Or, Starr would’ve pestered him longer until he did say something perjurous. 
Ambitious guys like Fitzgerald don’t send 2 years of their lives only to report “no one committed any crimes”.
And the practical difference in this situation?
-Joe
Stupid isn’t subject to remediation.
I don’t think we can win it that way at all, because I think Ann Coulter and her ilk have taken the power out of the word “treason”.
It also isn’t true because this tactic isn’t working for our side right now. Coulter writes a book saying that liberals are traitors by definition and she gets regular TV appearances; a liberal compares some aspect of a genuinely atrocious situation to some aspect of Nazi Germany and it’s a scandal. It’s sad, but it’s true; they can get away with hyperbole right now, and we can’t.
I don’t think it’s terrible hyperbole to accuse Rove of treason; I think what he did clearly rises to a similar moral level, but there is simply no way he will ever be charged with or convicted of it legally. But to accuse him of treason then turns the discussion into whether or not what he did was treason.
I don’t know how this should be framed; I think that one of the few ways it can be won is for Rove to be convicted of something. Then again, being convicted of felonious acts against one’s government doesn’t keep one from being a right-wing hero.
I don’t know what game you are playing, but the game I am playing is, "Limit the power and effectiveness of the Pubbies until we can get some Dems or independents in Congress and/or the White House. We can EASILY win that game by smearing Rove (and by extension) the White House with treason.
The analogy with Coulter doesn’t work. Coulter’s accusations didn’t fly because they were easily and widely dismissed as the bullshit they were: if disagreeing with conservatives is treason, then most Americans are treasonous sooner or later. But in the case of Rove we have a specific, heinous act we are referring to: outing a covert CIA agent. Most Americans do not out covert CIA agents. Most Americans would agree this is treason, or at least treason-like, unless there’s a darned good reason, and that “getting political revenge” ISN’T a darned good reason.
Sorry, Rove’s a traitor, committed treason, belongs in jail, that’s all there is to it.
The word “heinous” triggered something for me. If we used scorn and ridicule that could be useful against Rove and by proxy against the people who appointed him. Paint Rove as a ridiculous Heinous Overlrd wannabe and portray him as Chuckles the Silly Piggy, from Dave the Barbarian. Then pile it on. Make him a laughing stock.
And willful stupidity is? Willful ignorance is?
-Joe, nope
I don’t think that most people are willfully ignorant. I think that most people genuinely try to act in their best interests and in the best interests of their country.
Ah, but what happens if their best interests (perceived or reality-based) are not in the best interests of their country?
Obviously, I basically agree with you (if you’ve read this thread). But another question is: What to do about the apathy?
I agree that ignorance can be remedied. But it can’t be tackled before we deal with the rampant apathy in the US today.
Unfortunately, I’m thinking it comes down to: How bad do things have to get before people wake up and realize they need to get involved in order to sustain a democracy?
I say “unfortunately”, because the answer appears to be “Very bad indeed”. 
The term for the phenomenom you’re describing is Rational Ignorance. The question becomes what conditions must exist before it is no onger rational to remain ignorant of certain things. Traditionally, it’s taken something bad to issue a proverbial wake-up call.
Interesting site.
I wonder if politicians have studied this, and know just how to keep most people from crossing the line into this scenario (from your cite):
Does that mean discussing in-depth politics here makes us “odd”? Doesn’t that (sort of) further Evil Captor’s point about the “TV idjits”?
It also speaks to my first question, which you did not address directly: What if their personal best interests are in conflict with the nation’s best interests?