He Got it For Cheap

Arizona developer wants to buy some land from the federal government so he calls on friends in congress including John McCain. McCain, who stands at the intersection of the developer's campaign contributions and the military-industrial complex, "assigned an aide who set up a meeting at the Pentagon and later stepped in again to help speed up the sale." When the developer "appealed to a nearby city for the right to develop other property at the former base" he "submitted Mr. McCain’s endorsement as 'a close personal friend.'"

When the deal was done, the developer netted a cool $20 million in profit.

At the end of the day, this pales in comparison to McCain catastrophically wrongheaded ideas about foreign policy on the list of reasons not to vote for him. But it's yet another story which reveals how ultimately hollow the myth of John McCain as the great man of honor who'd never have his hands anywhere near the mucky side of politics is.

Comments

I'm certainly in no way a McCain supporter -- principally because of his catastrophically wrongheaded ideas about foreign policy but also because of his bad ideas about domestic policy -- but I'm not sure in what respect the conduct described here is actually wrong.

If I were a major real estate developer and I wanted to buy some land that was owned by the Pentagon, I can't imagine that I wouldn't call my representatives in Congress to point out that (i) I'd like to do a major development in the state that would employ a lot of people and (ii) it would help in getting the deal done if the Pentagon knew that this was important to the state's representatives in Congress.

The fact that the developer made a profit on the deal is sort of obvious: that's why developers develop. The profit margins tend to be high because real estate can be chancy.

The part about submitting McCain's name as a reference is unattractive but it's unclear that McCain had anything to do with that.

Posted by alkali | April 22, 2008 11:01 AM

John McCain portraying himself as having his hands clean of dirty political pay-offs is like George W. telling us he's a compassionate conservative, a uniter not a divider, and believes in strong dollar policy.

Keyword: BULLS***

Posted by LFC | April 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Issues, baby, issues!

Because John McCain's relationship with some guy (Diamond) is an "issue", while Obama's relationship with some guys (Wright, Ayers, Rezko) is a non-"issue"! In fact, if anybody asks Obama about his raltionship with these people, not only is it not an "issue", but the Left works themselves up into high dudgeon that anyone would EVER even broach the subject! It's time to start a petition again any media figure that would ever DARE to ask the Messiah about these relationships - they are not "issues"!

Because it's all about the "issues".

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 11:02 AM

why are we getting all of these McCain stories when we no one is paying attention. On the same day as the PA primary? Sounds like a favor to me.

Posted by Bubba | April 22, 2008 11:02 AM

Matt, why must you focus on petty distractions like this instead of on the issues that Americans really care about?

Posted by A New Fox News Fan | April 22, 2008 11:03 AM

I'm certainly in no way a McCain supporter -- principally because of his catastrophically wrongheaded ideas about foreign policy but also because of his bad ideas about domestic policy -- but I'm not sure in what respect the conduct described here is actually wrong.

If I were a major real estate developer and I wanted to buy some land that was owned by the Pentagon, I can't imagine that I wouldn't call my representatives in Congress to point out that (i) I'd like to do a major development in the state that would employ a lot of people and (ii) it would help in getting the deal done if the Pentagon knew that this was important to the state's representatives in Congress.

The fact that the developer made a profit on the deal is sort of obvious: that's why developers develop. The profit margins tend to be high because real estate can be chancy.

The part about submitting McCain's name as a reference is unattractive but it's unclear that McCain had anything to do with that.

Posted by alkali | April 22, 2008 11:05 AM

For the record, Al, I don't think either is an issue. But if Obama had to endure 2 months of Wright/Rezko, McCain should have to answer pinheaded news anchors' questions about this Diamond guy too. It's only fair.

Posted by TH | April 22, 2008 11:05 AM

Speaking of real issues. Hah, I like that MY has now gone silent on the pathetic, over matched, and downright embarrassing Washington Wizards. You still think the Wiz will win this series? Lebron overated.

