Captain's Quarters -

Heh, tone deaf hypocrisy. Edwards on poverty, Al Gore on the environment. Limousine liberal, Gulfstream environmentalist. I hope they've both jumped the shark.

Pffft, $50,000 to talk about poverty is justifiable for a guy that earned $435,000 learning about it at a hedge fund manager.

I don't think Edwards has campaigned on lowering speaking fees, has he?

This is silly "gotcha!" stuff. I enjoy "gotcha!"'s as much as the next person (I will never golf again without saying something like, "We're going to get these evil-doers. Now watch this drive."), but I understand that it's not Really Important News.

The Silky Pony has morphed into our very own "Segolene". And weren't they both just "cute as a button"?!

It's simple.

The best way to eliminate poverty, is to talk about how to get out of poverty and charge $50K.

John Edwards - he not only talks the talk, he walks the walk. All the way to the bank.

"Pffft, $50,000 to talk about poverty is justifiable for a guy that earned $435,000 learning about it at a hedge fund manager."

To give a little balance to this story, Edwards donated $350,000 to charity last year, as well as the royalties from his book, which were something like $333,000.

I agree it probably would have been a wise and right thing for Edwards to wave his fee for the University -- or at least lower it -- but this attack is a little ridiculous and has that dirty Newsmax feel to it.

Rich people run for president. Rich politicians charge speaking fees (Romney made over $2 million last year off them, averaging over $80,000 a speech). If rich politicians are not allowed to try and tackle the problem of poverty or to talk about poverty, then no politician is going to be allowed to tackle or talk about poverty.

"If rich politicians are not allowed to try and tackle the problem of poverty or to talk about poverty, then no politician is going to be allowed to tackle or talk about poverty."

You are completely obfuscating the issue - No one is trying to prevent this clown from droning on with his tired speech - it's just that it's hypocritical for a politician to charge $50K to wail about poverty.

Edwards is the one who slanders the productive people in this nation, with his "Two Americas" drivel.

This from a guy who made his fortune as a swindling trial lawyer, who made $500K working for a hedge fund he knew nothing about, who owns a 28,000 sq. ft. mansion on an 80 acre estate, who gets $400 haircuts and who charges universities $50K for canned speeches.

And no, we're not going to stop criticizing Edwards. An Edwards Presidency would be a disaster for this country and we're going to torpedo his gold-plated yacht before it ever sets sail.

nodonkey:

Jealous much?

$55,000. From a publicly funded university. Just prior to Edwards declaring as a candidate. If I didn't know liberals were in charge of the UC system, I do now, with the typical wasting of our tax money wasted on an hour long speech about poverty from a guy who buys $400 haircuts! Edwards has a guy barely making ends meet living across the road from him -- and Elizabeth Edwards sniffs about the unkempt nature of his property and his gun ownership.

There is the rich irony, something that skirts the edge of political correctness, when one of the richest people in America tells us about what we should do about poverty and yet wants nothing to do with his neighbors who are in poverty.

Two people counter Tom Shipley's arguments above with zingers that tell it like it is:

1) As candidate Edwards tells us, there are two Americas, one where people get paid $55,000 for a one hour speech and receive $400 haircuts. And then there's the America the rest of us live in. (Courtesy "Barranka")

2) $55,000 is only about 120 haircuts. That doesn't sound like much money at all. (Courtesy "TropicalBlue")

"Jealous much?" - contemptible

No - Edwards has nothing I want and he's no one I would even remotely wish to be.

Actually, I'm pretty darned happy, when you get right down to it. In my experience, conservatives want to "conserve" the way things are, because they are happy.

In contrast, leftists are malcontented losers, who believe if they can just get the right people into office, their heroes will magically transform their pathetic lives into ones more worth living.

Sad how that never happens.

I'd have done it for half that...

I'm assuming the speech went something like this, "Get a publicly funded liberal college to pay you $55,000 to drone on about how we really need to work on this poverty thing. Presto, you are $55,000 richer and therefore no longer in poverty."

it's just that it's hypocritical for a politician to charge $50K to wail about poverty.

Why?

