John Edwards gets an early start...

[SkinBasket]

On replacing his dying wife.

She's not too cute, but she's also not dead, so I'll have to go with UPGRADE! here.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/405079/1_62_072508_hunter.jpg

Guard Confirms Late-Night Hotel Encounter Between Ex-Sen. John Edwards, Tabloid Reporters

Friday, July 25, 2008
FOX News



A Beverly Hills hotel security guard told FOXNews.com he intervened this week between a man he identified as former Sen. John Edwards and tabloid reporters who chased down the former presidential hopeful after what they're calling a rendezvous with his mistress and love child.

The Beverly Hilton Hotel guard said he encountered a shaken and ashen-faced Edwards — whom he did not immediately recognize — in a hotel men's room early Tuesday morning in a literal tug-of-war with reporters on the other side of the door.

"What are they saying about me?" the guard said Edwards asked.

"His face just went totally white," the guard said, when Edwards was told the reporters were shouting out questions about Edwards and Rielle Hunter, a woman the National Enquirer says is the mother of his child.

The guard said he escorted Edwards, who was not a registered guest at the hotel, out of the building after 2 a.m. Edwards did not say anything while he was escorted out, said the guard, adding that at times the reporters on the scene were "rough on him," sticking a camera in his face and shouting questions.

The guard did not recognize Edwards at the time of the incident, but said he concluded it was the 2008 presidential hopeful after hearing reports about the incident and finding an Enquirer reporter's notebook at the scene.

The guard said during the chase the reporters had dropped the notebook, which he picked up. "This book has everything in it on him," he said, referring to Edwards. The guard later confirmed Edwards' identity after being shown a photograph.

A former campaign staffer, speaking on condition of anonymity, told FOXNews.com he wishes he were "more surprised" to hear reports Edwards was visiting Hunter. "I'm definitely upset by it. I wish I was more surprised, though."

Edwards this week has repeatedly refused to comment on the Enquirer report. Asked about it on Thursday at an event in New Orleans, he said: "I have no idea what you're asking about. I've responded, consistently, to these tabloid allegations by saying I don't respond to these lies and you know that ... and I stand by that."

Edwards spokesmen did not respond to repeated calls by FOXNews.com to respond to this story.

Beverly Hills Police Sgt. Michael Publicker, meanwhile, confirmed Friday that an incident report was filed with the department by two of the tabloid's reporters. Publicker said that contrary to a published report, a "criminal complaint" was not filed and there are no charges pending.

"It will be looked into," Publicker said, refusing to say whether Edwards would be contacted as part of a formal investigation. "We're not going to comment on the investigation," he said.

Police department spokesman Tony Lee said Publicker told him that Edwards was not named on the incident report.

Enquirer Editor-in-Chief David Perel told FOXNews.com his reporters caught Edwards visiting Hunter and her baby at the hotel earlier Monday evening. Perel said Hunter and Edwards have been occasionally getting together so Edwards can see the baby. Hunter came to Beverly Hills with a male friend, Bob McGovern, said Perel. Hunter and her companion reportedly booked two rooms under McGovern's name, and McGovern picked up Edwards to bring him back to the hotel.

Perel said Enquirer staff had been given information about the planned Edwards-Hunter meeting, and the tabloid sent reporters to the hotel in anticipation of Edwards' arrival. According to the Enquirer, Edwards was first spotted being dropped off at the hotel at 9:45 p.m. PT, about 25 minutes after reporters watched McGovern leave the building in his BMW.

Edwards went to Hunter's room and the two left the hotel together and returned 45 minutes later, Perel said. Edwards reportedly entered her room and stayed there until after 2:30 a.m. PT.

FOXNews.com could not independently confirm the Enquirer's allegations. Perel also declined to identify where the Enquirer received the information about Edwards' alleged visits.

Perel told FOXNews.com that after leaving Hunter's room, Edwards took an elevator to the basement, where he was confronted by two Enquirer reporters. He ran into the bathroom, where he remained until the security guard arrived.

The Enquirer says it has videotape showing Hunter entering the room where she met Edwards, and shows Edwards leaving the same room. However, the Enquirer has thus far declined repeated requests by FOXNews.com to release any photographs or videotape evidence of the incident.

Lynda Simonetti, director of public relations at the Beverly Hilton, refused to comment on the guard's version of the incident, citing the hotel's privacy policy.

"We value the privacy of all the guests," Simonetti told FOXNews.com, adding, "The non-disclosure policy applies to the requests of the names, whether it's past, current or anticipated guests... That's our policy."

Simonetti said she had "no knowledge" of the incident report filed by the two Enquirer reporters, and "I don't have any knowledge of any other circumstances."

As recently as last month, individuals vetting vice presidential candidates for Barack Obama had listed Edwards as a potential running mate. Edwards was viewed as a candidate who could help Obama appeal to white, working-class voters who had favored Hillary Clinton in the primaries.

Edwards, who was John Kerry's running mate in 2004, endorsed Obama in May, saying the presumptive presidential nominee held the same views he did about uniting a divided America.

Before and during the Democratic primaries, Edwards urged all candidates to boycott planned debates on FOX News, even though he had made prior appearances on the channel. One of those debates was to be sponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus.

Last October, the Enquirer reported that several sources said a former campaign worker on Edwards' campaign had been having an affair with the former North Carolina senator. In an e-mail allegedly written by Hunter to a friend, she wrote that she is "in love with John," but it's "difficult because he is married and has kids."

Edwards' wife Elizabeth, whom many have credited as being one of the driving forces behind Edwards' campaign, announced in March that her breast cancer had re-emerged after going into remission following a 2004 diagnosis.

Hunter has said that the father of her child is former Edwards campaign official Andrew Young. The 41-year-old married father of three has also said he is the father.

[Kiwon]

On replacing his dying wife.

She's not too cute, but she's also not dead, so I'll have to go with UPGRADE! here.

Oh man, that was cold!

Freakin hilarious, but wicked cold.

