Comments on: WHAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT OBAMA AND REZKO http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/28/what-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-rezko/ Politics served up with a smile... And a stilletto. Wed, 27 May 2026 22:57:02 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Ted in Ohio http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/28/what-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-rezko/comment-page-1/#comment-1339180 Ted in Ohio Sun, 02 Mar 2008 21:10:39 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/28/what-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-rezko/#comment-1339180 As I read these postings on Obama and Rezko, and also the Anglo-Iraqi billionare who wired money to Rezko, I wonder why this important information has not been brought up by the National media. Barack Hussain Obama would be a very dangerous man to have as our Commander-In-Chief. He is making "Kool-Aid" drinkers out of our naive and gullable citizens. As I read these postings on Obama and Rezko, and also the Anglo-Iraqi billionare who wired money to Rezko, I wonder why this important information has not been brought up by the National media. Barack Hussain Obama would be a very dangerous man to have as our Commander-In-Chief. He is making “Kool-Aid” drinkers out of our naive and gullable citizens.

]]> By: Neocon News » Afternoon round up. http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/28/what-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-rezko/comment-page-1/#comment-1331354 Neocon News » Afternoon round up. Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:10:27 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/28/what-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-rezko/#comment-1331354 [...] Right Wing Nut House » WHAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT OBAMA AND REZKO [...] [...] Right Wing Nut House » WHAT YOU DIDN’T KNOW ABOUT OBAMA AND REZKO [...]

]]> By: Oecolampadius http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/28/what-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-rezko/comment-page-1/#comment-1330852 Oecolampadius Thu, 28 Feb 2008 17:47:04 +0000 http://rightwingnuthouse.com/archives/2008/02/28/what-you-didnt-know-about-obama-and-rezko/#comment-1330852 Rick, I went through your article at Pajamas Media and I think you have not been fair. At no point do you ever come up with any solid evidence of unethical behavior on Mr. Obama's part. Your claims are full of "probably" and "may have" and "likely" -- speculative but never probative. One's man's speculation is another man's lie. I was particularly suspicious of your heavy use of insinuation and slanted wording: putting scare quotes around words to suggest something shady about a "loan", for example. If you want your piece to stand up to scrutiny, you have to strip out the taint of insinuation and stick to the facts. At no point in the article do you present a clear factual statement that supports a claim of unethical behavior on Mr. Obama's part. You have assembled a great deal of innuendo, but nothing substantive. While I agree that the information you present does justify further investigation, I think that for the moment there is no foundation for suggestions of unethical behavior on Mr. Obama's part. It is instructive, I think, to compare your piece with the NYT piece on Mr. McCain. Like you, the NYT made an unjustified insinuation in its suggestion of a romantic relationship between Mr. McCain and the lobbyist. However, the NYT (and others) did clearly establish several points: 1. Mr. McCain had many contacts with the lobbyist and her clients. 2. Mr. McCain received campaign contributions from those clients. 3. Mr. McCain used his office to provide extraordinary services to at least one of the clients. 4. Mr. McCain falsely denied meeting with one of the clients. Now, if you can dig up something as solid as this, you'll have an interesting case to present. But, whatever standards we apply to political corruption reports, let's use the same standards for Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama. Rick, I went through your article at Pajamas Media and I think you have not been fair. At no point do you ever come up with any solid evidence of unethical behavior on Mr. Obama’s part. Your claims are full of “probably” and “may have” and “likely” — speculative but never probative. One’s man’s speculation is another man’s lie. I was particularly suspicious of your heavy use of insinuation and slanted wording: putting scare quotes around words to suggest something shady about a “loan”, for example. If you want your piece to stand up to scrutiny, you have to strip out the taint of insinuation and stick to the facts.

At no point in the article do you present a clear factual statement that supports a claim of unethical behavior on Mr. Obama’s part. You have assembled a great deal of innuendo, but nothing substantive. While I agree that the information you present does justify further investigation, I think that for the moment there is no foundation for suggestions of unethical behavior on Mr. Obama’s part.

It is instructive, I think, to compare your piece with the NYT piece on Mr. McCain. Like you, the NYT made an unjustified insinuation in its suggestion of a romantic relationship between Mr. McCain and the lobbyist. However, the NYT (and others) did clearly establish several points:

1. Mr. McCain had many contacts with the lobbyist and her clients.
2. Mr. McCain received campaign contributions from those clients.
3. Mr. McCain used his office to provide extraordinary services to at least one of the clients.
4. Mr. McCain falsely denied meeting with one of the clients.

Now, if you can dig up something as solid as this, you’ll have an interesting case to present. But, whatever standards we apply to political corruption reports, let’s use the same standards for Mr. McCain and Mr. Obama.

]]>