Maybe Tom Shipley didn't read the Captain's paragraph right after the quote. So let me quote our host:

The California university footed the bill for his speaking fee, even though the UC system was already considering a 7% tuition hike to cover rising costs. That tuition hike will make it even more difficult for low-income families to access California's premiere university system. Interestingly, Edwards hit the public university for considerably more that he dinged the private Stanford University ($40K), and the private American Jewish University in the same month (also $40K, appearing with Newt Gingrich). If rising college costs at public universities impact the poor as Edwards complains, then why charge them almost 40% more for speaking fees?

Edwards is contributing to the very thing his speech rails against.

I'd be willing to bet that Edwards thinks universities shouldn't have to be so reliant on tuition income.

Also: I doubt his 50k speaking engagement was the straw that broke the camel's back. First, it was probably already budgeted for. Second, 50k is a drop in the bucket for a university system like UC. You're not seriously arguing that it was his speaking fees, rather than a systemic dysfunction in funding structure, that caused the tuition hike, are you?

So perhaps someone else could try to explain in plain english why this is hypocritical. I'm just not seeing it. I'm not that bright, so try to keep it simple.

"So perhaps someone else could try to explain in plain english why this is hypocritical. I'm just not seeing it. I'm not that bright, so try to keep it simple."

Perhaps because Edwards whines about "poverty" in this country, yet made more in a what, a two hour appearance than the average American Edwards whines about, makes in one year?

If Edwards was not a hypocrite, he could have divided up his appearance fee among the people who set up the stage and the janitors who cleaned up after the crowd. What would he have lost? Does Edwards really need that $50K? For what?

How about Edwards setting an example? If Edwards was really interested in eliminating poverty, he could "live simply, so other may live" by selling his house, living in a $100K home and giving his assets to the poor.

"First, it was probably already budgeted for. Second, 50k is a drop in the bucket for a university system like UC."

So the university could have featured additional speakers to educate their students, if Edwards would have foregone his fee.

Did you read where UC is increasing their tuition by 7%? What Edwards earned in a couple of hours could have paid one disadvantaged student to attend school for a year.

If Edwards was not a hypocrite, he could have divided up his appearance fee among the people who set up the stage and the janitors who cleaned up after the crowd.

To be a hypocrite, I thought, was to say one thing and do another. Edwards would be a hypocrite, then, if he said that wealthy people have an obligation to give away all their assets.

He's certainly said we need more government spending, which implies higher taxes, but calling for higher taxes and calling for the rich to give away all their assets seem to be two different things.

Like I said, I'm not the sharpest knife in the set, but "give away all you have" and "raise taxes" seem to me to be different.

The Captain approaches this from the most sensible angle (and without relying on a single haricut reference). It's not the fees, but all of the circumstances - public university in a time of steep tuition hikes, etc. that are overall pretty unpalatable.

Some of the other criticisms sound good but are weak tea. NoDonkey, I doubt you are a proponent of giving people cash handouts to alleviate poverty, so why would pose this as what Edwards ought to do to avoid the label of hypocrisy?

For the government to take on poverty is not a simple matter, obviously. But there have been some liberal government policies that have approached it seriously, even if they have been perverted over time. Robert and John Kennedy were two rich men who were idealistic and pragmatic about tackling poverty, and took up the cause at significant political risk - there were much fewer people who would accept "two Americas"-type rhetoric so off the cuff 40 years ago.

To me, Edwards' credibility is pretty tenuous. There is a difference between reducing poverty and expanding the poverty industry. He has to show that he is serious about the brass tacks of the former, and resistant to the natural pull of the latter.

"but "give away all you have" and "raise taxes" seem to me to be different."

I didn't say he needs to "give away all he has". I said he needs to "live simply, so others may simply live" (to quote an inane liberal bumper sticker I see so often on DC Volvos).

You are correct in that what Edwards is proposing is slightly different from what I'm proposing - instead of people giving voluntarily, because they want to help, Edwards wants the government to forcibly extract the funding from the willing and the unwilling alike.