Skin, we aren't worthy. :worship:

[SkinBasket]

I think cold is cheating on your dying wife who's been just as much of your run for political power as you have the past couple decades. What a weak, cowardly, and disgusting person.

[texaspackerbacker]

I think cold is cheating on your dying wife who's been just as much of your run for political power as you have the past couple decades. What a weak, cowardly, and disgusting person.

Being THAT cold qualifies you to be a two-term Democrat president.

[RashanGary]

Sex is a very hard thing for some people to resist. I can't hate him for it, but it is a hurtfull thing to do.

[SkinBasket]

Sex is a very hard thing for some people to resist.

I see the rapist side of JustinHarrell is back.

[sheepshead]

What else does one expect from a limousine liberal?

[HowardRoark]

Sex is a very hard thing for some people to resist.

I think I could have managed to resist her.

Today, under John Edwards, there are two Women, not one: One Woman that does the work, another that reaps the reward. One Woman that hides in hotels, another Woman that lives in mansions. One woman – whore Woman - whose needs John has long forgotten, another Woman - narrow-interest Woman - whose every wish is John's command. One Woman that is struggling to get by, another Woman that can buy anything she wants, even silence.

[Freak Out]

So which one of you guys works as the pivot man in these circles of yours?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Yeah, totally cold.

Must have taken a lesson from Newt...hmm, serve your wife with divorce papers while she is in the hospital.

Remind me again how many times McCain has been married?

Yep, dems have the lack of morality cornered. :oops:

[RashanGary]

Sex is a very hard thing for some people to resist.

I see the rapist side of JustinHarrell is back.

Acctually it's the side that is not going to gang up on a guy for his human weakness. It was a bad thign to do. I don't think he feels great abotu what he did/is doing.

[HowardRoark]

Sex is a very hard thing for some people to resist.

I see the rapist side of JustinHarrell is back.

Acctually it's the side that is not going to gang up on a guy for his human weakness. It was a bad thign to do. I don't think he feels great abotu what he did/is doing.

John Edwards FEELS nothing.

The guy makes his fortune chasing ambulances, and then turns around and runs for office telling the Rancid Masses that healthcare is out of reach in our country. He is one of the causes of high healthcare costs in our country.

He takes all this wealth and invests in hedge funds that are long sub prime on the way up, and short on the way down. And then has the gall to go out in his private jet and demagogue about two Americas to the Great Unwashed who have been foreclosed.

I disagree w/Obama’s policies. I think Clinton was too malleable (but that worked out O.K. for me). But I can live with that.

Edwards is a piece of shit.

[HowardRoark]

dp

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I agree...no one should ever sue a doctor. :roll:

and, no one should ever profit from hedge funds. Damn einhorn!

P.S. you might wanna check your facts on edwards. He was a member of a lawfirm..so, to indict him looks kinda foolish. It wasnt' his firm..or are you just against all firms that represent plaintiffs.

And, when he did start his own firm..his biggest case was product liability.

[HowardRoark]

no one should ever profit from hedge funds. Damn einhorn!

I have no problem with the profits.....it's the duplicity.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

no one should ever profit from hedge funds. Damn einhorn!

I have no problem with the profits.....it's the duplicity.

Duplicity? You mean like cheating your wife?

Or being a "maverick" in campaign finance reform after being investigated for political influence/Keating 5?

I didn't realize the hedge funds caused the mortgage meltdown. Please explain.

[Kiwon]

And, when he did start his own firm..his biggest case was product liability.

And after Dow-Corning went bankrupt the "science" behind the claim linking their implants to breast cancer was discredited.

So where does Dow-Corning and their investors go to get their money back?

Puke lawyers like Edwards and their phony lawsuits ARE the reason people can't get reasonably priced health care. The threats of lawsuits drives up the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors who pass the costs on to their patients.

Edwards is as phony as the day is long. That is plain to see, but not to you.

Why are you such a jerk and have this obsession to defend any idiot that calls himself a liberal? Please answer this question succinctly in a 500-word essay. Remember, points will be deducted over punctuation and grammatical errors.

You have 45 minutes. Begin now.

[HowardRoark]

Duplicity? You mean like cheating your wife?

Yes, that too.

[HowardRoark]

I didn't realize the hedge funds caused the mortgage meltdown. Please explain.

First, it may be nuanced, but you are nothing if not a master of nuance……I never alluded to whether or not hedge funds caused anything; merely that the duplicitous John Edwards profited off what happened.

But, now that you ask.

Back in the day, your bank would do the underwriting on your mortgage, and then keep it on their balance sheet. They had a vested interest in your ability to pay the money back.

In the past few years, mortgages have been securitized and sold off in bundles known as CDOs. These CDOs have different traunches, depending on the risk of repayment. Because of fees, etc. there was a very large appetite for putting together these securitized loans. And offloading them.

Hedge funds were able to put together extremely highly leveraged funds of these securitized loans. Sometime 16:1. And, to add fuel to the fire, they were borrowing money in Japan at practically 0% interest and taking that cash over here to put the funds together. So, they not only had U.S. credit risk, but also foreign currency risk as well. It was an extremely highly torqued spring.

Certain firms, which I will not name, had a HUGE chunk of this stuff on their balance sheets. It was easy money, but they were not taking care of the risk management.

These securities aren't heavily traded or priced for that matter, and a flood of supply into the open market could drive prices down, forcing other holders of these securities to mark down the value of their holdings. When these loans are marked down, they start to really erode balance sheets. As balance sheets continue to erode, rating agencies such as Moodys and Standard and Poors lower the rating on these companies. As that happens, institutional investors, such as endowments and pensions, by their bylaws are forbidden from holding them anymore. The pensions, etc have to liquidate…..and so the flood of this stuff continues on the market.

As any Capitalist knows, when there is too much of something offered for sale real quick, there can come a time when there is no “bid” at all. That is where we are today. No “bid” for these securitized loans, so theoretically……they are worthless. Companies have to put this stuff on their balance sheets as worthless. Killing the companies.

