Does Character Matter?

Newt Gingrich had an interesting interview this morning in Tampa, Florida.   He was interviewed by David Brody of CBN news and was asked why he thinks evangelicals have forgiven him for his past mistakes and appear to be rallying behind his candidacy.  His response was interesting.  He said:

“They recognize that I have not hidden from the facts of my life, that I have confessed my weaknesses, and that I have had to go to God for forgiveness and for reconciliation."

"And I think most people can identify, either with themselves or with loved ones, that life has moments that are very sad, you wish wouldn't have occurred.  And you look back on them and you seek forgiveness for not having done everything you could have."

"So, I think in that sense, it may make me more normal than somebody who wanders around seeming perfect and maybe not understanding the human condition, and the challenges of life for normal people."(Click to read CBN interview).

I can't stop thinking about this interview.  Gingrich's insinuation that his own past mistakes make him easier to relate to for normal people is quite frankly offensive.

Mr. Gingrich, I am impressed that you have had the discipline to overcome some major mistakes in your life.  We are all entitled to that kind of change and I hope for your sake that you are what you say, "a changed man," but let's be perfectly clear, the "facts of your life" do not make you easy to relate to.

• Cheating on your first wife and leaving her with cancer does not make you normal.  
• Being married to your second wife of 18 years and then leaving her for your mistress does not make you conventional.  
• Being the first Speaker of the House in history to face ethics violations and be publicly reprimanded by Democratic and Republican colleagues with a $300,000 fine does not make you ordinary.  
• Being forced to resign from your Speakership does not make you typical.
• Calling your ex-wife a liar on national television for discussing your very public betrayal does not make you someone most can relate to.

***

I am baffled Mitt Romney is now being attacked for the moral compass by which he has led his life.

It is ridiculous to insinuate that somehow Mitt Romney has escaped the trials and hardships of life.  He like all of us, has had to face adversity.  Like all of us, he has had to decide how those moments of adversity will define him.


As a Young LDS Missionary

Mitt Romney had a very defining moment in his life as a young missionary for the LDS church in France.  At the age of 21, he was driving along the French countryside with a few missionaries, the mission president and his wife.  They were struck by another vehicle in a head-on collision.  It was a horrific accident.  The mission president's wife was killed instantly.  Mitt Romney was also terribly injured and was initially pronounced dead at the scene.  He was in a coma, but was able to make a full recovery.

This accident proved to be a defining moment for Mitt Romney.  The injured mission president returned to the United States to bury his wife and he decided to leave Romney in charge of the affairs of the mission.

Romney was given the task to tend to the administrative duties of the mission, as well address the needs of 200 emotionally weakened and scared mission colleagues.  By all accounts, he led with dignity and many were "struck by his resilience."

He did not give up.  He fulfilled his duties and helped the missionaries refocus their responsibilities to act as ambassadors for their faith.

In a 2007 interview with the New York Times, Romney said the experience changed him.  He credited his mission with "growing up quickly."  He went on to say that the experience defined his faith in Jesus Christ.  He said, "For me it became much deeper." (Click to read NYTimes Article)

Mitt Romney has since been a faithful and life-long member of his church.


His Wife Ann's Illness
In 1997, after experiencing severe numbness and fatigue, Ann Romney was diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis.  In an 2007 Boston Globe interview, Mitt Romney described watching Ann fail a series of neurological tests as, "the worst day of my life."

Unsure what their future held, Romney stood by his wife and helped their five sons adjust to the new reality of life with a fragile and weakened mom.

Photo from mittromneycentral.com

In 2008, Ann was also diagnosed with breast cancer.  She had the pre-cancerous lump removed and underwent radiation therapy.  Mitt Romney stood by her and helped her regain her strength.

Mitt and Ann have been married for 43 years, they have raised 5 exemplary sons and are now proud grandparent to 16 grandchildren.

***

Defining moments.

It has long been said that, "Character is what defines you when no one is looking."  I couldn't agree more.  Character matters.  It is a predictor for how one will act under difficult circumstances.  It is an indicator if one will be guided by a moral compass.

One's character is defined by how one faces the adversities of life.