Posted by JBJB | April 22, 2008 11:09 AM

Because John McCain's relationship with some guy (Diamond) is an "issue", while Obama's relationship with some guys (Wright, Ayers, Rezko) is a non-"issue"! In fact, if anybody asks Obama about his raltionship with these people, not only is it not an "issue", but the Left works themselves up into high dudgeon that anyone would EVER even broach the subject! It's time to start a petition again any media figure that would ever DARE to ask the Messiah about these relationships - they are not "issues"!

Right! It sucks when it happens to your guy, doesn't it? Imagine that!

Posted by Bill | April 22, 2008 11:12 AM

There is even more to it than that. This developer basically wanted to steal scarce Monterey peninsula water resources are part of his land grab. It was bad enough that when I lived there, ordinary residents were thought of as the problem when it came to water resources, totally ignoring the golf courses and farms in the area (and don't tell me that golf is the engine of Monterey tourism - people will come to Monterey with or without golf courses).

BTW - the part of the story you quote is about the land grab at Fort Ord and not in Arizona, yet the pic you have is obviously not Monterey.

Posted by calipygian | April 22, 2008 11:13 AM

Speaking of real issues. Hah, I like that MY has now gone silent on the pathetic, over matched, and downright embarrassing Washington Wizards. You still think the Wiz will win this series? Lebron overated.

Posted by JBJB | April 22, 2008 11:14 AM

Well, Al, you go to the election with the media you have, not the media you wish you had.

If we're going to keep hearing about Rev. Wright and Rezko non-stop, you can bet your ass you're going to hear about McCain's philandering, his arm-twisting on behalf of lobbyists such as his maybe-mistress, his wife's bankrolling of his political career, etc.

No, we're not going to unilaterally disarm against you and the media. Thanks for asking.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 22, 2008 11:16 AM

For the record, Al, I don't think either is an issue. But if Obama had to endure 2 months of Wright/Rezko, McCain should have to answer pinheaded news anchors' questions about this Diamond guy too. It's only fair.

Posted by TH | April 22, 2008 11:16 AM

Right! It sucks when it happens to your guy, doesn't it? Imagine that!

I'm sure Spencer Ackerman, Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, Ezra Klein, Eric Alterman, Mark Kleiman, etc., etc., etc., will be signing a letter any minute now complaining that the media is focusing on non-issues like McCain's relationship with this Diamond guy. Any minute now. In fact, they've probably already drafted it and are just circulating it for signatures. Maybe this time Matthew will open his e-mail in time to actually get his signature on the damned thing.

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 11:24 AM

The fact that the developer made a profit on the deal is sort of obvious: that's why developers develop. The profit margins tend to be high because real estate can be chancy.

There are few sure things in life, but being able to turn a profit on coastal property on Monterrey for only $250K. Hell, just a single plot for a house would go for that, let alone hundreds of acres. If there was an open auction, there's no way it goes for $250K.

Posted by Mo | April 22, 2008 11:27 AM

Al's theory of politics: all people ("guys") are the same. All candidates have relationships with people. Therefore, all candidates are the same. Consequently, vote Republican.

Posted by calling all toasters | April 22, 2008 11:29 AM

Openleft said it first, but we need to make this quote famous:

Mr. Diamond, for his part, said Mr. McCain had only done his job. “I think that is what Congress people are supposed to do for constituents,” he said. “When you have a big, significant businessman like myself, why wouldn’t you want to help move things along? What else would they do? They waste so much time with legislation.”

A big, significant businessman like myself . . . good lord, it's too perfect.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 11:30 AM

I'm sure Spencer Ackerman, Kevin Drum, Brad DeLong, Ezra Klein, Eric Alterman, Mark Kleiman, etc., etc., etc., will be signing a letter any minute now complaining that the media is focusing on non-issues like McCain's relationship with this Diamond guy.

Al, do you acknowledge any difference between guilt-by-association/where's-your-motherf*ing-flag-pin and examining the official acts of a legislator?