Now, for the “short” side. Some smart guys/gals out there in the past couple of years have put huge bets on that this would all happen. Either through shorting, puts or buying credit swaps. When something is shorted, it is sold high, with the intention of buying back later cheaper. So, the shorting actually added a whole lot of fuel to this fire. Read Einhorn’s speech:

http://www.foolingsomepeople.com/main/TCF%202008%20Speech.pdf

What we need now is a “bid” on this debt.

[SkinBasket]

Must have taken a lesson from Newt...hmm, serve your wife with divorce papers while she is in the hospital.

Remind me again how many times McCain has been married?

Yep, dems have the lack of morality cornered. :oops:

Attempts at equivocation don't make Edwards any less disgusting or pathetic.

[SkinBasket]

Sex is a very hard thing for some people to resist.

I see the rapist side of JustinHarrell is back.

Acctually it's the side that is not going to gang up on a guy for his human weakness. It was a bad thign to do. I don't think he feels great abotu what he did/is doing.

You're right. Edwards is obviously that type of guy that is so animalistically base in nature that he lacks the mental capacity to understand the ramifications of his own raging sexuality. You can tell by the thousand dollar haircuts.

[MJZiggy]

I wonder if $1k could make my hair look that good...

[SkinBasket]

He looks straight out of Falcon Crest. I'm not sure if that's the look you want.

[Joemailman]

I don't know if Edwards is guilty here or not. If he is, it's reprehensible. However, am I the only one who read the last line of this story?

Hunter has said that the father of her child is former Edwards campaign official Andrew Young. The 41-year-old married father of three has also said he is the father.

Are we to assume that they're both lying?

[texaspackerbacker]

Our lefties have a point with the hypocrisy angle. There's plenty of crap on our side too--including the much more insidious infestation of Congressional fags.

The bottom line is that with Edwards, just as with Clinton (either one), Kerry, Obama, Reid, whoever on the left, there is so so much to hate them for that is ISSUE-ORIENTED without stooping to this sexual stuff.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

And, when he did start his own firm..his biggest case was product liability.

And after Dow-Corning went bankrupt the "science" behind the claim linking their implants to breast cancer was discredited.

So where does Dow-Corning and their investors go to get their money back?

Puke lawyers like Edwards and their phony lawsuits ARE the reason people can't get reasonably priced health care. The threats of lawsuits drives up the cost of malpractice insurance for doctors who pass the costs on to their patients.

Edwards is as phony as the day is long. That is plain to see, but not to you.

Why are you such a jerk and have this obsession to defend any idiot that calls himself a liberal? Please answer this question succinctly in a 500-word essay. Remember, points will be deducted over punctuation and grammatical errors.

You have 45 minutes. Begin now.

Why are you bring up Dow? Edwards wasn't involved with that.

Typicial Kiwon red herring. Why don't you actually talk about what he did..rather than what you deem a frivilous lawsuit. :roll:

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Must have taken a lesson from Newt...hmm, serve your wife with divorce papers while she is in the hospital.

Remind me again how many times McCain has been married?

Yep, dems have the lack of morality cornered. :oops:

Attempts at equivocation don't make Edwards any less disgusting or pathetic.


No, but they do put it into context. Labeling this liberal/dem behavior and then demonizing the left is ridiculous.

A great portion of man around the world cheat on their spouses..and vice versa. And, a HUGE portion of politicians cheat...on both sides.

At least the dems haven't had an pedophiles or toe tappers exposed. :oops:

[texaspackerbacker]

Isn't that what I just said?

[SkinBasket]

Must have taken a lesson from Newt...hmm, serve your wife with divorce papers while she is in the hospital.

Remind me again how many times McCain has been married?

Yep, dems have the lack of morality cornered. :oops:

Attempts at equivocation don't make Edwards any less disgusting or pathetic.


No, but they do put it into context. Labeling this liberal/dem behavior and then demonizing the left is ridiculous.

A great portion of man around the world cheat on their spouses..and vice versa. And, a HUGE portion of politicians cheat...on both sides.

At least the dems haven't had an pedophiles or toe tappers exposed. :oops:

What makes this "special" to me I suppose is the dying spouse angle. Just like I think Armstrong is a fucking waste of post-cancer life for leaving the hottest pair of lips (on her face) in the world when she was facing the same ordeal. Call me a romantic, but bailing on a sick and/or dying partner is about as low as one can get - politician or not.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Must have taken a lesson from Newt...hmm, serve your wife with divorce papers while she is in the hospital.

Remind me again how many times McCain has been married?

Yep, dems have the lack of morality cornered. :oops:

Attempts at equivocation don't make Edwards any less disgusting or pathetic.


No, but they do put it into context. Labeling this liberal/dem behavior and then demonizing the left is ridiculous.

A great portion of man around the world cheat on their spouses..and vice versa. And, a HUGE portion of politicians cheat...on both sides.

At least the dems haven't had an pedophiles or toe tappers exposed. :oops:

What makes this "special" to me I suppose is the dying spouse angle. Just like I think Armstrong is a fucking waste of post-cancer life for leaving the hottest pair of lips (on her face) in the world when she was facing the same ordeal. Call me a romantic, but bailing on a sick and/or dying partner is about as low as one can get - politician or not.

But, Edwards hasn't left. He is merely continuing a behavior established.

Unless he leaves, he is just no different than any other cheating spouse. And, while i'm not exonerating him...i also dont know their relationship. Who knows what kind of deal they have.

Maybe it is something out of "Breaking the waves."

I do hear your sentiment, and am inclined to agree. but, should someone stay in a broken relationship because of a problem..ie, armstrong?

[SkinBasket]

I do hear your sentiment, and am inclined to agree. but, should someone stay in a broken relationship because of a problem..ie, armstrong?

You're equating leaving a relationship that's not working (the right thing to do) with fucking around behind your dying wife's back (or maybe in front of her as you speculate) and publicly (and pubicly) humiliating her. It's my fault for bringing up Armstrong, though. Flog me.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

I do hear your sentiment, and am inclined to agree. but, should someone stay in a broken relationship because of a problem..ie, armstrong?