AP Photo

Mitt Romney is a man of good character.  He is a man of faith.  A man who loves his wife.  A man who loves his family.  A man who has committed his life to their well-being.  A man who is charitable.  A man who is an incredibly hard worker.  A man who is a solid leader.  A man who by all accounts is honest in his dealings--all his dealings.

Mitt Romney is a man of good, moral and honorable character.  America needs a leader with this type of character.  America will be a stronger nation with a leader like Mitt Romney.

Shame on those who are trying to portray him as "abnormal."  Shame on those who portray these qualities as a weakness.

George Washington once said, "I hope I shall possess firmness and virtue enough to maintain what I consider the most enviable of all titles, the character of an honest man."  

A President's Plea for More Time

In last night's State of the Union address, one thing was abundantly clear--it is obviously an election year. President Obama, like presidents past, used the pulpit to deliver a message that sounded a lot like a campaign stump speech.  A message about what an Obama second term would look like.  A message about why he deserves more time.

Problem?  It was full of bold ideas that should have been implemented in the first two years when Obama had a Democratic controlled House and Senate.  Why didn't Obama take better advantage of that fully cooperative political environment?  Answer?  He was too focused on the wrong things.  More importantly, he didn't know how to govern.


From the beginning, Obama was fixated on the wrong things.  Fixated on fundamentally "changing" America.  Initially, he was fixated on healthcare reform.  By all accounts, healthcare reform should have been the easiest thing for a Democratic controlled House and Senate to pass.  It wasn't.  Countless meetings were held behind closed doors, yet Obama's message was not resonating--even with his friends.  Furthermore, the American people were sharply opposed to the legislation.  


The president did not listen and for 15 straight months, he continued to push this reform.


The bill was unpopular with Conservatives, Moderate Democrats as well as the American people--at passage, only 42% percent supported the initiative.  There was virtually no bi-partisan support--only one Republican senator voted in favor of the bill.  But, Obama continued to push.  Back door meetings and rumors of deals being struck in an effort to secure votes with moderate Democrats continued to dominate the headlines.

Despite huge opposition, Obama and Speaker Nancy Pelosi got the votes needed and in March 2010, the Affordable Care Act was passed.  A bill that proposes to spend $1.055 trillion to add 36 million Americans to the insurance rolls.


Even two years later, this legislation remains extremely controversial. 

***

While the president focused on healthcare reform, our economy was in crisis.  Millions of Americans were out of work, unemployment numbers were rising and millions were on the verge of losing their homes.  


It was and continues to be a desperate time, yet where is the leadership to help us turn it around?

Obama passed a $785 Billion dollar stimulus bill to artificially stimulate the economy.  It did not work.  Many analysts question if it actually made things worse.  $785 Billion dollars and we have nothing to show for it.  


Poor judgement.  Poor vision.  Poor leadership.


Although last night's State of the Union speech was full of bold proposals, most critics labeled it a campaign speech full of rhetoric rather than a true legislative agenda.  


The overall theme of his speech was "Fairness."  Arguing the need for greater government power to balance the scale between America's wealthy and poor.  He stressed the gap between “a shrinking number of people do really well while a growing number of Americans barely get by.” He reinforced his 2008 campaign themes of an America “where everyone gets a fair shot.”


This time around it was labeled as "fairness," but a closer look shows that "fairness" is just a different way of advocating what many argue is a socialist principal of the wealth distribution.  A "fundamental change" that most Americans still don't want.

*** 

Last night, Obama made a plea for a second term.  A plea for more time.  Did he make his case? 


His first three years in office brought us:
-  A spike of an astronomical figure of $4 Trillion dollars to our national debt
-  No end in sight for the housing crisis 
-  Stagnant employment
-  A drop in our country's credit rating--first time in history
-  An extremely divided nation.  


I guess healthcare reform will be his lasting legacy?  (Too bad that every one of his opponents have declared to repeal it on day one).


Can the American people trust him to revive our crippled economy? 


His record demonstrates that he is not capable of it.  Time is not what Obama needs.  Beautifully written and eloquent speeches have not helped us.  His programs have failed.  His initiatives have not worked.  What would be different in a second term?


America needs a different kind of leadership.  America deserves more.

