McCain is too funny! A weak response to a laughable situation.

I can't blame him though. I mean haven't we all forgotten how many houses and condos we have from time to time?

Haven't we talked about Rezko ad nauseam during the primaries? For that matter, Rev. Wright and Ayers too? That's the best McCain's got?

Oh, I forgot. He's a POW.

/yawn

Rezko didn't stick in the primaries and he won't stick now. Why? Because there is no proof. It is all speculation.
McCain's campaign is looking ugly and desperate. He keeps upping the negativity ante.

We haven't talked about Rezko enough, because the details of these suspicious financial doings are complicated, convoluted, and difficult to follow. That's why it didn't "stick" in the primaries.

I think there's just a leeettle bit of jealousy that McCain married into money. The fact that he "doesn't remember how many houses he has" just tells me that wealth is not important to him. Also, I doubt he's involved in the day-to-day management of their finances.

Better to marry money than be indebted to corrupt a real estate investors / political donation bundlers and his friends.

Who really needs proof of wrongdoing? McCain was suppose to have cheated at Saddleback according to some. There was no proof but there was the allegation. Obama is supposedly in cahoots with Rezko. Whether there is proof or not, doesn't really matter to some. The allegation is all some people need to run wild with allegations. To get back on topic though, my parents own multiple rental properties. My mom buys and sells them and my dad never knows how many properties they own. My dad isn't rich but he has the same problem as McCain.

Piper, if you don't need proof to condemn someone, that is your own standard. With Saddleback, the contention wasn't that he cheated, but that he wasn't in the "cone of silence" as was stated by Warren. That was proved and confirmed by McCain's staff.

Laine, law enforcement and investigators have had YEARS to go over things and see if there was any wrong doing, and they can't find anything. Anything! Independent sources can't find anything. It seems people want to give credibility to a story that doesn't have any, just because it would take down the other candidate. That is a pretty sad state of politics.

kastarte2, I agree with what you had to say.

Its just typical of McCain's campaign - their response to anything serious is to f*rt out a haze of innuendos and smears that their base confuses with perfume.

I followed a lot of the Rezko stuff in the papers here (where it was covered EXHAUSTIVELY...think I heard the Rezko name about 20 times each morning while watching the news getting ready for work) and I honestly think the story didn't stick because there was really nothing to report.

Also, I haven't really been following this story very closely, but what is meant by "homes"? How is a "home" defined in this particular situation--places that are listed as actual residences for the McCains (as in places where they actually live?) or does that include other properties as well?

I don't really see the jealousy about marrying into money, personally...but, uh, good on McCain for seizing that opportunity when it arose.

The mere fact that McCain doesn't know how many houses he has is ABSOLUTELY ridiculous -- I don't care what his circumstances are. I mean, you've got to be kidding me! I don't see why any middle or lower class citizen would support a man that has SO many houses he can't even keep track of them. It's preposterous!

>I think there's just a leeettle bit of jealousy that McCain married into money

Wait, who is jealous?

>my parents own multiple rental properties. My mom buys and sells them and my dad never knows how many properties they own. My dad isn't rich but he has the same problem as McCain.

I doubt the McCains own rental properties. It's not like they need the extra income. Of course I wouldn't assume, but I would guess they have a primary residence in Washington, one in Arizona, and the rest vacation homes.

I read the other day that it is hard to count McCain's homes because there are 2 homes and 2 cabins on his ranch....so does that count as 1 or 4?

I guess using McCain's standards of guilt by association, he would understand if Obama started running Keating 5 commericals?

Jill, I was just about to bring up the Keating Five. I don't think either should be discussed and I think it's utterly ridiculous when the same people who get upset over others bringing up Obama's associations with Rezko bring up the Keating Five, and vice versa. (I'm not saying you are bringing up the Keating Five against McCain, just that a lot of people on both sides seem to have very different standards for what is acceptable.)

I know that you are trying to make the same point I am, though...that the Rezko allegations and the Keating allegations are both just that-allegations.

Nice points, Jill, em, and steph!

And I don't understand how this is a response to something "serious."

As we have discussed on other threads, why should having money/being successful be viewed as a bad thing when choosing our president? The majority of America doesn't live like McCain. The majority of America certainly doesn't live like Obama, either. Both candidates fail miserably on that count; that's not such a bad thing.

To be perfectly honest, I can't think of a candidate in recent history who was "just like the rest of us." Sure, Obama grew up in the middle class. But, so did McCain. His father had a certain level of power in the military, but his family certainly didn't have a great deal of wealth. Both have different life stories, but I don't see how having money is something that disqualifies someone from being able to effectively govern.

Oh, and since I know people love Fact Check so much, it should be noted that Obama's ad slices and dices what McCain said to make it look like his thoughts are extremely different than they actually are.

As per Fact Check.

Obama has the housing problem.

Obama got the assistance of his friend and convicted felon Tony Rezko because he couldn't afford the house he wanted. Obama also has a "housing problem" because his long lost half-brother lives in a slummy shack in Huruma on the outskirts of Kenya's capital, Nairobi. Did Obama send him any money to help him get a better home? No, but he gave a million dollars to cousin Raila Odinga to try to turn Kenya into a Sharia law Country. And Obama broke the Logan Act to campaign for his cousin.

Why should McCain keep track of his wife's investments, including houses. He's lived in a cage as a POW, for heaven's sake, he isn't concerned with a roof over his head, just that he has one!

McCain in 2008 -- Truth, Integrity, Honesty, Experience, the characteristics and ethics of an American Patriot.

At least he's using quotes. It's a fine line, but quotes out of context are better than just making stuff up, in my opinion.

Better? Sure... but sort of misleading, no?

I responded to this on the other thread, but McCain is not actually making anything up. He is using information in a misleading way, just like Obama.