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 11:35 AM

All I can say is McCain's got a lot of work ahead of him if he wants to catch up to Harry Reid in the real estate business. Actually, if you read the NYT article it never says that McCain profited personally from any deal or even discusses campaign contributions to him from Diamond.

*************************************************

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=d8kmj8i00&show_article=1

Land deeds obtained by The Associated Press during a review of Reid's business dealings show:

_The deal began in 1998 when Reid bought undeveloped residential property on Las Vegas' booming outskirts for about $400,000. Reid bought one lot outright, and a second parcel jointly with Brown. One of the sellers was a developer who was benefiting from a government land swap that Reid supported. The seller never talked to Reid.

_In 2001, Reid sold the land for the same price to a limited liability corporation created by Brown. The senator didn't disclose the sale on his annual public ethics report or tell Congress he had any stake in Brown's company. He continued to report to Congress that he personally owned the land.

_After getting local officials to rezone the property for a shopping center, Brown's company sold the land in 2004 to other developers and Reid took $1.1 million of the proceeds, nearly tripling the senator's investment. Reid reported it to Congress as a personal land sale.

The complex dealings allowed Reid to transfer ownership, legal liability and some tax consequences to Brown's company without public knowledge, but still collect a seven-figure payoff nearly three years later.

Reid hung up the phone when questioned about the deal during an AP interview last week.

Kent Cooper, who oversaw government disclosure reports for federal candidates for two decades in the Federal Election Commission, said Reid's failure to report the 2001 sale and his ties to Brown's company violated Senate rules.

"This is very, very clear," Cooper said. "Whether you make a profit or a loss you've got to put that transaction down so the public, voters, can see exactly what kind of money is moving to or from a member of Congress."

"It is especially disconcerting when you have a member of the leadership, of either party, not putting in the effort to make sure this is a complete and accurate report," said Cooper. "That says something to other members. It says something to the Ethics Committee."

Other parts of the deal—such as the informal handling of property taxes—raise questions about possible gifts or income reportable to Congress and the IRS, ethics experts said.

*************************************************

Now THERE'S a guy who knows real estate!

Posted by Campesino | April 22, 2008 11:46 AM

Al, do you acknowledge any difference between guilt-by-association/where's-your-motherf*ing-flag-pin and examining the official acts of a legislator?

Let me guess, one's an "issue" and one's a non-"issue". What do I win?

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 11:48 AM

we got it 4 cheap,thats the mantra/nigga fuck zomba/i sell nose candy,Willy Wonka!!

Posted by Malik | April 22, 2008 11:50 AM

McCain's position, as I understand it, is *not* that if you write him a check he will never talk to you again; it is that whether you write him a check or not, he won't do something for you that he wouldn't do for another constituent and that is not in the public interest. I'll admit there is an access question (I bet Diamond gets his phone calls returned), but still - where in this story is the quid pro quo or corruption?.

So, has Rezko been indicted for influence peddling? Yes.

Has Diamond been similarly indicted, or investigated, or have questions even been raised? The Times overlooked that, although they mention a civil suit (Gee, a developer got sued!).

Now, was their something crooked about either Fort Ord deal (and yes, Matthew is conflating two separate transactions)? Do people imagine that these occured in secret, and that only Diamond and McCain were aware of them? Please. Every base closing is heavily scrutinized, people fret about the impact on the local economy, and politicians surround it.

Posted by Tom Maguire | April 22, 2008 12:09 PM

For what it's worth, his defense here of how this wasn't pandering, he'd do it for any constituent is exactly the same defense he used with Keating.

"He had adopted the blanket defense that Keating was a constituent and that he had every right to ask his senators for help. In attending the meetings, McCain said, he simply wanted to make sure that Keating was treated like any other constituent." (AZ Republic, March 1, 2007).

So glad to see how he learned so much and changed.

Posted by anon | April 22, 2008 12:09 PM

Here's a difference between Diamond and Rezko: There is, AFAIK, one highly ambiguous instance of Obama possibly doing a favor for Rezko, which may not even be something Rezko asked him to do.

