The major New York Times story on the "perks" Biden received during his time in office is fascinating for how clean Biden comes out. Reading the article, you have to give it to the Times. They tried. Biden has been in office for three decades. It seems almost inevitable that some thorough reporting would dig up some financial dirt. And the reporting was thorough. They talked to -- and quoted -- his loan officer from decades ago, his landscaper, the MBNA executive who purchased his house. But they can't quite get anywhere with it. Which ends up making for a weird story. You get sentences like "the acquisition of his waterfront property a decade ago involved wealthy businessmen and campaign supporters, some of them bankers with an interest in legislation before the Senate, who bought his old house for top dollar, sold him four acres at cost and lent him $500,000 to build his new home," followed by sentences like, "There is nothing to suggest Mr. Biden bent any rules in the sale, purchase and financing of his homes." Forget broke. They don't even have evidence that Biden "bent" rules! Rather, we learn things like, "The bank did not give him a below-market interest rate, a perk that has caused embarrassment for some other members of Congress. But, Mr. Tennant [his loan officer] said, 'We paid particularly close attention to make sure everything came out right.'" So Biden got a loan at market rate from the bank and the bank made sure they didn't screw-up while dealing with a United States Senator. Elsewhere we find that Biden charges his campaign committee for a couple thousand in landscaping a yar. Why? To beautify the home before campaign events. Or so he says. Meanwhile, the Times manages to quote his landscaper saying "Mr. Biden was 'late paying the bill one time.'" Later in the article, we learn that Biden bought a former DuPont mansion in 1975 for $185,000 after learning it was slated for demolition. He spent the next two decades fixing it up, then sold it to John Cochran III, Vice-Chairman of MBNA. That's a bit odd. Cochran bought the place for $1.2 million, which could potentially demonstrate scandal. Sometimes a wealthy supporter buys a home for above-market value and then sells it, or eats the loss, to help out the politician. But it turns out that $1.2 million was the home's appraisal value, and Cochran is still living in it today. So what you end up with is a long story that clearly required immense investigative work, but didn't unearth any real dirt. The New York Times had to publish something, particularly given its critical scrutiny of Palin, but they ended up with very little to say. Which is a rather large compliment to Joe Biden. 30 years in national politics and a team of investigative reporters can't dredge up even minor financial improprieties? What's he been doing all this time?
