So my mom writes me the other day in response to an article by Frank Schaeffer I brought to her attention on why Schaeffer will vote for Obama:
The article shows me that an eloquent phrase and enough frustration go a long way. I am more concerned about someone who sat under a racist preacher for twenty years and associated with Rezko, Ayers, etc. and their judgement. Also, for someone who wants change, saying one thing and having his people doing another is same old same old ie. Nafta and the Jim Johnson stuff. Dad and I are not happy with McCain either. We feel anyone in the senate is part of the problem, not the solution. On Iraq, we are there, right or wrong, the correct resolution is important otherwise all that was sacrificed is for naught.Here's my response to her:
Regarding "guilt by association" and the modern McCarthyism, you mentioned his preacher, which I won't touch as it's been beaten to death. You either will or will not believe that Obama never heard Wright preach the more controversial stuff. In addition, as crazy and wrong as he is, Wright is a better man than most of the white versions of himself -- the John Hagees and Rod Parsleys, because he actually volunteered to fight in the Marines during the Cold War in 1961, and so any rhetoric about "loving your country" more than him is dubious. Barack has said many times that he had never heard some of the offensive stuff that later surfaced, and that he'd have left the church at the time if he had...once the stuff came out, he now has left the church. That is the bottom line.
Also, on Iraq, it's just simply insane to say that a war we got into by being misled and based on faulty intelligence must be continued, even if it provides no real strategic value to the US. Iraqi civilians continue to die by the hundreds and thousands, US troops continue to die by the dozens each month, and we literally piss away billions of dollars each week that we can't afford and should be spending at home. Sometimes there is no "good" solution to an immoral war, just like getting in a car wreck: you survey the damage, you bind up the wounds and you move on. All those lives are only "for nought" if we continue the same failed policies that haven't made us any safer. McCain has no exit strategy, and says "it doesn't matter" how long we're in Iraq.
You also mentioned (1) Rezko and (2) Ayers. Regarding the "same old politics" you mentioned (3) NAFTA and (4) Jim Johnson. I will respond to each of these.
1) On Obama's associations with Tony Rezko. Obama bought a house in Chicago and basically Rezko helped him out by buying a lot adjoining the house that was part of the selling package, but that Obama and Michelle didn't want/couldn't afford. The property that Rezko bought stayed in Rezko's name and then eventually he sold it to Obama at around $100K. At this time, Rezko had not been charged with any wrongdoing. Throughout this story, no one has ever shown even one instance in which Obama did a favor for Rezko or used his influence to help him in the legislature.
Obama sat down with the Chicago Sun-Times and answered all of their questions and brought in documents in order to clear up this controversy back on March 15, and that's why you haven't heard about it since. (except on Faux News, probably)
The Chicago Sun-Times is the inside paper with all the local and political connections to the story about Rezko and his indictments.
In one of the recent stories about Rezko, the CST reports that federal prosecutors (probably with high-up friends in the GOP) have been trying to dig up dirt on Obama using the recent charges against Rezko and offering him bait. Unfortunately for the GOP, there appears to be no dirt to dig:
"I have never been party to any wrongdoing that involved the governor or the senator. I will never fabricate lies about anyone else for selfish purposes. I will take what comes my way but I will not hurt innocent people. I am not Levine, Loren, Mahru or Winter. I am simply an honest, humble immigrant who believes in the American dream," Rezko wrote as he was kept in solitary confinement in a downtown lockup earlier this year. He was speaking of numerous people who testified at his trial or talked to prosecutors.My question to you: do you know about the Keating 5 scandal involving McCain from the 1989 S&L fallout, when he was officially investigated by the Senate Ethics Committee for using his influence to lobby? Do you think that this scandal is more serious than any association between Obama and Rezko, given that it is official record that McCain received $112K in political donations from a Savings & Loan that he turned around and lobbied for to try to stop investigations into?
Sources say that the feds have not approached Obama to question him regarding Rezko. Rezko was a longtime Obama supporter in Obama's early, formative years as a politician. In Rezko's criminal case, money from a kickback scheme ended up in Obama's campaign fund, though there was never an allegation Obama knew about it. Obama later gave that money to charity.
