Don’t Ask – Don’t Tell – is it time for a change?

January 27, 2010

State of the Union News…

A new CNN report states – “President Obama will ask Congress Wednesday night to repeal the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy that bars gays and lesbians from openly serving in, White House Senior Adviser David Axelrod told CNN.”

QUESTIONS:

If you have served in the military what do you think of the current policy?

If you have no military service, do you think that this policy should be maintained or repealed?

Is the current policy ethical?

COMMENTS WELCOME!


Charles E. Phillips – What you do in the dark will be brought to the light – the billboard campaign outing…

January 23, 2010

As a kid I’ll never forget my mother buying an Elvis Presley gospel record with an upbeat song entitled “Run On.”  Elvis seemed to sing it so fast that I recall not being able to completely understand all the words.  But, one line I understood clearly went as follows, “As sure as God made the day and the night
What you do in the dark will be brought to the light.”

Now, I admit, I didn’t completely understand the implication of those words…not until my hidden activities came into the bright light of the media.  In my case, that fact that I was a liar and a thief was splashed all across the front pages of my hometown newspaper.  Were the headlines true?  Unfortunately yes!

Now it seems, according to a CNN report, another man named Charles – Charles E. Phillips – is finding out the implications of those words as his ex-mistress has elected to operate a “fatal attraction” splash of her own on billboards in major cities.  Charles was outed.  And, my heart goes out to him.

The CNN story reports in part (the whole story is here).

Phillips, 50, the co-president of Oracle Corp., admitted the affair with Wilkins, 42, in a statement released by his spokeswoman Friday.

Often talked of as a potential successor to Oracle founder and CEO Larry Ellison, Phillips is one of the software company’s most senior and highly paid excecutives. On top of an $800,000 salary for 2009, he took home stock options and other compensation valued by Oracle at more than $18 million.

“”I had an 8½-year serious relationship with YaVaughnie Wilkins,” the statement said. “My divorce proceedings began in 2008. The relationship with Ms. Wilkins has since ended and we both wish each other well.”

Phillips is reportedly still married to his wife, Karen, and the two have a son together.

It seems that Charles Phillips did indeed have an affair that apparently is ending his marriage – as divorce proceedings are in the works.  But, obviously, the former mistress wanted the last word by posting a series of giant billboards in New York, San Francisco and Atlanta.

New Yorkers passing through midtown Manhattan this week saw the smiling faces of “Charles and YaVaughnie” beaming down upon them from one of two billboards in the city with the caption reading, “You are my soulmate forever! – cep.”

SO WHAT’S THE POINT?

As a business ethics speaker, I often speak to executive groups in major corporations and since I share my journey from Tax Partner in a CPA firm to federal prisoner, I, more times than not, see participants cop an attitude that they would never do something that would bring such dramatic consequences to themselves.  I imagine that Phillips felt the same way.  In fact, I would suspect that he would have felt that his private life had no effect on his business and that the first time he would be featured on CNN is when he took over the leadership of Oracle.

Instead the actions of his, obviously upset and less than ethical ex-mistress, is a perfect example of choices and consequences.  In fact, the first words that I speak to a group are – EVERY CHOICE HAS A CONSEQUENCE.

Consequences come in a variety of forms and in ways that we often don’t expect.  Appointed last year to President Obama’s Economic Recovery Advisory Board, Phillips is finding himself dealing more than much needed economic recovery ideas.

Choices and consequences…sorry Mr. Phillips, but for those who read…this is just another example how ethical choices (or unethical as the case may be) has implications that are unavoidable.

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME!


Reid’s Negro comment and the Ethical message we are sending…

January 12, 2010

Frankly I don’t care whether Harry Reid keeps his political position or not.  It’s obvious that he’s stuck his foot in his mouth based on the political firestorm that seems to have erupted.  Rather, as an ethics speaker, I would like to raise the discussion about what message we are sending to our young people when it comes to truth and free speech.

Harry Reid spoke the truth.  Nothing he said had not been said by rank and file Americans as the election process proceeded.  Anyone who paid attention to the election from the primaries forward, at first, would have doubted that an inexperienced Senator (who happened to be Black or African-American – which is politically correct seems to be determined on who you speak with) could win his parties nomination.  Most would have felt that American’s were not ready for a non-white President.  Who knew…?

But, as Barack Obama put himself before the public it became clear that his articulation and young new face was just what the country wanted.  Reid said – he was a light skinned black man who did not have a “negro dialect” (unless he wanted to have one).  And, that combination made Obama electable.  Now…please tell me – was Reid inaccurate in his comment.

