Mitt Romney's super-pac spent multiple millions in Iowa attacking Newt Gingrich. In the bizarre "arms length" world of campaign fund-raising, Romney was able to avoid criticism for this behavior by deftly employing a "don't ask, don't tell" response to media questions about his super-pac. The media wagged their tails and walked away mumbling "that's politics." Winner Romney.

But wait a minute. Newt is being treated differently because he must now respond personally to these attacks, but he has little super-pac money to "do a Romney." Moreover, Newt is being characterized by the media as "livid,"  "upset,"  and "angry" about these Romney attacks reinforcing stereotypes, though in interviews he is as calm as ever. Remember this: when conservatives, be they voters or politicians, respond to events or attacks, these are often called "temper-tantrums" by the media. (See Peter Jennings in 1994.  More recently they told us: OWS are wonderful young people protesting injustice, while 65 year-old tea party activists are dangerous, racist and violent.) Not helping matters, a lot of the conservative media is jumping on Gingrich as well, forgetting Reagan's 11^th commandment.

So what are we left with? Mitt is "see no evil, speak no evil, hear no evil," while Newt is throwing a tantrum. No wonder we have super-pacs. Lesson learned? If we want to fund campaigns in this way, the media is going to have to do a better job chasing down who is really going negative, why, and that a response is entirely appropriate. This is like the NFL. The referees, no doubt trained by media mind-control experts, always miss the instigator, the first guy who throws the punch and get the second.

But there is also another lesson learned: you cannot let negative attacks go unanswered, no matter how lazy the media are.

Jay Haug is a free lance writer living in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida. You may contact him at cjcwguy@gmail.com