The Tide Begins to Turn on Obama
[Guest post by DRJ]
Today in San Antonio, MSNBC describes a surprisingly contentious Barack Obama news conference that focused on Tony Rezko and the Canadian government:
“Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.
Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.”
Obama cut off questions from one Chicago-based NBC reporter, implying her questions were personally motivated (apparently because he did not grant her a one-on-one interview). In response to continued Rezko questions by other reporters, Obama suggested his prior responses should suffice:
“He claimed that his campaign would be happy to provide the details, but when asked why the campaign hadn’t been forthcoming, he said, “What happens is these requests I think can go on forever, and, at some point, we’ve tried to respond to what’s pertinent to the question that’s been raised.”
He added, “There’s no question that he raised money for us, and there’s no dispute that we’ve tried to get rid of that money.”
The Politico noticed the change in atmosphere, too, although its focus was on the controversy involving the Obama campaign and the Canadian government. Obama “continued to deny the substance of the conversation” between the Canadian government and Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee, instead blaming the controversy on Clinton’s “kitchen sink” strategy:
“I know the Clinton campaign has been true to its word in employing a kitchen sink strategy. … It doesn’t change the facts.”
Obama left the press conference after delivering what was described as a curt response to his eighth question. The MSNBC report stated and the Politico confirmed that the “press erupted with shouts, but Obama continued to walk out,” suggesting that the days of Obama’s positive press may be numbered.
— DRJ
From a political perspective, I wish that the press would just leave him alone on these issues. I would rather see him answer these questions in the general election rather than in an internal party squabble. Had he been forced to deal with these real issues earlier on, he would either be – 1) a stronger candidate at this point, or 2) no longer a candidate at this point. Either way, the Dems have themselves to blame for letting shinyhappysparklyhopey make it this far without laying out substantive plans, or answering tough questions.
JD (626b4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 7:50 pmThe real bombshell issue with the Rezko/Obama home purchase is the taxability of the benefit Obama received.
Since the Rezko and Obama purchases (i.e., the lot and the house) were connected, what should have happened, if Obama was going to pay the correct amount of cash, was to determine the percentage of value represented by the house with respect to the house plus lot and then take that percentage and multiply it by the total price of the house and lot. But that’s not what happened. Rather, it appears that they simply allocated the seller’s nominal price for the house to the house. But that’s not how you’re supposed to do it–because the seller did not care about the amount allocated to the house; rather he cared about the total purchase price of the house plus lot.
The upshot of this is that if a proper allocation of purchase price of the house plus lot were made shows that Obama paid less than his fair share (as determined by the formula above)–something that is almost a certainty BECAUSE NO DISCOUNT FROM THE ASKING PRICE WAS ALLOCATED TO THE LOT, then either he got a gift from Rezko (a no, because Rezko was clearly motivated by something other than the kindness of his heart) or he received taxable income on the transaction.
Any bets on whether Obama declared this benefit on his 2005 income tax return? If he did not, then he may have a significant tax liability.
Anyone care to dispute the analysis?
Law (62ca0c) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:07 pmRacist.
JD (626b4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:18 pmI agree with your analysis, Law, but I don’t think the IRS will look into this until the facts come out at Rezko’s trial (assuming they do). Even then, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is a non-issue until after the election. It should be addressed, but there will be pressure to ignore it during election season in the interest of not politicizing the IRS.
DRJ (d8934e) — 3/3/2008 @ 8:50 pmThe press should pick it up. Ask Obama point blank:
Q: “Did you pay all of your federal tax liability, if any, resulting from the purchase of your home in 2005.”
A: Yes.
And then let the accountants go wild.
If he owes taxes on that benefit and didn’t pay them, then no one should have to pay a thin dime. This man is a sitting US Senator.
If the press ever picks this up, it is a headshot.
Law (62ca0c) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:04 pmIts real odd that the liberal news media are turning on a liberal demacrat
krazy kagu (a2e13d) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:05 pmhttp://newsbusters.org/blogs/scott-whitlock/2008/03/03/abc-shock-after-much-obama-boosting-moran-quizzes-barack
This is a transcript of Terry Moran interviewing Obama very recently — quite a hard hitting one if you consider Moran’s usual leftward slant.
voiceofreason2 (761731) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:10 pmIf they aren’t asking about the taxes, they’re missing the boat.
