Leftists: Ideology First, Race Second, Sex Third, Everything Else: Doesn't Matter

Yesterday I wrote an entire post about my support of Herman Cain and the only time I mentioned race (other than to tell potential race-baiters that my use of the term "spades" as in "he has it in spades" was not a racial joke and not to make it into one) was to say that the Democrats wouldn't forego the race-baiting in the 2012 campaign even if Cain were to be the nominee, because they feel they own the black vote.

If anything, the fact that I wrote a pretty long piece about my support for a black man and never mentioned his race as a reason to support him or not support him should show where my head is where race is concerned; it's just not a factor. I'd be an idiot to think it wouldn't be brought up by the mainstream media during the campaign (it already has) but it doesn't affect who I support one iota.

But to Democrats it's a trump card; sorry, it's THE trump card. Why are critics of Obama called racists? It's not because they are, but rather it's because the Democrats are obsessed with race, and for them, all that mattered about Obama was that he was a leftist, and he was black. For a true leftist, it's ideology first, race second, sex or sexuality third, and everything else hardly even matters. Why else would they run a man with literally nothing remotely presidential or leadership-ready on his resume?

I've written many times about how I feel that true racism today is mostly on the left, so when I hear a right-winger suggest that we wouldn't get behind Herman Cain if we were really racists, I wonder why they don't address the reasons why the party of true widespread racism DID get behind Obama. But it hit me as I was thinking about it that while today's left is just as racist as it's ever been, it's a different kind of racism. Rather than the kind that lynches them or burns crosses on their yards, it's the kind that says people of color should all think, act, talk, dress and vote alike, or that black people can't succeed without white man's help, or that black people who are able to speak eloquently and have good hygene are somehow exceptional (as if most black people are not those things), or that any person of color who would ever consider voting Republican is a traitor to his or her race, because Democrats are supposed to own their vote.

All of the above are truly racist positions, and they define leftist views on race to a T. But they aren't about hating black people, per se. Instead they are about considering people of color to be a sub-class of human who have their uses, but need to be kept in their proper place.

So why would such a group willingly follow a black man? Simple; they're NOT following him, nor is he acting like a leader. He also isn't acting in the best interests of black Americans. Everything Obama's done since taking office is basically "Force legislation through Congress that the left has been trying to enact for decades now, while totally ignoring the black community he claims to care so much about." Obama's policies aren't about advancing black America. They're about advancing LEFTIST America. Socialist America. He pays lip service to the idea of supporting the cause of black Americans, but nothing he's done since taking office suggests he really cares about it. Poverty, single parenthood, wellfare, food stamp use, etc., all have risen among black Americans under Obama's watch. And it's not just "racist" right-wingers who've noticed; Maxine Waters herself, and many of the rest of the Congressional Black Caucus, took Obama to task over his total shafting of black Americans.

Now, I'm not saying Obama SHOULD focus on just black Americans. He's president of the country, not president of its black population. I mean, it's not that he doesn't care about black America; he doesn't care about America as a whole. But this proves that Obama was not campaigned or elected by people who give a rodent's hirsute hindquarters about black Americans or their plight. Obama was not elected because the Democrats want to advance people of color in America. He was elected because the left can now do what it's always wanted to do, and claim that any opposition to it is due to racism.

Which is exactly what they're doing.

In effect, this makes Obama the ultimate Uncle Tom; he's sold out his people for the leftist cause. He's allowed himself to be the black face the left puts on all its actions so that it can keep playing the race card every time they face reprisal. He's joined those who are doing all they can to keep black people in their place, and if he ever starts actually thinking for himself (that is, coming up with a thought or plan that wasn't straight out of the leftist playbook), the left will turn on him in a hurry. Heck, they've already done that every time he was forced to concede to the Republicans on any issue. Not only that, but Obama got where he is entirely because of white people. I've said before that establishment Democrats are just as white as establishment Republicans, and have actually done less to show they care about black Americans.

Leftists cannot fathom that right-wingers love Herman Cain because we feel like he's one of us, or agree with his stance on the issues, or think he's got some good ideas to get this country back on track. They can't fathom that because that's not how they think. They look at Herman Cain and they see A BLACK MAN. A black man who IS A REPUBLICAN! And then they lose their head. Policies? Positions? Ideas? Motivations? These do not matter. And it gets worse. Cain is a self-made black man who took responsibility, worked hard and made something of himself, never demanding a hand-out from white America or whining about how his personal journey was harder than it should have been because of his color. Clearly, this man does not know his place. And that terrifies the left.

Because we're supposed to be racists, a meme the left will flog until the end of days, leftists struggle to come up with a reason we love Herman Cain that makes sense alongside the racist meme. But it DOESN'T make any sense; supposedly we love Cain because we're trying to hide our racism. Projection?

I'm afraid it can't work that way. The left hasn't claimed that we're the kind of racists they are, allowing that black people have their uses as long as they know their place. They started off claiming we HATE black people and that the only reason we oppose anything Obama does is that we can't handle the idea of a black president. You can't claim on the one hand that we hate black people and then also claim that we're getting behind a black man now so that we can hide the fact that we hate him. In what universe does that make sense?

If we really were the kind of people the mainstream media would have you believe we are, we'd laugh at Cain's attempt to ingratiate himself with us, mock him and then throw our support behind the KKK.

If we were the kind of people the left truly are, then we would politely scoff at his efforts to become president, pat him on the head and advise him it would be in his best interests to keep voting for us despite how little heed we pay anything he says. Just like the Democrats did with every black presidential candidate they've ever had who threatened to be even slightly more than a puppet for the hardline left.

All Aboard the Cain Train

Okay, I'm a Herman Cain supporter again.

I've always liked Cain. I always felt he was the only man in the race who was in it for America, and not for himself. I never lost that sense of him. What lost me was his pathetic show of ignorance when it came to a crucial matter; foreign policy.
I'm no expert on foreign policy either. I wouldn't have known what the "right of return" was either. But then, I'm also not running for president (and couldn't legally do so until a year from now anyway). I kept hoping, after Cain's poor performance in that area, that a candidate would emerge who was everything Cain was, as well as more prepared to lead America on the international scene.

Such a candidate has not emerged.

I've asked myself many times over the last few days since Herman Cain's stunning victory in the crucial Florida straw poll what's a larger concern; a president with a detailed resume full of national and international experience who will, without losing any sleep, consistently do what is best for his continued presidency at the expense of the American people, and fail to make any real change, or do we want a tough, smart man who really knows what's best for this country (ei. his 999 plan) who will NOT compromise with self-serving Democrats, who will NOT just roll over and take it when the media makes up lies about him, who will NOT pander to special interest groups and/or unions, and who WILL stand up for America, and average Americans?

Having taken into consideration who's running, and leaving out anyone conservatives seem to WISH would run (like Sarah Palin or Chris Christie), I have to say that Herman Cain is truly the only one I really want to see get the nomination. There are others running I would settle for, like Rick Perry, Michelle Bachman or Rick Santorum, but I would be settling. I wouldn't be happy with any of them.

Mock the idea of debates-as-American-Idol all you want; the fact is that if you can't perform well on that stage, you can't perform well as president. And Bachmann is performing very poorly. Rick Perry started off well, but I'm becoming more convinced than ever that Perry cannot win this unless he changes his position on immigration, and pronto. But instead he's doubling down on it. Mitt Romney? Are you kidding? I've said before, and I'll say again, that if Romney wins the nomination we may as well not even bother having an election at all, and just hand Obama another 4 years. Can Romney get conservatives to come out in droves to vote? Can he sway independants? In both cases I'm convinced the answer is no. A Romney campaign will be just like John McCain's; there were no votes FOR McCain in 2008. There were only votes AGAINST Obama. I know of no one who really wanted a President McCain. All we wanted was to ensure we wouldn't get a hard-left socialist in the White House.

And while I'm at it, let me say that I'm not really that fired up about a Palin presidential run, and don't want Christie to run at all. I love Sarah Palin. I love everything about her. But I'm not convinced she could run a solid campaign and actually defeat the ongoing smear campaign the left has running 24 hours against her. There are right-wingers the left hates, there are right-wingers they are afraid of and then there are those they hate AND are afraid of. Sarah Palin definitely fits into the third category, whereas I'm convinced even George W. Bush only fits into the first. The anti-Bush smears were awful, but the smears against Sarah Palin were and are the most reprehensible thing I've ever seen. They wanted you to think W. was stupid. They want you to think Palin is sub-human.

As for a Christie presidential campaign, there are exactly two things I like about Chris Christie, and two things only; he's willing to stand up to unions and he's willing to speak the truth as he sees it plainly and not pretty up his speech with PC bullshit. No one can accuse Christie of talking like a politician, and there's little doubt that his unwillingness to cater to unions has helped clean up New Jersey. Unfortunately in all other matters, Christie doesn't at all speak to the conservative base. He's spoken out in favor of the Ground Zero Mosque, he believes in anthropogenic global warming, he's for raising taxes and the debt ceiling, and I may be wrong but I also believe he's pro-choice. No, I do not want to see a President Christie, and every time he denies that he'll run, my first thought is "Good!"

Unlike Christie, Cain is a true conservative, and won't hide that fact. He also has the two factors I like about Christie in spades (no that's not a racial joke, and if you try to make one out of it, you're pathetic). Also unlike Palin, he seems able to rise above the smears. Not one smear against him has stuck, and a large part of that is that Cain (unlike Bush) actually--gasp!--RESPONDS to the smears against him but it's the way he responds that I like; he laughs at them. His stance for most is that the leftists who make the smears don't really believe those things themselves, but are afraid of his momentum and are trying laughable ways of bringing him down. And the Florida straw poll results show that he might in fact be right; both about his momentum and about how afraid he's making the Obama campaign.

Some are suggesting that running Cain against Obama in 2012 will take the race issue off the table. I say they're fools if they believe that because race will NEVER stop being a campaign issue for Democrats. They are convinced that they own the black vote, and will do all they can to hold on to it. They call white Republicans racist, but for Cain they'll bring out the "Uncle Tom" hat and try to make him wear it. Heck, they already are. I say to them: good luck. Cain doesn't wear the smears as well as Palin did. I'm not saying the Palin smears were or are true; most of them are provably false and those that aren't amount to little more than salacious gossip. But for some reason she had a really hard time fighting them off, and there are even conservatives who believe the smears against her (one website I saw claimed that her record as governor was littered with controversy, which is completely bogus; one of the reasons McCain picked her was she was a solid conservative with a remarkably sterling record).

Cain? I have yet to encounter even the most hardline leftist who can really say something against him other than vague "this man is a joke" rhetoric they lob against any conservative. Yes, there have been "Uncle Tom" smears. Yes, Jon Stewart tried to claim doesn't like to read (with a routine that would have been unquestionably racist to the left if it had been, say, Dennis Miller making the same sort of joke against Obama). But Cain seems to rise above it. None of it seems to affect his popularity, none of it has slowed his momentum even a hair. Now that he's won the Florida poll, maybe the media will start treating him like a serious candidate and we'll see some real effort on the part of the MSM to take him down. I say bring it on; I think Cain can take it and make them look ridiculous for trying.

Add that to the reasons I support him. While the Republican establishment continues to try and convince us that we should go for an "electable" candidate like Romney or Perry (or Christie) when we know they mean "someone who's not a real conservative because we stupidly believe people like that can't win", we the people have been waiting for a candidate who really speaks for us, who listens to the average American and who is not just concerned about getting elected and keeping his position, who has common sense solutions that will work. Cain is that man.

And to all of those who hem and haw and say "the presidency is not an entry-level position", I repeat what Cain says: "We've had career policitians in power for the past twenty years. How's that working out for you?"

PS: Besides, Cain may not have held elected office before, but he brings more real world experience with him than any president before him. Obama barely ever worked in the private sector; he lives in a different reality than most Americans. It's Obama that's the entry-level president, not Cain.

It's Becoming Clear: When it Comes to Slagging Conservatives, the Left is Losing its Touch

During the 2008 campaign, so much negative was said about Sarah Palin that even people who would ordinarily have supported her, if even half a second of news coverage had actually been about her views, record or planned policies, believed she was stupid.

Meanwhile, the press allowed Obama to get by with having known associations with Tony Rezko, William Ayers and the explosively racist "minister", Jeremiah Wright.

The 2008 campaign trail was a mud-slinging fest, or at least it was from one side. The McCain/Palin campaign, and by extension ALL Republicans and conservatives, were painted with a broad brush as insane, dangerous, angry, stupid, racist, sexist, facist Islamophobes who want nothing more than to impose a Christian theocracy in America and who deserved to be crushed.

And it worked. Obama became president and Sarah Palin, on whom most of the attacks were focused, ended up having to resign even as Alaska's governor, due to a concerted effort to destroy her with baseless "ethics violations" charges.

So...what happened? This month, TWO Palin-bashing books were released; Joe McGinnis's The Rogue: Searching for the Real Sarah Palin and Deer in the Headlights: My Time In Sarah Palin's Crosshairs by Bristol Palin's baby-daddy Levi Johnston. No, I'm not going to link to them. If you're really that curious, google them.

But what's funny is I'm sure most on the Left expected these books to be massive best-sellers and would further bury Palin as an American pariah. After all, the reason Palin's two books, Going Rogue: An American Life and America By Heart: Reflections on Family, Faith and Flag were such best-sellers just has to be because Americans were just rubber-necking at the train-wreck that is her life, right? It certainly can't be because they wanted to read what she has to say. But she's a controversial figure, and that sells. So certainly books that trash her will sell too, right?

Wrong. The Rogue isn't even in the New York Times's top 50 (whereas Going Rogue topped it for weeks) while nobody even knows or cares that Levin Johnston wrote a book about anything. Even LEFTISTS of all people have been critical of McGinnis, while barely even ackowledging Johnston.

And there's good reason. McGinnis's book is a collection of unsourced, unverifiable yellow journalism that could grace the page of National Enquirer, and in fact many of the stories McGinnis collects initially appeared in the Enquirer. The Rogue is less a gritty exposé of Palin and more like a novel about the Palin the left WISHES existed. I've said before that the "journalists" of the left went after Palin with both barrels, determined to shame her on the National stage, and when they couldn't find anything to smear her with, they started making stuff up or taking very minor public gaffes of Palin and blew them up as if only a moron could possibly make such blunders.

You know, like pronouncing the word "corpsman" as "Corpse-Man", claiming to have visited "57 states" or signing the Royal British guestbook with the date of 2008 in 2011. Oh, wait, my mistake; those gaffes were committed by our genius president Barack Obama, the man who is reportedly so cool that there's nothing about him one can mock.

Palin's "gaffes" include supposedly believing America was founded in 1773 (when she was actually talking about the year of the Boston Tea Party, and was correct), supposedly believes we're allied with North Korea (when she actually meant South Korea, whom we are allied with, and immediately corrected her mis-wording without being prompted), or believing that Paul Revere warned the British (which he did).

But the left wasn't content merely to blow her very minor (especially when compared to genius Obama) gaffes out of proportion. They also managed to legally obtain tens of thousands of Sarah Palin's personal emails, which they were certain would blow the lid off the Palin family and expose Sarah Palin for the fraud they were all certain she was. The emails revealed nothing scandalous whatsoever. So many attempts to tear her down and she was still standing proud. I would imagine that many leftists were hoping that Joe McGinnis would finally deliver the crushing blow that would destroy her.

And this is what they got. That's the vaunted liberal establishment known as the New York Times slamming McGinnis's book. When even the New York Times is as unkind as that to a liberal writer trashing a woman the left loves to hate, you know you've lost. I gotta say I'm surprised. Oh, I'm not surprised that McGinnis's book amounts to salacious gossip intended to do no more than cement in the minds of people that already hate her that Sarah Palin is a fraud, a liar and a creep. That much was obvious the moment it was announced that McGinnis had managed to rent a home next door to the Palins. But McGinnis is no idiot, so I at least expected that he would manage to produce something that somebody, ANYBODY, could take seriously. I expected leftist establishments to be behind him 100% and to repeatedly assert that Palin's cover had been blown, and that anyone who doubted she was stupid, evil, narcissistic, hypocritical, etc. would now be "proven" wrong.

Instead, they recognize McGinnis's book for what it is. They realize that you can't just write down a sordid collection of rumors, many of which contradict each other, source them all to "a friend of the Palin family" or "someone who knew them well", etc. and expect anyone to believe it. You can't postulate that Palin was promiscuous while also stating that she was so sexually repressed she would barely let her husband touch her, or simultaneously claim that Palin is a fake Christian while also saying she is setting up a theocracy, or that everyone who knew her was aware of her promiscuity and drug use, etc., while also stating that it was a well-kept secret.

McGinnis's book, however, isn't even close to the only example of how the left's smear tactics are beginning to fail. The Tea Party continues to grow, despite the doubling down on Tea Party smearing the left is currently engaged in. Right now leftists look like the little boy who cried "racist!" as more and more average Americans realize that the Tea Party isn't a Klan-like group but is in fact the true voice of America. While Democrats in national and local Congress, the Congressional Black Caucus, etc. behave like a bunch of thugs, or petulant children, more and more people are understanding that the Tea Party is right; that they are not some racist group trying to get rid of Obama, but are instead a group thoroughly disgusted with the current state of congress and the actions of this administration, and are dedicated to getting rid of ALL those who are causing the current problem, including not only Obama, but anyone connected with this reprehensible party, black or white.

The insults are no longer sticking. The left can gang up on one woman, but when they try to apply the same tactic to literally EVERYONE who opposes them, their mud-slinging looks more and more hollow, and more and more people are understanding that the smears of the left aren't based on anything approaching reality, but are the schoolyard taunts of a failed administration that is scared they're actually going to lose.

President O-BLAME-a

So while the pageant of lies
Still rolls from your tongue
Don't blame me for your Kingdom come

When you're willing to render
The the guilt you concede
When truth is your reason
THEN lay the blame on me

When you unveil a conscience
And with peace you agree
When love is your constant
THEN lay the blame on me

--Ed Roland, Blame

Has any president ever spent so much time blaming his predecessor? And for as long?

There's no doubt Obama didn't have a perfect economy and 8 years of peace handed to him the way Bush did. But, heck, Clinton was handed an unfinished war, a weak economy, etc. Many of the things Obama has been handed. Did he spend an inordinant amount of time blaming Bush Sr.?

Now, I'm not praising Clinton. He was not a good president. But he was A PRESIDENT. He wasn't a martinet put into a position he was uniquely unqualified for who then spent his entire first term blaming his poor performance on his predecessor. He may have been a leftist, who, if left to his own devices, would have crippled the economy almost as bad as Obama, who almost certainly would have introduced the same kind of healthcare bill, and who is most certainly guilty of ignoring Al Quaeda activity which lead to 9/11.

Bush Jr. wasn't a good president, either. Unlike Clinton, I believe he is a good man, but a good man and a good president aren't the same thing. His spending, in the name of "compassionate conservativism" and his expansion of government are unforgivable, and almost certainly contributed to the recession. Of course Congress is chiefly to blame for that, but let's not get into that here.

My point is that while neither man was a good president, at the very least they behaved like they were president. Bush could have pointed fingers at Congress all he wanted, and he partly would have been right to do so, but he shouldered the blame himself. Clinton also didn't waste time pointing fingers. When Clinton was in charge, right-wingers may not have liked him, or agreed with his policies, but they never accused him of acting like anything less than our president. Okay, maybe during his trial, when he danced around his guilt, but I'm talking about his performance in office.

Obama doesn't act like he's president. He acts like he's king. His every speech, his every action since obtaining office is to act like he can do no wrong, and if something is going wrong, it must be SOMEONE ELSE'S fault. It's Bush's fault, or it's congressional Republicans who are at fault, or it's Sarah Palin's fault, or, hey, it must be the Tea Party's fault! It's ANYBODY'S fault but mine!

Seriously, this has got to be some kind of record. I'm not historically studied enough to know if any president has ever blamed his predecessor at all, but I feel like I can safely say no president in living memory has ever done it this much or for this long.

During his first 100 days, okay, I can understand why so many people were still saying "give him a chance". After all, he hadn't been in office for even half a year, yet. I still get gaulled by the fact that the same people yelling "give Obama a chance" were the same people who were calling for Bush's head during HIS first 100 days, but all the same, it's true; you can't judge a man's performance based on 100 days in a job.

But the "give him a chance" cry was still going strong one year into his presidency, as was the "it's not Obama's fault; Bush left a mess and he's still trying to clean it up" cry. As if Obama was the first president to "inherit" a large deficit, a failing economy and an ongoing war. People blame Bush's war and spending for Obama's inherited problems, but during the first two years of his presidency, Obama's spending eclipsed Bush's (and pretty much every other president) and he engaged us in TWO new overseas conflicts (Afghanistan and Libya), before the first one was won. Liberals also (wrongly) blame the "Bush tax cuts" for increasing the deficit and worsening the economy, but Obama has extended them. So at what point will he stop saying that literally every problem that's occurred during his presidency is the result of his predecessor, or Congress, or the Tea Party?