As a professional speaker I firmly believe that President Obama skills at oration (like those of John Kennedy) captured the imagination of the American people and dramatically contributed to his crossover appeal to the large American population instead of finding himself a divided racial wonder.

ETHICAL ISSUE:  For days now Harry Reid finds himself embroiled in this controversy.  But, he spoke the truth.  So, what message are we sending to our youth?

1.  Speak the TRUTH and find that it’s (the truth) not politically correct and lose your job?

2.  POLITICALLY CORRECT comments are more valuable than the truth?

3.  Political Correctness is the TRUTH?

For the life of me, I just don’t get what all the fuss is about.  Wouldn’t it be better to honor the truth and dismiss POLITICALLY CORRECTNESS – isn’t that the ethical high road.

It seems that we are more concerned with not offending than we are with allowing TRUTH to be spoken.

HOW DO YOU SEE THIS?


Guest Blog: It Depends On What You Mean By “Transparency”

January 8, 2010

As a business ethics speaker, I, from time to time, am pleased to have guest blogs featured on my site.  Ethics, by definition, are actions whose motivation is based on ideas of right and wrong.  In politics we hear, when someone is seeking election, a litany of ideas who have a fundamental ethics base.  Yet, when push comes to shove, it seems that ethics flies out the window and the politician is face with reality of accomplishing their agenda or operating ethically.  Guest blogger – Rick Krug – shares this in his piece entitled:  IT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU MEAN BY “TRANSPARENCY” featured below:

As the Obama Administration continues to “duck and cover” over the attempted Christmas Day Boxer Bomber, it now finds itself searching for that Cloak of Invisibility regarding the health care debate. Having successfully locked out any Republican opposition by sheer numbers alone, the White House and both chambers of Congress have decided to have “informal” discussions on just how to craft the final health care overhaul. Now, when you read “informal”; this word is roughly translated “secret.”

For months before the 2008 election, candidate Obama was demanding the entire health care debate would be broadcast over C-Span, the cable station dedicated to all things US Government. By now, we have all seen the 8-10 video clips of Obama making this same promise to various rallies across America. When Nancy Pelosi was chosen as Speaker of the House in 2006, she stated, “This will be the most open and transparent government in history.”

Today, on CNN, John Cafferty essentially called Obama and the Democratic leadership liars as he pointed out the American public would not get to see the final outcome of the health care takeover until the secret meetings were over. In case you missed it, read the first sentence of this paragraph again: I said CNN made that charge – I know, you were thinking I said Fox News, right?

In fact, what was supposed to be the crowning glory for Obama and certain to place his face on Mount Rushmore, is now becoming the unmasking of what seems to be nothing more than a Chicago-style thug politician. Seriously, when Obama said the whole heath care debate would be on C-Span, I thought to myself, “wow, how would MCCain ever top that!” For starters, he might have simply kept his word. Is it just me, or does anyone else think the White House and Congress simply don’t care what Americans think….about anything?

So, just what am I missing about the word “Transparency?” I swear I thought it had something to do with being able to witness things in real time. Silly me.

I suppose I should have been suspicious when the 500 page starter yeast of the health care bill bloomed into a 1000 page bill, which, it seems, all those who were to vote on this thing admitted they had not even read. There probably should have been a couple of alarms going off in my head when the Senate version of this takeover sterioded out to over 2000 pages and nearly a trillion dollars. But it took this latest failure of truth to really get my attention. To be sure, there will be enough pork in the final healthcare package to make even Oscar Meyer jealous. But I can guarantee that there will be no Senator nor House member who will have ever read the final version.

We all know that health care is the main focus to the Obama agenda, while, it seems, national security is a minor annoyance, but come on, what in the world does the Pelosi, Reid, Obama product have to hide? Look, when you have a network who, second only to NBC, was as much as throwing palm branches down while the Messiah rode in on the back of Biden, begin questioning the integrity of the man’s promises, now you have a news story. To be fair, CNN could use a boost in the ratings, but Cafferty was no happy camper. Nor should he be, nor should any American be.

We all know campaign promises are usually only hopeful suggestions – “Read my lips, no new taxes” – but this outright lie is in fact an outright lie. One legitimately wonders if Obama ever planned on telecasting anything on C-Span. Then Pelosi said, “This is the most open process ever…” with a straight face. So I ask again, do these folks care even a little about what the American people think? Are we that stupid to them? This issue has carried elitism even farther than Hollywood could imagine.

