Although June is almost upon us and the nominating conventions are still nearly a season away, President Barack Obama’s campaign seems as organized as a hippie music festival about an hour after the bad acid begins circulating. Look at the rhetoric spewing forth from the campaign and note that panic appears to be growing with each tremulous step toward November. Witness, for example, the campaign’s deployment of attacks against Mitt Romney based on his involvement with the private equity group Bain Capital.
According to Obama’s minions and mouthpieces, Romney deserves nothing but scorn for making a part of his pile of money through the often-successful strategies of Bain. Beyond the basic stupidity of suggesting someone suffer for not failing at business, consider the fact that Obama has privately solicited — and kept — donations from the same publicly vilified Bain. At least Romney actually worked for the cash he collected with Bain. Obama has essentially knifed it in the back and charged it for the blade.
Most of Obama’s ventures into the private sector have involved not the finely honed fingers of Adam Smith’s “invisible hand,” but the clumsy fist of Marxist malingering. Desperate to appease the global warming cultists on the far left of the political dial, Obama handed a king’s ransom to so-called “green” companies like Solyndra. Despite a willing lack of serious corporate media examination, Obama’s cronies turned a $500 million taxpayer investment into an industrial epitaph reminiscent of one of those Soviet-era projects (I’m thinking of Trabant).
According to Obama, Romney is a corporatist villain. His efforts to identify and foster growth in strong businesses on behalf of his colleagues and investors at Bain and the many workers at the companies capitalized by Bain were his acts of evil. Meanwhile, Obama’s ham-handed flush of a half-billion dollars in other people’s money on behalf of a tiny handful of millionaire and billionaire cronies in the pursuit of harebrained schemes is the height of economic nobility. According to Obama’s accomplices, we’re supposed to believe it is right and reasonable to take money from the former and hand it to the latter. We’re further supposed to believe that taking money from the former and spending it on yourself is all the more just.
It’s no wonder, then, that the dimwits who serve Obama get a bit tangled in his rhetorical web from time to time. On Tuesday, Obama mouthpiece Jay Carney found himself tied in the Gordian knot of precisely this sort of liberal logic. Asked by an unusually intrepid and insightful reporter (by White House Press Corps standards) to delineate the difference between Romney’s involvement with Bain and Obama’s involvement with Solyndra, Carney proffered:
Look…there, there, there is the…the…difference in that, your overall view of what…huh, your responsibilities are as president and what your view of the economic future is.
And the president believes as he’s made clear that a president’s responsibility is not just to, ah, those who win but those who, for example in a company where ah, there have been layoffs or a company that has gone bankrupt, that we have to ah make sure that those folks have the means to find other employment, that they have the ability to train for other kinds of work and that’s part of the overall responsibility a president has.
I’ll say one thing for Obama and his underlings: Their excuses might be thinner than a crackhead following a 3-pound rock bender, but they are certainly entertaining. If Carney weren’t such a smug, simpering buffoon, I might be sympathetic to his plight. His tortured enunciations — like those above — are a by-product of the Sisyphean task of putting political lyrics to Obama’s discordant economic tunes. Tough break, Jay. You signed up for the gig; now you have to play it.
I’ll reserve my sympathies for those of us who have to foot the bill for Obama’s economic misadventures. After all, we coughed up all that money, and all we got was the incomprehensible transcript.