Clinton Supporters Not Too Happy With Obama  |   Home  |   Oh No You Didn’t

Where In the World?

We haven’t done this in a while.  Where is this?

Posted by Owen at 1811 hrs
Off-Duty

1. I suppose I should be quiet, since I saw the photo before you removed the, er, context clues you left at the bottom of the picture…

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 23, 2008 at 1822 hrs
   
   
   

2. Shhhh…. 

   Posted by Owen on August 23, 2008 at 1828 hrs
   
   
   

3. John McCain’s fifteenth house.

   Posted by capper on August 23, 2008 at 1829 hrs
   
   
   

4. John McCain’s fifteenth house.

   Nahhh ... I don’t see any servants’ quarters.

   Posted by folkbum on August 23, 2008 at 1904 hrs
   
   
   

5. I hear the listing agent for this property is Tony Rezko.  Not only will he sell it to you, but if you’re a Member of Congress, he’ll help you finance it as well.  And if you don’t want the neighboring lot developed, Rezko will buy it and leave it empty.

   At least McCain’s family bought those properties without the help of a convicted felon.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 23, 2008 at 1925 hrs
   
   
   

6. RS, usually you’re better than that.

   Posted by folkbum on August 23, 2008 at 2008 hrs
   
   
   

7. Which, considering you and Capper went there first, implies that you usually aren’t?   Only liberals are allowed to take cheap shots in the name of humor?

   At least we’re both sticking to the truth.  McCain’s family owns a lot of property and Obama bought his mansion with the assistance of a felon.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 23, 2008 at 2059 hrs
   
   
   

8. Looks like St. Peter’s in the Vatican

   Posted by Don Meaker on August 23, 2008 at 2127 hrs
   
   
   

9. R.S.:  Maybe those of us on the Right NEED to stop being nice.

   The St. Peter’s guess is on the right track, but I’ll guess the Pantheon in Rome.

   Posted by Steve on August 24, 2008 at 1000 hrs
   
   
   

10. Nobody has it yet, but yes… it is a church.

    Posted by Owen on August 24, 2008 at 1020 hrs
    
    
    

11. RS, Tony Rezko was not a felon in 2006 at the time of the purchase.  He was not even indicted.  And the Obamas offered the highest bid for the house they bought, they paid a fair price for the adjoining land from Rita Rezko (1/6 of the original purchase price for 1/6 of the land), and they got a market-rate mortgage.  What’s the scandal?  What’s the crime?

    Posted by folkbum on August 24, 2008 at 1535 hrs
    
    
    

12. My first guess was Bundt Cathedral, but I’ll go with on the Aachen Cathedral in Aachen on Munsterplatz.  What do I win?

    Posted by J. Foust on August 25, 2008 at 0918 hrs
    
    
    

13. Things worth nothing.  I draw no conclusion from them, I just point them out.

    - It’s interesting that when the Rezkos went in with the Obamas to buy the adjoining parcels that the Rezkos paid full price for the vacant lot adjoining the Obamas’ purchase but the Obamas paid 15% below the asking price for the parcel with the house.  This was before the housing market went into the tank.  I don’t have the time or resources to do the research, but it’d be interesting to see if comparable homes in that neighborhood were also selling for 85% of their asking price.

    - A friend of mine took me through the Obamas’ neighborhood last summer.  Yes, the Obamas paid 1/6 the value for 1/6 of the Rezkos’ property, but by taking that 1/6th, the Obamas went a lot way towards making the Rezkos’ property completely undesirable.  You could still buy the lot and squeeze a house on there, but given the aesthetics of the neighborhood, you’d have to work damn hard to do it.  The Rezkos have expressed no public interest in building on it.  So if the Obamas really wanted to keep the lot empty, why didn’t they just do the above-board thing and buy the whole lot?

    - The second transaction occurred at such a time when Obama could not have been unaware that Rezko was under investigation by the U.S. Attorney’s office.  It was all over the papers in Chicago.

    - For a man who seemingly struggles to accept fault (remember how hard he defended his lunatic racist minister?), Obama apologized for the latter Rezko deal, calling it “a mistake” and something that he regrets.  Clearly not enough to ask Rezko to reverse the transaction though.

    - People who become felons usually have shady, suspect character well before their conviction.  It’s not like Tony Rezko magically became a slimeball the day they court threw the book at him.

    So we can continue to stake our own paths, but I will assure you that Rezko’s association with Obama will surely hurt Obama more than McCain owning a couple houses.  After all, McCain wasn’t the one peddling this squeaky-clean mirage of change.  Rezko hurts Obama because it reminds the world that he’s just another politician who is using his access to powerful figures to help himself personally.  Sure, they all do it, but Obama told us he was different.  But he’s not.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 25, 2008 at 1239 hrs
    
    
    

14. As long as we’re just noting things…

    Now that the right has started bringing up Tony Rezko at every available opportunity, when will it be OK to start mentioning Charles Keating? I mean, as long as we’re talking about old pals who’ve been convicted of felonies, and all.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2008 at 1608 hrs
    
    
    

15. Sorry, RS, I read that as things worth noting, rather than things worth nothing. mea culpa

    I stand by my point, though.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2008 at 1613 hrs
    
    
    

16. If Democrats think they can get Keating to stick, they’re welcome to try explaining it to people.  I think, however, that they’ll run into the same problems with Keating that Republicans had with Whitewater all those years: namely, the whole thing is too convoluted to convey to voters in 30 seconds.

    McCain’s involvement in Keating was basically that of a Senator lobbying a government agency to expedite an investigative matter that had dragged on.  McCain never lobbied the Federal Home Loan Bank Board (FHLBB) to drop the investigation.  He lobbied them to reach a conclusion instead of leaving the matter to hang over the bank’s head indefinitely.  Once the FHLBB revealed to McCain that Keating was under investigation for criminal wrongdoing, McCain immediately ended his involvement in the matter.

    Obama, however, continued his involvement with Rezko well after Obama had knowledge that Rezko was being investigated for criminal activity.

    I don’t think either is a fine point on their respective resumes.  McCain knew there was a problem and hit the eject button.  Obama knew there was a problem and let Rezko do him another favor.  What magnifies the difference is that Obama has pretended all along to be different from and better than all the other Washington politicians.

    Except that he is, and that’s why he looks so mortal right now.  In the eyes of more and more Americans, Obama is just another politician with a politician’s ethics who is willing to say or do anything to get elected.  And that, more than anything, is his biggest enemy in the next 2 1/2 months.  His biggest opponent isn’t John McCain, but the myth of Obama that he allowed the media to create.

    Posted by Recess Supervisor on August 25, 2008 at 1803 hrs
    
    
    

17. You raise some interesting points, some of them a little exaggerated, I think. You’re right; these are both really complicated cases, but at the end of the day, all that matters is that the mud sticks to both sides. God, I hate this stuff. You were absolutely right in your comment at #13. These are all things worth nothing. Can’t we just fold that hand and go to the next one? Rezko and Keating cancel each other out?

    on the tactical stuff—

    I don’t buy into the whole “Obama has set himself above everybody” deal. I think that’s a construct of the right, and I think they’ve been really successful in getting it out there. At the same time, I don’t think it’s gaining that much traction and I don’t think enough people are ultimately going to buy in for it to be significant.

    And speaking of “allowing the media to create,” don’t think McCain’s not trading on his media-driven image as the maverick, when he’s been anything but a maverick for the last 8-10 years. He’s changed his mind, and he’s certainly entitled to do that, on tons of stuff. But the straight talkin’ maverick of 2000? Not so much any more.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on August 25, 2008 at 2038 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.