In a diary entitled "FACT CHECK: Obama and His Contributor Rezko," the diarist "truthteller," tries to make a case against Obama. I welcome this diary. As an Obama supporter, I think this is a valid issue for investigation.
I think there is a natural tendency to assume that our preferred candidates are good people who can do no wrong. I find it extremely annoying when HRC and JE supporters reject, out of hand, any criticism of their candidate. As an Obama supporter, I want to weigh the validity of any charges against my candidate.
All this being said, what does the evidence actually suggest? Truthteller's diary appears very thorough, and I am sure it took a lot of work (no comment as to the source of that work). But in the end, it is nothing more than an "innuendo" and "guilt by association" attack.
Let's go through this, point-by-point:
What is Obama actually accused of doing?
1) Obama is accused of having a key contributor under indictment in an alleged kickback scheme that does not involve Obama;
Response: Yes, Rezko is a power broker who has contributed to many politicians of both parties. Rezko has been indicted, he has not been convicted. According to the Chicago Magazine piece referenced above, Rezko is alleged to be $5 million in debt. He disputes this claim. Perhaps the allegation is accurate. Perhaps under great financial pressure, Rezko cooked up a plot to use his political connections with the Blagojevich administration to get kick-backs from public contracts.
However, none of this is connected to Obama. The alleged actions took place after Obama was already in the US Senate.
The question of how much money Rezko raised is a matter of interpretation about who is connected to Rezko. Rezko is a major power broker who knows a lot of people. The authors of the Sun-Times story do not indicate their methodology for deciding who was "connected" to Rezko. Until someone does a thorough itemized list of names and dates, the discrepancy between Obama's estimate and the reporters estimate is not all that sinister. Since the first Sun-Times piece and the second Obama did review his records and concluded that more contributions were connected to Rezko, again the contributions were passed on to charity. Truthteller makes no mention of this fact.
2) Rezko is accused of being a slumlord.
Response: This is far from clear. It is clear that many of non-profit, low-income, housing projects he was involved in developing were not financially sustainable and that lack of funds led many of the projects into foreclosure over the past decade. I have not seen any evidence that this was the result of Rezko diverting funds to his own use. It appears that the costs of maintaining and heating these buildings was greater than anticipated and that over time the finances of the individual projects unravelled.
Again, no one has presented any real evidence as to why these projects fell into foreclosure. It is certainly unfortunate that the tenants were left without heat, but it is not clear what happened or why.
3) Obama is accused of having written a letter in support of a housing project and service center for low-income seniors in his State Senate District;
Response: This is a no-brainer. The project is question is still serving its tenants and providing services to the neighborhood. There is nothing wrong with a State Senator supporting a project that benefits his constituents. There is nothing here.
4) Obama is accused of having provided a one-month, unpaid internship to the son of a business associate of Rezko.
Response: Whoop-de-do! This is an absurd allegation. Is this "public corruption?" No, this is life in the real world. Internships and low level jobs in the political arena are given to supporters and the children of supporters.
As an eighteen year old, I got my first full-time job in politics as a Page in the Oregon Legislature based on connections and having volunteered in the campaign of the returning Speaker of the House. If this is "corrupt,"
then 90% of all politicians are corrupt.
5) Obama is accused of accepting a contribution to his Senate campaign from an associate of Rezko, which may have come from diverted consultants fees and Rezko is accused of reimbursing some one for a contribution to Obama's Senate campaign.
Response: There is no evidence that Obama knew anything about either of these incidents and the money in question has now been donated to charity.
The Bottom Line: There is little if anything here. Unless someone uncovers some quid-pro-quo, Obama has done nothing wrong.
Is this just my opinion? No, this is the opinion of Patrick Fitzgerald the Federal Prosecutor and the very Sun Times story quoted in the attack post,
"The Illinois senator isn't accused of any wrongdoing. And there's no evidence Obama knew contributions to his 2004 U.S. Senate campaign came from schemes Rezko is accused of orchestrating.
The allegations against Rezko that involve Obama are contained in one paragraph of a 78-page document filed last month in which prosecutors outline their corruption and fraud case against Rezko,"
There you have it, one paragraph of a 78 page document, and there is no indication that Obama knew anything about it.
I would suggest that this dairy says more about the diarist than it does about Obama. Rather than approaching the subject with an open mind, the diarist employs selective quotes and a pile of innuendo to try to make Obama look as bad as possible. That is what this is really about. Trying to make Obama look bad with a "guilt by association" attack. It is a lot easier to throw this crap out, than it is to refute it.
I would go further, HRC's use of Rezko in last nights debate is clear evidence of her "ill intent." This is a smear of convenience. Throw it out there to create doubt and suspicion. It says more about HRC and the "Clintonian/Rovian style" than it does about Obama.
We need to hold ourselves, and our candidates, to a higher standard. Rezko is a legitimate topic of discussion, but it must be approached with honesty. As Obama said about Bush and the AUMF, "From where I stand, the case has not been made."
In the short term, these types of attacks can be effective, but in the long run we are playing on the Republicans "home turf."
The more we engage in this kind of politics of fear and smear, the more we discredit the political process, the more we reduce participation, and the more we legitimate Republican smears of our candidates.
Let's do better.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 51 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
