Well, we can certainly hope so. I’m inclined to think that it has already begun to break down, with enough examples from both sides of the aisle to suggest that civil political debate in the blogosphere and dead tree press probably has a half life of one week.

The blogosphere, because of its sheer volume and anonymity, is more likely to invite incivility in commentary than the daily press, where letters to the editor require real signatures.

The problem, for political columnists, is how to decide when passionate criticism crosses the line to become personal attack; or is likely to be interpreted as such. And there’s the rub, we are so intractably  attached to our core political views that we are likely to take a vigorous attack upon them as personal slurs.

The best we can do is remember that what we write for internet publication never goes away, never wraps the fish, never lines the parrot cage.

Fort Buckley summed it all up recently: Google Never Forgets.

Joan Walsh, writing in Salon yesterday, asked if we can swear off the rhetoric of violence. She is clear that we ought to, but has to take a wait and see attitude. She writes:

Sadly, to my knowledge, no conservative leader has yet called for dialing back the rage on the right in the wake of the Giffords shooting. Sarah Palin sent condolences to Giffords’ family, but said nothing about her unconscionable SarahPAC map putting 20 House members, including Giffords, in actual crosshairs for supporting healthcare reform, or her infamous Tweet telling conservatives “don’t retreat, reload.” Giffords’ 2010 Tea Party challenger, Jesse Kelly, hasn’t apologized for inviting supporters to “shoot a fully automatic M16″ to “get on target for victory” and “remove Gabrielle Giffords from office.” Nevada GOP Senate candidate Sharron Angle hasn’t yet recanted her statement about the need to pursue “Second Amendment remedies” if political change lags behind the Tea Party’s dreams.

Although there’s no evidence Tea Party rhetoric had anything to do with Giffords’ shooting, it can be no surprise that her father, when asked if his daughter had enemies, told the New York Post tearfully, “Yeah, the whole Tea Party.”

Read the Walsh column here.

It is always tough to lose an election. It is even worse to win one and then see the advantages of that win thrown a way by a coalition of Republicans and Blue Dog Democrats. Our local Blue Dog, Congresswoman Giffords, has said she strongly supports a public option, but neither Giffords, nor the rest of us, can say exactly what that public option might be.

In his August 13th column Paul Krugman opened with a quote from then candidate Barack Obama:

“I am in this race because I don’t want to see us spend the next year re-fighting the Washington battles of the 1990s. I don’t want to pit Blue America against Red America; I want to lead a United States of America.” So declared Barack Obama in November 2007, making the case that Democrats should nominate him, rather than one of his rivals, because he could free the nation from the bitter partisanship of the past.

The Republicans didn’t get the message, which might have worked out okay, if only the Blue Dogs hadn’t crossed the aisle.

It’s time for the President to get tough. Why not a private conference with each of the Blue Dogs suggesting how difficult it would be for their personal legislative agendas to become law if they didn’t re-think their positions on the Public Option?

Why don’t the Democrats simply cut the Republicans out of the process…as the Republicans have done in the past when they were in control; and the way the Republicans in Arizona’s legislature are doing right now. Screw ‘hands across the aisle’  and ‘can’t we all just get along.’ Let’s just cram healtcare reform down their throats. It’s the right thing to do.