I suspect the real reason the final debate on the health care plan remains secret is summed up in one word: truth. The Obama administration, the leader of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House simply do not want America to know the truth. They want it secret and they do not care.

All the while, Democrat after Democrat is running for the tall grass – shifting their registration to an ‘R”, or somehow coming to the conclusion it is time to retire. I believe this is the first time I have seen the rats leave the ship before the ship even left the harbor.

YOUR COMMENTS ARE WELCOME! Or to comment directly you can find Rick Krug on Facebook at: http://www.facebook.com/RickKrug


President Obama and Those Fat Cats from Wall Street – 2009 Ethics a Year in Review (1 of 3)

January 1, 2010

Frankly I couldn’t believe what I heard on the news when President Obama, in an interview, called bankers into the White House to seek their help with the economy – having referred to them the day before as “Fat Cat” bankers.  Hum…the President of the United States resorting to labeling people in less than a professional manner.  Perhaps it is just his folksy style, but that type of approach seems much less than presidential.  But then I got to thinking…

Seems like in this administration there was some effort to curb the abuses that the banks have hurled at consumers when it came to credit cards.  That, for everyone but the banks, was hailed as “about time” legislation.  Ethically, the banks have played less than fair with consumers.  Personal example…my wife, who has spotless credit had a Bank of American card with a zero balance and substantial credit limit, received a letter from BofA increasing her interest rate to 22.9% from 8.9%.  She called asking why and was told it was a mistake, but one that could not be undone.  After expressing her deep dissatisfaction and then vowing (after she got off the phone not to ever use the card), she got a letter from Bank of America (just a week later) cutting her credit line by 75%.  Ethical actions by Bank of America – yea right.

According to Money Magazine senior writer – Donna Rosato – “Lawmakers gave issuers till February 2010 to fully comply with the new law. Meanwhile, issuers have rushed to raise interest rates, impose new fees and cut credit limits. The median rate on credit cards surged 13% to 23% from December 2008 to July 2009, according to a study by the Pew Charitable Trusts. Meanwhile, a bill to expedite the credit card reforms, the Credit Card Rate Freeze Act, has gone nowhere. When the new law kicks in in 2010, consumers will have more protection.”

Maybe the term “Fat Cat” Bankers was justified.

Ah…but there’s more.

Fortune Magazine states:

What Ken Lewis wanted, Ken Lewis got. During his eight-year tenure as Bank of America’s CEO, he embarked on a dizzying series of acquisitions to create the nation’s biggest financial services company.

But when his last two big buys — toxic-mortgage giant Countrywide and dead-on-its-feet bank Merrill Lynch — drew too much scrutiny from regulators and shareholders, Lewis packed up his golden parachute last October and bailed.

Maybe I should be a bit kinder in my blog.  Perhaps after squandering Bank of American funds on losing propositions, they needed the rate increase on credit cards.  Of course, that assumes that folks use those credit cards.  In our case, I think not.

BUT TO TOP IT OFF…

When the government, back in the Clinton administration, asked Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to extend credit to many American who, otherwise, were not credit worthy – I have to ask the question – with rising deficits and massive government spending – why should anyone in the government call anyone names when the government is doing just what those Wall Street “Fat Cats” did – namely living above their means.  We have massive debt and seem to believe that living in debt is O.K.

Perhaps the ethical thing to do is say – NO to additional government debt and do what is being preached to the population – live within your means and act ethically and in a responsible manner.

WHAT DO YOU THINK?


The Ethics of Change – A Letter To President Elect Barack Obama

November 5, 2008

Today – the day after the election – we, as Americans, have seen yet another historic moment in a life that has seen many. Those of us with some age have seen the end of wars and the beginning of others; we have seen space travel and a man on the moon; we have seen technology change everything about our daily lives; and we have seen a man rise up and break barriers that once were thought to be iron clad. Mr. President Elect – your election may be historic for African-Americans, but, more important, it is historic for all Americans as we see through you a change of attitude and focus – we see hope in your eyes.

With the above said, Mr. President Elect, I must caution, in the midst of celebration, that we not lose sight ofbarack-obama-smiling what got you there and what your task at hand is. President Elect Obama – we must restore a sense of ethics to this great nation and make choices – tough choices at times – based on sound ethical and moral principles that have guided us for so long.

I, of all people, have no right to lecture you on ethics or change – after all, you are our new President elect. But, like you, I know a thing or two about adversity and obstacles. As a former convicted felon (not something I am proud of) now professional speaker, I have risen above my poor choices from the past and become a voice for CHOICE and ETHICS. Regardless of the choices made, we can moving forward make better choices that will bring about positive results.