After last night I'm convinced the answer is "never". No blame must touch The Golden One. We're nearly three years into his presidency. THREE YEARS. That's almost a full term. Can we expect that the "hope and change" we were promised on the campaign trail would be evident by now? YES WE CAN! But we're worse off than we ever were under Bush. Why is that Bush's fault?

At this point, a majority of Obama's supporters, even the "give him a chance" and the "he inherited this" crowd are forced to admit that Obama can no longer blame anyone but himself and his own administration for the US's current state of affairs. But a few diehard supporters in the media and within his administration are still trumpeting the "it's someone else's fault" meme, and from his speech last night it's clear that Obama will continue to flog that dead horse for as long as anyone echoes it, or as long as he can convince himself that people still believe it.

Don't buy it. Anyone thinking of voting for Obama in the next election, I caution you to think hard. HARD. Don't let fear of a "Republican theocracy" (you know, that thing that's never happened despite generations of Christian Republican presidents) or whatever it is you're afraid of make you decide that as bad as Obama is, he's less scary than the alternative. Remember how angry you were that Bush earned a second term and ask yourself what Obama's done during his first term that's made him more deserving of a second than Bush. And for the love of God leave skin tone out of it! Nobody but Obama's camp cares about skin tone, because they know that's all they have left to run on!

Civility? Are you kidding me?

Okay, the Left can officially no longer lecture about "civility" as long as this is allowed to exist with no comment from them.

Let's review: You cannot put up a map with cross-hairs over congressional districts "targeted" as potential Republican victories. (Wait, you mean a map like this one?) If you do this, you are inciting violence and you are entirely to blame when a lone gunman, a man with a history of mental and emotional problems who was described by acquaintances as "creepy" and who never showed a hint of being political at all, let alone right-wing, starts shooting in a public area and those he hits include a Democratic congresswoman.

However, you can create a freaking online game where you get to mow down "tea party zombies", including likenesses of Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck, all without comment from those "so concerned" about civility. Horse-shit. I'm sorry if I offend those who don't like four-letter words, but this is so much more offensive than a mere "profanity". This is an unprecedented level of repugnance from a political affiliation I thought could sink no lower.

What's next after this? A game where you get to be President Obama mowing down all the GOP presidential contenders? A game where you're planned parenthood and you get to shoot up zombie unborn fetuses? A game where you play as members of the Congressional Black Caucus gunning down all the white people you can find?

Now, just imagine for a moment that instead of "Tea Party Zombies", somebody made a game where you get to shoot at likenesses of Michael Moore, Barney Frank, Keith Olbermann, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and even Barack Obama himself. I don't even have to write potential headlines for this; they write themselves. The makers of the game would be sued, the site taken down, and they would then be investigated by the DOJ as potential threats to the President.

Don't tell me they wouldn't. When a pastor at a tiny church with just over 100 members apparently prays for Obama's death, the DOJ pays him a visit. Now, I hate this pastor as much as it's possible to hate a human being, because he is basically a Fred Phelps in training, but let's be honest here; how much power does this man really hold? And how seriously can you take a man like this?

Plus, Bush protesters repeatedly showed up at rallies with signs calling for Bush's murder. Not kidding. Not one of those assholes was ever investigated by the DOJ, not one was arrested, not one was taken seriously. This is perfectly acceptable, apparently, while stupid men praying in a tiny church that used to be a convenience store apparently warrants a visit from the DOJ and nightly news coverage.

And now it's gone beyond mere signs and parade floats, and a game has been designed where you get to mow down likenesses of real human beings you disagree with politically. This is the Democratic picture of civility.

Barack Obama needs to make a speech right now repudiating this game and its designers and demanding it be taken down.

While he's at it, he needs to condemn the Congressional Black Caucus, specifically Maxine Waters for saying the Tea Party "can go straight to Hell and I'm gonna help 'em get there", and Andre "Hears Racial Slurs in his Head" Carson, who recently said the Tea Party "would like to see [black people] hanging from trees."

He needs to condemn Teamsters Union president Jimmy Hoffa, Jr. for declaring that he and others should "take those sons of bitches out!", referring to the Tea Party.

He needs condemn his own Vice President for calling the Tea Party "a bunch of terrorists".

Either that or he should make a speech saying he really doesn't care about "civility", because it's clear that no one on the left does. At least when it's against Conservatives.