MSNBC's Carlson falsely suggested Rezko purchased Obama's house
On the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson falsely suggested that Chicago Democratic fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko had purchased Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) Chicago home for Obama. Referring to a June 14 New York Times article on Obama and Rezko's relationship, Carlson said of Obama: "[I]t's like, buy your own house. You know what I mean? I think a normal person would have concluded that" -- a reference to a 2005 real estate deal Obama entered into with Rezko.
In fact, Rezko's wife purchased a lot adjacent to the house on which the Obamas had successfully bid, reportedly to meet the seller's demand that both properties be sold at once. The Times reported:
People familiar with the transaction said that the sellers did not want to close until that June 15, and that the sale would go through only if someone bought the adjacent lot from them on the same date. Rita Rezko paid $625,000 to outbid others for the lot and later sold the Obamas one-sixth of that land, for $104,500.
The Chicago-Sun Times reported on February 23 that Rita Rezko sold the remainder of the lot to a law firm owned by her husband's business attorney in late 2006. According to the Sun-Times, Rezko's profit from both sales totaled $54,500.
In October 2006, Rezko was indicted on charges that he "used his influence as one of Gov. Rod Blagojevich's closest advisers and fundraisers to seek millions of dollars in kickbacks and campaign donations from firms seeking state business," according to the Chicago Tribune.
Carlson also claimed that Obama is "hiding" something, adding: "Already the campaign has said, we never -- Barack Obama never did any favors for Mr. Rezko. According to The New York Times, the state legislature -- legislator -- Mr. Obama wrote letters to state and city officials supporting Mr. Rezko's business efforts, from which Rezko profited close to a million dollars. So he did do favors for the guy." However, as Media Matters for America noted, the Chicago Sun-Times, which first reported on Obama's letters on June 13, also reported that Rezko's attorney said that Rezko "never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project," and an Obama campaign spokesman said that "I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter" -- undermining the suggestion that the letters were a "favor" from Obama.
During the same segment, Carlson's guest, Weekly Standard senior editor Andrew Ferguson, stated that "Illinois politics is uniquely corrupt, and anybody who succeeds in it is going to sooner or later wind up in bed with a man like this Rezko fellow," and claimed that "you can't get away from this in Illinois politics, and nobody has, and sure enough, Barack Obama's one of them." Carlson remarked: "Now here we find out that Barack Obama is living in this very expensive house that he got with the help of an apparently sleazy campaign contributor. Basically, he's as greedy as anybody else." Carlson made this comment after his other guest, former congressman Tom Andrews (D-ME), pointed out that the June 14 New York Times article noted that "[t]here is no sign that Mr. Obama ... did anything improper."
Ferguson is the author of a June 10 Washington Post op-ed about former Vice President Al Gore's book, The Assault on Reason (Penguin Press, May 2007), for which the Post had to run a correction undermining a key point in Ferguson's lead paragraph. Ferguson claimed in the lead that the book does not have footnotes. Ferguson wrote: "You can't really blame Al Gore for not using footnotes in his new book, 'The Assault on Reason.' It's a sprawling, untidy blast of indignation, and annotating it with footnotes would be like trying to slip rubber bands around a puddle of quicksilver." The Post's correction noted that "[t]he book contains 20 pages of endnotes." At no point during his appearance on the June 14 edition of Tucker did Carlson ask Ferguson about the Post op-ed or its essential falsehood.
From the June 14 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Today's Obameter is showing a slightly lukewarm reading. The latest NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll shows the Illinois senator has fallen six points more behind Hillary Clinton. Meanwhile, the front page of today's New York Times explored the relationship between Obama and a longtime supporter named Antoin Rezko. Last fall, Rezko was indicted for fraud and influence-peddling in state government. Obama has implied that he really wasn't that close to Rezko. The Times reports otherwise. Will it matter?
Joining us once again, Tom Andrews, national director of Win Without War, and former Democratic congressman from the state of Maine, and Andrew Ferguson of The Weekly Standard, also author of an excellent new book on Abraham Lincoln.
