Define Irony, John Edwards Charges UC Davis $55K for Speech on Poverty


Define irony … we believe John Edwards may just have. You know you just cant make this stuff up. Mr. Two Americas, Democratic Presidential John_edwards_thumbhopeful John Edwards, charged the tax payer funded UC Davis $55,000 to make a speech on poverty. How do the rich get richer? They do so by getting paid to talk about poverty, at the expense of tax payers. Absolutely incredible and the WTF segment of the day. Then again, what should we expect from an attorney, wannabe Democratic candidate politician.

Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards, who as a Democratic presidential candidate 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. (SF Chronicle)

I guess we know what America that John Edwards is a part of. The hypocrisy and lack of shame is simply incredible. One really has to question the judgement and greediness of a Presidential wannabe who would actually charge an institution a fee for the very thing that one discusses in their message. If it did not actually occur it would actually be a bad joke.


(Speeches on poverty at tax payers expense needed to pay for the mortgage of the John Edwards estate)

That could cause both parents and students to note some irony here: UC Davis — like the rest of the public University of California system — will get hit this year by a 7 percent tuition increase that likely hits many of the kids his speeches are aimed at helping.

Edwards spoke to at least two other California universities and colleges, both private.

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.

And the college and university gigs apparently added up on the bottom line for Edwards.

If you liked this post, you may also like these:

  • John Edwards, WHO?
  • John Edward’s Haircuts, Splitting Hairs or Spinning? Two America’s and Two Haircuts
  • Elizabeth Edwards: “We Can’t make John Black, We Can’t Make him a Woman.
  • John Edwards Mug Shot Released after Federal Indictment … I Feel Pretty
  • John Edwards Campaign Finance Case: Female Alternate Juror Flirts With The Breck Girl, John Edwards

  • Comments

    26 Responses to “Define Irony, John Edwards Charges UC Davis $55K for Speech on Poverty”

    1. driving miss daisy on May 21st, 2007 8:54 pm

      What was even worse than this, was his participation in sub-prime loans whereas he worked on Wall Street, part-time for six months, advising these crooks that are not being caught in this scam of the poorest of our society, who will, for the most part, lose their houses in the near future, due to foreclosure, because they will not be able to pay at these adjustable rates. He earned $500,000 and claimed he did it so he could learn more about poverty. Really? Whose poverty? Those poor people that you and these stinking sub-prime crooks were scamming? How can you sleep with yourself? you beauty shopping liar. It is no wonder you have to look in the mirror a lot, so you can see your two faces for the two Americas you claim to know. Prance, pony, prance. There is no White House in your future, Pretty Breck Girl.

    2. strayze on May 21st, 2007 9:34 pm

      Great pimpmanship!

    3. Miss-Underestimated on May 21st, 2007 10:26 pm

      Oh come on now, how else can he afford the $00.00 haircuts?

    4. Allan K on May 21st, 2007 10:42 pm

      Sin city

      A wave of scandals is marring President George W. Bush’s second term:

      – Paul Wolfowitz
      The head of the World Bank, a Bush favorite, is fighting for
      his job over allegations that he ordered promotion and a pay rise for girlfriend Shaha Riza.

      – Alberto Gonzales
      The US Attorney General is accused of setting up the sacking of eight US attorneys who were ‘not sympathetic enough’ to the White House.

      – George Tenet
      The ex-CIA head says Vice-President Dick Cheney pressed ahead with the Iraq invasion despite CIA warnings.

      – Jack Abramoff
      Ex-lobbyist with strong Republican ties was jailed for fraud and corruption.

      Meanwhile the resignation of Randall Tobias, Bush’s director of Foreign Aid and former AIDS Czar, continues to echo round Washington DC, and for the same reasons. Tobias resigned on 30 April when he was named as one of the frequent customers of a call-girl agency run by Washington madam Deborah Palfrey.

