This many days past the Nov. 7 elections, the score reads: Number of interviews given by Democrats, morning, noon and evening - 368. Number of new ideas - 0.Like you, no doubt, I'm busy getting ready for the holidays at the moment and thus too busy to respond to this freeper knuckle-dragger, who doubtless is just looking for a pointless argument anyway.
Democrats have been content to let the president and his staff do all of the heavy lifting while they practiced the only talent they have ever honed - calling people names and taking cheap shots from the sidelines.
War-weary segments of the electorate will soon come to know what liberal pretenders have always known but wouldn't admit: That only President Bush had the courage to identify a cowardly enemy by name, force them out from the rocks under which they live, and take positive steps to hunt them down.
As the next few years unfold, two things will become clearer. One, that the terrorist infestation is far more deadly, devious and widespread than has yet been publicly acknowledged. And two, our incoming liberal friends who are busy picking out the drapes for their new offices have absolutely no idea what to do about it.
E. J. Messersmith
And also, while I just about always take time to read Dick Polman's column, I didn't today although the headline said something along the lines of "the Democrats have to shed their image as weak on national security."
Let me guess - I'll bet Polman took some anecdotes pertaining to this narrative (which may be real or the stuff of political urban legend, leaving it up to the reader as always to figure out which is which) and then picked up some anonymous quotes from some American Enterprise Institute or Hoover Institute types to accompany the anecdotes, added a dash of innuendo and supposition and voila! We have this week's column by the alleged political "expert."