Saturday, January 21, 2012

It's A Question Of Character

So just exactly how much do you value character and integrity in a person?

Let's assume you're hiring someone for a position in your organization. You've narrowed the field down to two candidates. Both are qualified, although in your subjective opinion one - Candidate Q - is somewhat more qualified than the other. However, Candidate Q has some personal characteristics that give you pause; infidelity, multiple marriages, association with questionable characters, involvement with questionable causes, etc.

The other candidate - Candidate C - has a better track record in terms of character (charitable activities and contributions, a stable marriage, that sort of thing), but is, again in your subjective opinion, somewhat less qualified than Candidate C.

Which one do you choose? Do you pick the best person for the job, or do you subscribe to the theory that 'If you cheat on your wife, you'll cheat on your business partner?'

Obviously this is a poorly-disguised parallel to the question facing republican voters in the primaries. Romney has a squeaky-clean background in terms of marital fidelity. He also has a long-term record of charitable and religious commitment, including regular tithing. Say what you will about his politics, but I can't find anything questionable in his character.

Newt, on the other hand, has what could at best be described as a shaky track record in terms of marriage. There are also questions surrounding some of his past business associations. And there is the infamous video of him and pelosi together, advocating for global warming. But he is arguably better qualified, at least from a conservative perspective, for the position.

Just to muddy the waters a little further, flash back to the late 1990's. When Bill Clinton's womanizing came to light plenty of conservatives were saying "Character matters." If that was true then, it should be true now.

I'm torn. Newt is more acceptable to me from a policy standpoint, and I think he'd flat out destroy obama in a debate. But I don't trust Newt. I think he's primarily interested in what's good for Newt.

On the other hand, IMO Romney is just more of the same that we've suffered through for the last couple of decades, both R and D. I don't see anything in his policies that excites me, but there's nothing there that I strongly oppose, either. I think he could hold his own in a debate with obama. And I think he is a person of character and integrity, which I believe counts for something.

So back to the original question. How much do you value character and integrity in a person?

For me, personally, the answer is "Quite a bit."

8 comments:

Old NFO said...

I value character and integrity, but I also look at their ethics... Do they stand by what they believe, or do they blow in the wind... And 'that' to me brings this back to dead even. With Newt, and all his faults, he isn't flip flopping on points. Romney has and is doing that...

JT said...

The distinction must be made that these are politicians, a group of people not generally known for personal integrity. Is it fair or worthwhile to judge political character based on personal (or sexual) character?

I won't use the next 200 column inches to list every politician that was unfaithful to his wife yet still did their job effectively. Let's just say most them did, to some extent.

I'm not a fan of either. My struggle is; do I eschew my personal beliefs and forgive the serial adulterer or push the limits of my ability to suspend disbelief and go with the guy in the magic underwear?

CenTexTim said...

NFO - Newt has done a pretty good job of relabeling himself as a conservative, but in the past he has supported things like the individual mandate for healthcare, ethanol subsidies, TARP, and other big government boondoggles.

<a href = "http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283240/gingrich-redux-katrina-trinko?pg=1>http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283240/gingrich-redux-katrina-trinko?pg=1</a>

Somehow all that has gotten overlooked. But the fact remains that he is a professional politician, and like any other professional politician has done his fair share of flip-flopping.

Harper - Is it a matter of forgiving someone for cheating on his wife (wives), or being wary of someone who took a vow or oath, and then broke his word? If he vows to 'forsake all others' and then reneges, can we trust him when he says he'll 'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution'?

Don't get me wrong. I have my doubts about both. I think Newt is incredibly smart and tough, but not necessarily trustworthy. Mitt is also smart, less tough, but more trustworthy. I'm torn.

But either one of them would be far superior to obama...

CenTexTim said...

I screwed up the link in the comment above. Let's try that again.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/283240/gingrich-redux-katrina-trinko?pg=1

There. Much better...

kerrcarto said...

Rick Santorum is a man of impeccable character.

CenTexTim said...

Good point, kerrcarto. And he did pull out a late victory over Romney in Iowa - about a month late, but still, he won...

Hot Sam said...

Luckily we live in states where our vote doesn't matter.

I can live with either man as president. I just don't think they have equal ability to become president.

Run through a state by state battle between each candidate and Obama, there is only one clear winner. The other needs to get lucky.

Way too much at stake on the Supreme Court to lose this one. The next president might get three picks.

CenTexTim said...

"Way too much at stake on the Supreme Court to lose this one."

Amen. Throw in the district and circuit courts, and obama could screw us for generations to come.