Anytime there’s a shady deal involving a politician, you can bet your bottom dollar that they aren’t being honest on their return.
Look at John Conyers, remember him. He got staff to do gofer type things. Bottom line: he’s liable for tax on the fair market value of the services he received. Anyone want to guess whether he paid them?
Law (62ca0c) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:19 pmFor Moran talking to a Dem, that was pretty hard hitting. But, if you compare it to the way he addresses President Bush, that is puppies, kites, and pretty flowers.
JD (626b4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:23 pmObama cut off questions
One doesn’t question the messiah.
Blasphemers!
Darleen (187edc) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:44 pmRacist
JD (626b4c) — 3/3/2008 @ 9:48 pmDems are having that Uh-Oh moment.
Jim Rockford (e09923) — 3/4/2008 @ 1:22 ambuyers remorse no doubt however, hilly isnt exactly a bowl of cherries either. i like JMAC against either of these candidates, its an uphill battle for sure but, arent they all?
james conrad (7cd809) — 3/4/2008 @ 2:08 amAnd don’t think for a minute that, while Clinton is quiet about this publicly, that the superdelegates aren’t being reminded that “this is why we have superdelegates, to prevent corrupt losers from claiming the nomination.”
Dale (e9880e) — 3/4/2008 @ 4:02 amObama to Moran:
“And I’ve never made a claim that I’ve never made mistakes.”
If Moran was worth is salt as a reporter, he would have followed up with “and what mistakes would those have been, Senator Obama?”
Unstead, Moran throws a couple of soft ball questions that can be answered with pre-scripted sound bites and when he has a chance to zing one right over the plate, he gives Obama a pass.
The Chicago papers have been hounding on the questions behind the Obama/Rezko connection for a long time, but the national media wasn’t interested. Too buzy enjoying the honeymoon.
But all honeymoons end and there are a lot of questions about the purchase of the historic Georgian mansion that Obama bought. Like his wife’s involvement witht the Chicago Historical Commission. It has been reported that they showed interest on the house BEFORE it ever hit the market due to her knowing that the house would be put up for sale because of all the paperwork required in buying a historic home in Chicago.
Rezko claimed that at the time, he was broke and his wife, who claimed a salary of $32,000 a year, managed to come up with a huge downpayment. Perhaps the $3.5 million loan from Rezko’s Iraqi friend, Auchi, had something to do with that. That is what got him in even bigger trouble with the feds.
I find it a little hard to believe that considering the close friendship between Obama/Rezko, that Obama was not privy to the fact that Auchi was going to fund Rezko, making the purchase of the lot possible.
Obama claims that he purchased the ten foot strip of the lot for a garden. I guess when you are a Senator and you pay $1.65 mil for a house, you are reduced to growing your own tomatoes.
Rezko is not the only shady character Obama is involved with. The list keeps getting bigger; Rezko, Ayers and Dohrn, Auchi and a bundler named Mike Bauer.
Obama’s Messianic rise from community “organizer” to candidate for POTUS has been considered not less than a “miracle”. Believe me, considering the tone of politics in Chicago, this is no miracle.
retire05 (c6f6aa) — 3/4/2008 @ 7:21 amThis sounds a bit like the case of Hillary’s cattle futures trading profits. She was trading 15 contracts of live cattle(600,000 lbs) at a time without posting any margin. To anyone with a good knowledge of the business, that smells to high heaven. The Clintons quietly settled the tax issues, but nothing ever came of the real issue: a trading account used as a conduit for bribery. Without access to the firms other trading records and to the streetside clearing records from the CMT, proof became impossible.
Bar Sinister (eb65fa) — 3/4/2008 @ 7:29 amSorry I cant type. That’s CME, not CMT
Bar Sinister (eb65fa) — 3/4/2008 @ 7:37 amThis was a pretty interesting story about the Obamessiah’s rise to prominence:
http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/print
daleyrocks (906622) — 3/4/2008 @ 8:29 amdaley rocks, terrific article. Thanks for posting that. Definitely ‘suggested reading’ for anyone wondering how this career happened so quickly… and who got trampled in the process.
Vermont Neighbor (c6313b) — 3/4/2008 @ 6:34 pm