A "degree in computer science with a special field in economics"
Today, the Seattle Times posted a story taking Darcy Burner to task for referring to her Harvard degree as an "economics degree" in her recent debates with Dave Reichert, rather than referring to it as a "degree in computer science with a special field in economics".
Um, pardon me while I yawn.
Sure, it's good for each and every one of us to be clear and specific in our claims. But in a debate when the moderator has a stopwatch on you, I think you can be forgiven for taking a verbal shortcut on that one. As campaign spokesman Sandeep Kaushik quipped, the full description of her degree "doesn't exactly flow off the tongue."
It's their perogative, but if the Times is going to get their knickers in a twist over Burner's description of her college degree, the least they could do is to exercise similar scrutiny over Reichert's claims in those debates to be a congressman who makes his decisions on the basis of "facts and research" when the evidence of his record and his now infamous video-clip admission from the 2006 campaign that he votes like his party leaders tell him to clearly shows otherwise.
Don't forget: The only reason this came up at all is because Darcy's education happens to be relevant to America's current economic woes. Mr. Reichert can make no such claim. I'm sorry his Associate's degree in social work doesn't benefit him with the same insights into economics as Burner's "special field" affords her, but you have to admit the irony here is quite thick. If her degree had been in something completely unrelated, she wouldn't have mentioned it and the Times would have had to go looking elsewhere for something to fill their column-inches. Similarly, if the economy wasn't the overwhelming national crisis on everybody's minds, again she wouldn't have mentioned her degree and the Times would be left with nothing to criticize.
But the economy is in a crisis, and Burner did happen to study some economics in college, and gosh darnit if that might not just be a relevant tidbit for a voter or two.
That Darcy used fewer words than she could have to describe her degree before delivering her characteristically substantive answers to the debate questions, contrasts strongly with Congressman Reichert. In his debate performances and recent appearance on KUOW Presents, he made a so strong habit of beginning his answers with such hyperbolic accounts of his own record as to border on neurotic compulsion. Like somehow we won't believe he's qualified for the job if he doesn't try to pull a major snow-job on us every chance he gets. Which, come to think of it, we might not.
Obama's got it right on this one: we're definitely in political "silly season." I for one don't care where Darcy Burner came by her economic knowledge, so long as she knows what to do with it. As far as I can tell, she does. Her economic plan just plain makes sense for the middle class. My family would sure benefit from doubling the dependent child deduction and eliminating the marriage penalty. My family would sure benefit from making permanent those few among the currently-temporary tax cuts that happen to target the middle class. Burner's economic plan takes $4,000 less out of the pockets of the average middle class family in the 8th district. I don't know if my family is average or not--maybe we'd do better, maybe worse--but I'll take the odds on her plan any day versus the odds on Reichert's no-plan-at-all.
I honestly don't care one iota where either Darcy Burner or Dave Reichert went to school. Not one bit. It's the quality of their ideas today that interests me. And on that score there is a clear difference between the two candidates in this race. Only one candidate in this race has demonstrated an ability to generate new and innovative ideas that address America's problems head-on; that candidate happens to have gone to Harvard. The other one has demonstrated an uncanny ability to tow the party line and support the policies of the least popular President in the history of polling; he happens to have gone to Concordia Lutheran.
Hm. I guess Harvard really is a better school, after all...
Um, pardon me while I yawn.
Sure, it's good for each and every one of us to be clear and specific in our claims. But in a debate when the moderator has a stopwatch on you, I think you can be forgiven for taking a verbal shortcut on that one. As campaign spokesman Sandeep Kaushik quipped, the full description of her degree "doesn't exactly flow off the tongue."
It's their perogative, but if the Times is going to get their knickers in a twist over Burner's description of her college degree, the least they could do is to exercise similar scrutiny over Reichert's claims in those debates to be a congressman who makes his decisions on the basis of "facts and research" when the evidence of his record and his now infamous video-clip admission from the 2006 campaign that he votes like his party leaders tell him to clearly shows otherwise.
Don't forget: The only reason this came up at all is because Darcy's education happens to be relevant to America's current economic woes. Mr. Reichert can make no such claim. I'm sorry his Associate's degree in social work doesn't benefit him with the same insights into economics as Burner's "special field" affords her, but you have to admit the irony here is quite thick. If her degree had been in something completely unrelated, she wouldn't have mentioned it and the Times would have had to go looking elsewhere for something to fill their column-inches. Similarly, if the economy wasn't the overwhelming national crisis on everybody's minds, again she wouldn't have mentioned her degree and the Times would be left with nothing to criticize.
But the economy is in a crisis, and Burner did happen to study some economics in college, and gosh darnit if that might not just be a relevant tidbit for a voter or two.
That Darcy used fewer words than she could have to describe her degree before delivering her characteristically substantive answers to the debate questions, contrasts strongly with Congressman Reichert. In his debate performances and recent appearance on KUOW Presents, he made a so strong habit of beginning his answers with such hyperbolic accounts of his own record as to border on neurotic compulsion. Like somehow we won't believe he's qualified for the job if he doesn't try to pull a major snow-job on us every chance he gets. Which, come to think of it, we might not.
Obama's got it right on this one: we're definitely in political "silly season." I for one don't care where Darcy Burner came by her economic knowledge, so long as she knows what to do with it. As far as I can tell, she does. Her economic plan just plain makes sense for the middle class. My family would sure benefit from doubling the dependent child deduction and eliminating the marriage penalty. My family would sure benefit from making permanent those few among the currently-temporary tax cuts that happen to target the middle class. Burner's economic plan takes $4,000 less out of the pockets of the average middle class family in the 8th district. I don't know if my family is average or not--maybe we'd do better, maybe worse--but I'll take the odds on her plan any day versus the odds on Reichert's no-plan-at-all.
I honestly don't care one iota where either Darcy Burner or Dave Reichert went to school. Not one bit. It's the quality of their ideas today that interests me. And on that score there is a clear difference between the two candidates in this race. Only one candidate in this race has demonstrated an ability to generate new and innovative ideas that address America's problems head-on; that candidate happens to have gone to Harvard. The other one has demonstrated an uncanny ability to tow the party line and support the policies of the least popular President in the history of polling; he happens to have gone to Concordia Lutheran.
Hm. I guess Harvard really is a better school, after all...
# Posted by Jason Black : 10:25 PM
Comments:
Post a Comment