How To Fight Poverty: Give Lectures about Fighting Poverty
Filed under: 2008 elections, John Edwards, Morons — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on May 22, 2007 @ 7:32 pm CEST
Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who recently proposed an educational policy that urged “every financial barrier” be removed for American kids who want to go to college, has been going to college himself — as a high paid speaker, his financial records show.
The candidate charged a whopping $55,000 to speak at to a crowd of 1,787 the taxpayer-funded University of California at Davis on Jan. 9, 2006 last year, Joe Martin, the public relations officer for the campus’ Mondavi Center confirmed Monday.
That amount — which comes to about $31 a person in the audience — included Edwards’ travel and airfare, and was the highest speaking fee in the nine appearances he made before colleges and universities last year, according to his financial records…
He appeared at Stanford University, where he spoke on April 26, 2006; the Palo Alto institution paid him $40,000 to deliver his talks, according to financial records. And Edwards also headlined at the former University of Judaism — today the American Jewish University — in Los Angeles on Jan. 30, 2006, where he debated former Speaker Newt Gingrich before about 5,000 people. According to financial documents, the candidate received a fee of $40,000 at that appearance…
In 2006, records show Edwards made more than $285,000 speaking to nine colleges and universities, charging between $16,000 and Davis’ $55,000 for his talks. They ranged from the $12,000 he got on Jan. 10, 2006 from Gonzaga University Law School in Seattle to the $40,000 he banked from the University of Texas Pan American Foundation on May 22, 2006. Other schools that have paid Edwards to speak before he was a declared presidential candidate: Hunter College in New York ($35,000), Mount Union College in Ohio ($16,00) and Vanderbilt University in Nashville ($40,000).
Well, that’s certainly ironic.
John, listen, it’s simple: if you are going to campaign on the issue of poverty there are certain things you shouldn’t do. One of them is charging $50,000 for a lecture about… poverty.
He’s giving his opponents the gun and the ammunition to shoot him.
1 Interested
May 22, 2007 @ 7:37 pm CESTTrue indeed,
I don’t have any problem with any of the candidates engaging in speaking for money.
But he could have been smart about it.
2 Michael van der Galien
May 22, 2007 @ 8:01 pm CESTExactly.
3 kritter
May 22, 2007 @ 11:58 pm CESTOk, I know I’m not as conservative as the rest of you guys, but I don’t see the big problem. Its not like he went into the ghetto and charged the residents there 50,000 to tell them how to break out of poverty. That’s what he knows about and is his signature issue. There’s nothing in there for his opponents to use against him. Stop grasping at straws. To me his wife’s health is a bigger issue than this is.
4 domajot
May 23, 2007 @ 6:42 am CESTAre you saying that only poor people can talks about fighting poverty?
Okay, then, only sick people should talk about disease, and only people with AIDS should fight it. If a doctor helps, he shouldn;t charge for his services.
Only politicians should talk about politics.
Only military people should disuss wars, and only they can judge who’s a hero and who’s not.
I’m disappointed that this site took this route to current evnts.
5 Michael van der Galien
May 23, 2007 @ 7:58 am CESTWell my point is that it’s politically stupid.
6 domajot
May 23, 2007 @ 11:33 am CESTPolitically stupid.
I guess the samrt thing to do would be to not speak about poverty.
Alternatively, he could stop making money.
To be double smart, he would give all his money away.
And here I thought, we all believed in the market system.
Silly me for thinking this is just another routine political non-story.
7 domajot
May 23, 2007 @ 11:35 am CESTPS
The Nobel prize winner banker from Bangladesh charges market rate interest for his lonns to poor people.
I guess he’s really stupid, too.
8 George Sorwell
May 23, 2007 @ 1:03 pm CESTIn America, poverty is a problem.
In America, problems like poverty are addressed by politicans.
In America, you have to be rich to be a serious politican.
In America, you get to be rich by figuring out how to get someone to give you large amounts of money.
In America, wealthy politicans are mocked as hypocrits for addressing the issue of poverty because they do not personally suffer from poverty themselves.
In America, enough mockery can destroy whatever claims to being serious a politican has.
And so, in America, the issue of poverty is not addressed by policitans.
PS I’m not a big fan of Edwards. But I am well aware of how unfairly he’s being treated by our stupid media. The homophobia projected upon him. The $400 haircut. The hypocrisy charge. God almighty! Like all politicans aren’t hypocrits!
