1
   

Obama's Problematic Friends

 
 
Miller
 
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 06:29 am
By His Friends Ye Shall Know Him
The trial of Tony Rezko spells trouble for Barack

STEPHEN SPRUIELL

Chicago
Barack Obama has two categories of problematic friends. On one hand, there are the radicals ?- such people as his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and his friend Bill Ayers, a former leader in the homegrown '60s terror group the Weather Underground. On the other hand, there are the players ?- such Illinois political operators as indicted fundraiser and businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a man who raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Obama's campaigns and helped him buy a $1.65 million house here.

The radicals have received more coverage in the national media so far, simply because the public nature of what they do makes them easier to cover. All a broadcast network needs to do is play clips from Wright's "God damn America" sermon, bring on a couple of political analysts to talk about it, and voilà: insta-story. For newspapers, it's as simple as reprinting excerpts from Ayers's memoir, in which he wrote, "Everything was absolutely ideal on the day I bombed the Pentagon."

But Rezko's corruption trial, which has been unfolding in a federal courtroom here over the past several weeks, has the potential to change the balance. For one thing, the trial has already yielded new information on the corrupt activities of several other Illinois players to whom Obama has ties, including his former boss, Allison Davis. For another, Rezko stands a good chance of being convicted when the jury decides this case, which should happen sometime this summer. If he is, it will create a new opening for Obama's opponents and a new opportunity for the press to probe his relationships within the bipartisan political machine that Illinoisans refer to simply as "The Combine."

Rezko's trial has lifted the veil on Illinois's infernally corrupt political establishment, and a government witness named Stuart Levine has taken on the role of a meth-snorting, double-dealing Virgil, guiding the public through it. Levine, a drug addict and crooked GOP operative, is testifying for the government in order to avoid spending the rest of his life in prison. Over the course of seven days of direct examination by the prosecution, he described a statewide network of fraud, extortion, and bribery that included key figures in the administration of Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich, a Democrat.

One of those figures was Tony Rezko, a top fundraiser for and adviser to Blagojevich. Most of the public first heard of Rezko when Hillary Clinton mentioned him during a Democratic debate sponsored by CNN back in January. After Obama criticized Clinton for her ties to Wal-Mart, Clinton shot back with, "I was fighting against [conservative] ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Rezko, in his slum-landlord business in inner-city Chicago."

Obama responded that, as a young associate at the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill & Galland, he had done about five hours of work on a real-estate deal involving a "church group" and "this individual" (meaning Rezko), implying that he barely knew the man. In fact, Rezko was one of Obama's first political contacts in Chicago, and the two men had a close relationship until it became clear in early 2006 that Rezko would be indicted on corruption charges.

In 1990, when Obama was making headlines at Harvard for becoming the first black president of the law review, Rezko offered him a job at Rezmar, his burgeoning low-income-housing firm. Obama declined the offer and took a job at Davis Miner instead. In 1995, Obama spent 32 hours, not five, working on a deal that enabled a non-profit run by his boss, Allison Davis, to join with Rezmar in acquiring an old nursing home and converting it into subsidized housing for poor people, according to the Chicago Sun-Times. That property ?- like many others Rezmar obtained using city, state, and federal loans ?- ended up in foreclosure at the taxpayers' expense.

In 1995, Obama also launched his first bid for the Illinois state senate, and Rezko was among his first contributors. Approximately $10,000 to $15,000 of the $100,000 that Obama hauled in during that campaign came from Rezko, according to an estimate Obama provided to the Chicago Tribune. Rezko continued to raise money for Obama during his subsequent state-senate races, his unsuccessful run for Congress in 2000, and his successful U.S. Senate run in 2004 ?- about $250,000 in all.

Finally, when the Obamas were looking for a new house in the summer of 2005, Rezko helped them buy their dream home by purchasing an adjoining lot they could not afford, then selling them a strip of the land on which they wanted to build a fence. The real-estate deal attracted scrutiny after Rezko's indictment, and Obama has called it a "bone-headed move." But he told the Tribune that he did not see anything wrong with the deal at the time, because "I've known him for a long time. I assumed I would have seen a pattern [of corrupt behavior] over the past 15 years." Never mind that, by the summer of 2005, the Chicago papers had run over 100 stories about the clouds gathering over Rezko's head.

