KHOW's Caplis baselessly claimed Obama bought house "for 300 grand less than market value"
Summary: Discussing Sen. Barack Obama's Chicago home purchase, 630 KHOW-AM's Dan Caplis on March 4 made the baseless suggestion that the Democratic presidential candidate received a discount because of the intervention of now-indicted businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko. Caplis further claimed that the purported relationship "will expose Obama as being right in the middle of that Chicago political corrupt culture." But Bloomberg News has reported that the sellers "said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land."
On his March 4 630 KHOW-AM broadcast, co-host Dan Caplis baselessly asserted that, through the intervention of the since-indicted Chicago businessman Antoin "Tony" Rezko, Sen. Barack Obama bought his house "for 300 grand less than market value." Caplis claimed that Rezko's purported participation in Obama's real estate transaction "will expose Obama as being right in the middle of that Chicago political corrupt culture." As Media Matters for America has noted, according to a February 18 Bloomberg News article, "[t]he couple who sold Barack Obama his Chicago home said the Illinois senator's $1.65 million bid 'was the best offer' and they didn't cut their asking price because a campaign donor bought their adjacent land, according to e-mails between Obama's presidential campaign and the seller."
Caplis referred to Mike Littwin's March 4 Rocky Mountain News column, which stated that "Obama did buy land next door to [Rezko] and purchased a strip of land from him in what Obama calls a 'boneheaded' decision."
From the March 4 broadcast of 630 KHOW-AM's The Caplis & Silverman Show:
CAPLIS: He's been right in the middle of that corrupt political culture, and, in fact, to an extreme, because you can look at this guy or this gal, and you can say, "You know, they took money for their campaign from a lobbyist, from a political fixer." But Barack Obama took it for himself. I mean, that is the fair inference from what happened in that land deal, is -- and it's hilarious. I hope we can get Mike Littwin on the show today, because the way Mike tried to gloss over this joint venture by Barack Obama and this political fixer, political fund raiser in Chicago who went on trial yesterday, was hilarious. You know, I'm paraphrasing, but Mike described it as something like, "Oh, Rezko bought a lot next to Obama."
No. I mean, and this is what will expose Obama as being right in the middle of that Chicago political corrupt culture. They go out, and Barack Obama wants to buy a mansion. OK, all right. That's fine. You know, he wants to go out and buy a mansion. It's about two million bucks, and there's a lot next door that's listed for 695 thousand for just the lot. Well, Barack Obama's got a problem. He can't afford that lot. So what ends up happening, well, this Tony Rezko guy -- Hillary Clinton described him as a slum lord -- this Rezko guy comes in, and he looks at the house with Obama. They've known each other for a long time.
He looks at the house with Obama, and then on the same day Obama buys the house for 300 grand less than market value, Rezko -- same day -- buys the lot next door for full market value. Well, holy cow! What a coincidence! So I think the fair read on that is that Barack Obama personally -- not just his campaign, which is bad enough -- but personally got a tremendous -- meaning, fair to say, I think, in the hundreds of thousands of dollars -- tremendous personal financial benefit from this political fixer and lobby -- and fund raiser in Chicago. I mean, that is typical South Side Chicago corruption.
The Chicago Tribune first reported on the purchase of the adjacent properties by the Obamas and Rezko's wife on November 1, 2006. The Tribune reported that the owner of the house and the adjacent lot listed them as separate properties and that Obama paid $1.65 million for the house -- $300,000 less than the asking price -- while Rezko's wife paid the asking price of $625,000 for the lot. On November 5, 2006, the Chicago Sun-Times published a Q&A in which the paper asked Obama: "Why is it that you were able to buy your parcel for $300,000 less than the asking price, and Rita Rezko paid full price? Who negotiated this end of the deal? Did whoever negotiated it have any contact with Rita and Tony Rezko or their Realtor or lawyer?" In a written response, Obama stated:
Our agent negotiated only with the seller's agent. As we understood it, the house had been listed for some time, for months, and our offer was one of two and, as we understood it, it was the best offer. The original listed price was too high for the market at the time, and we understood that the sellers, who were anxious to move, were prepared to sell the house for what they paid for it, which is what they did.
