It's Getting Crowded Under Obama's Bus

[GaryC 7]

Yes, let's talk about the keating affair shall we

Sure, McCain was not charged and was found to have minimal involvment. What else do you want to talk about?

Presumably the appointment of an campaign aide who also did nothing wrong, who stepped down to not distract the campaign.

I'm struggling to find the scandal here...

There isn't a scandal, it's a gaffe. Obama just got through slamming Country Wide Mortgage and the way they treat people and then hire a person to vette his VP choices that ran fanny mae and has close ties with Country Wide. He is also accused of getting sweetheart deals from country wide while he was running fanny mae. It shows that he isn't paying attention.

[SaadBell 0]

Sure, McCain was not charged and was found to have minimal involvment. What else do you want to talk about?

It goes well beyond the Keating Five

When considering John McCain’s history of unethical behavior, the list usually starts (and ends) with the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s, for which McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for having shown, at a minimum, poor judgment. In the aftermath, McCain helped improve his public image, and bury the scandal, by becoming an advocate of campaign-finance reform.

But the notion that McCain cleaned up his act may not be entirely true. Take, for example, Donald Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer and generous McCain contributor, who wanted some coastal land in California freed up by an Army base closing.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test.

Ya think? The closer one looks at this, the worse it appears.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.

In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate. […]

For the California projects, the campaign said the McCain aide arranged the introduction to an Army official for Mr. Diamond’s team as “a constituent matter.”

Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?

McCain helped a wealthy and generous donor buy land from the Army — complete with special water rights — for a quarter of a million dollars, which McCain’s buddy then sold two years later for $20 million. There’s a term for this — it’s called “influence peddling,” and it’s exactly the kind of thing McCain swears he never gets involved with.

If the Rezko story was considered a big deal by campaign reporters, the Donald Diamond issue should be huge. Why the New York Times ran this the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when it’s likely to get lost in the shuffle, is a mystery to me. If this same story ran on Thursday morning, it would have become the talk of the political world in a hurry.

[GaryC 7]

Sure, McCain was not charged and was found to have minimal involvment. What else do you want to talk about?

It goes well beyond the Keating Five

When considering John McCain’s history of unethical behavior, the list usually starts (and ends) with the Keating Five scandal in the 1980s, for which McCain was rebuked by the Senate Ethics Committee for having shown, at a minimum, poor judgment. In the aftermath, McCain helped improve his public image, and bury the scandal, by becoming an advocate of campaign-finance reform.

But the notion that McCain cleaned up his act may not be entirely true. Take, for example, Donald Diamond, a wealthy Arizona real estate developer and generous McCain contributor, who wanted some coastal land in California freed up by an Army base closing.

When Mr. Diamond wanted to buy land at the base, Fort Ord, Mr. McCain assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale, according to people involved and a deposition Mr. Diamond gave for a related lawsuit. When he appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base, Mr. Diamond submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as “a close personal friend.”

Writing to officials in the city, Seaside, Calif., the senator said, “You will find him as honorable and committed as I have.”

Courting local officials and potential partners, Mr. Diamond’s team promised that he could “help get through some of the red tape in dealing with the Department of the Army” because Mr. Diamond “has been very active with Senator McCain,” a partner said in a deposition.

For Mr. McCain, the Arizona Republican who has staked two presidential campaigns on pledges to avoid even the appearance of dispensing an official favor for a donor, Mr. Diamond is the kind of friend who can pose a test.

Ya think? The closer one looks at this, the worse it appears.

In California, the McCain aide’s assistance with the Army helped Mr. Diamond complete a purchase in 1999 that he soon turned over for a $20 million profit. And Mr. McCain’s letter of recommendation reinforced Mr. Diamond’s selling point about his McCain connections as he pursued — and won in 2005 — a potentially much more lucrative deal to develop a resort hotel and luxury housing.

In Arizona, Mr. McCain has helped Mr. Diamond with matters as small as forwarding a complaint in a regulatory skirmish over the endangered pygmy owl, and as large as introducing legislation remapping public lands. In 1991 and 1994, Mr. McCain sponsored two laws sought by Mr. Diamond that resulted in providing him millions of dollars and thousands of acres in exchange for adding some of his properties to national parks. The Arizona senator co-sponsored a third similar bill now before the Senate. […]

For the California projects, the campaign said the McCain aide arranged the introduction to an Army official for Mr. Diamond’s team as “a constituent matter.”

Oh, is that what the kids are calling it these days?

McCain helped a wealthy and generous donor buy land from the Army — complete with special water rights — for a quarter of a million dollars, which McCain’s buddy then sold two years later for $20 million. There’s a term for this — it’s called “influence peddling,” and it’s exactly the kind of thing McCain swears he never gets involved with.

