From a live chat at WaPo
Washington, D.C.: Your wrote today "...a prominent Democratic polling firm tried to raise alarms yesterday with the release of focus group findings... that attacks on Democrats for opposing any efforts to stop terrorists...were highly effective." Despite these warnings, you also report that Sen. Reid said it was "beyond (his)ability to comprehend" how a member of Congress could be accused of supporting terrorism.
This situation is a little like Rice and Bush ignoring intelligence warnings that bin Laden was planning to attack with planes. Despite Bush's non-stop speeches over the last three weeks detailing all the ways in which Democrats can't be trusted to protect against terrorists, the Democratic "leadership" apparently aren't going to explain themselves or fight back. Can you explain what the Democrats think their passivity will accomplish; other than to allow Bush and the Republicans to completely assassinate their characters in order to keep one party rule humming along?
Jonathan Weisman: I'm as amazed as you are. The Democrats keep saying the Republucans did it to them in 2002 and 2004 and they're going to do it again in 2006. Yet they say it won't work. I'm not so sure.
I'm really hoping Reid's point is being misconstrued. But is it?