Once again, Wash. Post misstated Edwards' position on subprime lending
A May 17 Washington Post article by staff writer Matthew Mosk on the release of personal financial disclosure forms by several 2008 presidential candidates reported that former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) "has faced questions about" his one-time employment with Fortress Investment Group "because Fortress owned offshore funds that served as tax havens for investors and because the firm's portfolio included subprime lenders, which provide high-risk loans that often target minorities." Mosk added: "As a candidate, Edwards has railed against both practices." In fact, Edwards has not "railed against" subprime lending, and his campaign website refers to it as "a valuable alternative for families with poor credit."
Edwards' campaign website draws a clear distinction between what it deems "predatory lending" and subprime lending -- a distinction the Post article did not make clear. According to Edwards' website, predatory loans "carry abusive terms that deceive and exploit borrowers, such as excessive and hidden fees, large prepayment penalties, mandatory arbitration clauses, unnecessary insurance products, and broker 'kickbacks' for steering borrowers into more expensive loans. Predatory terms are more common among subprime loans."
The May 17 article was not the first time a Post reporter has misstated Edwards' position on subprime lending, as Media Matters for America documented. During a May 16 online discussion on washingtonpost.com, Post money and politics reporter John Solomon claimed that the articles he has co-authored on Edwards' connections to Fortress "legitimately raised" the question of "whether a candidate who says he opposes offshore tax havens and subprime lending should have worked for a firm that engaged in both practices." Solomon was identified as a contributor to the May 17 Post article.
Politico chief political writer Mike Allen, in his May 17 "Political Playbook," highlighted the Post article as containing the "sentence of the day," and specifically highlighted the Post's mischaracterization of Edwards' subprime lending position as "too seminal to pass up."
From the May 17 Post article:
And John Edwards, a trial lawyer who earned his initial fortune by defending the ill and injured in the courtroom, made $479,000 last year in salary and held more than $7.5 million in investments with Fortress Investment Group, a New York hedge fund.
Edwards has faced questions about the hedge fund -- where he said he worked only a few days a month -- because Fortress owned offshore funds that served as tax havens for investors and because the firm's portfolio included subprime lenders, which provide high-risk loans that often target minorities. As a candidate, Edwards has railed against both practices.
















I said a year ago that I liked reading the Post, but was slowly realizing their bias and sloppy reporting... now I'm quickly realizing this *news* paper is fast becoming like the National Inquirer...
If anything, MMFA has led me to triple check stories and sources that come out of MM and it has been illuminating...
Glad to know that MMFA is supporting sub-prime lending even though sub-prime lending commonly uses those predatory terms.
Yes, those Democrats are all about giving tax cuts to the poor and then grabbing it all up with sub-prime loans to pay Edwards salary.
This reminds me I read this yesterday on Opinion Journal
Several provisions in a Senate-passed lobbying reform bill were not included in the draft of a House version that Democratic leaders plan to unveil this week, a sign that some lawmakers fear the restrictions went too far.
The House draft would not require lobbyists to disclose "bundling" practices in which they solicit and deliver multiple donations for a congressional candidate, party leaders said. Nor would it require retired or defeated lawmakers to wait two years before becoming a lobbyist, party leaders said.
We're so disillusioned. We really thought the Democrats were going to be different!
-----
Hahaha... Looks to me like the House Democrats under Pelosi are trying to outdo the Breck girl by talking out of the "two Americas" sides of their mouths.
Whatever.
Had the fundies not performed their side show shell game of deregulation these practices would never have been in existence.
These market fundamentalist hypocrites make me laugh. Out of one side of their mouths they cry but foul, what odious predatory lending practices. While from the other side they grunt their deregulated market dogma.
'Let the market decide' they scream. Well the market decided and greed was the consensus.
And, oh dear God, Edwards is a capitalist! Get over it or get honest about it.
So you think lenders should not be allowed to charge high risk people, who will more likely default on their payments, a higher interest rate to reflect this risk? You believe that someone ought to pass a law prohibiting lenders from doing this, then?
You must also favor laws requiring insurance companies to charge all applicants the same premiums, even if i have had 5 accidents that are my fault and you have had zero.
And you apparently believe that if some businesses in an industry engage in unethical behavior, then all of them should be tarred with the same brush.
Why do you hate our "free market" system?
If you've had 5 accidents that were your fault, please kill yourself before you kill somebody else. Thank you.
Better yet, take a cab.
Come on Bruce, I know you're generally conservative, but you've always seemed like one of the higher species of Conservative that gets analogies.
You're not going off to planet wingnut and leaving Jeter all by his lonesome, are you?
I did get it. I guess my response didn't convey that, though.
Since Bruce says he "gets" the analogy, he must be responding with another analogy rather than literally. I guess he wants all the high credit risk applicants to kill themselves rather than be turned down for a mortgage, or to pay 8.5% rather than 6% for a mortgage. Another market-hater.
puh-leese. it is easy to have five at fault accidents and no injuries
Not if you're paying attention. Five? Gimme a break.