First, my apologies again for the difficulty with the comments section. It is up and running now, and by hitting “all comments” you can view them all. We are also having some issues with our RSS feed. That too should be cleared up in a few days. Thank you again for your patience.

Last Friday I asked about the controversial Islamic radicalization hearings: Who do you think won the debate? Why?

I assure those who replied I was able to find and read all the responses, some of which came by e-mail. (Thanks for the effort.) A number of readers commented on the effort to squelch debate. Nvjma wrote, in part:

The Left stuck their fingers in their ears and screamed LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA… and staged temper tantrums – after about a month of high intensity juvenile antics in Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Iowa and who knows where else, one wonders if that is all they know do?

The whole thrust from the Left was to shut down the debate, and because they barely covered the actual hearings, one could surmise that from their point of view . . . they won, in that they succeeded in maintaining their politically correct ignorance. Ironically the Liberals are always look down their collective nose at the rest of the country which is not as “smart” and open minded as they are. In this respect the Left lost.

The country as a whole lost because the Left refused to engage.

But that’s OK. When we suffer our next Jihadist attack I am sure the Left will accept full responsibility – NOT! –for their refusal take Muslim radicalization seriously.

That’s an apt description of the strategy of the left, although I think a terrorist attack is no time for “I told you so.” It’s become fashionable to shout “Islamaphobe!” whenever Americans engage on an issue that is contrary to the group-think of Muslim American groups. That was the gambit on the Ground Zero mosque and it was equally the case on the hearings.

But I don’t think the left “won” in any sense of the word. Their antics were on full display. It’s never good for the left when Rep. Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.) becomes the face of the Democratic Party. I tend therefore to agree with eddiehaskell:

Mr. Bledsoe whose son was convicted of killing the serviceman at the recruiting station [in Arkansas] won the debate. When one of the Democratic congresswomen stated that the witnesses were not experts, Mr. Bledsoe retorted, “Are any of you sitting on the committee experts? What qualifies you to sit on the committee? . . . . Mr. Bledsoe’s story was so compelling as were the stories of all the witnesses. Rep. King won the day because the truth was on his side.

And in a broader sense, carldalman, I think, had it right: “Hands down, Peter King and 1st Amendment supporters won. Anytime political correctness takes it on the chin is a good day for everyone. Americans are mature enough to sort out the chaff from the wheat in Congressional hearings.”

Now a word to our friends on the left, a number of whom who argued Rep. Peter King (R.-N.Y.) won but threw some nasty language around, or denied that there is a specific jihadist threat. Frankly, that’s not going to cut it with the broad audience. I would also remind readers that in the new look, our same Washington Post guidelines apply.