You're equating leaving a relationship that's not working (the right thing to do) with fucking around behind your dying wife's back (or maybe in front of her as you speculate) and publicly (and pubicly) humiliating her. It's my fault for bringing up Armstrong, though. Flog me.

well, i'm not equating...you were.

My point is that he didn't just initiate this..he has been involved in this affair for a while. Not saying this is good, but i accept that people have affairs...and i accept that spouses choose to deal with them differently. Some..DIVORCE. Some..look away. Some...big gifts (hello, kobe).

Publicly: I really don't think you can blame him for the press...especially rags like the enquirer, etc. The MSM tends to look the other way for all pols on these type of things...which they should. I don't, and i realize others do, see the relevance to their work performance.

P.S. the only source for this is the enquirer. I"m not saying it is inaccurate, but don't you think that mudslinging at edwards..or any conserv pol is a bit premature? My god, when did we start taking them seriously?

I find it hard to believe that is is true...after all...Ann coulter has repeatedly told me he is gay. :roll:

[BallHawk]

Ann Coulter is one of the biggest scumbags of all the talking heads out there. Just absolute trash.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ann Coulter is one of the biggest scumbags of all the talking heads out there. Just absolute trash.

QFT.

[texaspackerbacker]

Could you guys elaborate, please?

When I call somebody "trash", "scum", etc., I always explain exactly why--how the God damned leftist disrespects America, advocates policies harmful to America, pushes issues and candidates who want to inflict things contrary to what good normal Americans want, etc.

The same kind of detail from your side about Ann Coulter would be nice. Which of your favorite sick rotten positions, viewpoints, and institutions has she disparaged?

[BallHawk]

Could you guys elaborate, please?

When I call somebody "trash", "scum", etc., I always explain exactly why--how the God damned leftist disrespects America, advocates policies harmful to America, pushes issues and candidates who want to inflict things contrary to what good normal Americans want, etc.

The same kind of detail from your side about Ann Coulter would be nice. Which of your favorite sick rotten positions, viewpoints, and institutions has she disparaged?

How about telling all of the 9/11 widows to "hurry up and appear in Playboy"?

She has tons of other things that make her trash, but that stands out as the top one.

[texaspackerbacker]

Could you guys elaborate, please?

When I call somebody "trash", "scum", etc., I always explain exactly why--how the God damned leftist disrespects America, advocates policies harmful to America, pushes issues and candidates who want to inflict things contrary to what good normal Americans want, etc.

The same kind of detail from your side about Ann Coulter would be nice. Which of your favorite sick rotten positions, viewpoints, and institutions has she disparaged?

How about telling all of the 9/11 widows to "hurry up and appear in Playboy"?

She has tons of other things that make her trash, but that stands out as the top one.

OK, I'll give you one flippant remark taken out of context. As I recall, there was something weird about the behavior of those "9/11 widows" that may have made them valid targets of sarcasm, though.

The point is, any negative thing you can bring up about her pales to insignificance compared to virtually every member of the leftist mainstream media who disrespect America and Americans routinely, and incessantly advocate crap that is harmful to this country and all of us in it.

Could you possibly come up with something a little more substantial from Coulter to match that?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Coulter:

1. Calling John Edwards a "faggot."
2. “joking” remark that a liberal Supreme Court justice should be poisoned..."putting rat poison in [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice [John Paul] Stevens's crème brûlée."
3. Regarding clinton, "whether to impeach or assassinate"...joking about killing our prez...if any dem did that you'd be up in arms.
4. Suggesting Times staffers should be "executed."
5. Coulter remarked that when "most Americans" heard that an Israeli airstrike had hit a United Nations observer post in south Lebanon on July 25, killing four U.N. observers, they hoped to hear similar news about "the installation on 42nd Street" -- presumably a reference to the U.N. headquarters in New York City.
6. Insulting Ms. Harriman, our former ambassador,
7. Insulting Nam troops..."No wonder you guys lost." ..insulting a disabled vet.
8. Jews should be "perfected" into Christians

Her own quote: "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."[

[Kiwon]

Coulter:

1. Calling John Edwards a "faggot."
2. “joking” remark that a liberal Supreme Court justice should be poisoned..."putting rat poison in [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice [John Paul] Stevens's crème brûlée."
3. Regarding clinton, "whether to impeach or assassinate"...joking about killing our prez...if any dem did that you'd be up in arms.
4. Suggesting Times staffers should be "executed."
5. Coulter remarked that when "most Americans" heard that an Israeli airstrike had hit a United Nations observer post in south Lebanon on July 25, killing four U.N. observers, they hoped to hear similar news about "the installation on 42nd Street" -- presumably a reference to the U.N. headquarters in New York City.
6. Insulting Ms. Harriman, our former ambassador,
7. Insulting Nam troops..."No wonder you guys lost." ..insulting a disabled vet.
8. Jews should be "perfected" into Christians

Her own quote: "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."[

Which blog did you get your information from?

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Coulter:

1. Calling John Edwards a "faggot."
2. “joking” remark that a liberal Supreme Court justice should be poisoned..."putting rat poison in [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice [John Paul] Stevens's crème brûlée."
3. Regarding clinton, "whether to impeach or assassinate"...joking about killing our prez...if any dem did that you'd be up in arms.
4. Suggesting Times staffers should be "executed."
5. Coulter remarked that when "most Americans" heard that an Israeli airstrike had hit a United Nations observer post in south Lebanon on July 25, killing four U.N. observers, they hoped to hear similar news about "the installation on 42nd Street" -- presumably a reference to the U.N. headquarters in New York City.
6. Insulting Ms. Harriman, our former ambassador,
7. Insulting Nam troops..."No wonder you guys lost." ..insulting a disabled vet.
8. Jews should be "perfected" into Christians

Her own quote: "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."[

Which blog did you get your information from?

