H/T to mph [she nails it again]:
OPEN LETTER TO GOP LEADERSHIP, PART TWO
One need only read the New York Times to catch on to the Democrats' latest meme, to wit, that the Republicans are unwilling to compromise and that they care nothing about national security because they are unwilling to automatically ratify the START treaty.
Once again, the GOP leadership is behind the power curve in framing the debate.
First, the treaty was signed in April 2010. Instead of securing its ratification in a timely fashion, Obama was too busy cramming healthcare "reform" down our collective throats. If he thought it was important, it would have been addressed months ago.
Second, who really cares about monitoring the Soviets' nuclear arms? Mutually assured destruction has kept a check on United States/Soviet relations for decades. More critically, why is it in our interest to reduce our nuclear arsenal when we have allowed Iran, North Korea, and Pakistan to ramp up their nuclear programs?
Third, there are many more critical national security issues than a treaty with the Russians. For example, securing our national borders, which has an effect not just on the influx of illegal aliens, but on terrorists entering through unsecured areas. In other words, it is more important to secure our borders than it is to sue Arizona for its attempt to do the job the federal government refuses to do.
In the area of airport security, why is it that average citizens are being subjected to overly intrusive methods under the guise of security at the same time Janet Napolitano is actually considering exempting Muslim women from these same methods? Why not use profiling when there is a legitimate basis for same? Have any of the recent terrorist attacks and/or foiled attacks been undertaken by 80-year-old grandmothers, Catholic nuns or six year-old children? While profiling might not be PC, it would certainly be effective.
As for the criticism concerning the Republicans' failure to show for Obama's command performance on November 18, the NYT and Democrat hierarchy should be reminded of their dear leader's inflammatory language during the 2010 campaign. He told Hispanics to treat Republicans as their enemy and suggested that Republicans should ride "in the back of the bus." Under the circumstances, an invitation couched in terms other than an edict from on high would have been the ticket.
This rhetoric was overlain on Obama-isms such as "elections have consequences" and "I won." After such treatment, why would any Republican even care what Obama has to say?
The Republicans should recognize that they have a mandate as a result of the 2010 election results. The main focus is on domestic economic issues. To the extent foreign policy is implicated, there is little Obama accomplished in the past two years that is of any benefit to this country. In fact, it appears that his luster has diminished considerably on the world stage. He has been reduced to looking for compliments and ignoring legitimate criticism both here and abroad.
The GOP focus should be on legitimate security concerns. Obama's quest for justification for his first Nobel Peace Prize or quest for a second is not our prime mission or interest.
To reiterate:
1. Make it clear that the treaty is not the primary concern for security or foreign-policy, and why. Highlight the other security concerns and posit fixes for same.
2. Be true to your mandate. This election was about fiscal responsibility. Do not forget that. But, Obama's trashing of this country, particularly on foreign soil, is a part of the equation. The American people will not stand for this, at least not very long.
3. Do not be lulled into compromise with the Democrats. To them, compromise means that you give in to what they want. To combat this, you have to frame the debate in the correct terms for public consumption. If you fail to do that, you will lose the battle and ultimately the war. |