***

America needs a leader that sees beyond the restrictive tunnel of a political party.  A leader that has an expert vision for achievable prosperity.  A leader that can inspire political rivals to unite and find common ground.  A leader that has a long history in successfully making weak things stronger.   Unlike our current President and the other Republican candidates, Mitt Romney has years of this kind of success.  And he has done it over and over.

Getty Images

Mitt Romney has the unique experience of governing a state, rescuing and overseeing the 2002 Olympics, and time and again, restoring broken companies and organizations.  Americans deserve a stronger, more prosperous nation.  We need Mitt's expertise to help us achieve it.

Calling A Spade A Spade

Last night, the four remaining Republican candidates appeared at the NBC Presidential debate.  A few things were very apparent right off the bat.  First of all, a different Mitt Romney showed up.  He was authentic, incredibly well-informed and direct.  Most significantly, he was aggressive without being combative or condescending.  It was very effective and at times, it left his opponent Gingrich grappling for the right response.

From very first answer of the night, it was clear that Mitt was on the offensive.

Romney said, "The speaker was given an opportunity to be the leader of our party in 1994.  And at the end of four years, he had to resign in disgrace."  He went on to say, "Don't forget at the end of the speaker's term as speaker, his approval rating was down to 18 percent.  We (The Republican Party) suffered historic losses after his four years in office."

Gingrich's response? "I am not going to spend the evening trying to chase Governor Romney's misinformation."

Misinformation?  Really? Was Gingrich the Speaker of the House for four years? Yes.  Was he forced to resign? Yes.  Upon leaving was his approval rating down to 18%? Yes.  Did the Republican Party suffer historic losses after his four years? Yes.

Misinformation?  Maybe Gingrich meant to say, "I am not going to spend the evening trying to chase Governor Romney's uncomfortable information."

***

The most interesting exchange between Gingrich and Romney took place in regards to Gingrich's involvement with the years he worked for the mortgage giant, Freddie Mac.

Gingrich has long defended his role arguing that he acted as a "historian," offering only strategic advice to Freddie Mac.  In previous debates, Gingrich claimed that he was paid around $300,000 for his time.

Yesterday, in response to pressure from the Romney camp, Gingrich released his contract with Freddie Mac.

From the contract, a few things are now clear.

1) Gingrich was paid $25,000 a month for 6 years equalling $1.6 million dollars.
2) The contract also identified Gingrich as a consultant, not a historian.
3) Gingrich was not hired by the CEO of Freddie Mac, he was hired by their chief lobbyist.

Romney called Gingrich on all of this and clarified that you don't get paid that kind of money to be a historian.  It's called lobbying.

Last night, Romney pressed further and said, "If you're getting paid by health companies...and you then meet with Republican congressmen and encourage them to support that legislation, you can call it whatever you'd like.  I call it influence-peddling.  It is not right.  It is not right.  You have a conflict."

Powerful words--a spade is a spade.

***

Aside from Romney's more aggressive style, one other factor was remarkably different in last night's debate--the audience was surprisingly quiet.  No cheers, no clapping, no booing and it goes without saying, no standing ovations.

The audience was asked by NBC News to hold their applause until commercial breaks.   They did.  A stark contrast to South Carolina.  It was strange.

Gingrich hated it and many have commented that Gingrich was off his game.  The National Journal, co-host of the debate compared Gingrich to "a stand-up comedian whose routine suffers without echoes of laughter egging him on."

The Gingrich team clearly acknowledged his poor performance and today in response, told Fox & Friends that he threatens to skip future debates if his supporters have to be silenced.  Arguing that silencing supporters "stifles" free speech.  (Click to read NYTimes article).

Hmmm.

Hearing this can only make one wonder, was the energetic supportive audience in South Carolina authentic?  Were his supporters coached and encouraged to applaud at just the right time?  Could it all have been staged?

Let's be honest, would the standing ovation zingers that Gingrich delivered last week have been as effective if the audience had been quiet?  Probably not.

Perhaps this is why the Presidential Debate Commission rules specifically say that audience applause and crowd reaction is strictly prohibited.