I hadn't seen the Obama ad until now so I watched them both back to back.

I'm not even sure the Obama ad can be qualified as an "attack ad". I mean, it does suggest that McCain is out of touch with American's economic problems.

But nowhere in the ad does it denigrate McCain's character.

This ad, on the other hand, is pure smear.

Honestly, the two ads aren't even comparable.

And in re: to the Rezko thing... there is ostensibly all the money and the desire on the part of the Republicans to prove that something shady happened. So if nothing has surfaced yet I have a hard time believing something will.

There are people whose jobs it is to dig sh*t up and use it against candidates.

*sigh* Interesting, he didn't know how many investment properties he ownes. Just another attack and jab. When the politicians actually start attacking on SUBSTANCE I'll stand up and take notice. Right now, it's just like children bickering. I'm tired of all the yammering.

I thought they were vacation homes, not investments.

And why not just say, then, "I reside mainly in X house in X city, but we own some investment property as well. If you'd like details, talk to my staff."

The Rezko thing is an old hat by now and that dust settled a long time ago. McCain is desperate and has nothing left to hold onto BUT character attacks. This incident says a number of things (to me) about McCain:

1. His management skills are questionable
2. He's rich
3. His memory is fading
4. He's running a terrible campaign

This is Democratic gold - McCain's handlers clearly aren't doingn their jobs. First Cindy's interview in which she blithely discusses buying a jet because "it's the only way to get around Arizona" and now this. You can't make this stuff up.

I still don't see why it's a negative thing to be monetarily successful.

I also don't see why we are even discussing anything Cindy has said, particularly because it has been made very clear that if she is to become the first lady, she will be a much more traditional first lady, with her main focus being on charity.

Actually, McCain didn't know the answer because he doesn't own any. They are all owned by his wifes family. Somehow I think he has better things to do than monitor the real estate his in laws maintain.

Obama is just getting what he asked for. He attempted to throw some punches at mccain and mccain naturally fired back. There is no doubt that Obama and Rezko have a shady past

There is no doubt that Obama and Rezko have a shady past

Really? Because, as has been pointed out by other posters, and the original post itself, exhaustive inquiries have consistently failed to turn up anything even remotely resembling proof of improper dealings.

I agree, Jude. There is no doubt that Rezko has a shady past, but there is no proof that Obama had any shady dealings with him. Is it possible that he did? Yes. Is it probable? I don't think so, but it depends on who you ask, I guess. But, even if he did, there is no proof, so it is not even worth looking in to any further at this point. The initial investigations made sense to me, but by now, it is not worth the time.

I try not to get to caught up in the who is friends with who dialogue. I think trying to make a big deal out of the Abramoff with Bush photos was lame. You can't be responsible for every person you ever dealt with.

Sen. Obama's association with Tony Resco professional and personal would be a concern for me if his association continued with Mr. Resco once it became clear to him that he had committed wrong doing. As Sen. Obama has stated and as the record shows if I'm not mistaken Sen. Obama disassociated himself with Mr. Resco once those matters became apparent.

In Sen. McCain’s case I’m sorry but as huge an investment a home/property is one should know how many they own. It’s not like he owns a nursery and he’s trying to figure out how many potted plants he has on the spot. Now if he truly does not deal with that aspect of his investments and just has someone else manage his property investments for him then first of all he shouldn’t have taken ownership of the question. By standing there trying to figure it out he suggested that he should know, but he doesn’t. He should have stated how many residencies he lives in and said that any other property investments will be disclosed.

My conclusion about these two ads is that they are a waist of money. They suggest something bad about the other person but in reality neither one of them has done anything wrong. I say the next time they want to spend a few million for nothing they might as well transfer it into my account.

Amen, Hypno! I could use the extra cash!

"I know that you are trying to make the same point I am, though...that the Rezko allegations and the Keating allegations are both just that-allegations"

Yes!

"Sen. Obama's association with Tony Resco professional and personal would be a concern for me if his association continued with Mr. Resco once it became clear to him that he had committed wrong doing."

Actually when Obama purhchased the 10 foot strip of Rezko's property for over $100,000 in 2006, it was widely known in Chicago that Rezko was being monitored for some illegal activity.

Ugh, Liberty, I wouldn't call Obama's ad an "Economic Critique". Where's the 'Not Sure' for people without a bias?

I wanted to pick not sure, as well, Mich, so I didn't without reading the entire thing. I wish I had picked other.

Yeah, I don't see anything wrong with that. All politicians conspire with convicted felons for political favors. There's really nothing out of the ordinary about it. In fact, I'm willing to completely ignore it, because it flaws the picture in my heart of the messiah.

Whether or not Obama's dealings with Rezko were illegal (and there is no proof that they were), they are certainly shady. It was a very unusual way of buying property, and he made the deal with a man of dubious character. To me, that's shady. Nobody can prove he did anything wrong, but it sure doesn't seem quite right.

Oh I'm not debating the time line of investigation Piper. Many people are investigated or monitored as you put it for various reasons and nothing comes of it, which is why I deferred to the point of certitude. When it became certain that this man who was apparently a good friend had done something wrong Sen. Obama then removed his association and rightly so. If he were to remove his association from every supporter and associate he deals with who is being monitored he may have a serious problem getting things done.

McCain was exonerated from blame in terms of Keating, but he was certainly "dealing" with him, and it was definitely shady! Keating held multiple fundraisers for McCain and they went on trips together etc so they had more than just an idle association.

So if you are going to bash Obama for his association you need to hold McCain accountable as well.

But like the others, I think BOTH of these are silly. In politics, you know and associate with all kinds of people. If one of them turns out to be a felon is that any surprise?

Now, if you make deals with them _after_ it's known that they have a criminal record, and you benefit inappropriately, that would bother me.