Is this another ad hominem attack? LOL

[mraynrand]

The argument Coulter made regarding the 9/1 widows was that they (and others in similar situations) were essentially treated as untouchable. An attack on their argument or point of view was essentially treated as a cruel attack on their person, seemingly more heartless because of their loss. Cindy Sheehan would be another example. Coulter routinely makes solid arguments, and she has a sharp wit. The problem is that she actually IS unnecessarily cruel. And in being so, she becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in reverse - HER arguments are ignored because HER vitriol becomes the story.

[HowardRoark]

The problem is that she actually IS unnecessarily cruel. And in being so, she becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in reverse - HER arguments are ignored because HER vitriol becomes the story.

I agree..........

I read her articles every week, and she often times crystalizes an issue better than any other Conservative writer has. But, she has to throw in her over the top "Ann Coulter thing." I think she has her disciples that she has to feed. It keeps her very wealthy.

It's too bad though, she is very bright.

[texaspackerbacker]

Coulter:

1. Calling John Edwards a "faggot."
2. “joking” remark that a liberal Supreme Court justice should be poisoned..."putting rat poison in [U.S. Supreme Court] Justice [John Paul] Stevens's crème brûlée."
3. Regarding clinton, "whether to impeach or assassinate"...joking about killing our prez...if any dem did that you'd be up in arms.
4. Suggesting Times staffers should be "executed."
5. Coulter remarked that when "most Americans" heard that an Israeli airstrike had hit a United Nations observer post in south Lebanon on July 25, killing four U.N. observers, they hoped to hear similar news about "the installation on 42nd Street" -- presumably a reference to the U.N. headquarters in New York City.
6. Insulting Ms. Harriman, our former ambassador,
7. Insulting Nam troops..."No wonder you guys lost." ..insulting a disabled vet.
8. Jews should be "perfected" into Christians

Her own quote: "I'm a Christian first and a mean-spirited, bigoted conservative second, and don't you ever forget it."[

1. truth is a defense
2. woulda been beneficial for the country
3. nothing a dozen lefties haven't said and worse about Bush
4. a realistic punishment for treason
5. most, meaning over 50%? probably an exaggeration by 5-10%
6. don't know the lady, but I bet the shoe fit
7. sounds bad--like something your side would say. it would be nice to see the context
8. that's good Christian teaching--something leftist assholes reject anyway

Leftists on all levels are notorious for having no sense of humor at all when their own sick kind are the butt of the jokes. I doubt Ann Coulter objects the crap spewed about her. Hell, I don't object. I just wanted to see some specifics--which you dutifully provided, to confirm that the objections lefties have about her fall WAY SHORT of the blatant America-hate that the leftist mainstream media is routinely guilty of.
.

[Kiwon]

The problem is that she actually IS unnecessarily cruel. And in being so, she becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in reverse - HER arguments are ignored because HER vitriol becomes the story.

I agree..........

I read her articles every week, and she often times crystalizes an issue better than any other Conservative writer has. But, she has to throw in her over the top "Ann Coulter thing." I think she has her disciples that she has to feed. It keeps her very wealthy.

It's too bad though, she is very bright.

Besides her sparkling intellect and ability to articulate extremely effectively her spunk is what distinguishes her from the conservative crowd. From my vantage point it's what makes Ann, Ann.

I can't agree with anyone 100% of the time, Ann included, but I wouldn't ask her to change her approach either. She's a wordsmith and like an artist she has her own distinctive style.

I agree though that she can be her own worst enemy. The "faggot" reference she was playing off of in the Edwards comment was just too obscure for the average Joe to catch. Pop culturally-aware folks got it, but most people were left bewildered by what she meant.

That's what happens when you are a public media figure playing verbal chess when most people are playing checkers.

[HowardRoark]

I didn't realize the hedge funds caused the mortgage meltdown. Please explain.

First, it may be nuanced, but you are nothing if not a master of nuance……I never alluded to whether or not hedge funds caused anything; merely that the duplicitous John Edwards profited off what happened.

But, now that you ask.

Back in the day, your bank would do the underwriting on your mortgage, and then keep it on their balance sheet. They had a vested interest in your ability to pay the money back.

In the past few years, mortgages have been securitized and sold off in bundles known as CDOs. These CDOs have different traunches, depending on the risk of repayment. Because of fees, etc. there was a very large appetite for putting together these securitized loans. And offloading them.

Hedge funds were able to put together extremely highly leveraged funds of these securitized loans. Sometime 16:1. And, to add fuel to the fire, they were borrowing money in Japan at practically 0% interest and taking that cash over here to put the funds together. So, they not only had U.S. credit risk, but also foreign currency risk as well. It was an extremely highly torqued spring.

Certain firms, which I will not name, had a HUGE chunk of this stuff on their balance sheets. It was easy money, but they were not taking care of the risk management.

These securities aren't heavily traded or priced for that matter, and a flood of supply into the open market could drive prices down, forcing other holders of these securities to mark down the value of their holdings. When these loans are marked down, they start to really erode balance sheets. As balance sheets continue to erode, rating agencies such as Moodys and Standard and Poors lower the rating on these companies. As that happens, institutional investors, such as endowments and pensions, by their bylaws are forbidden from holding them anymore. The pensions, etc have to liquidate…..and so the flood of this stuff continues on the market.

As any Capitalist knows, when there is too much of something offered for sale real quick, there can come a time when there is no “bid” at all. That is where we are today. No “bid” for these securitized loans, so theoretically……they are worthless. Companies have to put this stuff on their balance sheets as worthless. Killing the companies.

Now, for the “short” side. Some smart guys/gals out there in the past couple of years have put huge bets on that this would all happen. Either through shorting, puts or buying credit swaps. When something is shorted, it is sold high, with the intention of buying back later cheaper. So, the shorting actually added a whole lot of fuel to this fire. Read Einhorn’s speech:

http://www.foolingsomepeople.com/main/TCF%202008%20Speech.pdf

What we need now is a “bid” on this debt.

Bump for Tex.

