At what point...?

Are ALL political populations legitimate, and are all instances of political expression legitimate?

Further, can all political groups safely claim that all of their actions are legitimate... and therefore can the claim that any illegitimate actions that occur during their political gatherings are entirely outside the mainstream of their political group?

Or, is it possible that a political group, or at least one particular episode in that political group's history, has crossed the line from legitimate into illegitimate territory? There is a possibility that I am slightly biased, but these past four weeks here in Madison have really pushed my tolerance... have really stretched my willingness to cut people slack in this arena of "legitimate political expression."

There have been SO many episodes of ugly behavior on the part of the anti-Walker/pro-union forces that I am beginning to wonder whether it is honest to let them off the hook by saying, "Oh, that undesirable behavior is from a fringe element; it's not fair to paint the whole group with those bad behaviors."

Let's briefly recap: Failing to leave a public building during operating hours and setting up crock-pots and food warmers (like it's some kind of camp site), sleeping in public buildings, shouting and screaming in our capitol's marble/tiled rotunda for weeks on end, obstructing the order of legislative business, running out of the state to hold the state legislature hostage, surrounding and impeding movement of duly elected officials in the capitol, surrounding duly elected officials and shouting at them with electronically powered amplification devices, entering the capitol (after a hard-earned shut-down) through a window, choosing to open the window to allow protesters into the capitol after the shut-down, trashing public grounds, surrounding and rocking a bus filled with "opposition" politicians, harassing free citizens and protesting tax-paying business owners because they financially contributed to the "wrong" people, a few minor little death threats (that are supposed to be laughed off after the authors "explained" themselves), police officers failing to uphold the law, police and fire department unions sending threatening letters to tax payers who supported the "opposition" politicians, harassment and intimidation by union protesters all across the state, approaching and destroying petitions drafted by "opposition" political operatives, elected officials telling police NOT to enforce the law, politicization of the classrooms, teachers taking school kids to protests, teachers calling a "sick out", doctors handing out fake "sick notes" to help the teachers avoid repercussions of their "sick out" lies, vandalizing public and private buildings with spray-painted political messages (some vulgar), urinating outside the capitol, rushing past police crowd-control barriers.

And, I let's not forgot the signs! You remember... the signs held by protesters while marching around our capitol. If you've only seen television coverage of these protests, I am quite sure you have not seen THE worst signs. Not only would they sorta taint the "we the people, working class" image and tone that the popular media are trying to apply to the protests. But, many of the signs would require censoring for decency and broadcast purposes.

The signs you never saw on TV include images of Jesus flipping the bird, a photograph (not a drawing!) of a very hairy anal sphincter with a picture of Gov. Walker's head/face superimposed over the actual sphincter, uses of profanity in their signs IN BROAD DAYLIGHT knowing full well that children would be present, references to gang raping one of the attractive FOX News anchor-babes, calling Gov. Walker Hitler & Mussolini & Mubarak, calling Walker a douche bag, calling him a "used condom", employing predictable adolescent jokes on the surname Koch, putting Gov. Walker in gun-sight cross-hairs, one lady's sign remarked how she'd never been screwed by a governor before, one says "Walker blows goats", ...

Now, I am quite sure that most decent people would agree that these signs are "over the top". And, I am quite sure that many of the protesters would like us all to believe that these signs represent a fringe element of the anti-Walker folks. But, I will return to my opening questions: Are all political expressions "legitimate", and can they therefore dismiss all "over the top" instances as aberrations? Is it possible for some political groups to simply be "over the top"? Can so many signs, and so many instances of irresponsible, ugly, childish, and brutish behavior really be dismissed with a simple "oh, that's just a fringe group; we're not really like that"?

Does there come a point when the outsider is justified in saying, "No. I'm sorry. I'm not buying it. This is not 'fringe behavior'. This is too common in your ranks. It's too prolific. You hang with these 'fringe' people. You tolerate their signs among you. You lock arms with them. You allow your children to be exposed to their language. No. I'm sorry. You do not get to dismiss them simply because they are ugly and undesirable; you must own them now."

Granted, there have been thousands of sign-carriers. And, granted, I do not have a scientific measurement of what percentage of all signs were represented by this fraction of offensive signs. But, still! How many does it take until the protesters need to own them. I may not be the one telling the offensive joke about the gay man. But if I mingle with those joke-tellers all the time, and I humor them, and I do nothing to resist, deter, or chastise... well, at some point, I am complicit.