[RobInKuwait]

I got this off an Illinois Political Blog. The guy got his information from the book, the Case Against Barack Obama. I really think we've just seen the tip of the iceberg on Obama's past. I think the man soul his soul to every extremist left organization in order to get where he is. Whats depressing is that no major news source outside of Fox News even looks into his past. Isn't anyone curious about what kind of deals a community organizer has to make to be the front runner for president 10 years later?

Ten reasons Barack Obama is no reformer
Posted on 09.22.08 by dancurry @ 6:04 am

We in Illinois know Barack Obama is a faux reformer. He has never bucked his own party in a meaningful way. He has thrived during the most corrupt period in Illinois history and instead of standing up to it, he essentially went with the dirty flow, as this excellent book points out. In no particular order, here are 10 examples.

1. Governor Rod Blagojevich. At 13 percent approval he is the most unpopular governor in the country. For good reason—he’s probably the most corrupt. Since he took office in 2003 proclaiming he’d reform Illinois government, his administration has been an ethical and operational disaster. He’s facing a huge federal investigation into his cronyism and hiring practices. His number one and two outside advisors/fundraisers have been indicted and in Tony Rezko’s case, convicted. Obama has many many common advisors, supporters and donors with Blagojevich, including Rezko. Obama chaired a state senate committee that approved a health board consolidation that was crucial in allowing Rezko and pals to plunder state government. Never once during five years of this mushrooming corruption scandal has Obama criticized the governor. Contrast this with Obama’s predecessor, U.S. Senator Peter Fitzgerald, who sharply and publicly disagreed and moved to stop corruption under a governor of his own party under federal investigation during his tenure. That governor, George Ryan, has since gone to federal prison. Obama not only has refused to criticize Blagojevich, he has given him campaign assignments.

2. Tony Rezko-aided house deal. The news media has given Obama’s mansion deal spasmodic attention. Several burning questions remain about the June 2005 purchase of his Chicago south side mansion on the same day his influence peddler pal purchased the adjacent lot. After months of stonewalling, Obama has answered some questions about the sale, but has glaringly obscured the crux of the question—did he receive financial benefit from Rezko’s participation. He has released dozens of pages of documents related to the sale but not the most important one that lists all the money changing hands. We also haven’t heard from the sellers of the properties and the agents/brokers involved. There is strong circumstantial evidence that the Obamas received a financial benefit of up to hundreds of thousands of dollars from Rezko’s same day participation, which would be a blatant violation of Senate ethics rules, among other standards. Despite this, the media seems to have dropped its interest for some reason.

3. Mayor Richard Daley. Although much more popular than Governor Blagojevich, Daley’s administration also has had its share of corruption problems. A federal investigation into hiring practices has produced high profile indictments and is still underway. The heat produced by the probes even caused the media in Chicago to ask Obama about it and he offered mild concern, a micro-rebuke he withdrew within hours. Perhaps his main advisor, David Axelrod, who also advises Daley, straightened him out. Months earlier, Axelrod had written an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune defending Daley’s political patronage. Since then, Obama has been mum about Chicago corruption.

4. Anti-reform endorsement decisions. When Obama has been asked to make an endorsement that matters, he sides with self-interest over reform. Obama supporter Eric Zorn noted with disgust that Obama refused to side with reform in sitting out the 2006 Cook County Board President primary, effectively handing re-election to machine hack John Stroger over the reform-minded Forrest Claypool. Obama endorsed donor/banker Alexi Giannoulias over a downstate law enforcement official in the 2006 primary for state treasurer. Giannoulias’ family bank was accused of giving loans to mob figures and other unseemly practices. Obama’s high-profile TV ads for Alexi proved decisive in the race. Giannoulias has since become a presidential campaign bundler. Obama also made an unusual mayoral endorsement for suburban Aurora mayor Tom Weisner in 2005. Aurora’s lobbyist: Obama’s first political advisor, Dan Shomon.

5. Emil Jones. The longtime Illinois Senate president and Obama’s political godfather is by even the most generous characterization, an opponent of reform. Over the years, Jones has dished out the pork, hired his relatives, enjoyed the perks of government and frequently had his integrity questioned. In other words, another Chicago machine hack. Again, Obama has never stood up or spoke out about any of Jones escapades.

