After an interview in which he had some harsh words for Muammar Gaddafi (“It’s good to get rid of rascals and tyrants.”), 2012 GOP rival Rick Perry (“He’s enforced his own DREAM Act in Texas”), and especially “special interest President” Barack Obama (“This is someone who is completely disconnected from the reality of what he’s created in this country.”), Santorum saved some special heat for the Congresswoman from California.

“Well, y’know, it’s Maxine Waters. She’s a caricature of what’s wrong with Congress. She’s vile and she’s always been that way and she’s just one of these real nasty, anti-basic traditional and fundamental values of this country. And so I’m not surprised.”

Listen to the clip from WOR Radio below. Afterwards, turn your computer volume way down and listen intently. You’ll probably be able to hear the sound the the truck containing the RNC’s thank you gift packages backing up to Waters’ house.

(h/t Drudge Report)

While, for the most part, Santorum has ignored the Google campaign against him, it is fairly clear he has decided this week that it’s time to go to war. Radio host Steve Malzberg welcomed Santorum to his program on Monday and, after replaying the Real Time clips discussing Rep. Michele Bachmann and himself, asked Santorum for comment: “What is your reaction to this filth?” Santorum proceeded with an uncharacteristically enraged rant about how his “integrity” was in jeopardy and how “vulgar and disgusting” Savage was. It is worth reproducing in its entirety:

This man has gone out there and tried to destroy my integrity– I mean, you’ve heard about this Google issue, that’s Dan Savage. It’s the lowest debasement of public discourse. It’s offensive beyond anything that any public figure or anybody in America tolerate [sic], and the mainstream media laughs about it. They kid about it. They write about it. They say Santorum’s  ‘Google problem,’ and when you see this kind of over the top– the Google thing is worse than what he said there– they laugh about that, too. Why? Because it’s a liberal beating up on a conservative, and that’s okay. And whether it’s Rick Santorum or Michele Bachmann, it’s the left making fun of someone who believes in the values that built America, that believes in traditional marriage. How outrageous! How bigoted! How hateful that you actually believe that raising children in families with mothers and fathers is something to be encouraged! Just because you hold those opinions you are subjected to the worst form of vulgarity on the internet, on television, on everything else… I wear it as a badge of honor that someone as vulgar and as disgusting and as hate-filled as Dan Savage sees me as Public Enemy #1. To me that tells me I’m doing something right.

He goes on to rail against the “campaign of intimidation” against conservatives, as well, and then, of course, to ask for money. It wouldn’t be the last time Santorum brought up fundraising in relation to Dan Savage this week, however– a few days later, he sent out an email requesting help for his campaign. The email linked to the radio appearance and explained the different levels of donation and how they help his campaign, but also included this key paragraph:

Savage and his perverted sense of humor is the reason why my children cannot Google their father’s name. I took the high road for nearly a decade by not dignifying these mindless attacks, then even defending his 1st Amendment right to spew this filth. And to this day, liberals like Rachel Maddow serve as Savage’s lackeys on national television, pushing his smut.

How Rachel Maddow is particularly to blame for anything remains unexplained– sure, she has made a few “Santorum” jokes, but likely not any more than anyone else on MSNBC– but her cameo in the email certainly does nothing to diminish its tenor. It is a problem to which parents already inclined to agree with Santorum can relate, shielding their children from the world’s surplus of filth, but one imagines this will do little to deter Dan Savage himself. The question is, what more could Savage do to offend Santorum at this point?

Santorum’s commentary on Steve Malzberg below:

Santorum clarified his opinion on McCain’s views:

“I think John McCain is a great man, he served this country well. He obviously endured a lot. I meant no – nothing ill towards John McCain, it’s just a policy disagreement. I respect his opinion, I think he’s wrong. And I think that when Barack Obama got up before the United Nations and said that he stopped torture in America, it was one of the worst moments of his presidency.”

Whether this ends the back-and-forth between Santorum and supporters of McCain (one who referred to Santorum as the dumbest member of the Senate) remains to be seen, yet given Santorum’s tendency to make awkward statements, it’s likely a different controversy could eventually arise.

Trying to put out a fire on a different front, later in the interview Santorum also was given a chance to respond to Joy Behar‘s recent assertion during a talk with Don Lemon that Santorum is a “homophobe.” Santorum strongly disputed the accusation, instead arguing anyone who supports traditional marriage unfortunately gets labeled with that term.

Listen to the clip, eleven minutes into the second hour of the The Steve Malzberg Show.

(h/t The Hill)

This very well might change the odds of Huckabee potentially earning the GOP nomination and will raise questions on how his Fox News cohorts will cover his candidacy and political positions moving forward.

Writing for the NY Times Caucus blog, Michael D. Shear reports on the specifics of Huckabee’s comments:

The comments were prompted by the conservative radio host Steve Malzberg, who asked Mr. Huckabee, “how come we don’t have a health record, we don’t have a college record, we don’t have a birth certificate — why, Mr. Obama did you spend millions of dollars in courts all over this country to defend against having to present a birth certificate?”

