WOW, McCain Campaign Going Heavy

[Michael Tee]

from www.huffingtonpost.com

Massive Robo-Call Campaign across state lines to link Obama and Ayers

McCain's dirtiest yet, and just a day after the debate where he assured the nation that he was not running a negative campaign.  How desperate IS that?

<<The Republican National Committee launched a massive robocall campaign on Thursday designed to alarm voters about Barack Obama's past association with former radical Bill Ayers. The committee may be violating state law in the process.

<<The call begins: "Hello. I'm calling for John McCain and the RNC," before telling recipients that they "need to know that Barack Obama has worked closely with domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, whose organization bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon, a judge's home, and killed Americans."

<<More remarkable than the message (coming after a presidential debate in which John McCain said he didn't care about a "washed up terrorist") is the reach of the campaign itself. The Huffington Post received dozens of emails from voters who had either received the call or gotten a voice mail with a recording. Reports came from Ohio, Colorado, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Missouri, North Carolina, Florida, Texas and Maine.

<<A reader in Minnesota also reported receiving the call, which could be a violation of that state's laws. Explains Shaun Dakin, CEO & Founder of the National Political Do Not Contact Registry:

<<"Most robocalls are supposed to have two things, "paid for by X" and a phone number of the group making the call. Most do that. Now, that being said, there are some states that have their own robocall laws and they are much stricter. Minnesota pretty much bans robocalls entirely unless they are introduced by a human voice. And that pretty much never happens because it defeats the point."

<<The RNC did not immediately return request for comment.

<<The majority of responses from the Democratic and independent readers who received the Ayers robocall were sharply (perhaps not surprisingly) negative.

<<Vic from New Mexico wrote: "l just received [a robocall] from McCain and the RNC, calling Obama a 'terrorist' after McCain's claim last night that he's not running a negative campaign.">>

[Plane]

McCain is spending a fraction as much on negative commercials as BHO.

If these calls are the same thing in a cheaper format , they are the same thing but with thrift.

[Michael Tee]

The point is not what's being spent on the Robocalls, but that the content has hit a new low in dirty politicking and trafficking in guilt by association.  This is certainly lower and dirtier than anything in the Obama campaign's arsenal.  But since it's so obviously a tactic of desperation, I don't think Obama should retaliate in kind. 

I think Obama should go hard on certain legitimate themes that will resonate - - McCain is old, out-of-touch, choleric, foolish ("The fundamentals of our economy are strong" should be played against a backdrop of collapsing markets, "greatest crisis since WWII" clips, dated for comparison with original statement)  or the "100 years in Iraq" foolishness.  There was great video of McCain attempting to exit the stage and being turned around from the wrong exit - - fantastic body language of a befuddled old man, one still photo with his tongue actually protruding - -

And a whole different theme, Palin the ditz, clips and voice-overs, speculation on how soon she could be called to take over the reins.

Obama can hit back hard - - and should - - but can always stay well above the new low established by the McCain campaign.  This is a great time for the gloves to finally come off.

[Plane]

The point is not what's being spent on the Robocalls, but that the content has hit a new low in dirty politicking and trafficking in guilt by association.  This is certainly lower and dirtier than anything in the Obama campaign's arsenal.  But since it's so obviously a tactic of desperation, I don't think Obama should retaliate in kind. 

I think Obama should go hard on certain legitimate themes that will resonate - - McCain is old, out-of-touch, choleric, foolish ("The fundamentals of our economy are strong" should be played against a backdrop of collapsing markets, "greatest crisis since WWII" clips, dated for comparison with original statement)  or the "100 years in Iraq" foolishness.  There was great video of McCain attempting to exit the stage and being turned around from the wrong exit - - fantastic body language of a befuddled old man, one still photo with his tongue actually protruding - -

And a whole different theme, Palin the ditz, clips and voice-overs, speculation on how soon she could be called to take over the reins.

Obama can hit back hard - - and should - - but can always stay well above the new low established by the McCain campaign.  This is a great time for the gloves to finally come off.

The Obama campaign has been trying to attach McCain to Bush and Keating as if McCain were not a rival of one and betrayed by the other , that isn't nicer than pointing out that Obama didn't mind the murderous Ayers or swindling Rezco.

[Christians4LessGvt]

Ayers with influence in the White House
is scary as hell to most Americans!


"No Regrets"

[Michael Tee]

<<The Obama campaign has been trying to attach McCain to Bush and Keating as if McCain were not a rival of one . . . >>

What kind of rival votes 91% of the time in favour of his rival's projects?