      I wouldn’t refer to any political party in the order of sainthood or for the people. What I have noticed is the politicians lining their pockets and giving in to their illicit sexual pleasures.

      That business of for the people is out the window. Anybody in politics would not even be able to understand being poor.

      Has anybody heard of any good a politician has done lately?

    5. Richard on May 21st, 2007 10:44 pm

      Is there some kind of a joke here? Once again, when it says to add 1 and 1 (I think the answer is 2), and I do it, it tells me that I have failed the test!

      I mean, come on ….

      Anyways, don’t forget about Edwards’ work for a hedge fund based in the Cayman Islands (I think) not so long ago. I read about it recently, but can’t remember where; maybe The Wall Street Journal.

    6. Mark Adams on May 21st, 2007 10:45 pm

      How much did you give to chairity last year?

      Edwards gave $350,000.

      I’ll just chalk this up to jealosy, since there’s no way people would pay you $50 grand to speak your trivialities.


      SM: Coming from an attorney I would expect no less.

       I guess you mean he gave to “charity” and that I am have “jealousy” ??? I guess if you are going to be hateful and make stupid comments toward someone, you may want to at least spell your insults correctly. Just a thought.

      You justify bad behavior and no class because he gave money to charity? I guess you justify every bit of rotten behavior? And we wonder why the world is like it is.

      Why is it that you liberals are so hateful? Do you really hear just how pathetic you and your arguments really are?


    7. Scared Monkeys on May 21st, 2007 10:53 pm

      How comical is it that he charged the tax payer backed university more than the private college. No wonder college tuitons are thru the roof and that graduates have student loans for years that they can barely afford.

      How he could not have done this “gratis” is a mystery.

    8. Scared Monkeys on May 22nd, 2007 1:10 am

      BTW #6 …

      John Edwards is nothing more than a fool, a political novice and his actions resemble an A$$ clown.

      I would be embarrassed to be this man’s campaign manager having to do damage control on the most ridiculous and foolish gaffs that Edwards manages to get himself into.

    9. A's Fever on May 22nd, 2007 1:38 am

      Yes, UC Davis is a public school however The Mondavi Center at UC Davis charges for all events. It is not as if an academic program was ravaged to pay Edwards’ speaking fee. The ongoing tuition increases are to support academic programs and are completely unrelated to such an event. 1,787 people showed up to hear this speech, which works out to about $31 per person, not unreasonable for a theatre or political event. Ticket prices ranged from $17.50 to $45.

      Obviously public figures on the lecture circuit charge fees, why shouldn’t Edwards? Is there some magical net worth figure that is a cutoff point, after which all appearances are gratis? Geez, can’t you find a real issue to comment on instead of nonsense like this?

    10. Richard on May 22nd, 2007 6:02 am

      Are these “other public figures” in the business of trying to run the country and put themselves in office? And probably excoriating the “rich” for tax breaks, etc?

    11. Scared Monkeys on May 22nd, 2007 8:01 am

      A’s Fever …

      There is a difference between an event speaker and a political figure running for office. A big difference actually. Please tell me you do not see the irony in what Edwards did?

      His entire campaign is an ironic joke … Talking of Two Americas and trying to champion the other America while he is a part of the Rich and privileged one. There is some irony as well.

    12. on May 22nd, 2007 8:54 am

      John Edwards, like algore, is a hypocrit. He doesn’t practice what he preaches. Bring in left wing media headlines about the Bush administration won’t change that. Face it, it appears that these days, most politicians are dirt in one way or another. What Bush has/has not done about illegals entering this country is something real that you can fault him for.

      If you want to look at filthy politicians you can always bring up William Jefferson (big bucks in the freezer) or Sandy Berger (aka Sandy Burglar who stole top secret docs from the National archives). Bottom line is that we could play tit for tat all day – but this post by SM was simply about John Edwards the Hypocrit.

    13. Mark Adams on May 22nd, 2007 9:28 am

      Hey, sorry about the typos, it was late. I hope I made your day so you could attack me personally instead of addressing my point. Glad to see you sort of got back on track.