Andy, I think a lot of people -- maybe you're among them -- are really hoping that Barack Obama will stop Hillary before she rules the world. Everybody I know, every Democrat I know -- I say this every single day -- prefers Obama to Hillary. Most Americans don't, when voting Democrat. Why is that? Why hasn't --
FERGUSON: Well, I think they realize that once Obama stops Hillary, we're going to wish that Hillary will turn around and stop Obama, once we get to know him. You know, this thing -- and we are just getting to know him, that's part of the point of this Times story and why it's so interesting. And it shows why there hasn't really been a serious presidential candidate from Illinois since 1956, Adlai Stevenson. Illinois politics is uniquely corrupt, and anybody who succeeds in it is going to sooner or later wind up in bed with a man like this Rezko fellow. Pols in Illinois keep guys like him around to help with the real estate deal here, maybe to give their cousin a job, or fill up a board seat there. You know, this is -- you can't get away from this in Illinois politics, and nobody has, and sure enough, Barack Obama's one of them.
CARLSON: I think his --
ANDREWS: [Former Sen.] Paul Simon [D-IL]?
CARLSON: -- his opponents are definitely banking on it. It actually doesn't look that great, Tom. This land sale -- this Rezko helped the Obamas buy their house. It's a very expensive house. The Times reports, quote, "The land sale occurred after it had been reported that Mr. Rezko was under federal investigation." Now, this is odd behavior for anybody, but particularly for a politician who is running on his own personal ethics. What explains this?
ANDREWS: Well, we need to an upfront explanation that is consistent. I think what Barack Obama has done is fallen into the trap where you sort of try to dismiss the story before it takes hold. He says, "Well, you know, he was a one-time fundraiser, I really didn't know him very well." Turns out he's been involved in more than one campaign in terms of fundraising --
CARLSON: Oh, yeah. For years!
ANDREWS: -- he's had, you know, an ongoing relationship with him. So, people are going to find that out, obviously. It's going to get reported, and the story is going to keep going, and you're going to be backtracking and you're going to look like you've got something to hide. That's the problem. I don't know if he has anything to hide --
CARLSON: Well, he is hiding! He is. Already the campaign has said, we never -- Barack Obama never did any favors for Mr. Rezko. According to The New York Times, the state legislature -- legislator -- Mr. Obama wrote letters to state and city officials supporting Mr. Rezko's business efforts, from which Rezko profited close to a million dollars. So he did do favors for the guy.
ANDREWS: Well, I think what Barack Obama has to do is address this particular story, that particular allegation. Up to this point, if I'd even -- the story in today's Times says, look, there was nothing improper here, but the questions that it raises just needs to be addressed, and they need to be put to bed. Maybe there is, you know, an explanation, which oftentimes there is, that can straighten this out and clear things up, and so he should just come out and lay it out --
CARLSON: But it fails the hypocrisy test [unintelligible]. Barack Obama gets up, I believe it was in New Hampshire recently, gave a commencement speech at a university, and he said, "I hope a lot of you don't do the obvious thing and choose money when you leave, choose the highest paying job." Now, here we find out that Barack Obama is living in this very expensive house that he got with the help of an apparently sleazy campaign contributor. Basically, he's as greedy as anybody else. Maybe you shouldn't say things like that in public if you're running for office.
FERGUSON: Yeah, but of course -- I guess what he means is he hasn't really made the killing that he might have been able to make as some Illinois politicians have been able to do. His problem here now is now a second-order problem which is, how do you explain this sort of thing? And he hasn't explained it very well, Partly there's a hypocrisy problem. But he's also come out and said my mistake was allowing this guy to help me with the real estate deal, and do something that appeared to be a favor. Well, it didn't appear to be a favor, it was a favor. If this guy hadn't interceded, they wouldn't have been able to buy this $1.6 million house, and so now he finds himself -- pretty soon he's going to have a third-order problem, which is to explain what he said in the second time that the problem came around. You know, it becomes a tar baby.
CARLSON: It's definitely bad judgment. I mean, there's no doubt -- it's like, buy your own house. You know what I mean? I think a normal person would have concluded that.
I think a normal person can also now conclude that Tucker wouldn't know a fact if it kicked him in the groin.
I am the hero who never fails, I can't be bothered with those details!