In his letter, Rezko states that he's been under pressure by federal prosecutors to give information on Obama and Blagojevich.
I'm just asking to see if you have a sense of balance and objectivity in looking at the differences between the two men.
2) On Obama's informal associations with University of Chicago professor Bill Ayers:
Chicago Sun Times : "Barack Obama and 1960s Weather Underground radical William Ayers: What are facts?" ...[Ayers] met and married fellow fugitive Bernadine Dohrn during that period. The two surrendered in 1980 and were never prosecuted. They now teach at Chicago universities. Ayers and Obama both served on the board of directors of the Woods Fund, a Chicago-based charity that focuses on developing community groups to assist the poor. A variety of business executives, journalists and academics serve on the board. When Obama was organizing his first race for the state legislature, the incumbent lawmaker he hoped to replace introduced him to her supporters and urged them to back Obama. One introductory event took place at the home of Ayers and Dohrn, according to published reports. Ayers contributed $200 to Obama’s legislative campaign in 2001, but there is no other sign that he has actively aided Obama’s political career. [Chicago Sun-Times, 4/17/08]From Time:
Chicago Sun Times: Obama's Connection To Ayers Is A "Phony Flap". The Chicago Sun-Times wrote in an editorial, "But Ayers, it is also true to say, has since followed in the footsteps of the great Chicago social worker Jane Addams, crusading for education and juvenile justice reform. His 1997 book, A Kind and Just Parent: The Children of Juvenile Court, has been praised for exposing how Cook County's juvenile justice system all but eliminates a child's chance for redemption. Is Barack Obama consorting with a radical? Hardly. Ayers is nothing more than an aging lefty with a foolish past who is doing good. And while, yes, Obama is friendly with Ayers, it appears to be only in the way of two community activists whose circles overlap. Obama's middle name is Hussein. That doesn't make him an Islamic terrorist. He stopped wearing a flag pin. That doesn't make him unpatriotic. And he's friendly with UIC Professor William Ayers. That doesn't make him a bomb thrower. Time to move on to Phony Flap 6,537,204." ["Clearing up another empty shot at Obama",Chicago Sun-Times Editorial, 3/3/08]
Washington Post: Obama-Ayers Link "Is A Tenuous One." The Washington Post reported in a fact check, "But the Obama-Ayers link is a tenuous one." [Washington Post, 2/18/08]
Woods Fund President Harrington: "This Whole Connection Is A Stretch." The Washington Post reported in a fact check, "Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and 'passion for social justice.' 'This whole connection is a stretch,' Harrington told me. 'Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns.'" [Washington Post, 2/18/08]
Noam Scheiber Of TNR: "I Don't See Evidence Of Any Relationship" Between Obama And Ayers. Noam Scheiber of The New Republic wrote, "Ben says Ayers and Obama were, at best, casual friends. Even that seems to overstate things, though. I don't see evidence of any relationship. The only concrete connection we know of is the meeting, which was attended by a number of local liberals; their contemporaneous membership on the board of a local organization; and a $200-donation by Ayers to one of Obama's state senate campaigns. (Obama also once praised something Ayers had written about the juvenile justice system.) I'm not saying they couldn't have been casual friends; just that there isn't much evidence for that at this point." [The New Republic, 2/22/08]
Birdsell: Obama Links To Ayers Were "Pretty Slender Ties." The New York Sun reported, "'Those are pretty slender ties to a controversial figure,' the dean of Baruch College's School of Public Affairs, David Birdsell, said of Mr. Obama's links to Mr. Ayers." [New York Sun, 2/19/08]
"...Years later, Ayers threw a fund-raising party for Obama. They sat together on the board of a community group. Is this association between Obama and these dangerous radicals a scandal? Or is the scandal digging up all this ancient history? Those have been the options in the debate. But the truth is a third option: Ayers and Dohrn are despicable, and yet making an issue of Obama's relationship with them is absurd.3) By your invocation of NAFTA, I assume you mean the flap about one of Obama's aides, Austan Goolsbee, telling Canadian foreign official Georges Rioux not to worry about trade issues if Obama became president? The original report came from CTV, and was quickly denied by Canadian embassy officials and later CTV itself had to backpedal on a possible "miscommunication":
...
