To the extent I still indulge the conceit they ARE two sides, I mean. As Roland notes, there's a difference between saying someones policies harm the nation (after all, along with a desire to improve the country, that's the whole very sincere motive for running against someone) and accusing them of INTENTIONALLY harming the nation for some murky seldom specified reason. I admit I called the "PATRIOT" Act treasonous because it flagrantly and repeatedly violated the Constitution, but I was careful to say I only wanted Bush impeached for it, and didn't say he was purposely harming the nation (he just seems to think preserving, protecting and defending the Constitution is somehow incompatable with Americas interests ). You never heard Kerry calling him "anti-American" though, much less standing by the accusation; I don't think even Al Sharpton went that far. The closest any elected official came to that was Cynthia McKinney, whom the Democrats promptly expelled from the party.

Rest assured, I'm not trying to start another back and forth political debate but, even though an example of a Democrat doing something indefensible doesn't legitimize it for Republicans, I'll have to see an example of a Democrat accusing an opponent of treason before I'll believe it. Again, not that it matters, because both parties serve no one but the corporate donors who hire them as lobbyists on retirement anyway, which is by far the most harmful thing to the nation right now, even if they don't intend that harm.