6. The Robert Blackwell Jr. caper. One of the most under mentioned items on Obama’s resume is the fishy legal contract he received from major donor Robert Blackwell Jr. As the Los Angeles Times reported, the contract gave Obama an $8,000-a-month contract for legal work that he refuses to detail. After the contract, Obama helped Blackwell receive state and federal grants for dubious projects and his wife was a key player in a minority contracting program at her hospital that netted Blackwell’s father a massive contract.

7. Slumlord/donors over constituents. The Chicago Sun-Times and Boston Globe have chronicled how Obama’s legislative actions as state senator directly helped his donor friends obtain government low-income housing assistance in his district and elsewhere. Subsequently, those donors, most prominently Rezko, skimmed profits and left Obama’s constituents without heat and other essentials. Obama was indifferent to it all—the complaints from residents, the failure by tenants, Rezko’s growing financial problems. Obama was plenty attentive, though, to the checks from Rezko that fueled his political campaigns.

8. The Iraq mysteries. Serious questions remain about the ties between Obama and Rezko associatiates Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi-born billionaire and Aiham Alsammarae, the former Iraqi power czar, both of whom have had serious problems with the law. Obama attended a dinner in Auchi’s honor at Rezko’s home in 2004. Three weeks before the Rezko-Obama house deal was finalized in June 2005, Auchi lent Rezko $3.5 million. At one point, Auchi enlisted Rezko to get his travel visa to the United States restored and the Rezko investigation he reached out to two Illinois officials. Obama has given vague denials it was him or his office. Alsammarae gave a Rezko-connected firm a $50 million contract for power plant security that Obama’s U.S. Senate office may have tried to revive after it was killed. He also posted part of Rezko’s bond. Obama has only barely trickled answers out on these matters and the mainstream press has given this explosive arena very little attention.

9. Secrecy and harassment. Obama has created the illusion of transparency through support of some no-brainer measures and then locked the door on many of his own documents. He won’t turn over his Illinois state senate records, the main document related to his house purchase with Rezko, his complete medical records, his college transcripts, his law license application, the client list of his main advisor, his U.S. Senate email records and so on. He also harasses critics, telling his supporters to smear legitimate authors and researchers who dare level any information that differs from his self-created narrative.

10. A 1998 state ethics bill canard. Obama’s supporters continually point to Obama’s sponsorship of a 1998 ethics law in Illinois as proof of his concern for reform. The reality is the bill passed 52-4 and was tepid, inching Illinois regulations a bit closer to the rest of states but leaving it far behind most. Regardless, the larger point is this: The law had virtually no effect on preventing corruption in Illinois. To the contrary, the law went into effect at the onset of perhaps the most corrupt period in Illinois history, an era that saw the indictment and conviction of a governor, the likely indictment of his successor, and plentiful indictments and convictions in city and state offices. Far more important than a milquetoast law, Illinois needed politicians to courageously speak out against the corruption bubbling around them.

[Fastone]

Just as John McCain has sold his soul to the far right to finally get the GOP nomination. Maybe they should form a group called "The Soul Sellers". The problem for John McCain is that the reformer JM and today's JM are 2 different people. Maybe he should debate himself about those changes.

[RobInKuwait]

Originally Posted by Fastone

Just as John McCain has sold his soul to the far right to finally get the GOP nomination. Maybe they should form a group called "The Soul Sellers". The problem for John McCain is that the reformer JM and today's JM are 2 different people. Maybe he should debate himself about those changes.

I really don't really see how McCain has sold himself. A lot of conservatives are annoyed by his left wing stances on immigration, economics and environmentalism. McCain is not your typical politician and really is independent minded, which is probably why both parties are always pissed at him.

[Mulletsoldier]

Rob, Rob; come now. Do you still refuse to post worthwhile discussion points, and instead insist on conjecture, and rhetoric?

Delineate exactly what you feel this adds to a rational, fair, and unbiased discussion on the platforms of the individuals at hand.

