Error: Unable to create directory /home/demockra/public_html/wp-content/uploads/2010/09. Is its parent directory writable by the server? Democrats and the ‘radicalization’ of civil liberties

What is “radical” anymore? In last week’s National Review, Stanley Kurtz made a big fuss about Barack Obama’s past as an organizer in Chicago. John McCain and others have attempted — poorly — to link Obama to the Weather Underground, even though Obama was a child during that group’s prominence. (Even Sarah Palin derided Obama’s “community organization” credentials, though she implied that his participation in such activities was irrelevant, not dangerous.)

And then there are the “terrorist fist jab” comments from Fox News that should have clued Fox’s few remaining viewers into the fact that they’re out of their minds.

But it appears that “radical” also means “willing to stand up and fight for constitutional rights.” The Democrats walk around like a paranoid city-dweller, eyes darting back and forth, Mace at the ready, just in case a Republican jumps out of the shadows and accuses them of being soft on terrorism. Let’s not mince words: Democrats are extremely, morbidly terrified of losing the seats they won in 2006. Their hold on the House is tenuous, and in the Senate, they are ahead only because Joe Lieberman hasn’t yet come out of the closet and declared himself a Republican. One of the only things that could cause Democrats to lose seats in November is the accusation that, somehow, Democrats are enabling terrorism. Even though the assertion is laughable, Democrats take it very seriously.

So seriously, in fact, that they have put their tails between their legs whenever President Bush has suggested that they’re wasting time, spending too much money, or not acquiescing to his self-pronounced “inherent powers” granted to him by the War on Terr’. When they came into office, it appeared that the Democrats meant business: we’re talking oversight, and end to the war in Iraq, impeachment, and a rollback of all the ridiculous powers the president has claimed for himself. Almost two years later, the Democrats have capitulated every time Bush has demanded they remove withdrawal promises from emergency funding for his war. In this way, Bush can still lay claim to the mantle of fiscal conservatism, since his budgets contain no bloat. The periodic emergency funding bills, though, are a different story.

Nancy Pelosi and Howard Dean must have concluded that being a Democrat means … being a Republican! Democrats in Congress are apparently under the impression that the American people want more of the same politics that led Republicans to be ousted from Congress in 2006. The most blatant and gratuitous example of Democratic capitulation was the recently-passed FISA bill. After months of haranguing and what appeared to be actual standing-up, Democrats sat back down and voted to extend the president’s wiretapping powers and indemnify the telecommunications companies that illegally assisted with the illegal wiretapping from civil suits. The word “appeasement” comes to mind, but in its appropriate context.

Why did the Democrats allow the president to continue breaking the law? Why, in fact, did they go above and beyond the call of duty and take the extra step of protecting the phone companies from civil suits? Money is obviously one reason. Telecom companies donate a lot of money to both parties, and politicians are loathe to turn down free money. Salon.com contributor and former civil rights attorney Glenn Greenwald tried to crash a private party AT&T was holding at the DNC, but was told the media were not allowed in.

Protecting civil liberties is now, for some reason, a “radical” thing to do. Daring to suggest that the president is acting illegally is out of vogue now?