[texaspackerbacker]

OK, what's your point?

Bringing money in from Japan and elsewhere at very low interest, making a profit, but for the most part, passing that very low interest along to American home buyers, what part of that do you see as a problem?

Clumping mortgages in these "CDOs", which basically spreads the risk--minimizing the effect of the small percentage of individual foreclosures--I'd call that smart risk management. Wouldn't you?

As for these mortgages/CDOs having no value, we all know that isn't true. Even with the downturn in real estate values, the huge majority of mortgages are NOT in default. It is, rather, the PERCEPTION of problems that dries up supply. That is why the bailout of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was a good move. That is also why bailing out Lehman, etc. is NOT so vital. It's assets apparently consisted of a lot of these lesser providers of money--hedge funds, etc.

Maybe somebody is doing like your article says--manipulating/speculating/selling sort, etc. on these--profiting at the expense of companies like Lehman Brothers, but who would that be? Small-timers out-smarting the big boys? Or even bigger fish swallowing up companies like Bear Stearns, Lehman, and Merrill? They don't come much bigger than that. Bank of America, however, does seem to be cleaning up pretty well, though.

The bottom line of all this, it seems to me, is that it will all resolve itself just fine--as it always has in the past--without having any significant effect on small-time regular people.

[HowardRoark]

As for these mortgages/CDOs having no value, we all know that isn't true.

This and a nickel will get you.....well, nothing. The market determines what they are worth......that's the ESSENCE of the problem today.


but who would that be? Small-timers out-smarting the big boys?

They aren't very small time anymore.


You are aware that Lehman no longer exists, right?

And all of their assets will be flooding onto the market over the next few weeks. What do you think that will do to asset prices?

[texaspackerbacker]

As for these mortgages/CDOs having no value, we all know that isn't true.

This and a nickel will get you.....well, nothing. The market determines what they are worth......that's the ESSENCE of the problem today.


but who would that be? Small-timers out-smarting the big boys?

They aren't very small time anymore.


You are aware that Lehman no longer exists, right?

And all of their assets will be flooding onto the market over the next few weeks. What do you think that will do to asset prices?

On the first point, you are setting yourself up as knowing something about something, so I assume you are acquainted with the "present value" of money--money that arrives in the futre--the payments on all those mortgages in good standing--has clear value in an objective sense.

On the second point, who exactly would "they" be in your statement? That is not a rhetorical question. It really is unclear who might have so outmaneuvered Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, and Bear Stearns as to basically terminate them. The "assets" you refer to would be mostly $639 billion (face value) of mortgages in one form or another that Lehman has/had. I assume that will be liquidated and go to creditors. That's what's supposed to happen in a bankruptcy. As for market values, it will certain make for a bargain basement situation for the buyers. However, for anybody NOT forced to sell, it will have no effect at all, since the intrinsic value (based on present value--above) still exists, and the market certainly will snap back. (or are you gonna argue that the market won't snap back?)

[HowardRoark]

On the first point, you are setting yourself up as knowing something about something, so I assume you are acquainted with the "present value" of money--money that arrives in the futre--the payments on all those mortgages in good standing--has clear value in an objective sense.

You are correct, but right now, there is way too much flooding the market. When there is way too much of anything for sale, what happens to the price? You need to recognize that the securitization of these mortgages was the root of the problem. If a bank keeps a mortgage on their balance sheet tehy will probably be a little more careful on underwriting.



On the second point, who exactly would "they" be in your statement?

Google John Paulson and Company, Harbinger Capital...for starters. There are many others. It was a simple matter of looking at the books.


I assume that will be liquidated and go to creditors. That's what's supposed to happen in a bankruptcy. As for market values, it will certain make for a bargain basement situation for the buyers.

The reason we are in this mess is there ARE NO BUYERS!!! Why will buyers buy it now. More on the market will force the prices lower, balance sheets will be marked even worse.


and the market certainly will snap back. (or are you gonna argue that the market won't snap back?)

Snap might be overstating it.

[texaspackerbacker]

On the first point, you are setting yourself up as knowing something about something, so I assume you are acquainted with the "present value" of money--money that arrives in the futre--the payments on all those mortgages in good standing--has clear value in an objective sense.

You are correct, but right now, there is way too much flooding the market. When there is way too much of anything for sale, what happens to the price? You need to recognize that the securitization of these mortgages was the root of the problem. If a bank keeps a mortgage on their balance sheet tehy will probably be a little more careful on underwriting.



On the second point, who exactly would "they" be in your statement?

Google John Paulson and Company, Harbinger Capital...for starters. There are many others. It was a simple matter of looking at the books.


I assume that will be liquidated and go to creditors. That's what's supposed to happen in a bankruptcy. As for market values, it will certain make for a bargain basement situation for the buyers.

The reason we are in this mess is there ARE NO BUYERS!!! Why will buyers buy it now. More on the market will force the prices lower, balance sheets will be marked even worse.


and the market certainly will snap back. (or are you gonna argue that the market won't snap back?)

Snap might be overstating it.

First Quote: Too much WHAT flooding the market, real estate, secondary reselling of mortgages, or what? I would say there is LESS real estate on the market--anybody whose circumstances don't make it necessary to sell is intelligently waiting out the downturn. There's always a bunch of trading of established mortgage note. Other than cases like the Lehman portfolio due to the bankruptcy, there's nothing exceptional there either.

Second Quote: So certain formerly small time "theys" actually have taken down the giants of the industry? Here again, I say, what's the big deal--newer/better strategies outcompeting older/less effective ones--do you see a problem there? Or are you somehow implying something sinister?

Third Quote: There are ALWAYS buyers in a free market economy--sometimes, however, there just aren't many beyond the bargain hunters. Here again, do you have a problem with that? And exactly HOW does ANY of this affect ordinary regular people?

Fourth Quote: This is America. We've survived and thrived things extremely much worse. We might even be able to survive an Obama presidency--although thrive, I doubt. The only threat to good normal people in this trumped up credit "crisis" was averted last week when the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation was dealt with.