The former governor responded, “I would love to know more. What I know is troubling enough.” Mr. Huckabee, who is now a Fox News host, then talked repeatedly about his concerns that Mr. Obama was raised in Kenya.

“If you think about it, his perspective as growing up in Kenya with a Kenyan father and grandfather, their view of the Mau Mau Revolution in Kenya is very different than ours because he probably grew up hearing that the British were a bunch of imperialists who persecuted his grandfather,” Mr. Huckabee said.

The question of whether or not Obama was in fact born in Hawaii has become a flashpoint for conspiracy theorists who believe that there is a government led cover-up over the president’s place of birth, though even most right-of-center commentators like Glenn Beck and Bill O’Reilly have dismissed the conspiracy theory.

Update: Politico’s Ben Smith has a statement from Huckabee’s spokesperson that says the former Governor was simply confused:

“Governor Huckabee simply misspoke when he alluded to President Obama growing up in ‘Kenya.’ The Governor meant to say the President grew up in Indonesia.”

“When the Governor mentioned he wanted to know more about the President, he wasn’t talking about the President’s place of birth – the Governor believes the President was born in Hawaii. The Governor would however like to know more about where President Obama’s liberal policies come from and what else the President plans to do to this country – as do most Americans.”

Listen to the audio clip, courtesy of WOR radio below:

The aforementioned comment came about on WOR Radio’s Steve Malzberg Show, where host Malzberg decried any attempt to “tone it down” as he refused to see a connection to Jared Loughner‘s actions and right-wing rhetoric. Hill took a different approach, noting that “I think you can criticize President Obama. I think you can tear President Obama a new one without referring to him as someone who has to be executed.”

After protesting that he has done just that on his show, Malzberg pointed out violent rhetoric against President George W. Bush, which Hill also criticized. “There are so many people who do use the language of violence,” he added. Malzberg then added another example: “If I said Obama is a murderer after something happens–”

Hill interjected: “I think it’s ok to call him a murderer; I don’t think it’s ok to say ‘kill him”… not because of what happened in Arizona but certainly with predator drones in Afghanistan, yeah, I would say he’s a murderer.”

After a great deal of shocked indignation from Malzberg– who was the one arguing he refused to tone down his own language himself– Hill attempted to soften the blow, changing “the president” to “the United States government” and blaming President Obama’s “responsibilities.” This didn’t seem to lessen the effect of labeling President Obama a “murderer” directly, however, especially in light of the fact that Hill had seconds before noted it was possible to criticize policy without emotionally charged language. At least he can claim to have avoided that most verboten of political phrases, “blood on his hands,” but that may not be enough– especially in this national climate.

The audio segment from today’s Steve Malzberg Show below:

[h/t Breitbart.tv]

Sklar criticized Sarah Palin for an “irresponsible use of imagery” with her controversial congressional target map, but did not say the shooting was Palin’s fault. Instead she hoped Palin would say “I’m a leader, I should lead responsibly and set a great example” and avoid the use of such images in the future. When asked whether he was willing to tone down his language in the future, Malzberg disputed the premise that his language needed toning down. Furthermore, with a President who is “still going to try to rule everything he wants to rule,” Malzberg believed toning down his language would hinder his ability to adequately combat Obama’s agenda.

An interesting discussion, and one that will likely continue as more is learned about how much potentially violent rhetoric, if any, actually influenced the shooter.

Watch the clip from CNN below:

This is the kind of rush to judgment that has become de rigeur in modern politics, but King ought to know better. As a matter of fact, the administration has launched a criminal investigation against Assange, and while the charge that Obama is slow (if not impossible) to anger is a popular media meme,  King should be well aware that an issue involving sensitive documents and an ongoing criminal case isn’t the best vehicle for a demonstration of shooting from the hip. This kind of pop psychology is to be expected from the voracious 24-hour news beast, not from the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee.

Think Progress has the audio and transcript of his interview with radio host Steve Malzberg – and it raises more questions about the reason the rising star at FNC was let go.

“To date, Fox News Channel hasn’t given me any information as to why,” said Hill yesterday. He continued:

I got a Google alert at 11 o’clock [a.m.] that it had been announced that I’d been fired. After that, I guess someone followed up later in the day, you know because I was sort of trying to figure out what was going on…I found out that it was true but other than that I don’t have any other information…I haven’t had any thorough conversation with anyone.

Over the weekend, this web radio show from September surfaced as a possible reason for his dismissal. In it, he strongly attacks Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck – but notably, does not say anything about Bill O’Reilly, whose show he regularly appeared. Still, the story was odd to begin with, since News Corp. chairman Rupert Murdoch essentially broke the news himself, while speaking to stockholders Friday morning.

Newsbusters reports on another part of the Malzberg radio interview yesterday, where Hill weighs in on the Fox News vs. White House feud. Hill says “I would agree” that MSNBC is more biased to the left than Fox News is biased to the right.

Last week we reached out to both Hill and Fox News for more information on what happened.