Compare and contrast: Birthers vs. Bainers
In case you missed it, the Obama campaign and their compliant, quasi-state-run media apparatchiks were on Cloud Nine a few days ago, believing they had struck campaign theme gold. They “discovered” that Romney either lied or committed a crime regarding statements he made about the timing of his departure from Bain:
Nutshell version: Romney left his duties at Bain in 1999 to devote himself full-time to rescuing the Salt Lake City Olympics but retained his titles as chairman, president, and CEO of the firm for several more years. He was even listed that way on securities filings after 1999. Does that mean Romney lied to the SEC, claiming that he was still in charge when he really wasn’t? Or does that mean Romney lied to the public, claiming that he wasn’t still in charge when he really was? Democrats will accept either theory. If the former’s true, he might be guilty of a felony; one of his top spokeshacks suggested as much in a conference call today, drawing a demand for an apology from Team Mitt. And if the latter’s true then he can be held responsible for whichever post-1999 Bain deals the left is pretending to care about today to keep the focus off of Obama’s record.
This is exactly what they needed. Instead of this election being about Obama’s complete ignorance on macro-economics and his inability to do anything more than cause economic stagnation and despair, the election can be about Bain Capital. Woo hoo!
They can talk about how evil what Bain does is . . . except, whoops, prominent Democrats, including former president Clinton, popped that bubble. Theme fail #1.
They can talk about the businesses that went under after Bain got involved, except, whoops—Bain has a strong record of success, and some of the failures cited happened after Romney was gone. Theme fail #2.
Well, how about this: Romney lied about when he left Bain. That could be a felony! Felons are ineligible for the presidency. Bang, Team Obama wins! Except that this theme fell apart within a short time too, as can be seen in the Washington Post, FactCheck.org, or Guy Benson’s excellent takedown.
In spite of the utter lack of credibility of this line of attack, Obama had the nerve to demand that Romney show proof of the timing of his tenure at and departure from Bain. Hmm, demands of a presidential candidate for documentation of claims he has made about his past . . . I wonder where we’ve heard that before?
Whatever the relative merits of the “birth certificate” argument, or any of the ancillary points about missing college transcripts, etc., one thing is for sure: Obama has not been forthcoming with written documentation of much of anything. The media has not been the least bit curious about his past, or about any of the documents associated with his past. They haven’t asked, and Obama hasn’t offered. But this completely spurious, desperate, easily debunked “revelation” comes along and the media and Obama were immediately spotted with drool on the lapels of their expensive suits, demanding “proof.”
So what are the real differences between “birtherism” and this felony charge?
The biggest has to be this: Virtually no one even close to the mainstream of the conservative movement wants anything to do with the birth certificate issue. By contrast, the President of the United States of America himself waded into the felony claim without a moment’s pause.
Another difference: There is ample documentation of Romney’s career. No one is hiding anything. By contrast, Obama’s past still has gaps, holes, missing documents, composite and made-up characters, and a media uninterested in any of it.
I guess the one big similarity might be this: just like those deeply concerned with the birth certificate issue, chances are the “Bainers” aren’t going to give up all that easily.