A month into the Rezko trial, it's just as hard to believe that Obama didn't see Rezko's pattern of corrupt behavior as it was to believe that he sat in Jeremiah Wright's pews for over 20 years and didn't see him damning America. In both cases, the more likely alternative is that he looked the other way. Rezko's whole business was the buying and selling of influence: It's how he became one of Chicago's biggest recipients of government loans to build low-income housing despite having no experience in real estate, and it's how ?- prosecutors allege ?- he built a corrupt network of political operatives to enrich himself and buy more influence.

Stuart Levine was one of these lower-level operatives. At Rezko's trial, he testified that he and Rezko conspired to use Levine's position on two state boards to benefit themselves and buy influence with Governor Blagojevich. In one such instance, Levine told the jury, he directed the Illinois Teachers Retirement System, of which he was a trustee, to invest $50 million with a firm called Glencoe Capital. In exchange, Levine arranged for himself and Rezko to split a fraudulent $500,000 "finder's fee." Rezko allegedly told Levine to route his half to an associate named Joseph Aramanda.

According to the indictment against Rezko, Aramanda "used the money . . . in substantial part for the benefit of Rezko." To that end, the indictment alleges, Aramanda received half of the money in March 2004 and wrote a $10,000 check to Barack Obama's Senate campaign that same month.

Of course, Obama has donated any and all Rezko-related contributions, including those he received from Aramanda, to charity, and he says neither he nor anyone on his campaign had any reason to suspect that Aramanda had obtained the money by fraudulent means.

Levine also offered testimony, backed up by wiretap evidence, which put Obama's former law-firm boss, Allison Davis, in the middle of an attempted quid pro quo. Davis's friend Thomas Rosenberg, a financier and the producer of the film Million Dollar Baby, was in line for a $220 million allocation from the Teachers Retirement System, but Levine was holding it up so that he and Rezko could attempt to extort money from Rosenberg.

Davis allegedly approached Rezko on Rosenberg's behalf and asked if a campaign contribution to Blagojevich would speed things along. Rezko told Davis to "call Stuart Levine." Rezko and Levine planned to give Rosenberg a choice: either pay a $2 million "finder's fee" or raise $1.5 million for Blagojevich.

When Rosenberg realized he was the target of such a massive shakedown, he was furious. In a recorded phone call that prosecutors played for the jury, one of Levine's co-schemers quoted Rosenberg's reaction: "?'If [Tony Rezko and Blagojevich fundraiser Chris Kelly are] going to do this to me and think they're going to blackmail me, I'm going to take them down.'"

Rosenberg's threat convinced the alleged conspirators to back off, and ?- in the biggest bombshell to emerge during the trial so far ?- Levine testified that Rezko told him that Blagojevich had been informed of the situation and had agreed with Rezko's proposed course of action: to back off from the extortion plot but also to deny Rosenberg any more state contracts. Levine is not the most credible witness, but prosecutors played numerous recorded phone calls in which he discussed these schemes with co-conspirators in situations where it would have made little sense for him to lie.

If the allegations about Blagojevich are true, then such nakedly corrupt behavior at such a high level is bound to attract greater scrutiny from the national media on the problem of corruption in Illinois. Three out of the last seven elected Illinois governors have gone to jail for corruption, and based on evidence presented at the Rezko trial, Blagojevich could well become the fourth.

For Obama, this scrutiny would present a problem, not because he was involved in the serious wrongdoing for which Rezko is on trial, but because the evidence presented at his trial has made clear that Rezko's method of operating should have raised red flags for anyone doing business with him. Yet Obama did not distance himself from Rezko until the latter's indictment made him politically radioactive. We saw him do the same thing when the media discovered Jeremiah Wright's sermons. Obama wants us to believe he didn't really know his friends at all.

National Review
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 1,083 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 06:49 am
Yes, Obama has a few "friends" who are shady. So too does his opponent, Mr.s Bill Clinton. They both have plenty of baggage to carry around and I would enjoy seeing Obama attack back.

http://prorev.com/hillaryfriends.htm
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 08:01 am
I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.

You?
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 08:28 am
If I were planniing to run for President of the US, I would have to evaluate my relationships and get them into the open quickly so as to avoid any rummaging around by the media.

