Tony Rezko indicted on 18 of 24 charges

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
OrByte, Clinton's have their own history of bad land deals. Not sure they would want to remind the public of that by going after Obama over a deal like this one.

Also, Hillary did use an attack line against Obama about his relationship with Rezko, but either it didn't stick or they decided to try other tactics.

I see, so it either didn't work, or HRC went on to use other tactics (ie) it didnt work.

Now I will admit that maybe the Rev Wright thing was more attractive as a weapon to use against BHO.

But that didn't work either.

So is the Clinton Political machine not as strong (and not as dirty) as the GOP machine?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: OrByte
If the vaunted Clinton political machine couldn't use this as ammunition against BHO, then there is nothing to the story.

According to the resident neocons, the Clinton machine is the most powerful and slimiest political force in the country right?

so why didn't we hear about Rezko earlier?

Sounds to me like we are already witnessing the "kitchen sink" strategy from the neocons.

McCain must be in bad shape already in this election...

You overlook than Clinton could only do so much as a democrat vs another democrat before the blowback would result in negative feedback. If you think the Clinton's didn't sit down and weigh the merits of hammering the Rezko connection you are wrong. There are plenty of things McCain and the pub 527s will use that no democrat would or could. This is true of every year's primaries on both sides.

And those who read the news regularly were well aware of Rezko for a long time now.

I think when HRC commented that McCain would make a better president than BHO, that pretty much blows your theory out of the water.

It would if she ever said that. But she didn't, so your comment makes no sense. In fact, every time she has been asked she's said the exact opposite of what you claim she said.

You are referring to her statement about how both she and McCain passed the "commander in chief" test. While I didn't approve of her using that comparison and felt it was a bad move, it doesn't equal saying McCain would be a better president than Obama. It simply alludes to the obvious and incontrovertible fact that McCain has military experience. Whether that makes someone a better president is up for debate, though I don't find it necessary at all.

But if you really think Clinton pulled out all the stops and took off the gloves for the the primaries, I think you are in the minority in so believing.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: OrByte
If the vaunted Clinton political machine couldn't use this as ammunition against BHO, then there is nothing to the story.

According to the resident neocons, the Clinton machine is the most powerful and slimiest political force in the country right?

so why didn't we hear about Rezko earlier?

Sounds to me like we are already witnessing the "kitchen sink" strategy from the neocons.

McCain must be in bad shape already in this election...

You overlook than Clinton could only do so much as a democrat vs another democrat before the blowback would result in negative feedback. If you think the Clinton's didn't sit down and weigh the merits of hammering the Rezko connection you are wrong. There are plenty of things McCain and the pub 527s will use that no democrat would or could. This is true of every year's primaries on both sides.

And those who read the news regularly were well aware of Rezko for a long time now.

I think when HRC commented that McCain would make a better president than BHO, that pretty much blows your theory out of the water.

It would if she ever said that. But she didn't, so your comment makes no sense. In fact, every time she has been asked she's said the exact opposite of what you claim she said.

You are referring to her statement about how both she and McCain passed the "commander in chief" test. While I didn't approve of her using that comparison and felt it was a bad move, it doesn't equal saying McCain would be a better president than Obama.

Yes I am referring to that comment and if you think it doesn't equate to HRC putting herself and John McCain at an advantage wrt being President, and BHO at a disadvantage, then we will have to agree to disagree but my feelings still stand on this point. She didn't come out as saying McCain would be a better President explicitly, but she didn't have to in order to get the point across.

She screwed the pooch when she came out and said that. Up to that point she had been a "fighter." Afterwards I lost a huge amount of respect for her. That was a big no-no in party politics. She would have been better off talking about Rezko imho.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: jonks

But if you really think Clinton pulled out all the stops and took off the gloves for the the primaries, I think you are in the minority in so believing.

Then I look forward to seeing what new stuff we can throw against the Dem nominee.

 

[Trianon]

Originally posted by: K1052
$20 says he rolls over and provides evidence that will lead to our POS governor getting indicted.

we can only hope

 

[Queasy]

RNC: Rezko Ad out already

ROFL at the scowling Obama pic at the end.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Queasy
RNC: Rezko Ad out already

ROFL at the scowling Obama pic at the end.

How soon until the (D)'s dust off Keating 5 in response?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Queasy
RNC: Rezko Ad out already

ROFL at the scowling Obama pic at the end.

I don't believe there is any such thing as a clean politician.

I'm sure if I somehow managed to come up with the $5,000 to register a campaign with the FEC that everyone would manage to come up with some false allegations on me.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Queasy
RNC: Rezko Ad out already

ROFL at the scowling Obama pic at the end.

How soon until the (D)'s dust off Keating 5 in response?

"The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. "

Good luck with that one.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Queasy
RNC: Rezko Ad out already

ROFL at the scowling Obama pic at the end.

How soon until the (D)'s dust off Keating 5 in response?

"The Senate Ethics Committee concluded that Glenn and McCain's involvement in the scheme was minimal and dropped the charges against them. "

Good luck with that one.

Who says a political ad can't be baseless? Obama hasn't been brought up on any charges wrt Rezko. Didn't stop the RNC from playing the name association game.

And this just in from Factcheck:

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam

McCain's Web site offers another curious ? and convoluted ? argument about Obama and the IRGC [Iranian Revolutionary Guard]:

McCain Web site: After The Kyl-Lieberman Vote, Barack Obama Often Criticized The Amendment Without Mentioning Any Support For IRGC Designation ... Before Responding To John McCain, Obama's Website Provides No Indication That Obama Favors Designating The IRGC As A Terrorist Organization.

The argument is faulty. First, as mentioned already, Obama is on record in favor of designating the IRGC as a terrorist organization. Second, even if Obama had not cosponsored the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, failing to state support for something on your Web site doesn't mean you therefore oppose it (and vice versa). Such reasoning constitutes a logical fallacy that philosophers call an argumentum ad ignorantiam, or an argument from ignorance. The fallacy occurs when someone asserts that the lack of evidence against a claim means that the claim is true. Should we conclude that because McCain's Web site says nothing about torturing kittens that he supports it? Of course not.

Well I know John McCain and he definitely supports torturing kittens.