More Background on Obama’s House Deal with Rezko

An excellent story published in the Times of London detailing the Obama “house deal” with Tony Rezko and introducing a new character – Rezko business partner Nadhmi Auchi.

More importantly though, the story gives some excellent background on the house arrangement and summarizes the issue nicely: “The house-and-garden deal raised questions about whether Mr Rezko, a property developer and fast-food restauranteur, made it possible for the Obamas to purchase a mansion they could otherwise not afford.”

Buyer’s Remorse Could Hit Democrats

I believe if Democrats nominate Barack Obama they may soon be having buyer’s remorse.
The heavily “blue” tinge of the front-loaded primaries of 2008 did two things. First, it gave Republicans a candidate who can appeal to moderates and independents. Second, it turned the Democrat contest into a race to the left.

Tragedy in Dallas

I just saw the news that police officer Victor Lozada Tirado died after apparently crashing into a concrete barrier while accompanying Senator Clinton’s motorcade.
I hope that everyone will refrain from trying to exploit this tragedy for political purposes. This is the kind of thing that can happen to anyone and certainly Senator Clinton bears no responsibility.

More on Obama and Rezko and the House Deal

Let’s take a closer look at the festering scandal involving Barack Obama and his strange decision to rely on now-indicted developer Tony Rezko to help him buy his home.

Why ‘The House’ isn’t going away

Okay, I admit I’m a political junkie, so sometimes I get a real kick out of some of the other political websites. One of my favorites is actually a site that may or may not be linked to the Clinton campaign. Read the following post on “The House” and you’ll see why I think this issue is not going to go away anytime soon.

In November, Obama will be easier to beat

If there is one lesson from this year’s campaigns, it ought to be that the media, pollsters and pundits can’t get anything right.Given that, Democrats might want to re-think the media’s, pollsters’ and pundits’ coronation of Barack Obama. We’re being told that Obama will be the stronger candidate against John McCain in the fall.

I’m not so sure.

Be Very Afraid (1)

It’s considered bad form for Democrats to attack one another for raising taxes. So, during the primary season we haven’t heard much about Barack Obama’s tax and spend record in Illinois.

But, now that Republicans have settled on a conservative, deficit-hawk as our nominee, it’s time for us to start letting people know about Barack Obama’s record on taxes.

Republicans controlled the Illinois Senate and the Governor’s office until 2003. But in 2003, Democrats took over the Senate and the Governor’s office.

It didn’t take long for them to start trying to raise taxes. During the two years after Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate (2003-2004), Obama voted for:

• An increase in sales taxes ($59 million);
• To reinstate the death tax in Illinois ($45 million);
• A natural gas tax increase ($42 million);
• A gaming tax increase ($201 million);
• A series of increases in business taxes ($57 million);
• A liquor tax increase ($7 million);
• A renewable energy tax ($15 million);
• A business income apportionment tax ($24 million);
• A tax hike on farm and other equipment purchases ($74 million);
• Tax on federal tax-exempt bonds $19 million);
• Tax on bankruptcy cases ($4 million);
• Tax on off-shore investments ($16 million);
• Tax on business income ($30 million);
• Tax on life insurance $(9 million).

For the record, that comes to more than $600 million in just two years.

Who is really the weakest?

Everyone says John McCain will have a harder time beating Barack Obama than Hillary Clinton this fall.

I’m not so sure.

First of all, let’s get this straight. It’s a total “Fairy Tale” that Barack Obama is a transformational post-partisan leader who defies party labels. Obama is as conventional a liberal as you can find.

There is a reason, after all, that Teddy Kennedy picked Barack Obama as the man to pass on the torch of the Great Society’s big, intrusive and free-spending government.

It’s no surprise that Obama has been named the most liberal Senator in America. (In the coming weeks, I’ll be documenting his far-left positions in the Illinois Senate.)

In a McCain/Obama match-up, Americans will have a clear choice.

The fact is, despite the bruising primary that we have already seen and which we can expect to see more of in the coming weeks, the Clinton campaign must battle with one hand tied behind its back.

Why?

Because Democrat candidates must veer to the left to win primaries. This has only been exacerbated by the front loading of the primary season with big “blue” states. (The same front loading gave Republicans a conservative nominee with crossover appeal to independents and moderates.)

 The “best stuff” against Barack Obama is yet to come. It is his tax and spend, anti-gun, pro-welfare, pro-criminal record in the Illinois Legislature.

Couple that with the unanswered questions about indicted campaign contributor Tony Rezko and we have a clear distinction between McCain and Obama that will skew heavily toward McCain in a general election.

A Divider or a Uniter?

It’s the day after Super Duper Tuesday and the pundits are falling all over themselves trying to bury Clinton and canonize Obama.

But, I’m looking at the remaining states and thinking that I don’t see how Obama can win.

First, let’s be honest. Clinton was under-credited for her victories, while Obama’s were overstated. Just one example: winning Massachusetts was huge and the media immediately set out to minimize the win. 

Imagine if Obama had managed to win as big in any state where Clinton had gotten the endorsement of both U.S. Senators, the endorsement of the daughter of a martyred and canonized president and where the endorsement had been the topic of national news for days on end.

Let’s not forget that in the days prior to the primary, we were treated to never-ending stories about Obama’s supposed momentum and seeing polls showing Obama overtaking Clinton in California.

Yet, the Clinton organizaton pulled it off – winning decently in all the major states and holding their own in others. A look at the map, makes Obama look very much like a regional candidate.

But, the real point is that if the primaries continue on the course that’s been set, Obama can tie Clinton down on the battlefield, but he probably can’t win. Obama’s campaign is an insurgent’s campaign and although insurgents can defeat their opponents, they seldom win the war.

This is complicated by the fact that primaries are not true wars. They have an end point and when that point comes, the team with the most delegates wins.

That team is likely to be Clinton. And, the question that Obama must soon wrestle with, is how long does he drag it out?

Much is made today of Obama’s supposed bridge-building. But while he developed a reputation as being personable, Obama in the Illinois Senate also had a reputation for a world-class ego.

Sometime in the coming weeks, Obama may be faced with the difficult decision of shelving that ego and accepting a Clinton candidacy.

Fortunately, for Republicans, I think there will be a long, bloody campaign before Obama gives up.