Edwards: Enough About Fortress

The John Edwards campaign has an internal name for the troika of issue and image stories that opponents have seized on to question his character... The Three Hs -- "Hair" -- as in expensive cut, "House," as in huge NC house and "Hedge Funds" as in his work for Fortress Investments and the foreclosures Fortress was involved in.

One of those "H's" rears its head in an interview Edwards conducted with Nevada's National Public Radio. And Sen. Edwards is not terribly keen to talk about it.

Dave Burns is the host.

Edwards calls the question a "personal attack."

At one point, he says: "I've said enough about that. What's your next question?"

And later, when Burns persists:

"Have you asked me about the millions of dollars Elizabeth and I have spent...to help give [kids kids who don't have after school programs, to help provide scholarships to kids...."

Comments

Oh yeah. This looks really good... Edwards doesn't realize what a big problem this has already become.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | November 5, 2007 9:57 PM

So it is okay for Edwards to call people questioning his $400 haircuts, his six-figure salary with a hedge-fund that is directly linked with shutting hundreds of homes in IA and LA and his massive mansion while he flies to CA to give a speech on poverty while accepting $50,000 from that same institution a personal attack and then he goes around IA and calls Hillary "corrupt", "doubletalk" and "dishonest" and that is not a personal attack? Give me a break, pretty boy!

Posted by American for Peace | November 5, 2007 11:11 PM

How about a little context. This interview was set up to talk about his speech today on Iran. Over teh weekend, the Las Vegas Review Journal ran a ridiculous article on Saturday that reported, for the second time, that Edwards was responsible for personally evicting 38 senior citizens from mobile homes. It ran under the ehadline "Edwards' Client Predator." The story mentioned Edwards worked for Fortress after it had already acquired Green Tree LLC but before Green Tree filed for the foreclosures -- but still implied that Edwards was personally responsible. Then on Sunday, it ran the same item as part of a regular weekly news round-up.

The radio station screened calls and told anyone who wasn't gonig to ask about Fortress that it couldn't take their call. I know because I called and it happened to me. I stated my question, and was told that today's interview was only about Fortress. This is frickin' NPR and they won't ask a question that isn't about a ridiculously one-sided right-wing slam job.

The first three callers all ask questions right off of the Clinton talking points.

And Berns follows up with more.

Frankly I heard that interview and realized that the press in America is no longer killing American democracy.

Its already dead.

Posted by Gus | November 6, 2007 12:16 AM

By the way, "American for Peace." It obviously gives you a great deal of satisfaction to make anonymous taunts on a blog ("pretty boy," did you ever feel powerful when you wrote that, huh?) - but just answer me something. We both agree that rich people are scum (the gist of your comment) but what about Edwards' proposals do you disagree with?

If a homeless person with no sight advocated the same positions, would they be more "authentic"?

Posted by Gus | November 6, 2007 1:06 AM

Gus seems to be right in regards to NPR. Ron Elving at NPR recently derided Edwards because he wasn't poor and therefore in Elvings' opinion he was inauthentic. There does seem to be a concerted effort to overlook the achievements of John Edwards' life and to twist the truth into a negative narrative.

The same msm that pushed George W Bush as authentic and smeared Al Gore as a phony and a hypocrite is at it again.

Posted by Puccinnella | November 6, 2007 7:31 AM

If Edwards accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars for a part-time job, then that firm is certainly relevant. He should not have taken the job and the money if he did not want to answer for it. I personally have real difficulty understanding how he was unaware that sub-prime lending was a major focus for Fortress when it made up such a significant portion of their assets. Maybe if Edwards gave the Fortress salary and profits from subprime investments to the poor, then people might start to consider other lines of questioning.

Posted by C Gibson | November 6, 2007 7:59 AM

I personally have real difficulty understanding how he was unaware that sub-prime lending was a major focus for Fortress when it made up such a significant portion of their assets. Maybe if Edwards gave the Fortress salary and profits from subprime investments to the poor,

Here's the problem Charlie Gibson. 1. Sub-prime lending made up a very small fraction of Fortress's revenue; indeed, Fortress itself held no subprime loans. The loans came from a subsidiary, Green Tree, with which Edwards had nothing to do.

2. He did donate about a third of his after-tax income from Fortress to a fund in Louisiana for those whose homes had been foreclosed. Thats more than the entire state of Nevada has done, which has the highest foreclosure rate in the nation. If you count in the millions he donated in the same period to a fund to pay full college tuition for students from a poor high school in western Carolina, then he has in fact many times over donated what he made from Fortress to the poor.

So, is it fair to move to other lines of questioning? OR is it too much fun to make ourselves feel morally superior while at the same time ignoring poverty, and our government's inaction on it, as an issue?