Debates matter.  It was a great night for Romney and a poor night for Gingrich.  It is impossible to tell how it will affect either candidate, but one has to ask, does last night's poor performance test the theory that Gingrich's stellar debate performances guarantee him an easy win over Barrack Obama?  Too early to tell.

In politics, it can all change in a day....

When Silence Speaks A Thousand Words

Now that the political dust storm of South Carolina has settled, political analysts everywhere are scratching their heads trying to figure out what just happened on Saturday.  Newt Gingrich won by double digits in what is arguably the most conservative state in the country.

How did Gingrich convince the voters to overlook the years of political and moral baggage that he brings with him?  More importantly, will it work beyond the borders of South Carolina?

As Gingrich has basked in the glory of a very unexpected resurgence of his campaign, it has been interesting that the bulk of the people singing his praises have been the Democrats.  James Carville, Paul Begala and David Axelrod have openly praised Gingrich on his win.

And Republican support and praise for Newt's win?  It has been eerily quiet.  Where are all the legislators who served with Gingrich?  If he was the effective leader he claimed to be, shouldn't there be dozens of his colleagues applauding this major step to the White House?

Truth is, only a handful of Gingrich's former House colleagues have endorsed him.  A total of 12 sitting Republican lawmakers have endorsed Newt.  It should be mentioned that Mitt Romney has 64.

In fact, conservatives in Washington DC are beginning to voice serious concern and angst about a Gingrich Nomination.  Sitting legislators and former House colleagues are coming out in opposition to the idea of Newt representing the party.

Today CNN interviewed several of these legislators but under strict anonymity for fear of what they referred to as, "A Gingrich Backlash."

One legislator said,  "If he's (Gingrich) the nominee, it's a disaster.  There is no way to sugar coat it."

Another colleague who has endorsed Mitt said, "There is a reason that most people who know him aren't supporting him."  When asked why he endorsed Romney despite the fact that he had served with Gingrich for so long, his response was astounding.  He said, "It is because I served with Gingrich for so long." (click to read full CNN article).

Opposition and silence from the many who served with Gingrich.

This silence speaks volumes about Gingrich's leadership.

***

It is one thing to be an effective "legislator" and another thing to know how to effectively "govern."  The only time that Gingrich has governed anything was during his tenure as Speaker.  It goes without saying that this attempt to govern ended in disaster when he was forced to resign in disgrace.

In 2008, America also placed a bet on a presidential candidate who like Gingrich, had never governed anything or anyone.  Despite Obama's lack of experience in governing or managing anything, the country voted for him.  And it was obvious from the start that he was in over his head when for the first two years, he could not even rally the Democratic controlled House and Senate to pass any of his initiatives.

Can America risk another bet on someone with the wrong experience?

To legislate is one thing...to effectively govern is another.

Mitt has been effective at both.  He has managed failing systems and restored them to become successful and prosperous. Despite an 85% Democratic controlled legislature in Massachusetts, he led from both sides of the aisle and successfully brought bi-partisan reforms to the state.  He balanced the budget and turned a $3 billion dollar budget shortfall into a surplus and he did it without raising a single tax.

This is the leadership that America needs and deserves.  We need Mitt's skill-set to help us emerge out of the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

America needs Mitt.

Best and Worst of Times

The South Carolina primary is over and Newt Gingrich is the winner--by an overwhelming majority.  Gingrich lost horribly in Iowa and New Hampshire, but somehow in just over 2 weeks, Gingrich surged and became the dominant winner of the coveted South Carolina prize.

How did things change?  Why did conservative Evangelicals rally behind the candidate with the most questionable moral compass?  Why did they rally behind one of the most polarizing political figures of our time?

Photo from ABCnews.com

Three things are clear:

1) The Pro-Gingrich Super PAC hit a home run with their 27 minute documentary depicting Bain Capital and ultimately Mitt Romney, of destroying companies and eradicating American jobs.   

Despite the fact that many have pointed out inaccuracies and falsities in the ad, it was just enough to crack the foundation in Romney's character.  Despite countless conservatives arguing that Gingrich's "Armageddon-like" attack on Romney's private sector record is an attack on capitalism itself, an attack straight from the left, it was just enough to cause credibility issues and harm Romney.  