[HowardRoark]

Tex, this is not a debate, there is nothing to debate.


First Quote: Too much WHAT flooding the market, real estate, secondary reselling of mortgages, or what? I would say there is LESS real estate on the market--anybody whose circumstances don't make it necessary to sell is intelligently waiting out the downturn. There's always a bunch of trading of established mortgage note. Other than cases like the Lehman portfolio due to the bankruptcy, there's nothing exceptional there either.

Both homes and the securitized debt. In particular Tier III Debt. Until a floor is put in on home prices, the bleeding can't stop.


Second Quote: So certain formerly small time "theys" actually have taken down the giants of the industry? Here again, I say, what's the big deal--newer/better strategies outcompeting older/less effective ones--do you see a problem there? Or are you somehow implying something sinister?

You asked, I told. I have no problem.


Third Quote: There are ALWAYS buyers in a free market economy--sometimes, however, there just aren't many beyond the bargain hunters. Here again, do you have a problem with that? And exactly HOW does ANY of this affect ordinary regular people?

This is where you don't get it. The billions of dollars of sucuritized loans have no "bid". The "mark to market" prices are practically nothing. Firms need to reflect these low prices on their balance sheets. rating agencies come in and downgrade them. They can't raise new money because investors don't want to throw good money after bad. The vultures circle, they are done. Real, ordinary people with real ordinay kids with real ordinary stomachs to feed lose their jobs. Did you see the people leaving Lehman last night? Real people don't have Government pensions, they have 401ks. They are worried.


Fourth Quote: This is America. We've survived and thrived things extremely much worse. We might even be able to survive an Obama presidency--although thrive, I doubt. The only threat to good normal people in this trumped up credit "crisis" was averted last week when the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac situation was dealt with.

We have a credit crisis. This is not a debate.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/04/news/newsmakers/whitney_oppenheimer.fortune/index.htm

BTW, this AIG thing is going to get real ugly.

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Ty nor Tex believe anything from liberal media sources like CNN.

[texaspackerbacker]

Howard, you're sure acting like it's a debate!

Don't you realize that even though real estate prices are in an overall downturn--not even very many places on that, the HUGE majority of mortgages around the country are NOT in default. They are, therefore, good assets on the books of the current mortgage holder--like that is even of significant consequence to the huge majority of people in the country anyway.

If, as you say, there are few or even no bidders for some mortgages or groups of mortgages, those items simply will NOT change hands. Why is there even a need for them to change hands--other than the rare exceptional case of the portfolio of a company in Bankruptcy being sold off--and trust me, the bankruptcy judge WILL sell those assets, even if it is for pennies on the dollar. Is that a problem? Certainly not on a macro-economic level.

And yes, I suppose I have to grant you, those poor unfortunate Lehman employees that were cleaning out their desks on the news today WERE harmed. But they are a miniscule minority in the whole labor market. Nobody else is really affected, and even these people will likely land on their feet, depending on their skill and willingness to be flexible.

And AIG? the Treasury Secretary was asked about them today, and he just shrugged it off. Do you have some inside info that he doesn't about how it's gonna be a mess? A big insurance company, that undoubtedly has a bunch of mortgage notes as assets, might go belly up. I really don't see that it affects many regular people. Their portfolio possibly gets on the already bad market. What happens? Somebody snaps them up for peanuts, and eventually makes a killing when the market gets back to normal. There are always gonna be winners and losers in a capitalist economy, especially among the major players. Why is that something we should even be concerned about?

[HowardRoark]

Howard, you're sure acting like it's a debate!

Don't you realize that even though real estate prices are in an overall downturn--not even very many places on that, the HUGE majority of mortgages around the country are NOT in default. They are, therefore, good assets on the books of the current mortgage holder--like that is even of significant consequence to the huge majority of people in the country anyway.

If, as you say, there are few or even no bidders for some mortgages or groups of mortgages, those items simply will NOT change hands. Why is there even a need for them to change hands--other than the rare exceptional case of the portfolio of a company in Bankruptcy being sold off--and trust me, the bankruptcy judge WILL sell those assets, even if it is for pennies on the dollar. Is that a problem? Certainly not on a macro-economic level.

And yes, I suppose I have to grant you, those poor unfortunate Lehman employees that were cleaning out their desks on the news today WERE harmed. But they are a miniscule minority in the whole labor market. Nobody else is really affected, and even these people will likely land on their feet, depending on their skill and willingness to be flexible.

And AIG? the Treasury Secretary was asked about them today, and he just shrugged it off. Do you have some inside info that he doesn't about how it's gonna be a mess? A big insurance company, that undoubtedly has a bunch of mortgage notes as assets, might go belly up. I really don't see that it affects many regular people. Their portfolio possibly gets on the already bad market. What happens? Somebody snaps them up for peanuts, and eventually makes a killing when the market gets back to normal. There are always gonna be winners and losers in a capitalist economy, especially among the major players. Why is that something we should even be concerned about?

I am not debating....I'm lecturing.

You are correct that the vast majority of mortgages are fine. But it doesn't matter. Because everthing has been securitized, what matters is the price of those mortgages on the open market.

Listen real close on this point......even though they DON'T change hands, there is market price for the mortgage. This is known as "marked to market". Accounting rules make companies reflect this "mark to market" prices on the balance sheet. This is the problem!!!!!!!!!! If they did not have to mark to market none of this would have happened. Read Einhorn's speech above.,,,,he is a shorter. His main goal was to have Lehaman properly reflect the prices of loans on the balance sheet.

As far as AIG, they have a trillion dollar balance sheet. Much of this is what is know as "counter party." Credit swaps, etc.

I won't even try to explain. I barely understand that stuff myself.

[bobblehead]

The problem is that she actually IS unnecessarily cruel. And in being so, she becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in reverse - HER arguments are ignored because HER vitriol becomes the story.

I agree..........

I read her articles every week, and she often times crystalizes an issue better than any other Conservative writer has. But, she has to throw in her over the top "Ann Coulter thing." I think she has her disciples that she has to feed. It keeps her very wealthy.