If the Rezko story was considered a big deal by campaign reporters, the Donald Diamond issue should be huge. Why the New York Times ran this the day of the Pennsylvania primary, when it’s likely to get lost in the shuffle, is a mystery to me. If this same story ran on Thursday morning, it would have become the talk of the political world in a hurry.

Girl you are reaching. McCain has a long and honorable history that Obama can never touch. If you want to try and dredge up this non issue then feel free. To most of us that have any sense it was over long ago and was never any kind of a real scandal.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

[zqt3344 21]

WELL uh, I am talking of change, and uh,

Typical Ovomit speaking, this guy is horrible public speaker, and dumb. HE make GW Bush look like a whiz kid! Ovomitbots do not want to face the fact that Ovomit is a total BS politician and all he does is talk and give a speech with little or not experience to back up anything he can or will do.

This stinks, Ovomit is a typical Beltway politician and he has been running for office since the day he entered Harvard! So when he starts this I Am not from Washington and typical politician, that is a total out right lie, all he does or has done is run for an office, what a joke he is!

It's Getting Crowded Under Obama's Bus

By Rick Moran

On Tuesday, Barack Obama faced the glare of the cameras and tried to deal with what was rapidly becoming one of those "distractions" he so despises.

It turns out that the man he chose to head up the steering committee to help him choose a vice president, Jim Johnson, had a past that was making Obama out to be a hypocrite on the sub-prime mortgage crisis. After Obama skewered John McCain for his connections with sub-prime lenders, it appears that Mr. Johnson made McCain's connections look positively innocent by comparison.

Johnson, Fannie Mae chief from 1991 through 1998, received more than $7 million in real estate loans from a program open only to "friends of Angelo." The "Angelo" in question is none other than Angelo Mozilo, CEO of Countrywide Financial Corporation. Obama, who has heavily criticized Mozilo for accepting hefty bonuses despite the sub-prime crisis, evidently didn't vet Mr. Johnson thoroughly and failed to discover the sweetheart connection.

It should also be noted that according to the Chicago Tribune, the practitioner of "new politics" accepted $1.9 million from sub prime lenders, which only goes to show that when it comes to a decision between engaging in the "new politics" and old fashioned money grubbing, "new politics" gets the shaft.

The revelations about Johnson led to an incredible exchange with ABC News reporter Sunlen Miller, who grilled Obama on why the information hadn't been discovered by the campaign before he hired him. The ensuing explanation by Obama is a jaw dropper.

So without further adieu, I give you, ladies and gentlemen, Barack H. Obama -- Columbia University graduate, Harvard Law, President of the Harvard Law Review, and noted American orator:

"Now look, the, the, ah, ah, ah, I mean the uh first of all uh I, I, I am not vetting my VP search committee for their mortgages so you're going have to uh d-direct... Well, nah I mean becomes sort of a... um... I mean this is a game that can be played everybody... It who is tangentially related to our campaign I think is going to have a whole host of relationships. I would have to hire the vetter to uh vet the vetter."

Huh?

It gets murkier -- or more bizarrely incoherent. The following was cleaned up by the ABC website and made into something printable:

"Jim Johnson has a very discrete task," Obama continued, "as does Eric Holder, and that is simply to gather up information about potential vice presidential candidates. They are performing that job well, it's a volunteer, unpaid position. And they are giving me information and I will then exercise judgment in terms of who I want to select as a vice presidential candidate.

"So this - you know, these aren't folks who are working for me," Obama said. "They're not people you know who I have assigned to a job in a future administration and, you know, ultimately my assumption is that, you know, this is a discrete task that they're going to performing for me over the next two months."

Whassat? What'd he say? Johnson doesn't really "work" for him because he's a "volunteer" in an "unpaid position." And after all, he hasn't promised him a cabinet post so it's really OK that he didn't vet him and besides this is just a "distraction" so can we please get back to your slavish worship of my awe inspiring talents?

Well, on Wednesday, Johnson "unvolunteered" himself from the campaign:

I believe Barack Obama's candidacy for president of the United States is the most exciting and important of my lifetime," he said, according to a Bloomberg report. "I would not dream of being a party to distracting attention from that historic effort."

We all know how much Obama doesn't like "distractions." Obama himself cried a few crocodile tears in giving him the heave ho:

"Jim did not want to distract in any way from the very important task of gathering information about my vice presidential nominee, so he has made a decision to step aside that I accept. We have a very good selection process underway, and I am confident that it will produce a number of highly qualified candidates for me to choose from in the weeks ahead. I remain grateful to Jim for his service and his efforts in this process," Obama said in a statement.

So, another Obama associate is thrown under the bus. One might begin to wonder if there are more people riding on the Obama express or underneath it. Think of all this guy's friends, staffers, spiritual advisors, and assorted far left radicals who have been given the equivalent of a pair of cement galoshes and thrown into the Chicago River. A partial list:

1, Samantha Power, foreign policy advisor, who ended up being just a little bit too frank about some of Obama's less than mainstream plans for Israel and other places if the candidate were to win office.

