There's supposed to be a war on women raging in the Republican Party according to the Democrats. I happen to be a GOP woman and am still wondering why I'm not being attacked by my fellow conservatives. I guess I just don't get out enough.
From what I've been able to glean this so-called war is really about getting somebody reelected. Of course the person I am referring to is President Obama. He doesn't have a sound presidential record to campaign on. The economy has gotten worse, not better. His signature bill, (Obamacare), that has been disliked by the majority of Americans since it was voted into law is in front of the Supreme Court because twenty six states have filed suit contending it is unconstitutional. Gas & oil prices have doubled under his term, and instead of promoting American oil excavation he has curtailed such endeavors. He has stalled the potential fuel relief, and potential employment that the Keystone pipeline would offer. He has enacted cap & trade policies which influence electricity prices, not to mention the people in coal industry related jobs who are out of work because the Obama Regime has targeted the coal industry. I could also include failed government crony-capitalism investments that have failed, (Solyndra), along with all the other mistakes and missteps this president has made.
When you are trying to get reelected you might be able to slough off one mistake, or even two, but when everything you've done negatively impacts the lives of the American people you can't run on your record. You have to develop a new game plan, and Mr. Obama's game plan is very simple. Divide and Conquer. He understands that a house divided against itself can not stand, and as each day passes I become more convinced that he doesn't necessarily want this country as we know it to continue standing. He is pitting republicans against democrats, well that isn't new. He has tried to segregate the top 1% money makers in this country from the other 99%. He has represented the US as being anti-semitic in his foreign policy. Every stance he takes breeds controversy, contention, and ire. If he isn't trying to invoke a second civil war in this country his actions sure do contradict his intentions.
His latest gambit targets women, (mostly because of the high percentage of women who vote democrat). According to Obama and the DNC the GOP doesn't respect women. I beg to differ. If a woman wants to start a business in this country, and become successful in doing so she isn't going to go to the democrats for advice, or leadership. The party that promotes private enterprise, less government restrictions, and lower taxes is the republican party. That same woman would go to the democrats if she wanted a government-run business that didn't really belong to her.
Most conservatives feel very strongly that everyone should be responsible for their actions. Most of us believe in the sanctity of marriage, but do not oppose divorce for those who seek it. Some are opposed to divorce for personal and religious reasons. The majority support strong laws when it comes to dead-beat divorced parents who don't take care of their young. Some, because of religious views don't believe in contraception. Some admit their religion is opposed to contraception, but personally ignore the mandate. Some conservatives have no personal opinion for, or against contraception. There's two things most GOP supporters will agree upon when it comes to contraception: 1- The constitution prohibits the government from mandating any religious practice. 2- The people's money (taxes) should not pay for contraception.
Women are responsible, pragmatic individuals who don't believe the people of this country are responsible for the outcome every time someone chooses to have sex. Politicians can spin it however they want, but the truth of the matter is that the war is about government interference in personal and religious practices. It has nothing to do with women and the GOP.
The best way for me to not get side-tracked in this election is to stay focused on what's really important to me. I want to see American business flourish again. I want to see everyone who wants a job to have one. I don't want to worry anymore about how much the policies of the Obama Regime and the Hitler Regime have in common. I want to know that the constitution is being protected by government officials, and that the American people are keeping an eye on them. I want to be able to say God bless America no matter where I am.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Sunday, March 18, 2012
To Label Or Not To Label
Two hundred thirty six years ago this coming July our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men were created equal. If President Lincoln were to utter those words today he'd say that all men and women were created equal. I wonder if we don't actively work against that equality by the stupid things we say and do.
We have become a people who likes to pigeon-hole everyone by assigning labels. Back in Lincoln's time those individuals that we now call African Americans were slaves. Instead of integrating them into this great society as citizens with equal standing we had to overcome our irrational fears and prejudices. After all the struggles we still segregate them by calling them African Americans. We didn't stop there. Now we have Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and so on and so forth.
I blame the census as the number one cause of this type of racial segregation followed very closely by politicians, the media, and the school system. Every ten years everybody in this country is supposed to fill out the census forms to let the government know how many of us there are. They ask what nationality you consider yourself to be, (i.e. Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, African American, etc.). If it's really necessary for the government to know this information, a better question would be: 'What country did your ancestors come from?'. Our nationality, (unless you aren't a citizen by birth), is American. We are supposedly the great melting pot of humanity, but our government seems to think it's necessary to keep us separated and labeled. Perhaps if we quit thinking of each other in terms of skin color we'd finally lose the racial prejudice that still exists. I might add that the bigotry between the races exists among all the races, not just a select few.
Race isn't the only pigeon-hole that we get shoved into. Religion is another favorite. There's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist to name but a few. These religions are broken down into smaller categories trying to define who we are: Orthodox, Fundamentalist, New Age, etc. Let's not even get into the labels we put on people who are active versus those who are less active versus those who are involved in a religion in name only. All this pigeon-holing has created even more bigotry and hatred. Just as one race sees itself as different from another, being defined as to what kind of person you are by a religion pits one person against another.
