I cringe to think what Debra Saunders, the so-called "token" Republican of the San Francisco Chronicle will do to Clinton's speech and then to Obama's, considering the mash up she made of Michelle's. In a weirdly constructed column, Saunders entitled: First lady: You, too, can be Mitt Romney, today, she takes the Obamas to task for having received student loans, as described in Michelle Obama's stirring speech at the Democratic Convention on Tuesday.
This is the weird part. I had to read these three short paragraphs several times and I must say I am stumped . Maybe you can hep me understand what this all means if anything, to Ms. Saunders:
"As I listened the first lady talk about what her family did to make sure she got a first-class education and how she and her husband struggled to pay off their hefty student loans, I couldn't help but think that Barack and Michelle Obama would not be the fine people they are today if they hadn't had to stretch themselves to get ahead.
why do they seem to think the government should hand out more
taxpayer-backed grants and loans to today's college and graduate
students? If someone else had handed their college and law-school
educations to the Obamas, they'd be Mitt Romney.
"Yet they bash Romney for not having to work as hard as they had to in order to get where they are today."
Ok, let's parse those sentences. First she says Michelle and Barack are fine people because of the struggles they had to get ahead. So far so good. Then she asks why they think government should help other people get ahead. Huh? What does this mean? Others should not get what they got? Which is really not "getting" anything, but the opportunity to got to college and then work hard to pay back the loans that paid for their education. Is this what she's saying.
And then, say what? These hard working people who want others to have the same opportunities they did bash Willard Mitt Romney because he had to "work as hard as they had to in order to be where they are today?"
Did the editor leave out a crucial sentence? Is Debra really saying that Romney a) had to work hard and b) is now where the Obamas are today?
I don't get it. Romney came from wealth. When he went to college he lived in a basement and ate spaghetti with the lovely Ann through choice, not circumstances. And poor Ann just never could never understood why he did that. Something about the Mormon missionary experience he had to get out of his system I guess. Did he take out student loans? Maybe, I don't think so. (and so what?) Is he now where the Obamas are today? Not by a long shot. He's on Jupiter and they are simply living on Planet Earth. And this is meant by way of analogy, not to slam Mr. Romney for being out of touch with the home planet (even though he is.)
(For those who don't like to interrupt their reading to click through to arcane internet sites, and to paraphrase Bill Clinton, here's the score: Romney $250 million; Obamas not quite $6 million. No, it's not chump change, but Barack Obama didn't have a rich daddy who gave him his first stock options or who bought him a home when he got tired of the "dump" he lived in in college.)
I guess Saunders is drinking whatever they've been pouring over in Romney world. Because she finishes up her column with the wholly unsubstantiated statement that "More student aid leads to higher tuition; higher tuition leads to record college debt."
Not that I don't think some unscrupulous college chancellors in both public and private schools wouldn't jump at any excuse to bloat their own salaries as we have seen all too often in our own UC system, but come on. If that's the case, don't punish the students, change the system. Does Saunders really believe people shouldn't get student loans? Does she really believe Mitt had to work as hard as the Obamas ever in his life?
Earth to Debra, come on back down here and let's get you some help. Seriously, making her write this column every single day of the Convention might just be too much to ask of a nice San Francisco Republican.