21, 2008 8:25 PM | Report abuse

The facts are the facts. Whether Obama feels the move was boneheaded is not the story. Lets report the facts which are as stated.

AND Obama had no role in any of Rezko's legal issues.

Now if we want to talk legal issues lets get the Keating Five revved up...

Posted by: John Nail | August 21, 2008 8:22 PM | Report abuse

Howard, just because you are unhappy about the UIC archives does NOT mean you can distort the facts to suit your agenda.

Posted by: John Nail | August 21, 2008 8:19 PM | Report abuse

John Nail:

Sorry, but ee've got your guy on tape: "BONEHEADED"!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 8:18 PM | Report abuse

Get your facts straight! As pointed out above the Obamas paid 1/6 of the price for the lot from the Rezko's for 1/6 of the land.

Actually at that price it was 2.5x the appraisal on the land so more than fair.

AND Rezko was not under any investigation at the time.

If you are goingto report, be fair or shut up.

Posted by: John Nail | August 21, 2008 8:16 PM | Report abuse

LOL!! So, Jeremiah Wright will similarly "get no traction" in the general election simply because enough Democrats were willing to overlook that scandal during the primaries? I didn't know that's how "Karl Rove" politics worked these days ...

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 8:15 PM | Report abuse

This will get no mainstream play. It is the same thing we have all heard before.

McCain's comments were new and contribute traction to the narrative that he is economically out of touch and potentially clueless.

Posted by: wood | August 21, 2008 8:10 PM | Report abuse

BONEHEADED!!!

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 8:05 PM | Report abuse

"Rezko's wife bought an adjacent side lot for $625,000. Months later, the Obamas bought that lot for $104,000. "

Those facts are just flat wrong, Howard. Obama did not buy the entire lot. He bought 1/6 of the lot for exactly 1/6 of the price the Rezkos paid for it. You need to fix this error because your statement makes it sound like they bought a $625,000 lot for only $104,000 which is NOT TRUE.

Posted by: Lisa | August 21, 2008 8:02 PM | Report abuse

WOO HOO!!! Hopefully, Obama picks Christopher Dodd as V.P. candidate too.

Posted by: JakeD | August 21, 2008 8:00 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company