Posted by Gus | November 6, 2007 9:28 AM

Except, Gus, that Edwards told the Associated Press that the main reason he went to Fortress was to learn about poverty. If he wasn't lying, then how did he not learn about subprime lending?

Posted by Adam B. | November 6, 2007 10:20 AM

If the guy really cared about poverty in America, working for a hedge fund is the last place to learn about it. He took the money, didn't think it would come back to haunt him, and it has. The $400 haircut was a stupid clerical error - to deny that the other politicians don't get them is stupid. The house was a stupid issue that happens with anyone with material wealth. But to hark on Hillary for taking money from the same people that you worked for is really dumb, in my opinion. This is probably the most legitimate of the three issues that Edwards is attacked for, and it's extremely justified.

Posted by james | November 6, 2007 4:52 PM

Adam B. Perhaps that wasn't part of the learning curve on global poverty. Many sub-prime borrowers were middle-class and got in over their head, and some recklessly borrowed. I work for an investment banking firm that was fined by SEC for some serious banking violations. I was in an admin position and didn't know anything about it until I read about in in the LA Times. Was I responsible? Of course not. Why don't you ask the campaign what he was focused on while serving there. I don't think I've ever heard him state what he did or did not learn during his tenure, but to me it's irrelevant. Plus he has every right to earn money! I'm sure my 401K plan is investested in industries I abhor, does that make me immoral? Also, the point of this post was to show how he was held personally responsible for those foreclosers. Ridiculous. Are you Adam B from dkos, btw?

Posted by Joan G | November 6, 2007 5:22 PM

John Edwards talks like he's Spartacus and lives like he's Charles Foster Cane.

i kept my mouth shut about these things because of the dem version of th 11th commaandment, but after he has accused Sen. Clinton of being "dissembling","corrupt", "doubletalk" and "dishonest"...its time we call this fraud out for the hypocrite that he is.

He has zero chance and now he is using GOP and Chris matthews typee attack lines on our eventual nominee...its totally unacceptable and people must realize that this egomaniac will obviously say and do anything so he can have the greatest mansion in the land ...the Executive Mansion...not just the largest house EVER BUILT in his home state that he 's got back home...

oh he whines that he gave away money....how nice....how about he decides to live in a normal wealthy guy house and give away 50 littler houses to others...instead of the biggest house EVER BUILT IN HIS STATE...hows about that?

its taken 200 plus years for nC to grow someone this greedy and thats still not even enough for ol John.

what a fakee!

Posted by tim l | November 6, 2007 8:03 PM

I find it interesting how easily people are manipulated in this country. Let's be honest here! NONE of the candidates for President actually represent the average American citizen! These people ALL have huge amounts of money, and I hate to tell you, but Hillary Clinton is the wealthiest of all members of Congress who are seeking the presidency!

She and Bill actually had a blind trust which they closed just before her bid for the presidency. Why? Because it held stock in leading pharmaceutical companies, defense contractors and even in NewsCorp (the parent company of Fox news)! They had to dump it at the last minute due to the apparent conflict of interest presented by some of those stock holdings. Has anyone made a point about those investments? No. Quite frankly...they shouldn't!

As a private investor in the stock market, with funds valued WAY below the amounts that we are talking about here, I have NO earthly idea who is a subsidiary of whom. Nor do I have knowledge of what shady business dealings may be occuring with the companies in which I am invested. How could I know this information? It would require a team of individuals to track all of these kinds of investments! Expecting anything like that is ludicrous, whether it be an expectation of the Clinton camp,the Edwards camp,the Romney camp, or of the average American citizen!

So... the question becomes moot. If the issue is the amount of personal fortune, then Hillary should be maligned on the Democratic side, while Romney should be disparaged on the Republican side. (Per financial disclosures released to the public) If the issue is how that money is used or invested...well then we can run down the list for ALL of the candidates and start casting stones at every single one of them! Not ONE of our candidates is without corporate ties, which means that not one is immune to the reek of shady corporate dealings. So...let's try to stay focused on their messages. Maybe that way, we won't end up with a loser like we did in the last two election cycles!

Until the American public learns to disseminate actual issues from those fabricated to look like issues, this country is doomed to repeat its previous failures in electing a decent president.

Posted by Daerius | December 31, 2007 9:47 AM

Your site is super, thank you !
Regards, http://www.dealdatabase.com/forum/member.php?u=68908 ">youporn

Posted by qwajfok | February 17, 2008 5:38 AM

Your site is the best of all world, thank you !
Regards, Minendo Kuchevo

Posted by tube8 | February 25, 2008 9:04 PM