All Bark

For those of our readers who are tired of hearing about the pointless verbal attacks and useless posturing going on in the GOP Presidential nomination race, or the pointless verbal attacks and useless posturing going on in the U.S. Senate race in Nebraska, we thought we'd change things up today by focusing on a subject that hasn't garnered many headlines lately.

That subject is the pointless verbal attacks and posturing going on between Iran and nations all over the world.

In case you missed it - and the so-called news organizations in the U.S. have made it easy to miss - for some time now, there has been a growing level of tension between Iran and other nations, both those it sees as enemies and those it sees as allies.

The two major topics of contention, of course, are the enrichment of uranium, for the purpose of making nuclear weapons and the transport of oil from the Persian Gulf.

It wasn't a shock to anyone on Wednesday when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton 'categorically denied' any U.S. involvement in the assassination of a top Iranian nuclear scientist. He was killed in what Iran's government is labeling a 'terrorist car bombing' earlier in the day. However diplomatic Madame Secretary has to be with these kinds of announcements, we're fairly certain she was 100% honest when she said the U.S. wasn't actually involved, this time.

One major reason for that position is that the U.S. has no reason to rile up either Prime Minister Ahmadinejad or the other source of political authority in Iran, the mullahs.

The other reason is that the world economy could suffer if Iran shut off its oil production - and virtually every country on the planet knows that.

Iran's leaders have been threatening friend and foe alike for some time now. Should anyone anger them too much, they've promised Iran's navy will try to shut down the Straits of Hormuz, the only way tanker ships can get in and out of the Persian Gulf. In turn, that would drive the price of oil through the roof and serve as a major punch to the gut of economies all over the world - including to Iran itself.

As a recent Reuters article noted, "To block the Gulf would verge on economic suicide [for Iran]: Petroleum products account for 20 percent of Iran’s gross domestic product, 80 percent of exports and 70 percent of its government revenue."

In short, Iran would be cutting off the world to spite themselves, an action that would likely end up finally pushing the Iranian people to declare another civil war, and overthrow their leaders.

It's no secret that some in the U.S. military and diplomatic sector would like to help new Iranian revolutionaries overthrow the current regime. That wish has been the same in some high-level enclaves stretching all the way back to the Reagan years.

The fact is, the U.N. authorized sanctions already in place have been causing an ever-greater level of hardship in Iran over time. If diplomacy is used wisely, Iranian politicians and the mullahs may have to deal with putting out their own political fires before they worry about taking a bite out of anyone else. In the meantime, even as other nations assume their own assertive postures against Iran's sabre-rattling, the U.S. government remains the primary target for Iran's pointless verbal attacks and pointless posing.

In short, for more reasons than we can list here, the barking of some in Iran, that the U.S. and the West are going to attack them - or that Iran is doing nothing that warrants attention - simply doesn't stand up in our collective opinion. Until the price of alternative fuels drops significantly, Iran isn't going to bite - and no other country is going to seriously smack Iran on the nose, either.

As a friend of one of our staffers is known to say, "That dog don't hunt."

Flagpoles & Consequences

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.

The Replacements

For all the partisanship coursing through both politics and the media today, there are some groups that have more in common with their political opposition than common wisdom would have us believe. For example, take ANY random Republican from across the country, who is interested in the race to be the GOP's 2012 standard bearer - and any Nebraska Democrat interested in who's going to run for the U.S. Senate seat currently occupied by Ben Nelson.

The Republicans have some massive problems, and not just because they are so heavily divided internally as a party. They've also got a massive problem with the candidate who more and more looks to be their Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney.

Sure, among GOP hopefuls, Willard 'Mitt' Romney appears to have the best chance against President Obama according to current polling. What the polls also say is that nearly 60% of Republicans aren't yet comfortable with Romney - or any of the other options - as their final choice for President in 2012.

Of course, it may not have helped when Mitt blurted out this week, "I like being able to fire people."

Not surprisingly, that quote was taken somewhat out of context when Romney said it on Monday. Just a few short months ago, however, Romney's campaign team put together a slanderous ad against the President, taking all kinds of quotes out of context. When the Romney campaign was confronted with their less-than-ethical attack on President Obama, their response at the time was a sheepish excuse that the President had actually said those words, so it was ok to take his words out of context. Now that Romney has to taste his own campaign's medicine, the flavor doesn't seem nearly as sweet.

In a collapsing economy like the one President Obama has begun to turn around, someone who has a history of being a corporate raider in the Michael Milken / Gordon Gekko mold - especially a guy who says in ANY way that he ENJOYS firing people - isn't exactly the wisest choice as national poster boy for the GOP.

To make things worse, Romney's comments appear to have lead the rest of the Republican field to gang up on the traditional supporters of the GOP on Wall Street. From Newt Gingrich, who has taken to a full-force attack against Bain Capital specifically, and the private equity industry in general, to Jon Huntsman and Ron Paul, who are proudly repeating the idea that the biggest Wall Street banks should be broken up.

All this wonderful chaos goes on thanks to Mitt Romney, the guy most likely to be the Republican Party choice for President this year.

As you can guess, many of the GOP faithful are sitting by their proverbial phones, wishing, hoping, and praying that a better candidate for President will call them.

Meanwhile, Nebraska Democrats are in a similar boat.

While both Rep. Lee Terry and Rep. Jeff Fortenberry made clear this week that neither of them is going to run for Nelson's old seat, and Gov. Dave Heineman increasingly appears like he too will sit out, Nebraska Democrats continue to look at a 2012 U.S. Senate campaign with no serious Democratic candidate.

Right now, the best chance Nebraska Democrats have is Bob Kerrey, the former U.S. Senator and Governor of Nebraska - and the man who occupied that seat for Nebraska before Ben Nelson came along. Kerrey is visiting Nebraska this week, so state Dems are more excited than ever - but Kerry hasn't made any assurances one way or another.

Thus, Nebraska Dems, like their national GOP counterparts, sit anxiously awaiting a call.

We suggest to both groups that neither one holds their collective breath on those magical calls coming through.