—E.B. & J.F.B.
to listen to this audio clip
Comments (8) Show
1 - 8 |
Caplis has been on a month-long+ despicable smear campaign of Obama -- Obama wears the clothing of Bin Laden, Obama won't stand up to Farrakhan, Obama isn't patriotic b/c he doesn't wear flag lapel pin, Michelle Obama hates America, and now Rezko.
The major problem with this joke of a show is that all of these ridiculous charges are easily refuted, but unfortuately Silverman is routinely not prepared and doesn't represent a true progessive/liberal/Democratic/left-of-center etc point of view.
Why is poor Dan ripping Obama ? . . . makin' stuff up ? . . . ya hear better comment on Rush Street at 2 a.m. What's he afraid of ? Where's talk about issues ? Zip, zero, nada ! C'mon, we deserve to hear better.
You're absolutely right, CTB and JERRYC. But with sniffer you NEVER get anything but smear. No substance, no issues, no policy positions. Don't forget the "attended the Muslim Madrassa" scam. Add that one to the list as well. This recent phony connection to the fund raiser is a swiftboat tactic that sniffer's bein' faxed. When it fails to get traction sniffer will trot out some other garbage that his gullable goober listeners will swallow hook, line and sinker. sniffer's nerve and lack of even a shred of decency are beyond contempt. But in the end, I guess, it's just a case of a red liar ror hire simply being a red liar for hire.
Sorry, forgot to add that I agree completely about Silverman. This dolt IS routinely unprepared and is obviously along for the ride. But truth be known, I don't think sniffer's got the debating skills to "move up" to a more formidable partner. Silverman's flailing around, caving in, and general sissy responses make sniffer look better and sharper than he really is. Remember young Jesse Lange from Boulder High? At 17 years old he took sniffer , Silverman AND billo to the woodshed a while back. With his skills, I'm glad sniffer ain't my lawyer!
Goodness, Caplis is the gift that keeps on giving….or should I say the grifter that keeps on grifting? Lo and behold, the guy who apparently drove a Clark Griswold Lincoln SUV for years, now has the revelation that he likes Chevy Tahoes—right at the time he gets to drive a free one while they promote them on the air. What a coincidence! I hope this idealistic and moralistic man will remind every big SUV driver in EACH AND EVERY Chevy commercial that Caplis believes they are aiding terrorists with every purchase. He’s said as much on-air. After all, he goofed up and forgot to tell spa buyers he would never own one with small kids in the household when he promoted spas. Certainly he won’t forget this national defence issue. Caplis is glossing over the MPG/big SUV already, and touting the hybrid Tahoe coming out/ethanol use, etc. Don’t be fooled and if you read the reviews, a vast amount of owners of Tahoe’s complain ‘Gas Guzzler’ and mileage not as promised.
Anyone can drive anything they like, but watch the Caplis spin on everything that surrounds him with wonder and amusement. And no doubt Caplis will tout the safety (not the roll over safety) of a big SUV. Fair enough, but there is a converse side to that. If the big SUV driver is at fault, drunk driving, or otherwise plasters a smaller vehicle, is Caplis going to offer himself as law-suit fodder for anyone hit by a that big SUV, when owners may buy the monster on Dan’s recommendation, causing untold harm to an innocent driver? I hope so. After all, that’s what he plugs on-air besides big SUV’s—lawsuits and himself.
Should Chevy or anyone else use this guy to promote anything? Just my opinion.I agree that Silverman is clearly along for the ride. I almost drove off the road the other day when I heard Silverman brag about how he's a "free agent" and he could support John McCain. How the supposed progressive voice of this show express such a position is beyond me?
