[T]he language lately on air has grown particularly fierce and apocalyptic: President Obama called a dictator and sympathizer with terrorists. His policies called socialist, Marxist, Bolshevik, dangerous. Americans called to rise up in revolt. All this while the economy tanks and gun sales surge.

That last line is the operative and, frankly, scary one: while the economy tanks and gun sales surge. Let’s not forget that conservative right-wing blowhards animated, if not inspired, two recent terrorist incidents: 1. A gunman that opened fire at a church for its liberal views, 2. A second man in Pennsylvania ambushed police officers because, he thought, they and Obama were coming to take his guns away.

I wish Tom Ashbrook, the host of On Point, had been unabashedly critical of the vile rhetoric being spewed by conservatives on Fox News and talk radio; but, like a good “journalist,” Tom maintained his objectivity and largely agreed that liberals were guilty of similar offenses during the Bush years. To which I simply respond: bullshit! When was the last time any liberal went on TV or radio to call for armed revolution against the US government? Tom Ashbrook’s default fallback of journalistic objectivity is simply weak, and irresponsible in this instance.

After the mid-term elections of that year, many progressives hoped that elected Democrats would aggressively push back against Bush-republicans and their conservative allies. However, elected Democrats in Congress proved themselves to be largely ineffective on the big policy issues of the day (see: Iraq war, FISA, Guantanamo prison, republican corruption – i.e., Karl Rove, Scooter Libby, et al.).

To be fair, many elected Democrats did put up a fight, and pushed back against Bush and his conservative allies. Unfortunately, since 2006, some of Bush’s conservative allies have included so-called Blue Dog Democrats, which have allowed Bush & Co. to continue the Iraq war, to perpetuate the republican culture of corruption, and to infringe on civil liberties.

So, what’s a progressive to do against these so-called Blue Dog Democrats? Fight back, of course!

Which is where blogger, activist and lawyer Glenn Greenwald comes in, he writes:

If simply voting for more Democrats will achieve nothing in the way of meaningful change, what, if anything, will? At minimum, two steps are required to begin to influence Democratic leaders to change course: 1) Impose a real political price that they must pay when they capitulate to — or actively embrace — the right’s agenda and ignore the political values of their base, and 2) decrease the power and influence of the conservative “Blue Dog” contingent within the Democratic caucus, who have proved excessively willing to accommodate the excesses of the Bush administration, by selecting their members for defeat and removing them from office. And that means running progressive challengers against them in primaries, or targeting them with critical ads, even if doing so, in isolated cases, risks the loss of a Democratic seat in Congress.

Those goals are the basis of the recent campaign that I helped launch — along with progressive bloggers such as Jane Hamsher and the Blue America PAC — to target selected Democratic members of Congress who have been responsible for some of the worst acts of complicity and capitulation. The campaign we launched, which raised over $350,000 in a very short time largely from dissatisfied progressives, has run multimedia ads criticizing the likes of Blue Dog Rep. Chris Carney and Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, despite the fact that neither has a primary challenger and despite the fact that Carney is quite vulnerable in his reelection effort this year.

Some of you may be thinking, but won’t this jeopardize Democratic control of Congress? The short answer is, No!

If you’re interested in a more elaborate answer, you’ll need to see Glenn Greenwald’s explanation:

Many progressives and other Democratic supporters are reflexively opposed to any conduct that might result in the defeat of even a single, relatively inconsequential Democratic member of Congress or the transfer of even a single district to GOP control. No matter how dissatisfied such individuals might be with the Democratic Congress, they are unwilling to do anything different to change what they claim to find so unsatisfactory. Even though uncritically cheering on any and every candidate with a “D” after his or her name has resulted in virtually nothing positive — and much that is negative — many progressives continue, rather bafflingly and stubbornly, to insist that if they just keep doing the same thing (cheering for the election of more and more Democrats), then somehow, someday, something different might occur. But, as the cliché teaches, repeatedly engaging in the same conduct and expecting different results is the very definition of foolishness.

As foolish as it is, this intense aversion to jeopardizing any Democratic incumbents might be considered rational if doing so carried the risk of restoring Republican control of Congress. But there is no such risk, and there will be none for the foreseeable future. No matter what happens, the Democrats, by all accounts, are going to control both houses of Congress after the 2008 election. Their margin in the House, which is currently 31 seats, will, by even the most conservative estimates, increase to at least 50 seats. No advertising campaign or activist group could possibly swing control of Congress to the Republicans this year, and — given the Brezhnev-era-like reelection rates for incumbents in America — it is extremely unlikely that the House will be controlled by anyone other than Steny Hoyer, Rahm Emanuel and Nancy Pelosi for years to come.

The critical question, then, is not who will control Congress. The Democrats will. That is a given. The vital question is what they will do with that control — specifically, will they continue to maintain and increase their own power by accommodating the right, or will they be more responsive, accountable and attentive to the political values of their base?