Like all human beings aren’t hypocrits!
9 C Stanley
May 23, 2007 @ 2:19 pm CESTWhat I don’t understand is why the public universities feel it is ‘their mission’ to present these speakers to the public anyway. Provide the space, the forum for it, yes- if there is either a speaker who will do it at cost (travel cost) or a sponsoring agency to pick up the tab. Why, when college tuition costs are so high, should the university be spending money like that? The students and taxpayers are the ones who end up footing the bill.
10 domajot
May 23, 2007 @ 2:50 pm CESTOne of the things I appreciated most when I was in college was the wide variety of speakers who came to speak on a variety of issues.
There were politicians (the governor spoke several times) literary figures and officicials from other countries. It was a wonderful expansion of my education.
Today these people might have blogs, a very secondary experience to seeing and hearing a speaker in person.
Schools are suuposed to educate.
Hearing speakers on a variety of topics provides education.
11 C Stanley
May 23, 2007 @ 2:52 pm CESTAnd as I said, Doma, there are ways that universities could still foster that environment without spending the student and taxpayer money (particularly for speakers who are basically extorting them: $55,000 is an absurd amount for a few hours at the podium).
12 kritter
May 23, 2007 @ 3:57 pm CESTWhy is it extortion? Free market, right? No one said the universities had to ask him to come. I’m sure there are other more reasonable speakers. Probably the funds came from the student activity fees not the actual university budgets.
13 C Stanley
May 23, 2007 @ 4:06 pm CESTI wasn’t using the term literally, Kim- just expressing my view that this is a very high rate to charge.
And even if you don’t want to call it hypocrisy, you have to admit it’s at least a bit ironic to set your fee that high and then use podium to talk about how difficult it is for many families to afford college.
14 domajot
May 23, 2007 @ 4:42 pm CESTCS-
I don’t know what the going rate for speakers is, but I have no reason to believe Edwards charged more than the market standard is.
If it was too much, the school could have always refused to pay.
Maybe hearing the message was worth the money? If a few students learned to think about something they hadn’t thought about the day before, that’s worth a lot. I believe in broadening the perspective of students, not narrowing it.
I suspect the outvry has more to do with the speaker (wrong party) and the message (we don’t mention poverty in polite society) than the fee.
Some of everyone’s pooled money (taxes, tuitions) always goes for expenses a particular person does not approve of.
I’m not happy about financing this war, but I try to accept it with good grace. I recognize that I’m part of a diverse society, with a multitude of views and projects. I identify with the nation, as a whole, not just the like minded.
15 C Stanley
May 23, 2007 @ 4:55 pm CESTThat’s exactly what I was saying, that the school shouldn’t be paying fees like that. If the speaker is that much in demand, there will be other sources of private funding and the university can co-sponsor by providing the venue. I think that way across the board, for speakers of all political stripes- because college tuition has gotten out of hand and budgets have to be cut somewhere.
16 Interested
May 23, 2007 @ 5:43 pm CESToh please.
And the lack of outcry is also directly proportionate to being on the same party.
17 kritter
May 23, 2007 @ 8:09 pm CESTWell it also says that some of the time he charged as little as $16,000-which doesn’t seem that outrageous to me. He has donated a lot of time and effort to Katrina victims, so I think this is much ado about nothing.
Its not illegal or immoral to give paid speeches for money in this country- maybe he was trying to inspire the next generation to have more of a social conscience than their parents have. If you want to call it ironic, fine.
18 mvdg
May 23, 2007 @ 8:12 pm CESTwho says that it’s immoral or illegal? No one. At least not me. And, yes, it is ironic. That’s not even a matter of subjectivity, it’s a fact.
19 domajot
May 23, 2007 @ 10:01 pm CESTThis is just campaign season nibbling at someone’s heels, and IMO, it’s petty.
20 kritter
May 23, 2007 @ 11:18 pm CESTDoma- Yes, it is VERY petty. They obviously can’t find anything else to criticize him on- MvdG is getting more like Tucker Carlson every day.
Are you scrutinizing Giuliani and Fred Thompson as carefully, MvdG?
21 Interested
May 23, 2007 @ 11:32 pm CESTlol Don’t forget to print more “free passes” for the left Michael.
22 C Stanley
May 24, 2007 @ 11:06 am CESTWhen you look at each claim or complaint individually, it may seem petty but it all adds up to a man who talks the talk but doesn’t walk the walk.
