What untruth? About the house? Was that particular story refuted by the trib or just given a pass? My reading of it was that they did not due their job. All the worse cause “OH” got away with lying to the reporters, not once but twice we know of about the same thing already. And you think the interview cleared the air? It did in fact no such a thing but raise more questions about the guy doing time in prison.

The other guy behind bars is used by Salon as a key source. I did not get that from HH (Hugh Hewit?), rather by reading the Salon story. Thanks for the tip. I wonder if he might not have some reason to be irritated with Governor Palin. Great reporting. not balanced, not conslusive, not even supporting statements or references.

Only four of the earmarks asked for in the last budget were new, all of the other 50 some earmarks represent already in progress programs. Earmarks in and of themselves are not the problem, abuse of them is.

I’m sorry, I never said that, so either my poor communication skills created a misunderstanding or you have me confused with some other idiot.

As far as disclosure, yes it is required for Presidential candidates AND Congressional candidates, slthough I have seen Lawyers that thought the Constitution guaranteed the States a right to select their own representation, there are Constitutional amendments that curtail that power to some extent. If the Feds can go so far as to determine financing requirements is a legal question. On the practical side, most Politicians believe and practice the 11th Commandment.
If you can’t cath them, it never happened. In the OIL business it was SOP for upper management to get invited to a after work party at which you got an envelope with 100 dollar bills that were compensation for the check you would write to the designated candidate. The wives loved that since the money had to be spent so as to not leave a hard record.
The running joke was that Neiman Marcus had just stoked up on hats and shoes, it must be time for a management party.
Lots of ways to raise soft money. Only limited by the imagination. And when it comes to stealing money, politicians as a group are VERY creative.

As far as who is donating to whom there are published lists. Since I am to lazy to go thru megabytes of data, here is a link to someone who has;

http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/obamas_donor_contributions_sil.html

Benji. Here is the URL to the NY Slimes best sellers list for this century;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_New_York_Times_Non-Fiction_Best_Sellers
Ohhhhh……BAMA was a best seller AFTER he bought the house. Explain that trick to me, I could use an extra couple of million. The ash tray in my Porsche is full and I need a new one. Porsche, not ashtray. Actually I have fallen in love with the Aprilia RSV4. Cheaper then a Porsche and quicker. Better gas mileage and greener too. At least until I pull off the catalytic converter and turn it into a doorstop.

Yeah I read the HH thing – Good job of “push-back” – but if you care about truth as opposed to scoring a point on a reporter – no way to dirty up the image of that tribune of Alaska’s Old Boy’s Network hugging Sarah after her speech at the Convention. Course maybe you’re entirely at ease with the cynicism that informs the “politics” of pub operatives. (Went right by Hugh.) Try Chait’s new New Republic piece on Mac’s campaign. Might consider that graph about that academic study which indicates a certain brand of conservatives are MORE likely to lock on untruths once they have been confirmed by the media. Talking ’bout you? – For me there was one quote in the Salon piece that seemed to harmonize with the killer line in Gourevitch’s peice on the state of Palin’s state. The Salon guy has pub pol claiming the presentation of Palin as the antithesis of the Old Boys is “bullshit.” Gourevitch ends his piece with an account of the town in Alaska that depends on the sort of earmarks that successful Alaskas pols – including Palin – have made a career out of garnering. An inhabitant there considers what might happen if Palin lives up her own hype. Answer – “We’re fucked.”

You do realize that article uses as a primary source the words of a felon currently residing in prison, as relayed by a friend of a felon to the reporter.
Wow.

This much is bunk IMO,

“O has spelled out – and apologized – for encouraging R. to buy the piece of property adjoining his own because he wanted to add-on to his own property.”

Because if Rezco did not buy it “OH” would have had to pay full price and pick up the lot on his own dime as conditions set said both had to be sold together.

Now I don’t know who owned the property at the time, but I think it is just too convenient that Rezco buys the property knowing his own financial straits, using money earned how and using his wifes name not his why? If noting else the bone head statement is an understatement, and a contemptous one at that.

But what is known here is not enough to investigate? That would be the end of it too except for all the other “boneheaded” moves made by “OH” in the company of other of his neighbors. Time and again, like a broken and repeated record we’ve been treated to boneheaded moves with Ayers, boneheaded moves to a housing project that, funded for fixing, remains untouched, bonedheaded moves to the spreading seed money through the CWChallenge, and boneheaded answers to Acorn.

All these to go along with boneheaded moves voting present, boneheaded moves in one Jerusalem, boneheaded moves to talk to Iran and bone headed moves planed in Iraq and boneheaded moves in taxes.

The non boneheaded moments are virtually all times “OH” acted in agreement with Senator McCain.

And why do you think the roller-coaster last week was the only time the market has been manipulated in the last five to ten years?

How about this! Obama did NOT borrow money from R. to pay for his mansion. (So “effectively” Auchi has NO connection to O.) When he started bidding on his house, O had serious $ (for the first time in his life) thanks to his two best-selling books. O bought the house and property with his own money. O has spelled out – and apologized – for encouraging R. to buy the piece of property adjoining his own because he wanted to add-on to his own property. R. bought that land and O then paid for 1/6 of the land in question at precisely 1/6 of the price R. paid for the property. R. then sold the bulk of that property at a profit. (Actually the deals were done in R.’s wife’s name.) Again – R. did not loan O “several hundred thousand dollars for the purchase of his home.” The Chicago Sun Times spells out the transaction here…And you can check FactCheck’s account as well…Doesn’t make O look like Saint – he shouldn’t have hung tight with Rez – but there is simply no window to get Auchi into this story…

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/124171,CST-NWS-obama05.article

But they can count on a significant portion of the public to not care enough to vote, and a significant portion of the rest to not care enough to look beyond what they see/hear on the network news. Considering that the media bias strongly favors them, it’s actually a pretty reasonable gamble.

And what a really swell excuse that gives the Feds to start tracking *all* overseas deposits into American accounts, say, oh for example – such as Obama’s election campaign.