I remember a story I heard in Sunday School, (aha you've already labeled me a christian), about these two little old ladies walking down the street. They were considered very righteous by everyone who knew them, but if they had a fault it would have been their propensity to discuss the faults of others. Okay, so they were gossips, (that's a label). This particular day as they walked along the street the subject of their discussion was another woman who lived in the neighborhood. She, (unlike them), didn't attend church. She was known to smoke, and drink alcoholic beverages, and was seen with a different man every night, and it was common knowledge that those men paid for her company, (you just decided I am either a Mormon, or a Baptist, maybe a Muslim, but the Sunday School phrase kind of throws that last option off). Anyway, the ladies talked about how terrible it was that such a person should be living in their midst and how she was dragging the morals of the community down. Just then they saw her coming down the street towards them and hurriedly they decided to cross the street rather than take the chance of having to speak to her. Her low-life, immoral behavior might somehow rub off. As they neared the middle of the street a car careened around the corner speeding directly at the two ladies who didn't move so fast in their golden years. From out of nowhere two hands grabbed them and gave them a mighty shove. They were thrown out of the way of the racing car with only skinned up knees and a couple of bruises to testify of their near death experience. The person who shoved them to safety lay still and lifeless on the cold pavement. This guardian angel was none other but the same woman that the two little old ladies had crossed the street to avoid. They'd have to make a new pigeon-hole for this heroic, non-church-going lady of the night.
We are labeled by what kind of job we have, (Boss/Labor), what neighborhood we live in, (Haves/Have-nots), how much education we have, (Grad/Drop-out), how much money we have in the bank, (Fat Cat/Poor Man), if we have an accent, (Local/Foreigner), if we're pretty (Beauty Queen), or homely, (Ugly Duckling), if we're good at sports,(Jock), and if we're whizzes when it comes to the computer, (Geek). The labels never stop, but the labels have next to nothing to do with who the person is. I have only one solution. It starts with me. Since I'm the only one who can do anything about me, I have to work on un-labeling everyone I know, and just let them be people. Maybe after a time I can learn to accept people for who they are. Maybe it will catch on and a bunch of us can start a new trend. We'll do majestic things, help to change the world to a place full of peace and love instead of distrust and hate. We'll call ourselves the un-labelers. Oh oops that's another label. I'm working on it
We have become a people who likes to pigeon-hole everyone by assigning labels. Back in Lincoln's time those individuals that we now call African Americans were slaves. Instead of integrating them into this great society as citizens with equal standing we had to overcome our irrational fears and prejudices. After all the struggles we still segregate them by calling them African Americans. We didn't stop there. Now we have Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, Asian Americans, and so on and so forth.
I blame the census as the number one cause of this type of racial segregation followed very closely by politicians, the media, and the school system. Every ten years everybody in this country is supposed to fill out the census forms to let the government know how many of us there are. They ask what nationality you consider yourself to be, (i.e. Caucasian, Hispanic, Asian, African American, etc.). If it's really necessary for the government to know this information, a better question would be: 'What country did your ancestors come from?'. Our nationality, (unless you aren't a citizen by birth), is American. We are supposedly the great melting pot of humanity, but our government seems to think it's necessary to keep us separated and labeled. Perhaps if we quit thinking of each other in terms of skin color we'd finally lose the racial prejudice that still exists. I might add that the bigotry between the races exists among all the races, not just a select few.
Race isn't the only pigeon-hole that we get shoved into. Religion is another favorite. There's Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu, and Buddhist to name but a few. These religions are broken down into smaller categories trying to define who we are: Orthodox, Fundamentalist, New Age, etc. Let's not even get into the labels we put on people who are active versus those who are less active versus those who are involved in a religion in name only. All this pigeon-holing has created even more bigotry and hatred. Just as one race sees itself as different from another, being defined as to what kind of person you are by a religion pits one person against another.
I remember a story I heard in Sunday School, (aha you've already labeled me a christian), about these two little old ladies walking down the street. They were considered very righteous by everyone who knew them, but if they had a fault it would have been their propensity to discuss the faults of others. Okay, so they were gossips, (that's a label). This particular day as they walked along the street the subject of their discussion was another woman who lived in the neighborhood. She, (unlike them), didn't attend church. She was known to smoke, and drink alcoholic beverages, and was seen with a different man every night, and it was common knowledge that those men paid for her company, (you just decided I am either a Mormon, or a Baptist, maybe a Muslim, but the Sunday School phrase kind of throws that last option off). Anyway, the ladies talked about how terrible it was that such a person should be living in their midst and how she was dragging the morals of the community down. Just then they saw her coming down the street towards them and hurriedly they decided to cross the street rather than take the chance of having to speak to her. Her low-life, immoral behavior might somehow rub off. As they neared the middle of the street a car careened around the corner speeding directly at the two ladies who didn't move so fast in their golden years. From out of nowhere two hands grabbed them and gave them a mighty shove. They were thrown out of the way of the racing car with only skinned up knees and a couple of bruises to testify of their near death experience. The person who shoved them to safety lay still and lifeless on the cold pavement. This guardian angel was none other but the same woman that the two little old ladies had crossed the street to avoid. They'd have to make a new pigeon-hole for this heroic, non-church-going lady of the night.