It's too bad though, she is very bright.

Ya think skin is related?

[bobblehead]

The problem is that she actually IS unnecessarily cruel. And in being so, she becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy in reverse - HER arguments are ignored because HER vitriol becomes the story.

I agree..........

I read her articles every week, and she often times crystalizes an issue better than any other Conservative writer has. But, she has to throw in her over the top "Ann Coulter thing." I think she has her disciples that she has to feed. It keeps her very wealthy.

It's too bad though, she is very bright.

Besides her sparkling intellect and ability to articulate extremely effectively her spunk is what distinguishes her from the conservative crowd. From my vantage point it's what makes Ann, Ann.

I can't agree with anyone 100% of the time, Ann included, but I wouldn't ask her to change her approach either. She's a wordsmith and like an artist she has her own distinctive style.

I agree though that she can be her own worst enemy. The "faggot" reference she was playing off of in the Edwards comment was just too obscure for the average Joe to catch. Pop culturally-aware folks got it, but most people were left bewildered by what she meant.

That's what happens when you are a public media figure playing verbal chess when most people are playing checkers.

I think you guys miss one point: she is railing against the PC crowd when she "crosses the line". Her entire style is an affront to the thought police and its intentional. She is willing to martyr herself to speak what she sees as the truth.

[bobblehead]

I didn't realize the hedge funds caused the mortgage meltdown. Please explain.

First, it may be nuanced, but you are nothing if not a master of nuance……I never alluded to whether or not hedge funds caused anything; merely that the duplicitous John Edwards profited off what happened.

But, now that you ask.

Back in the day, your bank would do the underwriting on your mortgage, and then keep it on their balance sheet. They had a vested interest in your ability to pay the money back.

In the past few years, mortgages have been securitized and sold off in bundles known as CDOs. These CDOs have different traunches, depending on the risk of repayment. Because of fees, etc. there was a very large appetite for putting together these securitized loans. And offloading them.

Hedge funds were able to put together extremely highly leveraged funds of these securitized loans. Sometime 16:1. And, to add fuel to the fire, they were borrowing money in Japan at practically 0% interest and taking that cash over here to put the funds together. So, they not only had U.S. credit risk, but also foreign currency risk as well. It was an extremely highly torqued spring.

Certain firms, which I will not name, had a HUGE chunk of this stuff on their balance sheets. It was easy money, but they were not taking care of the risk management.

These securities aren't heavily traded or priced for that matter, and a flood of supply into the open market could drive prices down, forcing other holders of these securities to mark down the value of their holdings. When these loans are marked down, they start to really erode balance sheets. As balance sheets continue to erode, rating agencies such as Moodys and Standard and Poors lower the rating on these companies. As that happens, institutional investors, such as endowments and pensions, by their bylaws are forbidden from holding them anymore. The pensions, etc have to liquidate…..and so the flood of this stuff continues on the market.

As any Capitalist knows, when there is too much of something offered for sale real quick, there can come a time when there is no “bid” at all. That is where we are today. No “bid” for these securitized loans, so theoretically……they are worthless. Companies have to put this stuff on their balance sheets as worthless. Killing the companies.

Now, for the “short” side. Some smart guys/gals out there in the past couple of years have put huge bets on that this would all happen. Either through shorting, puts or buying credit swaps. When something is shorted, it is sold high, with the intention of buying back later cheaper. So, the shorting actually added a whole lot of fuel to this fire. Read Einhorn’s speech:

http://www.foolingsomepeople.com/main/TCF%202008%20Speech.pdf

What we need now is a “bid” on this debt.

Bump for Tex.

good news...the US gov't (that means us the taxpayers), just bid face value on 5 TRILLION dollars of bad debt. (ok, only about 1.5 trillion is bad).

The short story that you elaborated well is that lenders and borrowers got fully disconnected, therefore repaying a loan wasn't a concern to the loan writer....only the commission s/he could collect.

[bobblehead]

Howard do you, or have you worked in financials? (or do you read way to fricking much).

I know I am coming across as an arrogant ass by this statement, but you are trying to explain a movie to people who didn't see the first part. You can no more explain the workings of the financial market on a blog than someone could explain biochemistry to me in a blog. I don't have the background.

Tex is right about one thing, this will only be a hiccup to most people, its not a national emergency. They won't even notice the hiccup....higher interest rates on home/auto loans, stagnant wages, stagnant growth, investments not growing as well as they should. These are things we call 'recession' without really understanding the meaning of the word. If you work a secure job and you are staying in that job for another 10 years and living in your house another 10 years and only look at your retirment funds once a year this will barely affect you.

edit: It will affect me because I have a large amount of equity locked into 2 pieces of land that are worth much more than I paid, but my selling horizon was supposed to be 2007-2010. With the economy stagnant I can't get a buyer at nearly ANY price, as no one is able to get credit to build on it atm.

[HowardRoark]

Howard do you, or have you worked in financials? (or do you read way to fricking much).

I know I am coming across as an arrogant ass by this statement, but you are trying to explain a movie to people who didn't see the first part. You can no more explain the workings of the financial market on a blog than someone could explain biochemistry to me in a blog. I don't have the background.

Tex is right about one thing, this will only be a hiccup to most people, its not a national emergency. They won't even notice the hiccup....higher interest rates on home/auto loans, stagnant wages, stagnant growth, investments not growing as well as they should. These are things we call 'recession' without really understanding the meaning of the word. If you work a secure job and you are staying in that job for another 10 years and living in your house another 10 years and only look at your retirment funds once a year this will barely affect you.

edit: It will affect me because I have a large amount of equity locked into 2 pieces of land that are worth much more than I paid, but my selling horizon was supposed to be 2007-2010. With the economy stagnant I can't get a buyer at nearly ANY price, as no one is able to get credit to build on it atm.

I guess I read too much.....

FASB Rule 157

http://www.fasb.org/st/summary/stsum157.shtml