Tuesday, October 16, 2012
According to SAN’s website, its objective is “mobilizing a broad-based grassroots coalition of two million national security activists to support policies that will protect our nation against terrorist infiltration, attack, and capitulation to our enemies.” A worthy goal, if clumsily stated. The site needs a good edit. But I digress…
I’m not on SAN’s mailing list, but an avalanche of friends forwarded me an email they received last week entitled “What Ryan Should Have Said,” which relentlessly criticized Congressman Ryan’s debate performance in the area of national security. The email enumerated "What Ryan should have said" and "What Ryan could have said." My friends were appalled, as am I.
Clearly SAN recognizes a Romney/Ryan administration would keep America – and Israel - far safer than would another Obama term. So why does the author (the email utilizes an archaic royal “we,” but is unsigned) feel compelled to denigrate Ryan’s performance? In light of Biden’s nonstop interruptions (82 at last count), deranged laugh and demonic smirk - all designed to derail Ryan, the Congressman’s performance was outstanding. Ryan said what was necessary on the subject of Benghazi-gate.
If the author wanted to elaborate on Ryan's answers, he/she might have written something like this: “Ryan’s debate performance exhibited competence and composure. It’s too bad he didn’t have a chance to speak about…[Egypt, Muslim Brotherhood, etc.].”
As the hearings continue, voters will understand Obama’s failed (and most likely politically-motivated) Libya policy as well as the magnitude of the 9/11 coverup. Romney will have ample opportunity to discuss Egypt and the Muslim Brotherhood at the third presidential debate, which will focus exclusively on foreign policy.
My advice to the author of this undoubtedly well-intended email (with a nod to Laura Ingraham): Shut up and win! And to SAN, choose your writer more carefully next time.
Posted by opinion maven at 1:00 PM