You said, “it’s been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this date in this election at this defining moment change has come to America.” Your statement is true…we have turned for too long away from choices that empower people to achieve greatness and focused on what’s wrong and how we exercise our muscle to the detriment of others.

You, Mr. President Elect, are aware of the challenges ahead. Your words reveal it, “For even as we celebrate tonight, we know the challenges that tomorrow will bring are the greatest of our lifetime — two wars, a planet in peril, the worst financial crisis in a century.” You know, as do we all, that the only way to succeed is to do so by making choices founded on the ethical foundation of our forefathers as they founded this great Nation.

I speak on ethics today, founded on the lessons I learned from not living an ethical life. Perhaps, as a Nation, we have not made the best choices – or even ethical choices. The challenges ahead are significant and you, yes you – Mr. President Elect – will be tempted beyond belief, after all you are the most powerful man in the world. Don’t lose your sense of ethics, sir. Remember your promise! “But I will always be honest with you about the challenges we face. I will listen to you, especially when we disagree. And, above all, I will ask you to join in the work of remaking this nation, the only way it’s been done in America for 221 years — block by block, brick by brick, calloused hand by calloused hand.”

Regardless of who authored these next comments you delivered – and delivered well – they form a promise of an ethical foundation for your Presidency.

“So let us summon a new spirit of patriotism, of responsibility, where each of us resolves to pitch in and work harder and look after not only ourselves but each other.

Let us remember that, if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers.

In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people. Let’s resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long.”

Mr. President Elect – we need that foundation that you have stated so well – a foundation of hope and promise and belief that as American’s we can be proud of who we are and what we stand for – that we can be proud to call ourselves American’s here and around the world. You have given us that hope and for that we say – Thank you!

Regardless of political belief, I think we are witnessing the dawn of an new age for America. We will succeed or fail based on the choices we make moving forward. If our choices are based on fear, ego and power, we may find that we will be no better than we have been and perhaps even worse. Those choices and not based on sound ethical principles. On the other hand, if we make choices that foster freedom, opportunity and a spirit of selfless cooperation we might see the dawn of the “Age of Aquarius.”

Let me end with your words…

“America, we have come so far. We have seen so much. But there is so much more to do. So tonight, let us ask ourselves — if our children should live to see the next century; if my daughters should be so lucky to live as long as Ann Nixon Cooper, what change will they see? What progress will we have made?

This is our chance to answer that call. This is our moment.”

Read the rest of this entry »


Politics, Religion and Ethics – Obama’s Presidential Campaign and Messages from the Pulpit!

October 27, 2008

Let me begin by saying, this writing is 100% about law, ethics and the application of the law.  I am in no way, taking a political stand through the content of this entry.  Rather, I am amazed as what I believe is the flagrant violation of the law when it comes to influencing votes in this presidential campaign.

According to Merriam-Webster the definition of ethics is the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation.  Now, that definition is broad and clearly subject to interpretation.  However, good and bad must also be judged in accordance with the law.  One might judge a particular action to be good and ethical, but that same action might be against the law.  Hence, regardless of opinion, the action is unethical.

So, what does this have to do with the election?  Well…it is generally presumed to be against the law for a non-profit religious organization to use their pulpit (I use that term loosly) to influence public opinion for election results or outcome.   Non-profit religious organization can lose their non-profit status if they openly work to endorse a political candidate.  This loss could be costly indeed.

So how would one know if such a thing is happening?  Funny you should ask.  But today I received information about the link I am providing.  It was sent to me raising a question as to what my opinion was related to ethics, politics and the law.  What I saw was amazing – a flagrant disregard for the law and the non-profit status at stake.

PLEASE NOTE:  The following, should you decide to watch, is anti-Obama.  The message is clear.  What is more serious is that someone would knowingly and publically risk the non-profit status with such a clear political message.

Judge for yourself.  Here’s the link.  The message is from ATLAH World Ministries and it’s steamy.  Again, I express no opinion other than the amazement as to the message and risk inherent in its delivery.

WHAT ARE OTHERS SAYING:

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asked the IRS to investigate the Roman Catholic Diocese of Paterson, N.J. and Rock Christian Fellowship in Espanola, New Mexico.

According to AU’s letter to the IRS, Roman Catholic Bishop Arthur J. Serratelli has published a letter on Catholic Diocese of Paterson, N.J.’s website and newspaper attacking Barack Obama.”