CNN Photo

2) Debates work.  Gingrich is a debating genius.  It is still hard to believe that Newt skillfully shifted attention away from the scandal surrounding accusations made by his ex-wife where she claimed that after 18-years of marriage, Newt tried to save his marriage and his adulterous affair by proposing an "open marriage." Gingrich turned the tables on CNN's debate moderator, John King and cleverly began lecturing King on using good judgment.  Then he decisively attacked the liberal media and accused them of protecting Obama.

It was like watching an Olympic gymnast nail a tricky landing.  It was a perfect ten.  South Carolina was eating out of the palm of his hand and somehow chose to overlook the fact that he had dodged a legitimate question about his morality and furthermore, he had just called his ex-wife a "liar."

3) A candidate should realize that when they are on the defensive, the damage is much worse than it appears. 

From attacks on Mitt Romney's financial success to attacks on his integrity by challenging the release of his tax returns, Mitt Romney was being "Swift Boated" and he didn't do enough to get back on the offense.  His defense wasn't working.  His defense was ineffective.   Romney's disciplined and scripted answers to these attacks seemed elusive and it left many questioning his authenticity.

The "Armageddon" worked and it cost Romney an election.  

It goes without saying that if your opponents are no longer defending themselves, defending their record or defending their candidacy, then you are losing your ground, you will lose the election.

***

It was a tough week for Romney--slipping polls, attacks from all sides, a revoked win in Iowa and a painful loss on Saturday.  At times it seemed like it might be too much to bear.  Many questioned if Romney could recover.  Many wondered if his support would dwindle.

But Romney's concession speech on Saturday night changed everything.

Photo from business insider.com

A passionate Mitt Romney emerged on that stage.  He reminded his supporters of the need to fight for a better America.  He rallied his supporters to remember their cause.  He reminded his supporters to keep fighting.   He ignited a fervor that has long been silenced by a barrage of negative attacks.

America's economy will require the greatest turnaround history has ever known.  It will require the experience of a leader who has done it--someone who will not need on-the-job training.  It will require more than the ability to balance a budget.  It will require the leadership of someone who has governed.  It will require the vision and discipline of a leader with a strong moral compass who is grounded in their principles.   It will require boldness, yet a gentle authority.  It will require someone who can effectively rally opponents to find compromise and middle ground.

Turning this economy around requires someone like Mitt Romney.

Last night, Mitt Romney reminded America that he is that candidate.  He went on the offensive and became more effective.
 
I am more convinced than ever.  America needs Mitt!

A Little More Offense...Please?

Last night proved to be another powerful and spirited debate.

During the debate, Romney continued to get pressure to release his tax returns--a practice though not mentioned in the constitution has a long history in our presidential election process.

When asked directly, Romney said that he will release them this coming April once his 2011 tax returns are filed.  CNN moderator John King pressed him further by reading a 1967 quote from then presidential candidate George Romney. He said, "Back in 1967, your father set a groundbreaking standard in American politics.  He realeased his tax return.  He released them for not one year, but for 12 years.  And when he did that, he said this: "One year could be a fluke, perhaps done for show."  King concluded by posing the question, "When you release yours, will you follow your father's example?"

To which Romney responded, "Maybe."

Missed opportunity.

This was the perfect opportunity for Mitt Romney to lay to rest some controversy that has been brewing for days.  Romney needed to be more aggressive in taking this issue head on.  Romney needed to go on the offensive, but he didn't and it is starting to hurt him.  Many are questioning his vague responses.  Many believe his ambiguity is now helping his opponents.  

***

In many previous presidential elections, candidates have been successful at exploiting the strengths of their opponents and turning them into weaknesses.  A lot has been written about this is recent days.  George W. Bush effectively weakened John Kerry's biggest strength which was his military experience by questioning Kerry's authenticity.  The Swift Boat ads were the final straw which ended Kerry's presidential hopes.  Kerry's military experience was no longer a strength.

Bill Clinton also effectively weakened Bob Dole's biggest strength--a long and impressive political career in Washington DC, including many prestigious leadership positions.  Clinton effectively weakened this strength by questioning whether or not that very lengthy experience actually made Dole "old fashioned" and "out-of-touch."   In both elections, it worked. 