The Times story documents multiple instances of McCain doing favors for Diamond, often at Diamond's particular request. In fact, according to Jim Kolbe, Diamond when proposed deals he asked specific members of Congress to work on them or not work on them so as to avoid making the corruption too obvious.

So Diamond is a hell of a lot more relevant than Rezko. Diamond seems to have bought lots of favors from McCain, and it's not apparent that Obama ever did a blessed thing for Obama.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 22, 2008 12:11 PM

Um, that Obama ever did a blessed thing for Rezko.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 22, 2008 12:13 PM

And is this a joke? Giving away $250k in TAXPAYER PROPERTY in a fire sale to a guy who turns around and sells it for $20 million?

Want to know why your taxes are so high? Part of it is that the government sold $20m worth of property for about 1% of what it was actually worth.

If you think that's considered normal government behavior...well, then call me. I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you, my friend.

Posted by anonymous | April 22, 2008 12:16 PM

This is also interesting:

In 1998, the Fort Ord Reuse Authority planning team received the American Planning Association’s Outstanding Planning Award for Comprehensive Planning in a Small Jurisdiction, and former Defense Secretary William Perry deemed Fort Ord a "national model” for base conversion.

A year later they went into the tank for McCain, if we can believe the Times.

USA Today had a 2002 piece about how Fort Ord got sucked into California's afffordable housing mightmare.

Posted by Tom Maguire | April 22, 2008 12:20 PM

The NyTimes failed to mention that Diamond is a big AIPAC man as well. Just like Jack Abramoff, Diamond uses political juice for his business deals and he has the political cover of the Israel Lobby.

If the media reported all of these dual loyalties, we may not be in Iraq right now.

Posted by del | April 22, 2008 12:24 PM

Seriously, wtf, how did he get "hundreds of undeveloped acres and two golf courses in the ocean-misted hills overlooking Monterey Bay, one of California’s great tourist destinations" for $250K? You couldn't even buy a trailer home for that.

That said, it's unclear from the article (and MY made a big oversight in not putting the purchase price of $250K next to his big $20 million dollar profit) exactly how many acres this guy bought, and it sounds like he didn't get the golf course. But if he sold it for $30 million for a $20 million dollar profit, it must have been a decent sized chunk of real estate. McCain's complicity might not be too severe, but this Diamond guy sounds like a douche getting rich off the public teat.

Posted by TheF79 | April 22, 2008 12:27 PM

TheF79 -
To be a smidgen fair, the thousands of acres (I think it was around 6000) consisted mostly of scrubland that used to be training range. There was literally thousands of unexploded rounds lying all over the place.

There was a serious proposal to just burn the whole area, hoping to cook off the rounds because the task of de-mining the land was so complex.

Unexploded mortar rounds lying around has got to depress land prices.

Again - I'm not trying to defend this highway robbery.

Posted by calipygian | April 22, 2008 12:39 PM

Here's a difference between Diamond and Rezko: There is, AFAIK, one highly ambiguous instance of Obama possibly doing a favor for Rezko, which may not even be something Rezko asked him to do.

The Times story documents multiple instances of McCain doing favors for Diamond, often at Diamond's particular request. In fact, according to Jim Kolbe, Diamond when proposed deals he asked specific members of Congress to work on them or not work on them so as to avoid making the corruption too obvious.

So Diamond is a hell of a lot more relevant than Rezko. Diamond seems to have bought lots of favors from McCain, and it's not apparent that Obama ever did a blessed thing for Obama.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 22, 2008 12:11 PM

*************************************************

You're right, there is a huge difference. The NYT article churns through several favors McCain did for Diamond and somehow can't come up with a single instance where McCain was financially involved with him or personally profited from the transactions.
************************************************

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483

In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.

Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times, "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe he had done me a favor."

Obama had known Rezko long before the house deal, calling him a "friend."