      I see irony in a personal attack against a commentator like myself which simultaneously decries the horror of spreading hate by substantial portion of the population, which itself was a fairly hateful thing to say.

      I see irony when Giuliani is untouchable for his speaking fees and book deals which garner him $11 million, arguably exploitive of one of the worst American tragedies in history — yet he is hailed as some sort of hero.

      Does your litmus test for the perfect candidate extend to the GOP?

      I do not see irony in wealthy people trying to help the less fortunate. I call that generosity. I call that answering to a higher purpose. I call that using your power for good, not evil.

      Do you likewise criticize the Catholic Church for ministering to the poor when it holds such vast resources? Were you equally critical of the late Jerry Falwell for counselling to people in financial difficulties that the answer to not being able to pay their bills was to tythe, to give more to the church?

      If you are looking for a villain, you might find easier picking elsewhere than Edwards’ financial statements.

    14. A's Fever on May 22nd, 2007 11:40 am

      #11 Red,

      The speech was made in Jan, 2006 and Edwards did not declare candidacy until much later in the year. He was not a candidate for public office at that time.

      Again, there are many critical domestic issues facing our country today. Edwards’ speaking fees and haircuts are not among them. Kudos to him for talking about poverty and trying to make a difference. Too many of the rich don’t.

    15. Mark Adams on May 22nd, 2007 12:00 pm

      interesting enough, Bill Clinton got twice as much for speaking to the same group. Does that undermine his tsunami efforts? BTW, no public university funds were expended, they also covered travel expenses, and it was all sponsorship and paid admissions that paid for the gig.

      But don’t let that stop you from perpetuating a narrative that fits your political agenda, no matter how trivial or nonesensical.

      Face it, only millionares seem to be able to run for the White House. Therefore, any presidential candidate who champions the working class or poor must either risk being called a hypocrit, or should ignore their plight.


    16. driving miss daisy on May 22nd, 2007 12:59 pm

      Wolfowitz never did anything wrong. He did exactly what the ethics committe advised him to do. He was framed from the get-go because they could not continue their corrupt theft of world bank money with a watchdog like Wolfowitz there. He interfered with their theft just like Kofi’s theft. He was nothing but a third-world poseur selling human life for oil money and he gave his own son a big paying job at the UN where he too could exchange life for money. Get your heads out of the third-world underground, get a life and know the truth.

    17. Sherry on May 22nd, 2007 1:09 pm

      JE is an idiot..I dont even know why he is in the game. He has NO chance.

    18. driving miss daisy on May 22nd, 2007 1:54 pm

      Regardless of when he made the speech, he says he has worked all his life to help the poor, and that he would never engage in taking money to promote what he advocates. I bet his pants are on fire, if not his hair from the beautyshop.

      Was Bill Clinton as ethical as Richard Nixon? far less. No one can compare apples to orange, because old Bill is a rotten apple from the core and he knows it and so does his girlfriend, Belinda Stronach, who is worth about $10 billion, the only reason he is contemplating dumping Hill for her.

    19. Deanna on May 22nd, 2007 9:42 pm

      He was not a candidate at the time of this speech. Additionally, I think most of us would be embarrassed to have our lives laid open to such scrutiny. Just another attempt to trash anyone who’s not a staunch Republican. If you want to have a real conversation of immediate importance, let’s discuss Pres Bush and his “infallible” administration. I think Bush believes it’s his personal responsibility to bring on Armagaddon.

      Remember, “He who is without sin, cast the first stone”.

    20. katablog on May 23rd, 2007 12:53 am

      #15 was Bill Clinton’s speech about the tsunami and how people should help the victims?

      You don’t seem to get the point that the hypocrisy is in what John Edwards was speaking about, not in that he just gave a speech and charged for it. If you want to give a speech about helping the poor, maybe you should at least donate the funds to doing just that.