Then I would weigh the virtues and vices of those relationships on my campaign and either embrace or move away from them. A phone call would be an easy solution. "Hey, this is McGentrix and Ias you know I am running for President. You are a lightning rod for bad press so I am going to have to distance myself from you for the time being. Nothing personal, we will always be friends, but you know how the press is. We'll get together if I am not nominated, or my Presidency is over. Cheers!"
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 10:12 am
I don't disagree with you McG....but the reality is that whether you went for a beer with them yesterday or sometime back in 2001 is irrelevant to the media and the other politicians in the race.

Obama could have told Wright to go away, but this would not have erased the previous involvement he had in his life. Obama could have changed his middle name to Gerald, but that would not have completely erased his previous middle name.

There are a lot of things Obama could have done to make good some of the past relationships he's had, but I believe, given the type of race he's trying to run, he wishes for these things to emerge as they would have no matter what preemptive actions he could have taken, and to square away the wholesale irrelevance they have in his ability to lead the country.
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 07:12 pm
candidone1 wrote:
I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.

You?


If I were trying to become President, I would have not joined Rev. Wright's church. Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Fri 25 Apr, 2008 09:04 pm
Miller wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.

You?


If I were trying to become President, I would have not joined Rev. Wright's church. Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.


Because it worked out so well for the only Catholic ever elected President?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2008 08:31 am
tommrr wrote:
Miller wrote:
candidone1 wrote:
I would sure hate to be judged by some of the company I keep, or have my moral compass evaluated by the past actions of my aquaintences.

You?


If I were trying to become President, I would have not joined Rev. Wright's church. Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.


Because it worked out so well for the only Catholic ever elected President?


How did you reach that conclusion?
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Sat 26 Apr, 2008 01:58 pm
Miller wrote:

How did you reach that conclusion?


First of all, let me do the disclaimer thing...I'm catholic, this in no way is to be construed that I am slamming the catholics..now onto your question.

I started with this.
Quote:
Obama should have become a Catholic and many of his problems wouldn't even exist.
Then I used some logical reasoning:
Only one Catholic has EVER been elected President. He had to convince the country that the Pope would not be making the decisions for the county and his term ended with an assassination .
Then I added some good old fashioned sarcasm and came up with the gem
Quote:
Because it worked out so well for the only Catholic ever elected President?

anything else?
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 07:55 am
Your logic needs to be refined....

Give a try...it
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 12:24 pm
tommrr wrote:
Then I used some logical reasoning...

Your use of logic merely angers and confuses Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 01:28 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
tommrr wrote:
Then I used some logical reasoning...

Your use of logic merely angers and confuses Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.


I kind of noticed that.....this would be an easy one to ignite, but I don't have the energy today.....
0 Replies
 
Arendt
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 02:32 pm
And its not like the Catholic Church hasn't had its own problems with particular members of the cloth over the past 20 years...
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Sun 27 Apr, 2008 06:48 pm
We only had one Catholic President, I believe, because there are many people of other faiths, or no faith, that somehow are not comfortable with a President that's not a WASP. Nothing against Catholics; it's just, again in my opinion, that in this country WASP trumps all other backgrounds as far as panache. I think many Presidents get elected on panache, in addition to the old standby of charisma. And, let's not forget, the majority of people in this country are Protestant, and it's their criteria as to what reflects panache and charisma. To me, that's the reality. P.S., panache and charisma in the South is different than it is in the North, so don't think LBJ showing the news cameras his operation scars wasn't good-ole-boy panache!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 03:58 am
Quote:
Obama's website quietly ditches Hamas supporter
Page for terrorist fundraiser suddenly disappears after drawing attention
Posted: April 26, 2008
1:00 am Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

The Obama campaign quietly removed from its official website a page managed by a fundraiser tied to the Islamic terrorist group Hamas.

The page for Hatem El-Hady - former chairman of an Islamic charity closed by the U.S. government for terrorist fundraising - listed Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, as one of three "friends" as recently as yesterday, according to blogger Charles Johnson.

