Tag Archives: Mona Charen

Ignoring The Obvious Threat

Posted on by

Mona Charen posted an article at National Review Online today about President Obama’s understanding of the national security threats to America. While speaking at a Nuclear Security Summit, President Obama stated, “I continue to be much more concerned, when it comes to our security, with the prospect of a nuclear weapon going off in Manhattan.”

The article reports:

The president was speaking at a meeting of the Nuclear Security Summit, a conclave of nations who agree to certain worthy actions such as converting their reactors from the use of highly enriched uranium to newer versions using low-enriched uranium, beefing up security at nuclear facilities, improving radiation detection at air and sea ports, and so forth. Fifty-seven nations and entities (the EU and U.N. included) participate in this process. But the Islamic Republic of Iran is not on the list.

The article reminds us that the most likely way for terrorists to obtain a nuclear weapon would be from Iran.

The article states:

While we are clinking glasses with Iran in negotiations in Vienna, the U.S. State Department continues to list Iran as a state sponsor of terror. In 2012, Iran participated in planned terror attacks in India, Thailand, Georgia, and Kenya. It provided aid and training to the Taliban, Shiite groups in Iraq, Hezbollah in Lebanon, and continues to cooperate in various ways with al-Qaeda. The president should curl up some evening with the State Department’s country reports. They’re not beclouded by wishful thinking.

President Obama has made numerous attempts to make friends with Iran. Iran has used these attempts to have sanctions lifted and continue its nuclear program. The sanctions that were in place were seriously hurting the Iranian economy. Unless the economy improved, it was going to be difficult for the current mullahs to stay in power–they needed the sanctions lifted. Had the sanctions stayed in place, there might have been a chance for a regime change in Iran. Now that the sanctions have been lifted, that opportunity has passed.

The article concludes:

If Obama does lose sleep worrying about nuclear terrorism, he should drop his naïve parlay with Iran. He may fondly envision a new cordiality between old foes. That’s not what they see.

Naivete is not an attractive trait in an American President.

Enhanced by Zemanta

What Really Happened In Massachusetts

Posted on by

On July 6, Mona Charen posted an article at Townhall.com explaining what happened in Massachusetts regarding healthcare and how Obamacare is different from Romneycare.

The article points out that before Mitt Romney became governor, Massachusetts had a number of laws that resulted in a very expensive healthcare system. Governor Romney was attempting to rein in those costs. Unfortunately, he was dealing with an 85 percent Democratic legislature that totally twisted his ideas and passed something very different than what he had envisioned.

The article points out:

Romney’s idea was to permit Massachusetts insurers to sell catastrophic plans. As Avik Roy explained in Forbes, “Shorn of the costly mandates and restrictions originating in earlier state laws, these plans, called ‘Commonwealth Care Basic,’ could cost much less. Romney also proposed merging the non-group and small-group markets, so as to give individuals access to the more cost-effective plans available to small businesses.” Romney’s plan would also have involved a degree of cost sharing so that those receiving subsidies would have an incentive to minimize their consumption.

This is very different from the plan that was eventually passed. The law was later changed under Governor Deval Patrick, requiring insurance companies to offer three tiers of coverage — all of them far beyond catastrophic care.

The article further reminds us:

Romney’s proposed reforms included fraud prevention measures for Medicaid, requiring the income of both parents to be considered in children’s Medicaid eligibility, medical malpractice tort reform, and giving individuals the same treatment as small businesses in the purchase of health plans. He envisioned a system of increased competition and choice.

Had the bill that Governor Romney wanted passed, healthcare in Massachusetts would be a good example for the nation. The plan the legislature passed and Governor Patrick modified is a nightmare for the sate and the nation.

 

Enhanced by Zemanta

The Experts Talk About New Hampshire

Posted on by

 

Congressman Poe and Governor Mitt Romney

Image via Wikipedia

National Review Online posted an article today by a number of its political pundits on the meaning of the results of the New Hampshire Primary. I will try to summarize, but please follow the link to the article–it is very informative.

Hunter Baker stated that Mitt Romney benefited by the winner in New Hampshire being declared early–more people saw him give his victory speech, and the speech was very effective.

Mona Charen pointed out that both Iowa and New Hampshire chose Romney. She also noted that the attacks on capitalism from Newt Gingrich may have helped shore up Mitt Romney’s conservative credentials. Regardless of how you feel about Mitt Romney, you have to admit that he is a capitalist!

Jim Geraghty points out that after the Romney win in New Hampshire, the only viable opponent to Mitt Romney is Rick Santorum. Mr. Geraghty wonders if Senator Sentorum will be able to overcome the Romney momentum.

Hugh Hewitt also agrees that Santorum is the only other candidate who could possibly beat Mitt Romney. He states that Rick Perry and Newt Gingrich ended their campaigns when they went after Romney and Bain Capital. Mr. Hewitt ends his comments with the question, “So who does Jim DeMint endorse?” Interesting question.

Kathryn Jean Lopez also comments that the attacks by Newt Gingrich helped Mitt Romney from his candidacy as a defense of capitalism. This is the beginning of the narrative Mitt Romney will use in his run against President Obama.

Grover Norquist takes a different approach. He has three suggestions for Mitt Romney–who to choose for a running mate, who to choose for a chief-of-staff, and to convince Ron Paul to speak at the Republican convention. He believes the Romney needs to include Ron Paul in order to insure that Ron Paul does not run as a third-party candidate.

Henry Olsen stated that the strong victory in New Hampshire almost assures that Mitt Romney will be the candidate. He makes an interesting observation though:

Jon Huntsman? He carried only four groups — those who consider themselves Democrats, those who strongly oppose the Tea Party, those who are satisfied with Obama, and those who are dissatisfied with the GOP candidates. ’Nuff said.

Great comment.

John J. Pitney commented on the morphing of Newt Gingrich into Michael Moore. Mr. Pitney states that he hopes Newt will go back to being the Newt we saw early in the campaign–focusing more on attacking President Obama than attacking fellow Republicans.

Cal Thomas notes that Mitt Romney is well on his way to being the Republican nominee for President. Although he is not universally loved, the other candidates will be running out of money and organization soon. Mr. Thomas notes that it is still a long way to the White House.

Now, my comments. I live in Massachusetts. Governor Romney was a good governor. He did not move the state in a conservative direction (it’s Massachusetts, I am not sure that is possible, we are one of two states that voted for George McGovern for President!) He is an honest, hard-working man. If he is elected, I am sure he will do everything in his power to rescue the American economy, and I believe that he has the knowledge and work ethic to do that. He is not my first choice, but I believe that he is a good choice.

Enhanced by Zemanta