The letter criticizes Obama for his pro-choice stance and encourages parishioners not to vote for Obama.

AU also wants the IRS to investigate Rock Christian Fellowship in Espanola, New Mexico for posting a large display that encourages voters to support republican candidates over democratic candidates.

In my opinion, what the above mentioned organizations have done is small change in contract to the ATLAH video.

An NPR article states the following:

On Sunday, 33 ministers will take part in a nationwide effort to violate the 54-year-old ban on political preaching and endorse or oppose a candidate from the pulpit. The effort is called the Pulpit Initiative.

Two weeks ago, more than 100 pastors squeezed into a hotel meeting room in Washington, D.C., to learn about the Pulpit Initiative, a brain child of the conservative legal group, Alliance Defense Fund. Attorney Erik Stanley walked them through it.

“If the IRS chooses to come after these churches, we will sue the IRS in federal court,” Stanley said.

Stanley says pastors are fed up. In the past four years, the IRS has stepped up its investigations of clergy. It sent letters to 47 churches, including some liberal ones — not just for explicit endorsements, but also for using code words like pro-choice or pro-life in relation to candidates.

“What’s been happening is that the government has been able to go into the pulpits of America, look over the pastor’s shoulder, and parse the content of their sermon. And that’s unconstitutional,” Stanley said. “No government official should entangle itself with religion in that way.”

HERE’S THE QUESTION FOR YOU – THE READER:  Which is ethical – (1) for the church to follow the dictates of the law and avoid endorsing or disparaging a politicial candidate or (2) to make a “good” decision based on a moral duty and obligation (in the face of the law)?

If you watch the ATLAH video…come back to this site and share your opinion.  Otherwise, your comments welcome on the ethics of religion and politics.


Sarah Palin – Ethics Violation? I Violated Nothing!

October 11, 2008

Nothing more contentious than a hot presidential election, especially when everyone is looking for dirt – for that one fatal choice that could cost the election.  On Friday, it was reported that Palin violated Alaska ethics law when she tried to get her former brother-in-law fired.

Sarah claims – NO VIOLATION!

According to a report on CNN:

“If you read the report, you will see that there was nothing unlawful,” Palin said as she emerged from her hotel in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

According to the report Palin violated state ethics law by trying to get her former brother-in-law fired from the state police, a state investigator’s report for the bipartisan Legislative Council concluded Friday.

“Gov. Palin knowingly permitted a situation to continue where impermissible pressure was placed on several subordinates in order to advance a personal agenda,” the report states.

The investigator’s report states Palin’s efforts to get Wooten fired broke a state ethics law that bars public officials from pursuing personal interest through official action.

Of course Palin’s attorneys have stated in a CNN report:

Any abuse of power, they said, was on the part of the Legislative Council members, not the Palins.

“Sen. French and Sen. Green may have abused their government power by using public money to pursue a personal vendetta against the governor…”

“Put bluntly, Branchflower completely misapplied the Ethics Act and has instead sought to create a headline to smear the governor,” the lawyers wrote.

McCain spokeswoman Stapleton said the Legislature exceeded its mandate in finding an ethics violation. “Lacking evidence to support the original Monegan allegation, the Legislative Council seriously overreached.”

Ethics Violation or not?  In Presidential politics the issue of truth may not be important.  Rather, illusion and the ability to sway popular opinion seem to be more important than the truth.

Do you think Palin violated ethics law in Alaska or do you think that this is mostly a political ploy?  Your comments are welcome.


Government to INCREASE Credit Limit to Fund BAILOUT – Does That Make Sense?

September 27, 2008

McCain, Obama, Bush and other leading lawmakers are talking about a bailout of our credit markets – and with some exception all seem to feel that it is needed.  Perhaps!  But does it make sense to increase out debt ceiling in order to fund non-government bad debt?

According to CNN – “Rep. Barney Frank, a high-ranking Democrat, said he is convinced that by Sunday, lawmakers will reach a deal on the proposed $700 billion bailout of the nation’s financial system.”

The source said that when a plan is reached, Congress will not authorize a full $700 billion expenditure at once. Instead, it will be broken into a series of smaller transactions. The amount of the initial allotment continues to change, the source said.

The talks had stalled after House Republicans said they couldn’t go along with plans devised by the White House. Later, congressional leaders on both sides said they would send representatives to take part in negotiations.