If yo agree that the Democratic party should be more “accountable and attentive” to you, than accommodating to Bush & Co., then please donate $15 or more to Glenn Greenwald’s Blue America campaign.

Bob Herbert, of the NY Times, reminds us that, indeed, things were complex and that there’s a certain context in which Reagan’s use of racial prejudices must be observed:

Let’s set the record straight on Ronald Reagan’s campaign kickoff in 1980.

Early one morning in the late spring of 1964, Dr. Carolyn Goodman, her husband, Robert, and their 17-year-old son, David, said goodbye to David’s brother, Andrew, who was 20.

[...]

It was a dangerous mission, and Andrew’s parents were reluctant to let him go. But the family had always believed strongly in equal rights and the benefits of social activism. “I didn’t have the right,” Dr. Goodman would tell me many years later, “to tell him not to go.”

After a brief stopover in Ohio, Andrew traveled to the town of Philadelphia in Neshoba County, Mississippi, a vicious white-supremacist stronghold. Just days earlier, members of the Ku Klux Klan had firebombed a black church in the county and had beaten terrified worshipers.

Andrew would not survive very long. On June 21, one day after his arrival, he and fellow activists Michael Schwerner and James Chaney disappeared. Their bodies wouldn’t be found until August. All had been murdered, shot to death by whites enraged at the very idea of people trying to secure the rights of African-Americans.

The murders were among the most notorious in American history. They constituted Neshoba County’s primary claim to fame when Reagan won the Republican Party’s nomination for president in 1980. The case was still a festering sore at that time. Some of the conspirators were still being protected by the local community. And white supremacy was still the order of the day.

That was the atmosphere and that was the place that Reagan chose as the first stop in his general election campaign. The campaign debuted at the Neshoba County Fair in front of a white and, at times, raucous crowd of perhaps 10,000, chanting: “We want Reagan! We want Reagan!”

Reagan was the first presidential candidate ever to appear at the fair, and he knew exactly what he was doing when he told that crowd, “I believe in states’ rights.”

Reagan apologists have every right to be ashamed of that appearance by their hero, but they have no right to change the meaning of it, which was unmistakable.

[...]

He was tapping out the code. It was understood that when politicians started chirping about “states’ rights” to white people in places like Neshoba County they were saying that when it comes down to you and the blacks, we’re with you.

And Reagan meant it. He was opposed to the landmark Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was the same year that Goodman, Schwerner and Chaney were slaughtered. As president, he actually tried to weaken the Voting Rights Act of 1965. He opposed a national holiday for the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. He tried to get rid of the federal ban on tax exemptions for private schools that practiced racial discrimination. And in 1988, he vetoed a bill to expand the reach of federal civil rights legislation.

[...]

To see Reagan’s appearance at the Neshoba County Fair in its proper context, it has to be placed between the murders of the civil rights workers that preceded it and the acknowledgment by the Republican strategist Lee Atwater that the use of code words like “states’ rights” in place of blatantly bigoted rhetoric was crucial to the success of the G.O.P.’s Southern strategy. That acknowledgment came in the very first year of the Reagan presidency.

I agree with Mr. Herbert, Reagan apologists have reason to be ashamed of his actions, but have no right to change the meaning of history.

McLaughlin: Look Americans — particularly Republicans like you [referring to Tony Blankley] — they love authoritarianism.

Blankley: I don’t love authoritarianism. Even though I love you, John.

McLaughlin: Keep quiet now. They don’t want a President. They want an imperialist.

I think John McLaughlin has it right.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy, who had been shocked by the hunger he saw in West Virginia, made the fight against hunger a theme of his presidential campaign. After his election he created the modern food stamp program, which today helps millions of Americans get enough to eat.

But Ronald Reagan thought the issue of hunger in the world’s richest nation was nothing but a big joke. Here’s what Reagan said in his famous 1964 speech “A Time for Choosing,” which made him a national political figure: “We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry each night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet.”

Today’s leading conservatives are Reagan’s heirs. If you’re poor, if you don’t have health insurance, if you’re sick — well, they don’t think it’s a serious issue. In fact, they think it’s funny.

[...]

Before the last election, the actor Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson’s and has become an advocate for stem cell research that might lead to a cure, made an ad in support of Claire McCaskill, the Democratic candidate for Senator in Missouri. It was an effective ad, in part because Mr. Fox’s affliction was obvious.

And Rush Limbaugh — displaying the same style he exhibited in his recent claim that members of the military who oppose the Iraq war are “phony soldiers” and his later comparison of a wounded vet who criticized him for that remark to a suicide bomber — immediately accused Mr. Fox of faking it. “In this commercial, he is exaggerating the effects of the disease. He is moving all around and shaking. And it’s purely an act.” Heh-heh-heh.

[...]

Mark Crispin Miller, the author of “The Bush Dyslexicon,” once made a striking observation: all of the famous Bush malapropisms — “I know how hard it is for you to put food on your family,” and so on — have involved occasions when Mr. Bush was trying to sound caring and compassionate.