[Rugger]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Rob, Rob; come now. Do you still refuse to post worthwhile discussion points, and instead insist on conjecture, and rhetoric?

Delineate exactly what you feel this adds to a rational, fair, and unbiased discussion on the platforms of the individuals at hand.

American politics isn't about platforms, it's about perceptions.

[RobInKuwait]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier

Rob, Rob; come now. Do you still refuse to post worthwhile discussion points, and instead insist on conjecture, and rhetoric?

Delineate exactly what you feel this adds to a rational, fair, and unbiased discussion on the platforms of the individuals at hand.

You can write whatever platform you want, but ANY platform has to be taken in context of the individual and his previous record. Very little is known about Obama's past outside of the history he wrote for himself, and his campaign has hidden several facts that a presidential candidate is expected to make public knowledge. That scares me.

If Hitler wrote an autobiography, it wouldn't read negatively and focus on the holocaust, it would focus on the autobahns he built and economic growth he helped usher. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler by any stretch, I just wanted to highlight that anyone can make themselves sound good if they write their own story.

[Kruger]

Originally Posted by RobInKuwait

I really don't really see how McCain has sold himself. A lot of conservatives are annoyed by his left wing stances on immigration, economics and environmentalism. McCain is not your typical politician and really is independent minded, which is probably why both parties are always pissed at him.

He hasn't. Its pure talking points from people who don't even follow the party nor did they in 2000.

There is one difference. In 2000 he called some agents of intolerance...in 2008, he didn't. There is your major difference.

Its a veiled attempt to sound objective.

"I liked him in 2000 but he's so different now"

....when in fact, he is basically the same person.

He's old, gives a horrible speech and is going to get crushed in this election because of the DOW...but he's basically the same person.

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by RobInKuwait

You can write whatever platform you want, but ANY platform has to be taken in context of the individual and his previous record. Very little is known about Obama's past outside of the history he wrote for himself, and his campaign has hidden several facts that a presidential candidate is expected to make public knowledge. That scares me.

If Hitler wrote an autobiography, it wouldn't read negatively and focus on the holocaust, it would focus on the autobahns he built and economic growth he helped usher. I'm not saying Obama is Hitler by any stretch, I just wanted to highlight that anyone can make themselves sound good if they write their own story.

If you truly believe that, well that is your prerogative!

[Mulletsoldier]

Originally Posted by Rugger

American politics isn't about platforms, it's about perceptions.

I am aware; my comments are usually more in the light of, "Begging the question".

[strategicmove]

Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier;

Rob, Rob; come now. Do you still refuse to post worthwhile discussion points, and instead insist on conjecture, and rhetoric?

Delineate exactly what you feel this adds to a rational, fair, and unbiased discussion on the platforms of the individuals at hand.

Completely agree! The politics section of this forum is dominated by a few members that do their best to run down Mr. Obama on the basis of extremely shaky (pseudo-)logic. Quite disturbing! One would have expected some type of balanced discussion, but that would, unfortunately, remain wishful thinking!

[RobInKuwait]

Originally Posted by strategicmove

Completely agree! The politics section of this forum is dominated by a few members that do their best to run down Mr. Obama on the basis of extremely shaky (pseudo-)logic. Quite disturbing! One would have expected some type of balanced discussion, but that would, unfortunately, remain wishful thinking!

What kind of balanced discussion would you envision? Obama having his career launched by a admitted communist and terrorist is not relevant information to the electorate? Nor is his history as a non-reformer in the Illinois State Senate....he is running on a platform of "Change". Shouldn't his record on "change" be fact checked?

[Fastone]

Originally Posted by RobInKuwait

What kind of balanced discussion would you envision? Obama having his career launched by a admitted communist and terrorist is not relevant information to the electorate? Nor is his history as a non-reformer in the Illinois State Senate....he is running on a platform of "Change". Shouldn't his record on "change" be fact checked?

We should also as someone on another site said "Talk about the times that Obama met Malcom X and Louis Farakhan on the streets of Chicago where they taught him about being subversive". The level of absurdity on this issue is astounding.

The fact is Obama is the change candidate, he is going to change Washington, no matter if you or other detractors think he's never even changed his underwear.