An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation.
*************************************************

So a soon-to-be indicted guy directs $120,000 of campaign contributions to Obama and spends $625,000 out of pocket on property he doesn't need so Obama can save $300,000 on the price of his house.

A HUGE difference: Obama is ahead $420,000 for writing one letter and the NYT can't find McCain is ahead anything for writing several. Obama is obviously a much better business man. Has he been tutored by Harry Reid?

Posted by Campesino | April 22, 2008 12:41 PM

Here's a difference between Diamond and Rezko: There is, AFAIK, one highly ambiguous instance of Obama possibly doing a favor for Rezko, which may not even be something Rezko asked him to do.

The Times story documents multiple instances of McCain doing favors for Diamond, often at Diamond's particular request. In fact, according to Jim Kolbe, Diamond when proposed deals he asked specific members of Congress to work on them or not work on them so as to avoid making the corruption too obvious.

So Diamond is a hell of a lot more relevant than Rezko. Diamond seems to have bought lots of favors from McCain, and it's not apparent that Obama ever did a blessed thing for Obama.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 22, 2008 12:11 PM

*************************************************

You're right, there is a huge difference. The NYT article churns through several favors McCain did for Diamond and somehow can't come up with a single instance where McCain was financially involved with him or personally profited from the transactions.
************************************************

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4111483

In sharp contrast to his tough talk about ethics reform in government, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., approached a well-known Illinois political fixer under active federal investigation, Antoin "Tony" Rezko, for "advice" as he sought to find a way to buy a house shortly after being elected to the United States Senate.

The parcel included an adjacent lot which Obama told the Chicago Tribune he could not afford because "it was already a stretch to buy the house."

On the same day Obama closed on his house, Rezko's wife bought the adjacent empty lot, meeting the condition of the seller who wanted to sell both properties at the same time.

Rezko had been widely reported to be under investigation by the U.S. attorney and the FBI at the time Obama contacted him and has since been indicted on corruption charges by a federal grand jury in a case that prosecutors say involves bribes, kickbacks and "efforts to illegally obtain millions of dollars."

Rezko's behind-the-scenes connection in the Obama house deal became public as Rezko revealed personal financial details as he sought to post bail.

While Rezko's wife paid the full asking price for the land, Obama paid $300,000 under the asking price for the house. The house sold for $1,650,000 and the price Rezko's wife paid for the land was $625,000.

Obama later told the Chicago Sun-Times, "It was a mistake to have been engaged with him at all in this or any other personal business dealing that would allow him, or anyone else, to believe he had done me a favor."

Obama had known Rezko long before the house deal, calling him a "friend."

An ABC News review of campaign records shows Rezko, and people connected to him, contributed more than $120,000 to Obama's 2004 campaign for the U.S. Senate, much of it at a time when Rezko was the target of an FBI investigation.
*************************************************

So a soon-to-be indicted guy directs $120,000 of campaign contributions to Obama and spends $625,000 out of pocket on property he doesn't need so Obama can save $300,000 on the price of his house.

A HUGE difference: Obama is ahead $420,000 for writing one letter and the NYT can't find McCain is ahead anything for writing several. Obama is obviously a much better business man. Has he been tutored by Harry Reid?

Posted by Campesino | April 22, 2008 12:45 PM

why are we getting all of these McCain stories when we no one is paying attention. On the same day as the PA primary? Sounds like a favor to me.

Posted by Bubba | April 22, 2008 12:45 PM

Sorry - don't know why that showed up twice

Posted by Campesino | April 22, 2008 12:51 PM

A HUGE difference: Obama is ahead $420,000 for writing one letter and the NYT can't find McCain is ahead anything for writing several. Obama is obviously a much better business man. Has he been tutored by Harry Reid?

************************************************

Oops - Diamond has given McCain $55,000 in campaign contributions over 26 years. I stand by my statement on Obama's superior business skillz!