<< . . . and betrayed by the other >>

Keating didn't betray McCain, it was the other way round.  When the shit hit the fan, McCain ran like hell, put as much distance between he and Keating as was humanly possible.

<< that isn't nicer than pointing out that Obama didn't mind the murderous Ayers or swindling Rezco.>>

These guys are pikers compared to Keating and Bush.  Bush is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, including 4,000 American lives, Keating defrauded thousands of their life savings.  Ayers and Rezco were really small-time by comparison.

[Plane]

<<The Obama campaign has been trying to attach McCain to Bush and Keating as if McCain were not a rival of one . . . >>

What kind of rival votes 91% of the time in favour of his rival's projects?

<< . . . and betrayed by the other >>

Keating didn't betray McCain, it was the other way round.  When the shit hit the fan, McCain ran like hell, put as much distance between he and Keating as was humanly possible.

<< that isn't nicer than pointing out that Obama didn't mind the murderous Ayers or swindling Rezco.>>

These guys are pikers compared to Keating and Bush.  Bush is responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths, including 4,000 American lives, Keating defrauded thousands of their life savings.  Ayers and Rezco were really small-time by comparison.

What is the percentage of the time that BHO voted in agreement with Bush?

Probly 85%, a lot of these votes are minor and / or widely supported . McCain was a press favoriate back when he was occasionailly pokeing the administration in the eye, they love BHO more because he is black and as you have pointed out being Black is more than enough reason to support him of itself.

So you and I agree that the only diffrence between Keating and Rezco is scale?

Excellent , let me now point out that McCAin has returned the gifts of Keating , but BHO still has the home next door to Rezcos house that Rezco helped him buy.

[Michael Tee]

<<What is the percentage of the time that BHO voted in agreement with Bush?

<<Probly 85%, a lot of these votes are minor and / or widely supported . >>

Sorry, I'm not buying.  Get back to me when you have a source, otherwise 91% beats 85% and 85% will do nicely to explain routine housekeeping bills that are non-controversial.

I will say that there's probably something to what you say and it is a kind of laziness on Obama's part to leave it as a percentage; what he needs to do is nail down the specific votes that McCain made in accordance with a Bush program - - war with Iraq springs to mind right away, Patriot Act stuff is another.

<<McCain was a press favoriate back when he was occasionailly pokeing the administration in the eye, they love BHO more because he is black and as you have pointed out being Black is more than enough reason to support him of itself.>>

What's your point here?

<<So you and I agree that the only diffrence between Keating and Rezco is scale?

<<Excellent , let me now point out that McCAin has returned the gifts of Keating , but BHO still has the home next door to Rezcos house that Rezco helped him buy.>>

What does that mean, "helped him buy?"  Helped him how?  Specifically?

[Plane]

<<What is the percentage of the time that BHO voted in agreement with Bush?

<<Probly 85%, a lot of these votes are minor and / or widely supported . >>

Sorry, I'm not buying.  Get back to me when you have a source, otherwise 91% beats 85% and 85% will do nicely to explain routine housekeeping bills that are non-controversial.

Leaveing only 5% of diffrence in policys and voteing record between the main rivals in this election , that I cannot caruntee is accurate , but it makes my point, and I think its accuracy is likely.

I will say that there's probably something to what you say and it is a kind of laziness on Obama's part to leave it as a percentage; what he needs to do is nail down the specific votes that McCain made in accordance with a Bush program - - war with Iraq springs to mind right away, Patriot Act stuff is another.

BHO is an extremely good politicial operative, if the real numbers served him he would use them and no need to say he is lazy , that is the last accusation I would make twards him.

<<McCain was a press favoriate back when he was occasionailly pokeing the administration in the eye, they love BHO more because he is black and as you have pointed out being Black is more than enough reason to support him of itself.>>

What's your point here?

That McCain was a maveric enough to please the press who hate Bush , but not diffrent enough to trump Obama who is a conformist , but a Democrat.

<<So you and I agree that the only diffrence between Keating and Rezco is scale?

<<Excellent , let me now point out that McCAin has returned the gifts of Keating , but BHO still has the home next door to Rezcos house that Rezco helped him buy.>>

What does that mean, "helped him buy?"  Helped him how?  Specifically?

Gave a special price , far below what he paid for his own right next door.

Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.

[Knutey]

>Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.<

You lose Keating & McCain helped create a national crisis nearly as bad as this one that the Bushidiot caused. O getting a good price on his home hurt no one but the seller.

