Let's clarify the Obama deal with Rezko - Chicago Tribune - handy cheat sheet

[Triana]

Let's clarify the Obama deal with Rezko -- a handy cheat sheet
by: Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune


"John McCain didn't borrow money from a guy going to jail to build his house"....Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) discussing Barack Obama on Sunday's "This Week with George Stephanopoulous."

Perhaps Graham was simply confused. After all, there are many fine points to remember in the story of the land deal involving Obama and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko, and off-the-cuff summaries can blur the truth.

Obama didn't borrow even a dime from Rezko to buy -- not build -- a house three years ago.

But now that Rezko is, in fact, "going to jail" -- he's actually already serving prison time after his conviction last week on federal corruption charges -- and Obama is the presumptive Democratic nominee for president, it's time for a handy cheat sheet for pols and and pundits tempted to incorporate this tale into their campaign narratives.

So, for the gentleman from South Carolina and other befuddled parties, here are `08 things you need to know about how and why the Obamas and Rezkos purchased adjoining properties in the Kenwood neighborhood on the same day in June, 2005:

1. The deal could have gone down without Rezko.

While it's true that the couple who sold the house to the Obamas and the adjoining vacant lot to Rezko's wife required the deals to close on the same day, there was at least one other serious bidder on the lot.

2. The Obamas did not get a special discount on the house.

Yes, the original asking price was $1.95 million and the sale price was $1.65 million, but the sellers have confirmed that the sale price was the result of routine real estate negotiations and was the best offer they received on the house.

3. The sellers rejected two lower bids from the Obamas.

The Obamas first offered $1.3 million and then $1.5 million before agreeing with the sellers to the $1.65 million price.

4. The Rezkos did not pay an inflated price for the vacant lot.

Obama has said his broker told him another interested party had already put in a bid on the lot at or close to the asking price of $625,000. No one has challenged this assertion.

5. The Obamas did not get a special discount from the Rezkos when they later purchased a one-sixth strip of the vacant lot to enlarge their yard.

The price the Obamas paid, $104,500, was a neat one-sixth of the price of the lot and more than double the value Obama said his appraiser put on the strip. The remaining portion of the vacant lot reportedly sold earlier this year for $675,000.

6. The Obamas did not receive or borrow any money from the Rezkos to buy their house.

They took out a $1.3 million mortgage and paid the balance with proceeds from Obama's best-selling books.

7. Obama hasn't done any political or personal favors for Rezko since this saga began.

The lone example critics cite is that Obama allowed the son of a Rezko business associate to serve a one-month unpaid internship in his office in 2005.

8. The reason Obama is nevertheless correct in describing his actions here as "boneheaded" is that Rezko is and was a sleazeball.

Many of the warning signs were obvious in 2005 and Obama blew through them.

That doesn't reflect well on him, I agree. But neither does it turn this otherwise ordinary real estate story into a scandal or excuse those who can't or don't want to keep the above facts straight.

Source, by Eric Zorn, Chicago Tribune:
http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2008/06/reality-check-t.html

[iamjoy]

1. Glass Houses

At least Barack Obama didn't accept campaign contributions to back off a corrupt banking official who left taxpayers on the hook for over 3 billion dollars.

[high density]

2. Hmm, so all that bellyaching over the house lot

and it turns out Obama only bought 1/6 of the lot.

[Triana]

4. Yep - and for MORE than the market value.

Pretty clean deal sounds like to me.

[City Lights]

3. KR&B. nt

[truedelphi]

5. I lived in Chicago and it is very difficult to move through the terrain of that

City without bumping into or dealing with a sleazeball.

What is important is that it is Rezko who is going to jail for his crimes, things that Obama had nothing to do with.

And the Chicago newspapers have commented that most people did not know of Rezko's sleaziness until late in 2005.

BTW the family court system in almost every County in this land is totally riddled with blatantly corrupt insider deals - the judges, attorneys, and court appointed therapists all favor whichever parent has the most dough. People would do well to try and change the things they can change locally rather than worrying about Rezko.

[Kukesa]

6. That's a keeper. Thanx, Triana. n/t

[grasswire]

7. did anyone ever explain Whitewater so clearly in the media?

I don't think so. Obama has an ally in the Trib.

[Median Democrat]

8. The Challenge Is Will McCain Get The Same Scrutiny

I have yet to here a peep about the Keating 5, and McCain's role in the last mortgage meltdown. At best, McCain was guilty of gross inaction given his close ties to Keating. At worst, McCain actively prevented the Federal government from taking action against Keating's S&L, and the delay caused the problem to get worse.

McCain wants to make judgment an issue?

[chill_wind]

9. Good summary, Triana. Kicked, rec'd and bookmarked

because we know, no matter what, this will come back again and again and again....