If Obama's relationship with Ayers, however tangential, exposes Obama as a radical himself, or at least as a man with terrible judgment, he shares that radicalism or terrible judgment with a comically respectable list of Chicagoans and others--including Republicans and conservatives--who have embraced Ayers and Dohrn as good company, good citizens, even experts on children's issues. Northwestern created a "family justice" center for Dohrn to run. Ayers is a "distinguished professor" at the University of Illinois. They write Op-Eds and are often quoted in the Tribune, where, if they are identified at all beyond their academic titles, it is usually as "activists" who have never abandoned their noble ideals. In 1995 the Trib reported on a party at their home to celebrate a new progressive website, designed by the person who designed President Bill Clinton's website. The designer said, "There is a lot of room for different ideas in progressive politics, and we're proud to be associated with Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers." Hillary, over to you."
On Thursday, the Canadian embassy in Washington issued a complete denial.Both the Obama aide and the Canadian official involved in the interview denied that the report was accurate, and since they were the only two involved in the discussions, it's ridiculous to take "other sources" at their word.
"At no time has any member of a presidential campaign called the Canadian ambassador or any official at the embassy to discuss NAFTA," it said in a statement.
But on Wednesday, one of the primary sources of the story, a high-ranking member of the Canadian embassy, gave CTV more details of the call. He even provided a timeline. He has since suggested it was perhaps a miscommunication.
The denial from the embassy was followed by a denial from Senator Obama.
"The Canadian government put out a statement saying that this was just not true, so I don't know who the sources were," said Obama.
Sources at the highest levels of the Canadian government -- who first told CTV that a call was made from the Obama camp -- have reconfirmed their position.
Also, the Canadians argued about this issue on the floor of their own parliament.When the memorandum emerged, it confirmed the meeting and that Nafta was discussed.
According to The A.P., the note reads, ''On Nafta Goolsbee suggested that Obama is less about fundamentally changing the agreement and more in favor of strengthening/clarifying language on labor mobility and environment and trying to establish these as more 'core' principles of the agreement.''
On Monday, Mr. Burton stood by his earlier statements, adding that the policy articulated in the memorandum does not contradict anything that Mr. Obama has said on Nafta in the campaign.
Obama campaign denial:
"The news reports on Obama's position on NAFTA are inaccurate and in no way represent Senator Obama's consistent position on trade. When Senator Obama says that he will forcefully act to make NAFTA a better deal for American workers, he means it. Both Canada and Mexico should know that, as president, Barack Obama will do what it takes to create and protect American jobs and strengthen the American economy -- that includes amending NAFTA to include labor and environmental standards. We are currently reaching out to the Canadian embassy to correct this inaccuracy."Georges Rioux denial:
Statement by the Consulate General of Canada in ChicagoBasically, even if all this is true, it proves simply that Obama may have stretched his intentions on NAFTA in order to pander to Ohio and Pennsylvania voters. But, the two people involved in the meeting have both issued denials of accuracy, so it's hard to find a valid or objective way of sustaining this story's credibility.
Chicago, IL, March 3, 2008 — The Canadian Embassy and our Consulates General regularly contact those involved in all of the Presidential campaigns and, periodically, report on these contacts to interested officials. In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.
(the statement has since been removed from the front page, but you can Google it or see it here)
4) Jim Johnson's supposed "scandal" was devoid of factual basis, and he stepped down simply to take "heat" off when he shouldn't have:
This was a non-story from the start: a temporary hire on a vetting committee may have received preferential treatment in his mortgage from Countrywide...so?The claim of preferential treatment is based on a June 7, 2008 Wall Street Journal article which says something altogether different:
"A comparison of the Fannie Mae officers' terms with interest rates prevailing when they got their loans raises the possibility Countrywide gave them preferential terms. But it's impossible to tell for sure from public documents. An array of other factors also can account for lower-than-average rates, including a borrower's income, total assets and credit score; how big the loan is compared with the home's value; and how many "points" a borrower may have paid upfront in order to get a lower rate."