Regardless of comments from private citizens, it appears that we, as a country, are hooked on debt and this bailout will happen.  The concept of paying for what you consume is dead.  The increase in the debt ceiling would make it such that (if it had to be paid back) each American would shoulder some $38,000 each to pay the debt.  Nothing is free and make no mistake that a bail out is nothing more than the Government propping up failed private business failures.  The whole process is much like maxing out your credit cards – having collection agents call – and solving the problem by getting a new card with a higher limit.  The problem isn’t solved…it’s only an illusion.

It’s not a Republican problem or a Democrat problem – the problem is we don’t have, as a nation, the will to be fiscally responsible and until we do so – we will continue to burden ourselves and our children with debt.

As a business ethics speaker I often say: Every choice has a consequence.  That is true for individuals, company’s and governments.  Debt must someday be paid or we will be owned by the lender.  Maybe someday our politicians will have the ethics to stop our policies that continue to increase our debt and begin to operate in a manner that respects those who are governed.

Your comments are welcome!


Clinton, Obama, McCain, Romney – Are There Ethics in Presidential Campaigns?

January 8, 2008

With New Hampshire behind them and other states primaries staring them squarely in the face – I wonder if the population feels that the front runners in this presidential campaign are ethical?

As I began to ponder that question, a larger more important question loomed. What is the definition of ethics or ethical behavior?

The copyrighted world wide definition of ETHICS involves two parts:

  • Doing specific things to make yourself and the world better, and
  • Avoiding doing other things so that you don’t needlessly hurt yourself, or others with bad personal judgement.

While I am sure that those who have clearly found the candidate they wish to support in this 2008 presidential election will have a strong opinion, the question is – do the front running candidates (thus far) have the ethics or ethical foundation to stay the course and make American’s proud?

All the candidates (as far as I can tell) would meet the first qualification for ethics – doing specific things to make yourself and your world better.

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire’s Democratic primary Tuesday night, pulling out a stunning victory over Sen. Barack Obama in a contest that she had been forecast to lose.

“I come tonight with a very full heart and I want especially to thank New Hampshire,” she told a jubliant crowd at her campaign headquarters in Manchester. “Over the last week I listened to you, and in the process I found my own voice.

Clinton has stated that she is an agent for change. She clearly wishes to get the message out that she desires to do something good for America.

Barack Obama speech excerpt: “We are choosing hope over fear. We’re choosing unity over division, and sending a powerful message that change is coming to America.

The time has come for a President who will be honest about the choices and the challenges we face; who will listen to you and learn from you even when we disagree; who won’t just tell you what you want to hear, but what you need to know.”

Obama, likewise, has a vision and passion for where he sees America headed. Clearly the first definition of Ethics – meet.

Senator John McCain speech excerpt: “We live in momentous times. We face a global threat from enemies for whom no attack is too cruel. The world is changing in profound ways. We need to make those changes work for us and for all people who share our beliefs in free markets and free people. Our government has failed to meet some of its most basic responsibilities and the American people have lost trust i n their leaders. This election is about big things, not small ones. We can’t muddle through the next four years, bickering among ourselves, and leave to others the work that is ours to do.”

McCain – ethical – yep – as far as the first definition goes as you can see from his remarks above.

Mitt Romney comments in a speech: “My campaign is about changing Washington to strengthen America: I want to build a stronger military, a stronger economy, and stronger families. I call these the three legs of the Republican stool. These three unite the coalition of conservatives that Ronald Reagan championed – defense conservatives, economic conservatives, and social conservatives.

“We won’t win the White House with only two out of three or one out of three. Republicans win the White House by motivating all three parts of our coalition to carry us to victory. We’re not going to beat Hillary Clinton by acting like Hillary Clinton.”

Well…by my account much less vision here with Romney than with the others, but it might be in appropriate to judge based on a quote from a speech.

The real issue with ethics won’t necessarily be found in the first part of the definition, that’s the easy part for most. Rather, it will be found in the second part. “Avoiding doing other things so that you don’t needlessly hurt yourself, or others with bad personal judgment.”

When the heat of the campaign arises – the real test will be who sticks to the VISION for the future of America or who gravels in the mud to sling the most dirt.

Chuck Gallagher - The Ethics Expert

Speaking of Ethics a little advertisement:

On a crisp October day in 1995, Chuck Gallagher took 23 physical steps… opened a door… and began a new experience that was life-changing. In a style that is far more vulnerable than most motivational keynote speakers, Chuck shares the painful lessons of his life with his audience and touches them forever. For information about my presentations on sales motivation, business ethics or corporate change visit my site at http://www.chuckgallagher.com and I’d be happy to send you a promotional video or you can see my video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c6DBQelQ_cY