Hit Piece Misses

The day after Scott Walker demonstrated the sheer might of the conservative vote over the power of public unions, media outlets are doing everything they can to find something else to talk about.  For example, Ross Tucker at The Exchange writes “Republicans Bungle the Battle Over Light Bulbs”.  His article is all about how Republicans are preventing Americans from saving money by preventing Democrats from making incandescent light bulbs illegal.  Apparently, the only way Americans know how to buy economically is if the government eliminates all non-economical options as determined by bureaucrats in DC.

In other news, MSNBC tried to say that the Walker win was a great thing for Obama because the exit polls that showed Walker barely surviving also showed Obama winning in Wisconsin.  Of course, Walker didn’t barely survive, but instead creamed his opponent by a 7 point margin.  If you adjust exit polling by the actual results of the election, Romney will have the distinction of being the first Republican President to win Wisconsin since Ronald Reagan.

AP highlighted Elizabeth Warren tweeting about Scott Brown’s no vote the Democrat equal pay bill that would unintentionally make more women unemployable.  I’m not sure why Warren needs an equal pay bill for women; she already got her affirmative action benefits for being a “Cherokee”.

But the best hit piece was a headline from Rick Newman at US News & World Report stating that Mitt Romney’s desire to sell the government owned GM stock would cost taxpayers $15 billion.  Or as his headline put it, “Mitt Romney’s Stance on GM Sale Would Cost Taxpayers Dearly”.  What a headline.

Newman himself reviews the reason we have GM stock in the first place, but can’t seem to make the connection that the losses to taxpayers from GM might actually be Obama’s fault.  When GM was faltering and heading into bankruptcy, instead of selling GM to Italy like he did with Chrysler or allowing them to go through the legal bankruptcy protection process, Obama funneled about $25 billion dollars into GM making the US taxpayer a Wall Street shareholder.  He did the same thing with AIG and Citigroup.

When it comes to playing Wall Street fund manager with our tax dollars, Obama sucks. I wonder what Occupy Wall Street thinks about our Wall Street fund manager-in-chief?

When GM re-emerged on the market at $35 a share, Obama did not cut our losses and sell.  Instead he held on to GM with our tax dollars.  GM has now dropped to $21 a share according to Newman’s article.  Newman admits that GM would have to reach $52 a share in order for taxpayers to recover the original money Obama invested in GM.

The premise of Newman’s article is that we don’t need any of our money back and can wait to see if GM makes it back to $52 a share.  Of course, at this point GM would have to more than double in value.  Newman thinks this could happen by the end of 2013.  I’d like to know what he is smoking and where I can get some.

Large cap stocks rarely double in a year.  Large cap stocks freshly out of bankruptcy with 60% of their common stock shares owned by a government who is just itching to sell may never double in price. Romney is wise to cut our losses.

By Newman’s own math, Obama cost taxpayers $8.7 billion by not selling when GM peaked at $39.

Newman was trying to use fuzzy math to make Romney the bad guy for cleaning up the President’s taxpayer funded investment.  Instead, he unintentionally presents a clear indictment of one more foolish Wall Street fund manager: Barack Obama.

Religious Right Sends Negative Signals On Romney

Onenewsnow.com, the media outlet of the American Family Association, printed an article today that may signal early opposition from the Religious Right to a Romney run.

In the article, Tom Pauken, a former Reagan staffer, says he is “worried” about a Romney nomination. Pauken describes Romney as “left of Teddy Kennedy” on abortion and homosexual rights. He also called Romney a Rockefeller Republican, a term reserved for rich, fiscal Republicans who have little concern for family values or the Republican social agenda.

This may seem like an odd assessment, considering Romney’s pointedly pro-life run in 2008. In fact, Romney has more in common with Reagan than just the hair and the calm, relaxing voice. But this isn’t the first time Romney has ended up on the opposite side of the Religious Right, and it won’t be the last. Aside from Romney’s distant liberal history, his Mormonism is still a huge negative to many Christian conservatives.

Romney opposed abortion in 2008 and in 2007 stated that he has never supported gay marriage. That may not be enough for many Christians wary of his past and his religion. His record as governor of Massachusetts may scare some conservatives, but even Reagan had a history as a former governor of California. Pauken should remember that Reagan gave us the nation’s first no-fault divorce laws. He also was considered a big spender for his day.

When dealing with Romney, Reaganites like Pauken should remember Reagan’s 11th commandment and 80/20 rules. Romney has those mastered, which may make him unappetizing for some conservatives who want it all and are quick to throw the RINO label around.

Do you oppose a Romney nomination? Leave a comment and share your perspective.

%d bloggers like this: