In the midst of the New Hampshire primary on Tuesday - which unsurprisingly, Mitt Romney won - the political discussions around the country, especially from many on the right, continued to be about Mitt Romney's moment of honesty on Monday.
As we noted briefly in our commentary on Tuesday, when Romney was captured saying "I like being able to fire people," this week, his words were taken out of context. Some on the right have claimed taking comments like that out of context are unfair, wrong, and shouldn't be allowed in something as important as the election for President.
What may surprise them is that we agree.
We also think the latest news about Newt Gingrich's multi-billionaire donor should do far more than just raise eyebrows. After all, when the eighth wealthiest person in the U.S., and one of the wealthiest people in the world, single-handedly decides to bankroll a candidate for President - and has the money to do it - the idea that the candidate receiving the financial benefit has no bias towards such a donor is ludicrous.
Thanks to a Supreme Court that has several extremist members who rail against judicial interference in the law - unless and until they do it themselves - the near outright purchasing of elections in America, due to the Citizens United ruling, is perfectly legal.
Thanks to that legal decision, an avalanche of supposedly outside money in Iowa, from forces that supported Mr. Romney, was probably the single biggest external factor in the decline of Newt Gingrich's chances to be President. We believe that Mr. Gingrich now wants revenge on Romney probably more than he wants the presidency. Sadly, it appears he has the money do just that.
Why anyone in their right mind would want to stick their neck out and jump into this kind of political landscape to run for a national office - like President, Senator, or Congressperson - is beyond our understanding. To us, Bob Kerrey looking at running for the U.S. Senate from Nebraska is akin to licking a metal flagpole in winter: there are going to be consequences for that kind of action, and they likely won't be good.
Now, all those Republicans are now decrying the intra-party warfare going on - like well-known conservative pundit Bill Kristol - and screaming worriedly that their civil war will destroy their chances to win the presidency. We simply say: "You should have thought of that before."
Progressives and liberals, along with sensible conservatives, warned that taking most of the rules off campaign financing was highly dangerous to civil politicking. The conservatives and Republicans, however, wouldn't listen.
In a similar way, Mitt Romney, and those defending his "firing" gaffe have no real standing in their complaints of unfair treatment. We understand what Mitt's position was; that specifically, he thinks it would be a good thing to able to "fire" your health insurance company, if they weren't giving you the service you need. If the health insurance system in America actually allowed an affordable, acceptable choice for most people - as it will by 2014, thanks to the Affordable Care Act - we'd agree with his point. We can't even disagree with Gov. Romney's greater point, that firing incompetent workers and replacing them with competent staff is good for individuals, businesses, and the economy, in general.
The problem, as we noted yesterday, is that when Mr. Romney's own campaign had the chance to act with class and honor regarding the President, they instead chose to take the President's words out of context - and then attempted to blow off criticism of their actions as acceptable conduct in political warfare. If it was fair for Romney to do to others, then it is fair for others to do it back to him.
We suggest all of those milling about in the political field this year take a good hard look at their own conduct before they complain about the conduct of any of their rivals.
Actions have consequences - so don't lick the political flagpole. It's a long time until the post-election thaw.