Now there is an analogy you don't see every day. :-)
What's that Chauncy?
Dude, your dictionary must still be defective. That's not an analogy.
After reading through the article above it does seem to me a bit of Clintonesque parsing to say Rezko didn't help Obama when it was Rezko's wife who did.
She then sells part of that land to Obama. (Or was it to Obama's wife?) and the rest of the land to Rezko's buisness partner's law firm. Rezko and his wife profit $54,000.
I'm a normal person, (contrary to some accusations to the contrary,) and it looks to me like Obama had help buying his house from a somewhat shady character.
Oops.. I mean the shady character's wife. Yeah. That's the ticket. Nothing shady here...
Stop whining. If you're looking for something shady, there's no need to search out a gnat, look at the criminal Repugnicants you put in office and you will find so many real scandals we lost count a long time ago.
The Rezkos never owned Obama's house. They purchased the adjacent property, which was owned by the prior owner of Obama's house. Subsequent to buying the house, Obama purchased a piece of the Rezkos property for a price prorated based on the price the Rezkos paid for the entire adjacent property.
I suppose someone can still be of the opinion that the arrangement amounted to assistance. However, at least they can make the judgment based upon the facts, not your insinuations.
“After reading through the article above it does seem to me a bit of Clintonesque parsing to say Rezko didn't help Obama when it was Rezko's wife who did.”
This article is kind of trivial because it’s only addressing a remark Carlson made at the end of the segment. The comment by Carlson telling Obama to “buy your own house” suggests that Obama didn’t buy his house (I think MMFA is stretching it though). The article has nothing to do with Rezko helping him because apparently he did.
“I'm a normal person, (contrary to some accusations to the contrary,) and it looks to me like Obama had help buying his house from a somewhat shady character.
Oops.. I mean the shady character's wife. Yeah. That's the ticket. Nothing shady here...”
Media Matters is not refuting this. They only mention his wife because she was the one that brought the lot adjacent to Obama's House.
There's also the issue of the letters. Unasked for and in support of his constitutes. I don't see any information on the the supposed favors.
"Rezko's attorney said that Rezko "never spoke with, nor sought a letter from, Senator Obama in connection with that project," and an Obama campaign spokesman said that "I don't know that anyone specifically asked him to write this letter" -- undermining the suggestion that the letters were a "favor" from Obama."
That doesn't sound a little lawyerly fishy to you?
Hey Libby, that helmet must be choking the oxygen supply to your brain.
I guess Carlson's gist is that we shouldn't vote for Obama because he's greedy and instead wants us to vote for someone whose **** smells like roses and who has pranced barefoot through the clouds above the moral high ground his entire life. Someone like a, uh....Republican?
Media Matters, Tucker Carlson, even Ferguson do not realize the ignorance or racism that eeks through the whitespace of their comments.
How much has Hill/Bill had from unscrupulous types to assist them in attaining the $50 or so million they are liquidating before the media gets hold of the personal favoritism they've received due to being a former President and Wife.
Obama purchased a property that was owned by Rezko's wife, who knows if they would have been able to afford the property. Tucker Carlson and his sidekick are not realizing the racism eeking when they discuss the size of Obama's house, the price that it cost and making such comments as him not being able to afford his house. He and his wife can damn well afford their house, they may not have the 850 credit score that would have put them in the first tier to upgrade to elite status, but to say they could not afford or make any comment related to unequal biases are evident.
Media Matters, others, Obama is running in a race where the country is 80% racist, and each day the racism appears from whites, just as the self-hate appears from Blacks that speak negatively about a candidate who is not bad-mouthing the other senator, who was born in Illinois. Stop your ignorance, it's embarrassing.
Every red-blooded American is greedy, so to point the fingers at the Obamas causes people to only point four fingers back at themselves.
"Every red-blooded American is greedy"??? Rather a broad brush, as I assume all of us Americans have blood that is colored red; and some of us are actually not greedy.
Back to the article: the point of the segment on Carlson's show was to cast aspersions on Obama. That kind of sniping does not further the political discourse at all and is unfortunately the kind of stuff that passes for insight on cable and network programming.