Obama recently attended a fund-raiser in Manhattan at the ritzy and expensive Park Avenue apartment home of Tony James, a wealthy bigwig, according to the Wall Street Journal.
James was seeking to help President Obama get re-elected, which will help him and his equity colleagues, too, of course.
But this week, when Pres. Obama was attacking Mitt Romney about private equity funding, he failed to mention his own ties to it, and the dollars he's gotten from it.
Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black, then? Shouldn't Obama be absconding from involvement with men and groups like this if he is going to make it a campaign issue that Romney was one 20 years ago?
Obama is the one with his hand in the private-equity jar this year, however, not his rival for the presidential election. In addition, Obama didn't get his story straight apparently either; and he chose one that is 20 years old.
Maybe the real story is that Obama sought to deliver an offense blow before Romney put him on the defense? Maybe Obama was afraid it would come to light he was taking money from the people he tells Americans are the bad guys, you know, the filthy rich?
If so, getting the media on Romney, instead of his Manhattan fundraising event with the wealthy bigwig Tony James, was the intended campaign strategy. But it's backfired, as the truth is coming out.
The WSJ is reporting on Wednesday that Romney and others involved in Bain Capital decades ago actually rode to the rescue of a company that would have had the doors shut a good eight years before they came on the scene if the firm hadn't bought (and thus kept opened) a steel mill back then.
"I spoke to someone who was vice president at the business before the Bain acquisition," a Washington columnist named Kim Strassel said.
"The plant was going to be closed back in 1993," she was told, unless, of course, the owners could find a buyer for it.
Bain Capital, of which Mitt Romney was involved, became that buyer, managing to keep the company's employees on the payroll for eight more years, with their own investment money.
That is, until, in the end, they had to accept that the businessÂ—and its union issuesÂ—required them to close it down when it was just not profitable enough to keep open any longer.
This makes the vampire label Obama gave Romney seem so contrary to the real facts. Instead of being the bad guy, Romney is actually the knight in shining armor. Obama didn't intend that, did he?
Romney gave those employees eight more years of employment by coming on the scene than if he had stood on the sidelines and watched the company close in '93.
Many Americans feel that Obama is watching on the sidelines as they lose job after job, pointing his finger of blame at everyone but himself for failing to turn things around these past four years.
If history is any indicator where Romney is concerned, Americans can look forward to eight years with employment if he's elected. And wouldn't that be a blessing!
The unemployed need that kind of private-equity thinking in the White House this November. It means that Romney has experience sizing up what will and won't work from those business experiences 20 years ago.
Maybe that's why Obama failed these four years; he just didn't have anything other than on the job training to rely upon...and he was too busy trying to deceive Americans about what the real problem was?