2. Austan Goolsbee, economic advisor, who whispered to the Canadian government sweet nothings about his boss's NAFTA switcheroo in Ohio -- Obama running around the state, breathing fire about the evils of NAFTA and how he would renegotiate the treaty while Goolsbee was telling the Canadians that the candidate was just politicking and had no intention of touching the treaty.

3. Reverend Jeremiah Wright, friend and spiritual advisor for whom the candidate bravely stood up -- at first -- until Wright's performance at the National Press Club caused the candidate to open the door himself and push the old man under the wheels.

4. Father Michael Pfleger, friend and spiritual advisor, whose spittle flecked rant at Trinity Church against Hillary, America and white people forced the candidate to leave his boot print on the good father's rear end as he too was impelled from behind under the Obama Greyhound.

5. William Ayers, terrorist and future Secretary of Education in an Obama Administration. Well, probably not. But Obama's dismissal of his former boss and friend as "just a neighbor" no doubt hurt the terrorist's feelings but became necessary when the press started to get curious about what a candidate for president was doing associating with someone who doesn't regret blowing people to smithereens.

There are more -- the undercarriage of that bus is bloody indeed. There's the entire congregation of Trinity United Church who now must practice their Black Liberation Theology and "anti-middleclassness" without the man who apparently spent many a pleasant Sunday sleeping through sermons -- or so he would have us believe.

But there is a monumental difference between Obama's previous actions in washing his hands of wayward staffers, bigots, and radicals and having to toss Jim Johnson out the window.

The others were handled when he was simply a candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. But his choice of Johnson to head up the most important job he has between now and the election -- choosing a vice president -- was made as the presumptive nominee.

In short, Obama's first major decision as the nominee for president of his party was an unmitigated disaster.

Not only did he choose someone who opened him up to charges of being a rank hypocrite. But the way he handled himself in off the cuff remarks in trying to defend Johnson was shockingly incoherent and stupid. Trying to pass Johnson off as someone who didn't work for him? That's childish in its attempt to avoid responsibility. One might expect a 7 year old to deny breaking a dinner plate by saying something like "I didn't drop it mom, it fell." But when the potential next president of the United States tries to run away from his mistakes, we can ask legitimate questions on how this man will perform if he reaches the oval office.

Craig Crawford brings up another point:

Obama's cavalier response utterly contradicted his campaign's supposed crusade for reform. Not only did those words come across as tone deaf to the very ethical issues that he has raised in this election, but his remarks sounded like the ethical relativism we so often hear from the Washington business-as-usual crowd that Obama claims to be running against.

Chris Cillizza recognizes the danger Obama exposes himself to by latching on to people like Johnson:

For Obama, any questions in voters' minds about whether he truly is a change agent or is legitimately committed to breaking the alleged stranglehold lobbyists and other power brokers have over the political system is potentially disastrous. Because of the peril involved, it's not terribly surprising that Obama moved quickly to "fix the glitch" once he realized questions about Johnson weren't going away.

Seen another way, however, this episode could forebode poorly for how Obama handles the various slings and arrows sent his way by Republicans and their famed -- and effective -- noise machine.

This is where the national press has done a heroic job in keeping a well kept secret of Obama's associations and actions in his past that would expose him as the hypocrite he is. No real attempt has been made to ferret out the truth of what his career was like as a Chicago politician. The Obama campaign would blow up if the press ever read some back issues of the Chicago Tribune or Sun Times.

Instead, it is as if Obama sprang fully formed into the world of national politics, unsullied by grubby special interests and lobbyists who afflict everyone else in Washington. His holy throat and golden tongue will lead a revolution that will make America a paradise of unity and happiness.

All I can say is we better snap out of it before we elect the most incompetent, the most naive, and perhaps the most dangerous man ever to run for the office of the president.

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/06/its...under_obam.html

[no name 1]

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

And racist affiliations are important to many as well.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

And racist affiliations are important to many as well.

If indeed - that's what it is.

[zqt3344 21]

I truly wonder if a shark came up and bit you on the ####### if you would make that statement! Indeed if that is what it is? I wonder if that is what it is? Maybe it was a jelly fish or maybe it was your fault for being there, just like all the blacks try to spin it off like it is Black Church Theology, well whatever you think, the rest of America knows full well what it is - racism against whites completely!

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

And racist affiliations are important to many as well.

If indeed - that's what it is.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I truly wonder if a shark came up and bit you on the ####### if you would make that statement! Indeed if that is what it is? I wonder if that is what it is? Maybe it was a jelly fish or maybe it was your fault for being there, just like all the blacks try to spin it off like it is Black Church Theology, well whatever you think, the rest of America knows full well what it is - racism against whites completely!