Mitt Romney is now standing at a very critical point in his bid for the White House.  His greatest strengths--which are leadership, governing, financial success and a deep belief in a free enterprise are now being mocked.  His strengths are becoming a weakness.  Romney needs to go on the offensive. 

CNN ran an article today about this very issue.  Click here to read the article.

I believe that Mitt Romney should proudly release his tax returns and remind America that his successes are because he is a product of the "American Dream."  His financial successes are because of free enterprise and limited government regulations on the private sector.  He should remind America that he is truly self-made.  He did not inherit money from his parents.  Romney needs to remind America that education, hard work, perseverance and determination, in the right economic climate, can and will pay off...for anyone.

Quite frankly, I believe that he should be bragging about his 15% tax rate.   Not because he is wealthy and privilege and has therefore figured out a way to benefit from a lower tax bracket, but because his tax percentage demonstrates the core of conservative values, which is that lower taxes benefit the economy; lowering taxes leads to job creation and American prosperity.   

Mitt Romney needs to remind America of his inspiring message and vision for our country.  A message which advocates that lower taxes work; that lower taxes provide real incentives for the wealthy to reinvest in America.  A message that advocates that free enterprise works.  And most importantly, Romney needs to remind America that limited government makes for a better and stronger America.  His message needs to be that lowering taxes for all Americans will stimulate our economy and ultimately create a healthy environment for prosperity and job creation.

Romney needs to go on the offensive and make his rivals look like fools for questioning his success.

***   

I wish that he had put this to rest last night.  I wish that he was doing more to ensure that his rivals aren't "swift boating" his greatest strengths.

Mitt Romney's experience is real and will be invaluable in restoring our economy.  America will be better with a leader who has a long history of making weak things stronger.  America will be better with Romney's  vision for our country.

America needs Mitt Romney.

Something I Wish I Had Seen in Last Night's Debate

Gingrich received a standing ovation for his direct and combative response to CNN's John King's opening question regarding an ABC News interview with Gingrich's ex-wife--Marianne--where she alleged that Gingrich proposed an "open marriage" rather than end his 18-year marriage in divorce.

It was the first question of the night and Gingrich fired back with a scathing attack on King for opening a presidential debate with a question based on a scandalous interview.  He said, "To take an ex-wife and make it two days before the primary a significant question in a presidential campaign is as close to despicable as anything I can imagine."

He went on say that he was sick of the media asking offensive questions to Republicans in an effort to protect Barack Obama's Presidency.

Fair question?  Debatable.

Gingrich's fiery response has earned him praise and plenty of media attention, but I say, not so fast.

AP Photo

The fact of the matter remains that for the President of the United States, character matters. Integrity matters.  Does that imply that an individual must be perfect in order to attain the highest office of the land?  Of course not.  We have all made mistakes and are entitled to change and start over.

But what I found so interesting about last night's heated exchange is that although Gingrich dodged an embarrassing question and was able to skillfully turn the tables and lecture John King on using "good judgment," he didn't address the issue.  An issue that would help define his character.  He adamantly denied his ex-wife's charges, but in doing so, he is insinuating that she is a liar.

Has he denied the affair with his now wife, Callista?  No.  Is it hard to imagine an extremely powerful political figure--then Speaker of the House--making this kind of suggestion to his wife in order to avoid the outbreak of a scandalous and damaging news story?  Of course it isn't.

So, as a wife and a young mom, I needed Gingrich to acknowledge the human side of this scandal which is that a wife was publicly betrayed by her spouse and she is still hurting.  He should have apologized to her.

Furthermore, I wanted an apology for the stance he took on President Clinton's infidelity while in the White House (although it goes without saying that I am not defending the scandal itself).   Gingrich was one of the loudest voices calling for defense of morality, family values and standards from our elected officials and yet, during the scandal, he was secretly involved in his own destructive behaviour.  Hypocrisy at the highest level.

Last night, his ex-wife needed an apology.  Last night, America deserved more.

That kind of response to John King's controversial question would have spoken volumes about his true character--much more so than turning the tables on a moderator.