Most of the big name political bloggers have mentioned the issue more than once, but Duncan over at atrios has spent quite a bit of time on the issue. Most of the time, his view is a protest over the fact that what most of the complaints boil down to is that left-leaning bloggers seem unafraid to use the word "fuck". I think he misses the point, however, as long as he focusses on that particular point. Digby noted Cheney's remarks at President Ford's memorial service, and highlighted the fact that some, at least, on the right are not afraid to use the term as well (Cheney's now infamous remark to Sen. Leahy, to go fuck himself).
I believe that all this talk - among the right-blogs and in the MSM - concerning civility in civil discourse is acombination of fear and an attempt to create a framework within which they can take the left to task. Civility is what one chooses to call civil. For the Bush Administration, asking impertinent question, holding Congressional oversight hearings, and holding them to account for both their words and actions is "uncivil". For the press, a Democratic majority that refuses to accept teh Administration's words (Lord knows why they should), could become "uncivil", especially of Speaker Pelosi continues her public girding of loins and straightening of spines of Democrats in Congress. As for the right-blogosphese, I honestly think we can ignore them, because they simply are not players, except to spread nonsense, falsehoods, and become increasingly shrill as they fall further and further behind.
I think the Administration and its sycophants and the Washington establishment in general are in fear for their lives, or at least livelihoods, because we may be entering a period where "civility" as it has been understood and (unfortunately) practiced for a generation or more will no longer rule. There is a healthy skepticism of power and office afoot in the country right now, and if the Democratic Congress refuses to acknowledge certain claimed prerogatives of the Executive, that could be called "uncivil". If Leahy tells Cheney, on or off the record, to go fuck humself, that could be uncivil. If Bush is held to account, if subpeonas are issued, if testimony is demanded under penalty of jail for contempt of Congress, that could be considered uncivil. This is how framing works - we establish the boundaires, and then defend them relentlessly.
I don't think it will work. I also think we need a bit more of the dropping of the "f"-bomb in the public square to shake the establishment in its boots. Civil discourse isn't about being nice, or polite, or respectful. It is about "civitas", the city; that is, it is about governance, the best way to rule, and what happens to those who abuse the privileges that come with power, or who brek the laws they are sworn to uphold. That is what is civil about civil discourse. Politeness and deference are not, or at least should not be (small "d") democratic values. As my wife often says, coarse language can cause the message to get lost as people turn away. I agree with her. On the other hand, we have had too much blood and treasure spilled for no reason, too much ruination of all that is good and great about America to hide behind some artificial, and largely bogus, understanding of "civility". We need real civil discourse, a public dialogue that centers on the care of the city, as it were.
There will be much talk and discussion about this as time goes on, I am sure, but I think the boundaries have been set, and we shall watch them crumble under the relentless assault of time and uncovered fact. As long as there are left-wing bloggers who push the envelope - not of acceptable word shoice but of concern for the country and its governance - we shall have a real civil discourse, and it might occasionally include the word "fuck". It might also include the word "impeach".