By contrast, Mr. Bush is articulate and even grammatical when he talks about punishing people; that’s when he’s speaking from the heart.

[...]

So once again, if you’re poor or you’re sick or you don’t have health insurance, remember this: these people think your problems are funny.

LIMBAUGH: “Save the — keep the troops safe” or whatever. I — it’s not possible, intellectually, to follow these people.

CALLER: No, it’s not, and what’s really funny is, they never talk to real soldiers. They like to pull these soldiers that come up out of the blue and talk to the media.

LIMBAUGH: The phony soldiers.

Here you have Rush, who got out of serving in Vietnam ’cause he had a boil on his ass, calling American war veterans “phony soldiers” because they oppose a war that Bush-republicans support and, of course, there’s no one in the traditional media calling Bush-republicans out on their hypocrisy.

Remember, this week Bush-republicans forced a vote in Congress condemning the MoveOn ad that, rightly, pointed out how General Petraeus acted as a political operative for the Bush administration when the General appeared before Congress.

Well, I think John Amato has it right:

I’m calling on the Senate to pass an amendment or uphold their latest one and condemn Rush Limbaugh’s cowardly acts on our troops! Soldiers from the 82nd Airborne in Iraq wrote a NY Times op-ed — criticizing the war in Iraq, and had the bravery to suggest that it was time to develop an exit strategy. Two of them just died. Are they phonies, Rush? Where’s the “sense of the Senate” on this outrage?

UPDATE: This is more like it… from Congressman John Hall:

Dems ARE condemning Rush Limbaugh for his repeated attacks against our service members. Enough is enough.

I know that there is a back and forth about whether another condemnation is worth the time. I happen to believe it is in this case. Therefore, I’m introducing a resolution that shows emphatically that Congress will not condone ad hominem political attacks on U.S. troops. On Monday, I’m introducing legislation to express the Sense of Congress that this body rejects and condemns Limbaugh’s heinous remarks, and will continue to engage in a debate on ending our involvement in Iraq that eschews character-based attacks on our Armed Forces. Hopefully, this will end the back and forth so we can focus our efforts on ending the war.

• Views primaries against incumbents as “purges,” especially when they come from the left. All Democratic Party officeholders should receive their party’s nomination by right of possession.
• Thinks the war in Iraq was managed badly, but ultimately wasn’t a bad idea.
• After reading one too many Mark Penn polls, makes up imaginary friends like the Baileys as the gold standard for the average American voter.
• Constantly argues that we should end the circular firing squad and focus our efforts at Republicans, while simultaneously triangulating against left-wing strawmen at the same time.
• Believes in concepts like the “radical middle,” or that American is fundamentally a moderate country, even though most people who consider themselves moderates are actually just low information voters and non-ideological.
• Considers Fox News to be a conservative, but still legitimate, news outlet. Will gladly go on Fox News to reach out to new voters.
• Believes cutting the defense budget is political suicide, and should not even be discussed lest Democrats look weak.
• Finds GLBT issues to unbelievably radioactive, and tries to steer the most cautious course possible in this area.
• In terms of cults of personality, hates Howard Dean and joined the efforts to derail his presidential campaign / try and push him out of the DNC; loves Joe Lieberman and decried the efforts to try and knock him off; is interested in Michael Bloomberg’s potential presidential run and subscribes to his newsletter.
• Thinks that the blogosphere, You Tube, MoveOn and other netroots developments are fundamentally negative for the Democratic Party. Such institutions are filled with a new generation of dirty fucking hippies who will lead the Democratic Party over the cliff of unelectablility due to our ignorance, foul mouths and unwavering adherence to a far-left ideology.
• Thinks that dissenting from the great, all-powerful left makes you a rebellious, cool “outsider.”
• Considers the conservative rise in elected power from 1978-2006 to be a natural result of the country turning to the right and which can be countered by turning to the right ourselves. Does not believe that the massive conservative political machinery constructed over the past few decades played a major role, or that progressive political machinery must be constructed to counter it.
• Thinks that all options must remain on the table against Iran, including the use of nuclear weapons, because threatening a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a relatively powerless country you are not at war with makes you look tough on national security issues rather than absolutely insane.
• Argued for censuring Bill Clinton as a political necessity despite his 60%+ approval rating, and against censuring George Bush, Jr. as a political necessity, despite his 35% approval rating.
• Considers those who oppose completely unregulated trade to simply be rubes, even if they are also part of the “radical middle” that must be courted at all costs.
• Speaking to the Democratic rank and file, rather than to swing voters, is fundamentally a waste of resources.
• Running a fifty state strategy and spending money on field or internet instead of only and ever focusing on TV ads in swing districts is a waste of resources.
• Even though he lost an open seat in an overwhelmingly Democratic year, believes that Harold Ford Jr. is the model for the future of the Democratic Party.
• Won’t read this post, or catch The Simpson’s reference in the Michael Bloomberg joke above.