He says that the GOP and Bush exploited 9/11 by holding their convention in NYC- then he announces his campaign from the Ninth Ward of Katrina: ‘Do as I say, not as I do.’
He asks us to meet our obligations to the victims of Katrina (I agree with him on this, and even would support his idea of a WPC type project to boost employment there- that’s a good way for the federal govt to give the community a shot in the arm). Yet the finance corp that he took a lucrative position with had made subprime loans to homeowners with poor credit and then repossessed homes from Katrina victims who were two months late with payments. That same firm was also a hedge fund firm, engaging in offshore investments to shelter income from taxes- which Edwards has repeatedly criticized. Once again, ‘do as I say, not as I do.”
He campaigns for Universal Healthcare and points out that our healthcare system is broken yet he made his first fortune as a trial lawyer and seems oblivious to the fact that tort costs have driven up the cost of healthcare.
He campaigns on global warming, yet he lives and works on opposite coasts (not to mention all the other travel but I’ll give him a pass on that since it does come with the territory for a politician to travel to make speeches and mingle with the masses) and built a huge home (carbon footprint, anyone?)
It’s just beyond my how anyone can be so inspired by someone whose actions are so inconsistent with his rhetoric.
23 domajot
May 24, 2007 @ 2:49 pm CESTCS-
You’ve certainly broadened the topic. You wouldn’t vote for Edwards for your stated reasons, and (surprise, surprise) neither would I, for reasons of my own. But the post was about a specific event - a speech.
We can disect the candidates one by one, but regarding this particular topic, I think it’s educational for students to hear about poverty and to begin thinking about it. It’s certainly better to bring our problems into the light and address them than to pretend everything is wonderful while hoping the bad news goes away by itself.
For what it’s worth, the biggest mistake Bush made domestically was to present a Wonderland
scenario to the public which was totally alien to the private experience of large sectors of it. It divided the nation between the in-crowd and the ignored.
Speeches by Edwards, among others, at least acknowledge what has been ignored for too long.
To quibble about the speech is petty, IMO.
To analyze the person is another topic.
24 C Stanley
May 24, 2007 @ 3:01 pm CESTOK, Doma, well, you seem to put all criticism as off limits by saying that I’m petty to criticize Edwards on the basis of this one action and then I’m wrong to also broaden the subject by saying that I see the speaking fees as part of a pattern of behavior.
25 domajot
May 24, 2007 @ 3:19 pm CESTCS-
If you read my comment, you will see that I said nothing about what you are right or wrong to criticize.
I was defining the limits of my own reaction to the post and my ccomments.
As you are now arguing about the argument, the discussion has strayed too far for me.
26 Interested
May 24, 2007 @ 3:38 pm CESTDom,
Curious as to why it is whenever anyone directly challenges or discusses what you like to state - then the topic immediately turns to “strayed too far” and you cease to discuss it.
27 C Stanley
May 24, 2007 @ 3:53 pm CESTReviewing what you wrote, Doma:
Then:
I give up.
28 domajot
May 24, 2007 @ 4:54 pm CESTInterested and CS-
I’m at a loss to figure out what your complaint is.
If the speech given by Edwards had been given by a millionaire gorilla, my reaction would have been the same.
I feel no obligation to discuss Edwards, the man, if my area of interest is presenting the topic of poverty to sudents.
Elsewhere, I’m in the middle of a discussion about health care.
I recently commented that Gingrich’s romantic history has no bearing on what he has to say about health care.
Health care or speeches on poverty, I try to stick to the subject.
This subject, for me, has been exhausted.
29 Interested
May 24, 2007 @ 5:02 pm CESTOf course.
30 C Stanley
May 24, 2007 @ 5:09 pm CESTIf you really are interested to understand my ‘complaint’ (which is putting it too harshly, I’m honestly not the least bit upset over this)- it’s that you yourself brought up your opinion of my argument and then when I pointed that out you not only denied that you were doing it but you seemed to turn it around by saying that I was the one arguing about the argument. It just seems that you always set the rules for the discussion, so that you can make a criticism of what I say (that part is allowable according to your rules) but then when I defend against the criticism you made of my remark you say that I’m taking the conversation off track. In the current thread, if you wanted to strictly state your opinion about the Edwards speech you could have done so, but you also chose to say that my opinion of it was petty- and that any broadening of the criticism was too tangential to be worthy of discussion here.