This is how this show works -- Caplis smears Obama for days (weeks actually) and Silverman responds with his man-crush on McCain. It's going to be a long 8 months.
And thank you CMM, for pointing out the details of Obama’s below market real estate offer. $300,000 discount on a $1.65 million dollar offer? Wouldn’t you? And thank you Dan Caplis, for swinging another door wide open for scrutiny of you during your political advancement. It will be a fair inquiry if he ever made low offers for real estate. Regarding his neighbor, mentioned on air, and who seems to have connections in the ski industry and the Vail Valley, it would be interesting to know the details of Dan’s presumed real estate purchase up there, and how it came about. Dan prominently mentions losses on Qwest stock during the dot com meltdown, just like most every stockholder did at the time. But as one of his best friends is counsel to Qwest, it would be interesting what later stock purchases and conversations they’ve had about Qwest. Has Dan done anything unethical in these two cases? Unlikely. But they are fair game and with the vast circle of friends in Dan’s World, it would be interesting. Did Dan receive speaking fees (as Letkemann alluded to), Catholic Register advertising discounts, or anything else of value from the Catholic Church?
Also, Caplis has made untold and probably vast amounts of money from his exposure on-air for his legal practice. He must certainly cherry pick his case load for the most lucrative lawsuits, and has even boasted that nearly all his cases settle out-of-court. How convenient, in effort and time savings. By the way, how often did Caplis ‘refer’ off the cases he didn’t like or have time for? Did he receive referral fees or anything else of value from those he referred the cases? Certainly some of those cases originated from his unsponsored radio exposure, and is it ethical to gain personally or financially in that way? All are fair questions.
Continued and jmo,Part 2 of 2
Some ethics issues are clearer cut. It was laughable when Caplis said Obama was not a man of action, and only words, in defending Israel. Then Caplis has the audacity to say, ‘I went out and worked my tail for George Bush cause I knew George bush would stand up for Israel.. that’s action…’. What a reach to begin with on Caplis’ part! But wait, another door swings wide open! Caplis says he has been working hard and not just giving opinions over the last years for George Bush?! Uh, Oh, again, Dan. Certainly, that would include all your Bush promotion on-air, would it not? You know, there is something called political plugola, too. And there are sponsorship and disclosure laws and rules on the books about doing or receiving gains from on-air promotion. And look who plinked down major cash to have an audience with the Prez and help elect Bob Schaffer. It is important to remember that Caplis isn’t a Mike Rosen style conservative or a Craig Silverman liberal, airing their beliefs with at least some removal from the political parties or special interest groups. In fact, why Dan deserves to abuse a press pass (for himself and his family, apparently) as he resembles nothing in journalism, is amazing. Caplis is knee deep in political and personal self-interest.
Caplis has already admitted, in my opinion, to Plugola, which is a violation of FCC laws and rules. As mentioned, Caplis said: ‘I open the show by mentioning that I’m a plaintiff’s lawyer, I’ve mentioned it, I haven’t counted, but at least five other times in this show. I mention it so often that people accuse me, with some degree of truth, of doing it as self promotion, as free advertising, for my law practice….’. Case closed.
(Sections 317 and 507 of the Communications Act and the Commission's Rule 73.1212, penalties outlined in Section 507).
Dan might try to weasel his way out with the twisted logic of saying that his constant on-air mention of doing law-suits is disclosure of his constant plugola, funneling in more business and the need for more mention of his practice and more disclosure! Try that in court, Dan. Is that the ‘Everyone knew Jessie James robbed banks, so it is the bank’s fault’ defense?
Violations of the payola/plugola policy can mean fines up to $10,000 or imprisonment up to a year, or both, for each violation. Clear Channel and Dan should add up what that would mean for 15 odd years of self-promotion, let alone political self-promotion, and the station for allowing it to happen. Keep talkin’, Dan. Just my opinion.1 - 20 |