Posted by Campesino | April 22, 2008 12:56 PM

TheF79 -
To be a smidgen fair, the thousands of acres (I think it was around 6000) consisted mostly of scrubland that used to be training range. There was literally thousands of unexploded rounds lying all over the place.

There was a serious proposal to just burn the whole area, hoping to cook off the rounds because the task of de-mining the land was so complex.

Unexploded mortar rounds lying around has got to depress land prices.

Again - I'm not trying to defend this highway robbery.

Posted by calipygian | April 22, 2008 12:39 PM

************************************************

Not only UXO (I've met several people who worked there on the UXO surveys) but it's a superfund site

http://www.mapcruzin.com/fotp/index.html

Posted by Campesino | April 22, 2008 1:08 PM

Tom Maguire, it is probably legal for McCain to do favors for campaign contributors; but as is often said, the scandal is what's legal, not what isn't. It hurts the American public when developers like Diamond are able to get sweetheart deals from the government because the politicians they fund do favors for them.

And Campesino, it's very funny that you claim that McCain never got anything from Diamond when the story reports, multiple times, that Diamond gave McCain campaign contributions and expected favors in return. The Rezko land-purchase story is extraordinarily thin (and your claim that Obama made $420k from it is a joke); it's been reported that there was another offer on the extra strip, so Obama didn't even need Rezko to make an offer in order to purchase the house. Now, maybe you know something that contradicts this that hasn't been discovered by the reporter's who've been working on this for years but I doubt it. It looks like there's smoke but no fire here.

But, as other commenters have suggested, if we can see a couple months' worth of coverage of McCain's ties to Diamond, and they don't turn up any evidence of quid pro quos (oops, they have already), we'll call it even.

Posted by Matt Weiner | April 22, 2008 1:12 PM

The Rezko land-purchase story is extraordinarily thin (and your claim that Obama made $420k from it is a joke); it's been reported that there was another offer on the extra strip, so Obama didn't even need Rezko to make an offer in order to purchase the house.
************************************************

So if he didn't need Rezko why did he ask him for help? Why did Rezko pay full price for property he didn't want and Obama get a 15% discount? Some joke - we should all have such "friends"

Obama gets $120,000 in contributions in one campaign and McCain gets $55,000 over 26 years. Obama's way ahead of McCain. Must be that Harvard Law degree.

Posted by Campesino | April 22, 2008 1:33 PM

But, as other commenters have suggested, if we can see a couple months' worth of coverage of McCain's ties to Diamond, and they don't turn up any evidence of quid pro quos (oops, they have already), we'll call it even.

If Diamond were ever indicted for corruption, you're damned right there'd be "a couple months' worth of coverage". But seeing as how, unlike Rezko, Diamond hasn't been indicted...

And yet, of course, Matthew and others on the Left think that a shady financial deal with someone indicted for corruption is not an "issue", it's awfully odd that you seem to think that a financial deal with someone not indicted for corruption is an "issue". Or, it would be odd for non-hypocrites, at least.

Posted by Al | April 22, 2008 1:36 PM

Campesino? A hint: using the established conventions for quotes in replies (blockquote or italics) would mean that you look like a standard wingut, rather than a wingnut spammer.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 22, 2008 1:52 PM

If Diamond were ever indicted for corruption, you're damned right there'd be "a couple months' worth of coverage". But seeing as how, unlike Rezko, Diamond hasn't been indicted...

This is an excellent measure of what the media should care about. Because, you know, the Department of Justice has been run in such a thorough and nonpartisan manner in the past several years.

You're welcome to keep flogging the Rezko angle, but it's hard to figure how that story has been undercovered in some respect.

Posted by southpaw | April 22, 2008 1:57 PM

"If Diamond were ever indicted for corruption, you're damned right there'd be "a couple months' worth of coverage". But seeing as how, unlike Rezko, Diamond hasn't been indicted..."

The Bush DOJ? Who are you kidding? Now, if Diamond was a lesbian, different story.

Posted by mkultra | April 22, 2008 2:28 PM