I am a strong believer in the philosophy that states you don't make fun of the politically deceased.
I believe that since losing candidates at least had the courage to offer themselves up for consideration by voters, we at least owe them the respect of allowing them to rest in peace with post-electoral defeat.
The truth is many of us don't run in part because we fear we will not be able to deal with the rejection of defeat.
Therefore, I always start with the premise that a losing candidate has at least earned my respect, if not my vote, simply by taking the risk of putting their name on a ballot.
Sometimes, however, after a particularly humiliating defeat, the loser or the loser's supporters like to try to rewrite the history in order to make the loss more palatable.
And many times, these rewrites of the truth or the facts do little harm.
On other occasions, however, sometimes these re-imaginings are so egregious that they must be confronted for the sake of historical truth.
As John F. Kennedy said, "The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive and unrealistic."
For the few of you who didn't see it, there is a new film out that allegedly tries to sell viewers on the idea that the Republican candidate that voters rejected for president of United States in 2012 was not the cold-blooded, programmed stiff they thought he was.
If this film was a college
course instead of a documentary, it would no doubt be listed under the title Campaign Rewrite 101.
The fact is the film clearly make a strong case that Mitt Romney was a very good dad, an outstanding husband, and maybe even more dorky than most of us ever could have imagined.
What no film can or should do, however, is to attempt to wipe away the words and actions of Romney, which rightly convinced millions of voters he simply didn't understand the problems of people like them, didn't care about those problems, or didn't plan, if elected, to do anything about them.
Let me make very clear: Romney was not, and never has been, a bad man.
But based on what he said during two campaigns for president, it is also clear he would not have been a very good president for the so-called 99 percent.
Weep, laugh or shake your head, but it's clear from Romney's own words he never understood what it is like to live the life of the "un-empowered."
Romney has never been poor, never been hungry, never been afraid and never understood what it's like to live either three paychecks from fiscal catastrophe or, worse still, just from paycheck to paycheck.
Because he has, President Barack Obama is today fighting to reinstate unemployment benefits for millions who are out of work through no fault of their own.
Know him by his words: "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you name it. ... My job is not to worry about those people."
Or these: "Corporations are people, my friend."
Or these: "I'm not concerned about the very poor. We have a safety net there."
And finally these: "...middle income is $200,000 to $250,000 and less."
Are these the words of someone who understands your problems? Words of somebody who cares about your problems? Or, of a person who will do anything about them?
Romney is a good man. But sometimes even good men don't get it.
Romney didn't, and the voters knew it.
That's why, for good or ill, the last name of the president of the United States in 2014 is Obama and not Romney.
Michael Goldman is a paid political consultant for Democratic candidates and president of Goldman Associates in Boston.