Mitt's debate is civil, his friend's aren't

While Mitt's debate performance could be called several things, one thing it was to everyone was civil. While he disagreed with the president on several items, he didn't put the president down in any way. But for his friends in the GOP, and people in his campaign, they decided that being completely uncivil, mean, and vile was the way to go. First Newt Gingrich decided to go to the right-wing dog-whistle words. Newt said that for as long as he was in American politics, he couldn't understand the president, that the president didn't seem to have any rhythm in the debate, and didn't know why basketball was important to him. He could have just said that the president was a black man from Kenya and the meaning would have been the same and just as clear to the right-wing. But as bad as Newt was, he paled in comparison to John Sununu. a spokesman for the Romney campaign. He went on MSNBC on said that the president had a bad debate because the president is lazy. When asked if he wanted to take it back, or at least restate it, Sununu said no. Then on Fox News, when asked if  he thought the president would have a better debate next week, he said, of course not, that the president is too dumb to get better next time. So Sununu called the president lazy and dumb. Do  you really think, Mr. Sununu, that because President Obama didn't call out Mitt on all his lies that he's lazy and stupid? You know, with friends like this Mitt, it really doesn't matter how civil you are. If you won't get on TV and say they went too far, they show exactly how you really feel. And it doesn't matter how civil you try to be, the American people will take into account your friends, who aren't civil in any way.