    21. driving miss daisy on May 23rd, 2007 7:15 am

      Question why John Edwards is in this? He is in it for the money. How many can build a 30,000 square foot house and furnish it with European antiques on a “former” senator’s pay, a senator who saw that he could not be re-elected, so he chose not to run, knowing he could not get any money in his coffers because his state knew what he was, worse than a parasite, a vulture who lives off the backs of people who die in unfortunate circumstances, even to taking advantage of his own son’s unfortunate demise. My question would be? Why did he say his wife had stage IV cancer when doctors had never told them that? Why did he retract that statement once some healthcare employees dared to speak out? Why did they “adopt” a daddy for the children she carried, if they wanted to dump them for a campaign? Lots of questions should be asked of this primping, prancing pretty boy.

    22. driving miss daisy on May 23rd, 2007 7:20 am

      With apologies to George Orwell:

      Silky Ponies whimper and sniffle, safe in their beds at night while brave men stand ready to face violence on their behalf.

      John Stuart Mill:
      ”War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things. The decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth war is much worse. The person who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature, and has no chance of being free unless made or kept so by the exertions of better men than himself.”

      Dorothy Thompson:
      ”They have not wanted Peace at all; they have wanted to be spared war — as though the absence of war was the same as peace.”

      It’s almost as if they both had John Edwards in mind when they penned these thoughts.

    23. Sherry on May 23rd, 2007 9:04 am

      #19…Anyone who puts themselves in a public position should be aware and ready for public scrutiny. If one wants to keep things private then they should live a private life.
      This applies to far more than politicians.

    24. Brenda on May 23rd, 2007 9:50 am

      #18…well, if she doesn’t win the Presidency, he’ll have NO use for her then. I actually feel MUCH more sorry for Bill than Hillary in that shame of a marriage. What a horrible woman to be married to…bet SHE wears the leather and carries the whip (like that creature Pelosi) and beats the crap out of Billy with is. (hehehe)


    25. Brenda on May 23rd, 2007 10:41 am

      I also must agree whole-heartedly with #23. NO WAY would I consider a public life. Hell no!!! My life is mine and I will share it with whom I wish…not the general public. Why anyone would want to be famous is so far beyond my way of thinkgin I cannot grasp it. I like being anonymous as possible and am sure I would make Sean Penn look like a paparazzi-lover compared to me. I’d wind up in jail should some photographer be taking pictures in my windows or something..I’d “shoot” back ;>)


    26. suzanne on June 11th, 2007 6:41 pm

      hey, if those UC Davis students want to pay to see him talk about poverty, why not? They pay the big bucks for lots of other speakers. And if Edwards gets some money that he can funnel into get the word out there that people need to start thinking about the poor, more power to him. Why shouldn’t someone who worked his ass off so that someday he could get a fancy haircut be able to go back into the trenches and try to help those who have shitty housing, backbreak no $ work, and weiners and mac on table. Just because someone worked hard to have a better life doesn’t mean that person doesn’t care about the poor place they may or may not have come from. I am sure many of those UC Davis students are hoping to someday make a good or even better living. But that doesn’t mean that those students are going to stop caring deeply about those who don’t have the resources, skills, or opportunities to be able to live “the good life.”


      SM: Spare us the excuses. I really hope you are being sarcastic otherwise you are just an enabler for a Democratic clown wannabe Presidential candidate. You do not get to talk about two Americas while flaunting the affluent side of the other America that you pretend not to be a part of.

      It is the same reason why I had such an issue with Ross Perot pretending to be a Populist candidate of the people.

      Why some of you just cant be honest, is beyond me just because its someone from the Party you vote for. That is really just sad and a product of the times we live in.


    Leave a Reply

    Support Scared Monkeys! make a donation.

    • NEWS (breaking news alerts or news tips)
    • Red (comments)
    • Dugga (technical issues)
    • Dana (radio show comments)
    • Klaasend (blog and forum issues)
    E-mail It