You sound almost wistful when you write

"Aid and comfort" left the building a long time ago.

Let's trade places and I'll be a strict constructionist. Since "aid and comfort" the way you mean is subjective and almost always partisan, the Founders surely meant the terms in a much narrower legal sense, as material and substantive aid, and comfort, I would reasonably surmise, in the sense of "succor" as in providing food and shelter.

Most certainly the Founders could not have meant to include sympathy in that definition. A nation with a First Amendment can't outlaw sympathy. A Founder might have even gone further and said that it most emphatically should not, because sympathy for the enemy is a danger sign of loss of legitimacy for the leaders. The opinion of the people is supposed to matter, and if the people prefer the enemy over the current leaders, then the leaders must go. The Founders wouldn't give the government the power to suppress that extreme form of dissatisfaction, they'd welcome its free expression as the path to corrective salvation.

Outright sympathy for the enemy is an extreme and way overstates the present case. What's eating Bush supporters is criticism of their leadership and eroding political support. Redefining that as sympathy for the enemy is just a desperate rhetorical trick.

Obviously I don't buy it. You don't see me holding back, do you? :-D

And that's just treason. Can you define what you mean by "anti-American" when the speaker is an American? Isn't that a logical impossibility in a free society? Unless a person rejects the concept of a free society itself, I suppose, and there are people fundamentally opposed to democracy around. But once you accept the basic premise of self-government and enter into the game, isn't everything up for grabs? Is there any criticism of the government that is by definition out-of-bounds?