[Michael Tee]

<<Gave a special price , far below what he paid for his own right next door.>>

<<Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.>>

Sorry, this still isn't clear.  Rezco seems to have owned two identical houses side-by-side.  He sold one to Obama for less than what he paid for the other?  This is just meaningless crap.  The fair market value of any property would fluctuate over time.  You need to lay this out logically if there's a case against Rezco.  When did he buy House A and what did he pay for it?  HOW did he buy it, sale in the open market, auction sale, power of sale, foreclosure?  When did he buy B?  same other questions?  Were both properties appraised at the same amount?  Were the realty (municipal) taxes on both the same?  What was the fair market value (appraised) of each house at the time of purchase and at the time of sale?

You come back with some kind of logical case and I'll buy it, otherwise you ain't got nuthin.

[Plane]

>Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.<

You lose Keating & McCain helped create a national crisis nearly as bad as this one that the Bushidiot caused. O getting a good price on his home hurt no one but the seller.

That isn't the crime that has Rezco in jail. I am not even sure that graft is a crime inm Chicago at all.

[Plane]

<<Gave a special price , far below what he paid for his own right next door.>>

<<Resolved , the diffrence between Rezco and Keating is scale only.>>

Sorry, this still isn't clear.&nbsp; Rezco seems to have owned two identical houses side-by-side.&nbsp; He sold one to Obama for less than what he paid for the other?&nbsp; This is just meaningless crap.&nbsp; The fair market value of any property would fluctuate over time.&nbsp; You need to lay this out logically if there's a case against Rezco.&nbsp; When did he buy House A and what did he pay for it?&nbsp; HOW did he buy it, sale in the open market, auction sale, power of sale, foreclosure?&nbsp; When did he buy B?&nbsp; same other questions?&nbsp; Were both properties appraised at the same amount?&nbsp; Were the realty (municipal) taxes on both the same?&nbsp; What was the fair market value (appraised) of each house at the time of purchase and at the time of sale?

You come back with some kind of logical case and I'll buy it, otherwise you ain't got nuthin.

The sales were highly entangled, but...
Why take my word for it?
Your Google broke?
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

7. A few months after Obama became a U.S. senator, he and Rezko's wife, Rita, bought adjacent pieces of property from a doctor in Chicago's Kenwood neighborhood -- a deal that has dogged Obama the last two years. The doctor sold the mansion to Obama for $1.65 million -- $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife paid full price -- $625,000 -- for the adjacent vacant lot. The deals closed in June 2005. Six months later, Obama paid Rezko's wife $104,500 for a strip of her land, so he could have a bigger yard. At the time, it had been widely reported that Tony Rezko was under federal investigation. Questioned later about the timing of the Rezko deal, Obama called it "boneheaded" because people might think the Rezkos had done him a favor.

[BT]

Without the Rezko's buying the adjacent lot Obama never would have been able to afford the home.

The Doctor demanded that if he split the property that both lots close on the same day.

If the mortgage was originated by the Broadway Bank, Obama has even bigger problems.

[BT]

The Obama/Rezko Home: a picture is worth 1000 words

by hwc, Tue Jan 29, 2008 at 10:51:54 AM EST

The question is whether Rezko did a $925,000 favor for Obama by paying for part of his home? A picture is worth a thousand words, so take a look at this NBC news feature with extensive photos of the property:



1) As you can clearly see from the overhead photos in the video, this was clearly NOT an "adjacent" piece of property. This was quite obviously the yard for the Obama house. The only access to the Rezko property is from Obama's parcel. The intent here was clearly for Rezko to purchase the land and continue making it available for the exclusive use of the Obama family. A $925,000 favor to a sitting US Senator.

2) Why did Obama buy a strip of "Rezko" land and build a fence? Simple. Obama knew that eventually somebody would photograph the property and the sham nature of the arrangement would be instantly obvious. Thus, he had to do something to give the appearance of Rezko's land actually being separate from the Obama house. Thus, building a fence (with a gate providing the only access). Obviously, the Rezko property was never intended to be a separate piece of land and a fence on the original lot line would have been absurd. Pause the video and note the SUV parked on Obama's driveway immediate to the rigth of the fence (the new lot line). This indicates that, initially, Obama's driveway was actually sited on "Rezko's" piece of the property...a strong indication that Rezko intended the use of the land as a gift to Obama. To even site a plausible fence required transfering part of "Rezko's" land to Obama, even though Obama already had full use of, and was maintaining "Rezko's land.

3) Rezko has since transfered title to his land to his attorney. Is this one of the land transactions that landed Rezko in jail yesterday?

Why is this important? Obama has long suggested that voters should ignore his lack of experience and consider only his superior "judgement". The entire rationale for his qualification to be President is his "judgement". Does this sham property purchase, regardless of its legality, seem like good "judgement" to you?