Voluntary giving is moral. Using the government to extort money out of the unwilling to fund your little projects, is immoral. Therefore, John Edwards is immoral.

Why doesn't Edwards just eliminate the middle man, and give the money to the poor directly? Why not set an example for the rest of us?

Gee, I hope i get the chance to vote for a personal injury lawyer. I have so little in common with this man. According to wikipedia:

1984: Client's brain and nerve damage earned Edwards ~ $1,295,000*

1985: Jennifer Campbell's cerebral palsy earned Edwards ~ $2,012,500 in a case where Edwards demonstrated his channeling ability ("I have to tell you right now — I didn't plan to talk about this — right now I feel her [Jennifer], I feel her presence...[Jennifer's] inside me and she's talking to you.")

1997: Valerie Lakey's internal injuries earned Edwards ~ $8,750,000.

What a guy. He's used to getting paid for other people's troubles.

(*based on a 35% average contingency fee)

He lies about his background. He says he grew up in reduced circumstances as the son of a mill-worker; in actuality, his father managed the mill, then bought it.

To unpack this: if it was true that the Edwards' family was poor, then John made it up and out, right? But he goes around the country pretending on the one hand that he's just a regular-Joe who got lucky and made good, and on the other telling people things are so bad (and they're so incapable) that they can't do the same.

So is he like the rest of folks (as he'd have you think) or is he so extraordinarily gifted that reproducing his experience is unlikely?

This exploitation is chicken feed for Edward and his wife who have pocketed at least $29 M by falsely getting gullible jurors to believe that obstetricians are negligent if they don't use a caesarian and the child develops cerebral palsy. All available medical studies pooh pooh this idea but it has caused many obstetricians to leave the field and raised the cost of medical insurance which is a major cause of the high price of medical care. Edwards didn't personally cause the particular problem in north east Wyoming but like minded lawyers did. The problem is that the lawyers chased the obstetricians out of the area so that the nearest obstetrician may be in a neighboring state and one hundred or more miles away.

burt,

Which explains why Edwards is proposing to alter our "ailing" health care system.

Apparently, our legal system is just hunky-dory with John.

The key is better living through lawsuits. We'll sue ourselves out of poverty. Each and every hapless "victim" will be matched with a lawyer with a 28,000 sq. ft. house, in John's America.

Voluntary giving is moral. Using the government to extort money out of the unwilling to fund your little projects, is immoral. Therefore, John Edwards is immoral.

So it sounds to me that what you're saying isn't that Edwards is a hypocrite (since you acknowledge he isn't calling for the rich to give away all they have), but that he's immoral.

Edwards' job is now "professional candidate" - nothing more. I'm guessing the IRS should be defining such employment about now for the '09 1040 returns.

He will not be elected but he can run, again, for the highest office in the land while conning people into giving him lots of money for his campaign and "insight" on such things as poverty. A pretty good gig he has while his hair and ego are stroked by fools who so quickly want to depart with their money... or money they can take from public coffers.

Edwards is one cunning huckster congenitally capable of "working hard" at being lucky.

jpe, about you not being the sharpest knife in the drawer?

You weren't kiddin', were you?

Holy cow. How dense can someone be?

I have a problem with Mr. Edwards receiving any payment whatsoever from a public institution to make a political campaign speech.

I wonder how many other presidential candidates will receive similar offers?

$55,000 sheesh, was he getting paid by the word?

I have a problem with Mr. Edwards receiving any payment whatsoever from a public institution to make a political campaign speech.

The speech was in 2006, so he wasn't a candidate at the time.

Turns out Edwards charged $17 per ticket for this thing. LOL

Thank you, Only_One_Cannoli. The Chronicle is absolutely right -- but it's obviously now too late for Edwards, since the hypocrite label's glue is too tough for Edwards to remove. Two Americas, indeed.

And, contrary to Tom Shipley's assertion, campaign speeches can occur prior to the candidate declaring. Do we have any doubt about Al Gore's intentions, for instance?

Tom, Edwards may not have been a "declared" candidate in 2006, but he was a candidate.

The question about how many other undeclared candidates received similar speaking offers still stands, especially conservative candidates.