[Emphasis added.] Translation for those who lack any financial sophistication: They don't know jack. The numbers themselves bear this out. Johnson obtained three mortgages from Countrywide, each with an initial five-year fixed rate. Here's how the contractual rates compared with the market averages at time, as determined by the Journal:
October 23, 1998: Amount: $393,000; Initial Rate: 6.375%; Market Average: 6.2%. Rate was .175% above market average.
November 8, 2001: Amount: $1,300,000; Initial Rate: 5.250%; Market Average: 6.0%. Rate was .75% below market average.
June 20, 2003: Amount: $972,000; Initial Rate: 3.875%; Market Average: 4.3%. Rate was . 4125% below market average.
So, according to the Journal's analysis, the Johnson received a mortgage that was no more than 75 basis points below the market average for the initial five-year period. Could that difference be explained by points paid up front, the home's appraised value versus the loan value, refinancing penalties or any number of other variables? Absolutely.
James Johnson was the CEO of Fannie Mae, the biggest buyer of Countrywide's mortgages, until December 1998. Consequently, the only mortgage Johnson obtained when there was a potential conflict of interest was a $393,000 mortgage that was 17.5 basis points "above" the market average.
The Journal article is highly misleading in that it places Johnson's tenure at Fannie Mae in a false context:
"Mr. Johnson led Fannie Mae from 1991 to 1998. He and Countrywide's Mr. [Angelo] Mozilo worked together to streamline the underwriting process. Mr. Mozilo told Dow Jones in 1995 that he was 'working very closely ... with Jim Johnson of Fannie Mae to come up with a rational method of making the process more efficient by the use of credit scoring.' Their efforts helped to lead to a boom in mortgage lending that brought huge profits to both companies but is now ending badly."
The recklessness in mortgage lending never really took off until 2003, when mortgage lenders like Countrywide abdicated traditional underwriting standards for documentation, income and asset values. Fannie Mae's exposure to the subprime market has always been a tiny percentage of its portfolio. It is false and misleading to tie the subprime crisis to Fannie Mae's lending policies of the 1990s.
I don't really see why someone who is hired simply to dig through the lives of potential VP candidates become, themselves, like a VP candidate: reflective of Obama's own integrity. Johnson was simply hired to do a job, after which he would've been let go. I think Obama shouldn't have caved to the pressure as it is stupid to the core.
Even if he was a crook, he was let go from the Obama campaign as soon as this stuff surfaced, even though it is pretty fact free. In addition, compare the VP search committee of Obama's campaign, which is a temporary group of people hired simply to help him select a VP by digging through their past to make sure there are no secrets, to the permanent advisors McCain has surrounded himself with. Compare that to the lobbyists who worked for McCain for a year after his supposedly "lobbyist-free campaign" nonsense, and the still-lingering stench created by Phil Gramm.
Now McCain is grasping at straws by going after another person on this same committee, while on his own committee sits A.B. Culvahouse, who worked the Iran-Contra scandal in Congress for Reagan, keeping Congressional investigation efforts limited.
___
Summary:
1) Obama's association with Rezko showed an early naivete that he has since admitted and not since repeated; in addition, he never crossed the line ethically as did not use his influence to help Rezko in any fashion.
2) Obama's links to Ayers are tenuous at best. They sat on a board together and Ayers is a noted intellectual in Chicago, so they are acquainted. The "degrees of separation" between him and Ayers are probably more than between McCain and Christian theonomists and advocates of murder of abortion doctors.
3) The "NAFTAgate" story by CTV was later rescinded and both the two men involved deny key facts in the report and say that there is no incongruence between Obama's policy proposals and what they discussed. At worst, even if CTV was right, it means Obama over-pandered to Rust Belt voters, but the facts just aren't there.
4) Jim Johnson was a temporary hire who did not really receive preferential treatment on his mortgage, and the fact that he was pressured out was both sad and ironic, given that McCain has worse within his permanent campaign team.
Conclusions:
Any hint of professional wrongdoing on Obama's part is still sorely lacking, so the right-wing smear jobs have gotten more and more personal, now going after his wife.
