The MSM is currently noting that “both parties” are engaging in name calling and nasty behavior, just a few months after the post-Giffords calls for greater civility.  Here’s one writer’s summary of the “bipartisan” nastiness:

- Vice President Joe Biden, during a private meeting with Democratic House members, reportedly said that Republicans had “acted like terrorists.”

- The New York Times, PBS and Politico, to name a few, ran opinion pieces that used the “terrorist” meme. In fact, the Times published four articles calling opponents to raising the limit the t-word. And Joe Nocera wrote that the tea party could finally “put aside their suicide vests” now that the problem seemed to be resolved.

- Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill, who served under President Bush, called those who opposed the debt limit increase “our version of al Qaeda terrorists.” “Really,” he added for good measure.

- Colorado Republican Rep. Doug Lamborn called President Obama a “tar baby.” “Now I don’t want to even have to be associated with him,” Lamborn said, when asked if the president would be to blame for the debt crisis. “It is like touching a tar baby and you get it—you’re stuck, and you’re part of the problem now.” He later apologized and said he meant to use the word “quagmire.”

Got that?  Several prominent Democrats (including the Vice President and former Speaker of the House), top “progressive” columnists, commentators and writers with the NYTimes, PBS, Politico and other left-leaning outlets call the GOP and tea party “terrorists” and Al Qaeda-like (Tom Friedman compared the Tea Party to Hezbollah, specifically), but that’s totally balanced out by a single, obscure Red State representative using the old-timey term “tar baby” when referring to Obama’s association with the debt crisis (clearly referring to the stickiness of the issue, not to anything racial).  While it was stupid of Lamborn to use a term that had already tripped up McCain, Kerry and others on the slippery skids of political correctness (some people view the term as a slur toward African-Americans, which seems like a valid charge, even if it has a formerly-commonplace, benign connotation), does his comment provide any meaningful counterweight to the numerous, angry, vituperative and sometimes unhinged comments of the various liberal pundits and politicians listed above?

This tracks one of my favorite debating tactics of my leftist friends.  They’ll say something like “There are plenty of Christian terrorists as well as Muslim ones.”  So you ask who they are referring to, and they cite McVeigh, abortion clinic bombers, and now Breivik.  Never mind that none of the examples they cite were acting on an call to violence actually found in Christianity or taught by clergy, etc.  Never mind that neither McVeigh and Breivik were practicing Christians.  Just on the basis of sheer numerical heft, there is simply no rational comparison between Islamic terrorism and “Infidel terrorism.”  There’s no non-Muslim analog to, which catalogs atrocities committed by Muslims worldwide, and currently lists over 17,500 documented, fatal acts of terror by Muslims since 9/11 (I am not sure what their exact definition is or how they calculate their figures, but even if they are off by a factor of 10, they have a point: radical Muslims kill a lot of people in the name of Islam.  No other religion/ideology is in the terrorism body count conversation these days.)  Nonetheless, the occasional act of terrorism or senseless violence by lone wolf white males provides a complete counterbalance to the thousands of acts of terror and tens of thousands of deaths caused by committed jihadists, to the liberal apologist/appeaser.

That mentality is the exact mentality that allows a reporter, with a straight face, to say that the recent spate of verbal attacks and lack of civility has been “bi-partisan.”