But by yesterday morning, days after Johnson's "Little Green Football's" site drew attention to the El-Hady page, Michelle Obama's name had been removed. Then, later in the day, the entire page disappeared.

from http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62653

Also

Quote:
Official Obama blogger flies Communist Party flag
Campaign journalist's work appears in 'revolutionary Marxist' journal
Posted: April 26, 2008
1:20 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily

In the same week the Obama campaign quietly removed from its official website a page managed by a fundraiser tied to the Islamic terrorist group Hamas, its official blogger has come under attack as a "hardcore Marxist" for hanging a Communist Party flag in his Harvard campus apartment and publishing in a self-professed 'revolutionary Marxist' journal.

Sam Graham-Felsen, a journalist-on-leave from The Nation, joined Obama for America in March 2007 where he works for the New Media department as the official blogger, daily presenting the campaign's public face. Now he's under fire for his reputed Marxist sympathies from bloggers at Common Ills on the left and Little Green Footballs on the right.

Graham-Felsen, according to a 2003 article in the Harvard Crimson, adorned one corner of his shared student apartment with "a Communist Party flag ... bought on their trip to Russia the summer after sophomore year."

The revelation echoes an earlier public relations problem in February when a Houston Fox TV affiliate captured images of a volunteer in an Obama campaign office working in front of a flag featuring the image of Che Guevara, the South American revolutionary who became Fidel Castro's executioner after the communist takeover in Cuba.

At that time, the Obama campaign issued a statement calling the flag "inappropriate" and noting that the office where it was displayed was funded by "volunteers" and was not the official campaign headquarters.

Graham-Felsen, however, is not a volunteer, but a staff member according to information published on the Huffington Post taken from the Obama for America campaign 2007 second quarter report.

In 2003, Graham-Felsen participated in a labor march in France that Associated Press reported ended in violent riots - a characterization he disputed in The Nation. His coverage of the 2003 French protests against a new employment law again appeared in 2006 in Socialist Viewpoint, a journal that proudly proclaims its Marxist point of view
from http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=62681
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Mon 28 Apr, 2008 05:08 am
tommrr wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
tommrr wrote:
Then I used some logical reasoning...

Your use of logic merely angers and confuses Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.


I kind of noticed that.....this would be an easy one to ignite, but I don't have the energy today.....


Doesn't GandPa take vitamins? Laughing Laughing Laughing
0 Replies
 
tommrr
 
  1  
Reply Tue 29 Apr, 2008 11:27 am
Miller wrote:
tommrr wrote:
joefromchicago wrote:
tommrr wrote:
Then I used some logical reasoning...

Your use of logic merely angers and confuses Miller. Please desist lest she starts to rampage.


I kind of noticed that.....this would be an easy one to ignite, but I don't have the energy today.....


Doesn't GandPa take vitamins? Laughing Laughing Laughing


Not a granpa yet.....at least I don't think so.....let me call the kid and make sure there are no new developements... Shocked
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 04:33 pm
Name one AMERICAN politician's Name without problematic friends please
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Wed 30 Apr, 2008 05:56 pm
I was thinking (with what?), I get the impression the Rev Wright racial beef ain't Barack's thing, at all, and he's appalled by it, and there's some naivety there, not that Barack didn't know or the Rev changed, but that he power-postured with that group and hoped it wouldn't come back to bite him, but also that there's a subtlety that might come up again. That is I recall, sometimes folk in my family get crap for getting too far away from our humble, lawn-furniture-thieving roots, and moreover a black buddy of mine who's doing alright told me he can't go back to his hometown and hang out because the people that know him, and used to like, shoot craps out back, think he sold out.

I think that's what's going on here, Barack is playing it too cool and doing too good to suit the Rev, who had some pederastic (strained usage, but I feel compelled) vision for the young, affable senator, and now he's getting ripped for not keeping it real, so to speak. So, it's like, there's this feeling of betrayal with someone who bought into Barack, for what I would call the wrong reason. What I'm wondering now is, will it happen again, like would certain groups/demographics maybe even ones with conflicting ideas to one another and/or not usually associated with the executive branch, get their signals crossed and buy in to Obama '08, or have they already, and end up either feeling sold out or influencing the man, somehow, to act for them. Or worse, end up calling it in on BHO? I mean, right now it's a pissed off theologian making unpleasant noises, but if it were a sub-nation that got it's high hopes dashed-

It's happened before - the Kennedy's took the union vote and then pissed off the mob...
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Obama's Problematic Friends
Copyright © 2026 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/05/2026 at 06:23:50