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

And racist affiliations are important to many as well.

If indeed - that's what it is.

Interestingly enough MLK's speeches contained similar rhetoric to Wright's Sermons. But then I suppose you knew that.

[no name 1]

I truly wonder if a shark came up and bit you on the ####### if you would make that statement! Indeed if that is what it is? I wonder if that is what it is? Maybe it was a jelly fish or maybe it was your fault for being there, just like all the blacks try to spin it off like it is Black Church Theology, well whatever you think, the rest of America knows full well what it is - racism against whites completely!

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

And racist affiliations are important to many as well.

If indeed - that's what it is.

Interestingly enough MLK's speeches contained similar rhetoric to Wright's Sermons. But then I suppose you knew that.

And was he a 20 year advisor/mentor to a presidential candidate?

[zqt3344 21]

AND MLK was then a racist if he said that stuff, it is BS and you know it, how stupid are you? You mean you are going to support someone that is a open racist and because they are black, they get a free pass and that makes it ok! I think not and know not and so does the rest of America, the majority, go on in your dream world for it will all end November this year.

I truly wonder if a shark came up and bit you on the ####### if you would make that statement! Indeed if that is what it is? I wonder if that is what it is? Maybe it was a jelly fish or maybe it was your fault for being there, just like all the blacks try to spin it off like it is Black Church Theology, well whatever you think, the rest of America knows full well what it is - racism against whites completely!

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

And racist affiliations are important to many as well.

If indeed - that's what it is.

Interestingly enough MLK's speeches contained similar rhetoric to Wright's Sermons. But then I suppose you knew that.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

AND MLK was then a racist if he said that stuff, it is BS and you know it, how stupid are you? You mean you are going to support someone that is a open racist and because they are black, they get a free pass and that makes it ok! I think not and know not and so does the rest of America, the majority, go on in your dream world for it will all end November this year.

MLK was a racist... okay... Good luck with that one. Oh and good luck with the one in the other thread about how the USMC routinely hires psychopaths and violent maniacs.

BTW - before rendering a sweeping judgement on one of the most iconic American figures of the 20th century it would probably at least do to look at what they actually said.

But that's you all over isn't it. No thought, no inquiry, just spontaneous overreaction. And its other people who are the blind followers....

[zqt3344 21]

Maybe you and the left leaning liberal media think it is ok to give a free pass to racists against whites, but not the other 85% plus of US population.

And really what was so great about MLK and what did he really do?

It was Lyndon B Johnson that did more for black people than anyone before or ever sense, US history guru, so get your siht straight! This is not the UK.

AND MLK was then a racist if he said that stuff, it is BS and you know it, how stupid are you? You mean you are going to support someone that is a open racist and because they are black, they get a free pass and that makes it ok! I think not and know not and so does the rest of America, the majority, go on in your dream world for it will all end November this year.

MLK was a racist... okay... Good luck with that one. Oh and good luck with the one in the other thread about how the USMC routinely hires psychopaths and violent maniacs.

BTW - before rendering a sweeping judgement on one of the most iconic American figures of the 20th century it would probably at least do to look at what they actually said.

But that's you all over isn't it. No thought, no inquiry, just spontaneous overreaction. And its other people who are the blind followers....

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Maybe you and the left leaning liberal media think it is ok to give a free pass to racists against whites, but not the other 85% plus of US population.

And really what was so great about MLK and what did he really do?

It was Lyndon B Johnson that did more for black people than anyone before or ever sense, US history guru, so get your siht straight! This is not the UK.

Ah its the "left-leaning liberal media" now is it Do you guys ever have any phraseology of your own - or do you just take everything verbatim from Talk Radio?

Yeah - what did King do? I guess you could find out - only you won't seeing as you're content to display the absolute height of ignorance by dismissing the guy offhand as a racist. As I said - no thought, no inquiry, just spontaneous overreaction.

BTW - do you think Johnson enacted all that social legislation without the work of the civil rights movement?

Of course you do..

Edited June 13, 2008 by Number 6

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I truly wonder if a shark came up and bit you on the ####### if you would make that statement! Indeed if that is what it is? I wonder if that is what it is? Maybe it was a jelly fish or maybe it was your fault for being there, just like all the blacks try to spin it off like it is Black Church Theology, well whatever you think, the rest of America knows full well what it is - racism against whites completely!

Ethics questions are surely more important than embarrassing gaffes.

And racist affiliations are important to many as well.

If indeed - that's what it is.

Interestingly enough MLK's speeches contained similar rhetoric to Wright's Sermons. But then I suppose you knew that.

And was he a 20 year advisor/mentor to a presidential candidate?

MLK? No he wasn't. But that clearly wasn't my point.