<p>I don’t want us to get into another “abortion debate”, esp. b/c this is entirely something different. I just don’t understand anyone’s position against legislation that protects babies who are born alive.</p>
<p>I disagree w/ Obama on several issues, but this one really makes me question his character. Maybe that’s why I’m overly suspicious. Re: the whole easement/driveway issue - I can understand how the events might have taken place now, but the articles I read did not state the facts as CCers have described them here. Whatever - that doesn’t matter to me nearly as much as his stance on ISSUES, especially the Born Alive Infant Protection Act.</p>
<p>drb - thanks for pointing out my oversight. I admit I may have jumped to a conclusion (esp. since not all of the articles I read went into detail about the deal). As I mentioned above, I can understand about the whole easement/driveway thing. That sort of thing doesn’t really matter to me anyway - unless someone really IS doing something wrong. I’d much rather stick to the issues.</p>
<p>After reading about the land deal, it appears to me that the most nefarious reading that fits the facts is the following, imagining a secret meeting between Obama and Rezko before the deal:
Obama: I’d like to buy this house, but they’ve subdivided it into two parcels, and I’d like to get part of the second parcel, but not all of it.
Rezko: I could probably buy that second parcel, and then sell you back the part of it you want.
Obama: The other problem is that the sellers will probably take a lower price on the part with the house, because it’s been on the market for a while, but there’s an option on the other part from a developer. They may not take less for that.
Rezko: Don’t worry about that part. I’ll buy that parcel, sell you the strip you want for a pro rata share of what I paid, and then I’ll deal with the rest of the parcel in some other way.
Obama: Thanks. What can I ever do to repay you for this favor?
Rezko: Hey, what are friends for?
So, a whiff of sleaziness, but not financially corrupt.</p>
<p>There doesn’t seem to be any claim of anything illegal in the land deal. The problem, if there is one, is that the arrangement leaves Obama owing a favor to Rezko.</p>
<p>If you research the connection b/w Obama & Rezco, it appears that Obama owes a lot to Rezco - he has been a major financial contributor to his campaigns and has held fundraisers for him, etc. Rezco had properties that were in disrepair that were also located in Obama’s congressional district, but Obama claims no knowledge of them or of Rezco’s other transgressions. </p>
<p>There is a lot of info out there about the long-standing relationship b/w Obama & Rezco.</p>
<p>I just wonder why Obama needed to associate w/ so many questionable people - is this necessary in Chicago politics?</p>
<p>The reality is that so much money is needed to run for anything that candidates don’t have the luxury of turning down money from everyone who may not be squeaky clean. Even McCain, who campaigns on campaign finance reform, doesn’t come to the process with clean hands. I support Obama but I wish he had not dealt with Rezko. Maybe he was naive about him - but I believe a lesson was learned. I believe McCain learned a great lesson from Keating too.</p>
<p>Politicians become friends with rich, powerful people. Even if they don’t get personal favors, they get campaign contributions. This creates problems for them when the rich, powerful people need something later on. I think you’re going to be hard-pressed to find a politician for whom this isn’t true, and your best hope is to find one who isn’t actively corrupt. I don’t think either Obama or McCain is corrupt.</p>
<p>Not that I’m agreeing that Obama did anything illegal, but are you being sarcastic with the question? Why do you think they call it the Windy City?</p>
<p>If I wanted to buy a house, but could only afford the house lot and not the driveway lot, but my in-laws (or some such trusted persons) said they had some money laying around that they wanted to invest in real estate, and they could buy the extra lot now and sell us the driveway portion later, I would probably say it sounds like a good idea.</p>
<p>But, if I were a Senator with designs on becoming President, and the person buying the extra lot was not my in-laws but was instead a somewhat shady character suspected of bribing politicians and other iffy acts, then to think that the idea was good means I’m either naive, stupid, or corrupt. </p>
<p>I think that Obama knows this, and he opted for stupid (“that was boneheaded”) rather than naive or corrupt. His thinking there was probably that people don’t mind voting for stupid, likable Presidents : ) but they have a problem with naive or corrupt ones.</p>
<p>Well, I don’t know how suspect Rezko was at the time. With the benefit of hindsight, he looks more dirty, just as Keating looks worse after he had to go to jail.</p>
<p><a href=“I%20heard”>quote</a> Obama paid a very reduced price for his parcel while Rezco paid the asking price & they were purchased on the same day & located side-by-side.</p>
<p>If those facts are incorrect, please feel free to post otherwise. I haven’t researched the subject
[/quote]
I already posted on this. Obama paid less than the asking price for his house, but the property had been on the market for some time and there was only one other bidder – Obama had the higher bid. At the time, the market was declining, and the value of the home has declined by several hundred thousand dollars since the Obama purchase.</p>
<p>As to the lot, the Rezko’s paid full asking price for the lot, but the lot has been resold two or 3 times since then, and has actually been stable or gone UP in value. (The Rezko’s sold at a profit). Obama had paid the Rezkos full pro-rata share of what they paid for the strip. </p>
<p>Also, Rezko probably learned about the lot’s availability from Obama, but Rezko purchased the lot BEFORE Obama bought the house – so at the time Rezko bid, it was uncertain whether Obama would bid or have his offer accepted. (If someone else had bid more, than obviously the owner would have sold to the highest bidder).</p>
All you have to do is check Zillow and you will see that the value of Obama’s house has plummeted, not increased. And if you look at any photo of the property you will see that there is NO DRIVEWAY on the south strip – it’s just a strip that widens the yard and creates more space between the Obama house and the anticipated development on the (former) Rezko property.</p>
No, there was no law broken in this transaction. Rezko appears to have been a real estate developer/speculator who broke the law in other transactions with different people. </p>
<p>The issue is that people investigating Obama’s background have tried very hard but cannot come up with evidence of any sort of curruption or misdeeds… but Obama knows a lot of people. Being a politician it has been in Obama’s interest to meet and work with a lot of people, and try to be a friend to everyone. So if we investigate all of Obama’s friends and associates, we are bound to turn up some who have problems with ethics or their mouths or whatever, whether it is someone who sells Obama a piece of land, the pastor at his church, or a fellow U of Chicago professor who sits on a board with him.</p>