If Rove Goes Down The Kitten Gets It
Tbogg anticipating trouble?
[…]
The little secret about most of “Left Blogistan” is that we’re not that far left: actually most of the folks I read are moderates or moderate liberals. Need an example? Atrios will do, not to mention the brilliant Digby. In truth, many of us in “Left Blogistan” don’t have much patience with radicalism, socialism, revolution, class analyses. As for social mores, few of us live the frisky, often reckless, lives enjoyed by so many rightwing priests and GOP bigwigs. It is an indication of just how far right the discourse has become that Kristof is considered a thoughtful left-wing commentator and that Krugman – a pro-globalization Reagan official – is dubbed a radical leftist.
Now back when moderate liberals were actually provided regular access to the mass media, there would have been no problem labelling treasonable behavior as exactly that. Today, since no one “reasonable” can use that word -unless you’re on the right, of course- the moral outrage all Americans should feel about this exposure never happens. And so it goes.
[…]
Since we are dealing with scoundrels of the highest order and they will never resign, they nevertheless must be brought to trial on whatever legally admissible evidence, if any, Fitzgerald has. A constitutional crisis might result, but that is not Fitzgerald’s doing. That is what these traitors have been spoiling for since the 2000 election fiasco; that’s what Schiavo was about, what the torture condoning was about, what the filibuster rule change was about. Such a crisis would be as wracking to this country’s psyche as Katrina was to its citizens. But they have made it all but unavoidable.
There is absolutely nothing to be gained by a constitutional crisis and no sane opponent of the Bush administration should welcome one. But there is no longer anything to be gained by appeasement, either, and much to lose. Traitors simply cannot be permitted to continue to serve at the highest levels of goverment. And that is a principle worth defending, no matter what it takes.
I think a consitutional crisis would be no bad thing, but then the US was a country born of revolution, and I am a radical leftist, so I would say that. But I can see why one might want to take pre-emptive action against the smears and attacks of a party who have shown they will stop at absolutely nothing to hold on to power.
There have been many veiled and not so veiled threats against the liberal wing of America already, so perhaps it’s wise. No joke: David Sirota points to past Repub behaviour:
In light of the GOP’s recent behavior, let’s not forget the history of the conservative movement’s willingness to threaten people. The DeLay threats and the White House dissent suppression are only the latest in a long line of intimidating outbursts.
For instance, Sen. Jesse Helms (R-NC) essentially threatened the President of the United States in 1994 when he said, “Mr. Clinton better watch out if he comes down here. He’d better have a bodyguard.”And the Associated Press reported on 4/25/95 how that comment was commonplace on the right. “A senator says the president had better not visit his state without a bodyguard,” the newsservice wrote. “An anti-abortion leader describes shooting abortion doctors as ‘justifiable homicide.’ A radio talk-show host advises listeners to shoot at the head if attacked by federal agents wearing bulletproof vests.” It’s all part of the conservative movement’s belief that physically threatening and intimidating its political opposition is OK. I’d wager to guess most Americans disagree