We are labeled by what kind of job we have, (Boss/Labor), what neighborhood we live in, (Haves/Have-nots), how much education we have, (Grad/Drop-out), how much money we have in the bank, (Fat Cat/Poor Man), if we have an accent, (Local/Foreigner), if we're pretty (Beauty Queen), or homely, (Ugly Duckling), if we're good at sports,(Jock), and if we're whizzes when it comes to the computer, (Geek). The labels never stop, but the labels have next to nothing to do with who the person is. I have only one solution. It starts with me. Since I'm the only one who can do anything about me, I have to work on un-labeling everyone I know, and just let them be people. Maybe after a time I can learn to accept people for who they are. Maybe it will catch on and a bunch of us can start a new trend. We'll do majestic things, help to change the world to a place full of peace and love instead of distrust and hate. We'll call ourselves the un-labelers. Oh oops that's another label. I'm working on it
Thursday, March 8, 2012
2012 Primary Totals & Averages
I decided to talk about the outcome of the 2012 GOP elections because the media is doing such a lousy job of just reporting the news. To be candid I must admit that I am a Romney supporter. My findings might be slanted in his favor, but on balance since the media does everything it can to negate and diminish Romney's accomplishments maybe that's okay.
The following chart shows the results of the twenty two state GOP contests held through Super Tuesday March 6, 2012.
First Place: Mitt Romney has won fourteen states. Rick Santorum has won six states. Newt Gingrich has won two states. Ron Paul has won no states.
Second Place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in second seven times. Mitt Romney has come in second six times, and Newt Gingrich came in second two times.
Third place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in third seven times, Newt Gingrich has come in third five times, and Mitt Romney came in third in two states. I didn't award a third place in Virginia because Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did not qualify for the state's ballot, and both got zero votes.
Fourth Place: Newt Gingrich has come in fourth thirteen times. Ron Paul has come in fourth eight times. Rick Santorum has come in fourth two times, and Mitt Romney came in fourth in none of the states.
7,881,788 votes have been cast in the twenty two GOP primaries, averaging 358,263 voters per state. Romney has averaged 39.54%, Santorum has averaged 24.85%, Ron Paul's overall average is 17.5% and Newt Gingrich is last with 14.98%.
Mitt Romney has averaged 145,288 votes per state with a total of 3,196,326 votes. Rick Santorum averages 88,988 votes per election (1,957,727 total), followed by Newt Gingrich (1,827,336 votes) averaging 83,061 votes per state, and finally Ron Paul has an average of 40,927 votes with a total of 900,339 votes.
The following chart shows the results of the twenty two state GOP contests held through Super Tuesday March 6, 2012.
First Place: Mitt Romney has won fourteen states. Rick Santorum has won six states. Newt Gingrich has won two states. Ron Paul has won no states.
Second Place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in second seven times. Mitt Romney has come in second six times, and Newt Gingrich came in second two times.
Third place: Ron Paul and Rick Santorum came in third seven times, Newt Gingrich has come in third five times, and Mitt Romney came in third in two states. I didn't award a third place in Virginia because Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum did not qualify for the state's ballot, and both got zero votes.
Fourth Place: Newt Gingrich has come in fourth thirteen times. Ron Paul has come in fourth eight times. Rick Santorum has come in fourth two times, and Mitt Romney came in fourth in none of the states.
7,881,788 votes have been cast in the twenty two GOP primaries, averaging 358,263 voters per state. Romney has averaged 39.54%, Santorum has averaged 24.85%, Ron Paul's overall average is 17.5% and Newt Gingrich is last with 14.98%.
Mitt Romney has averaged 145,288 votes per state with a total of 3,196,326 votes. Rick Santorum averages 88,988 votes per election (1,957,727 total), followed by Newt Gingrich (1,827,336 votes) averaging 83,061 votes per state, and finally Ron Paul has an average of 40,927 votes with a total of 900,339 votes.
Date | State | Gingrich | Paul | Romney | Santorum |
01/03 | IA | 13.3%-4th | 21.4%-3rd | 24.5%-2nd | 24.6%-1st |
| 01/10 | NH | 9.4%-4th | 22.9%-2nd | 39.3%-1st | 9.4%-3rd |
01/21 | SC | 40.4%-1st | 13.0%-4th | 27.8%-2nd | 17.0%-3rd |
01/31 | FL | 31.9%-2nd | 7.0%-4th | 46.4%-1st | 13.4%-3rd |
02/04 | NV | 21.1%-2nd | 18.8%-3rd | 50.1%-1st | 10.0%-4th |
02/07 | CO | 12.8%-3rd | 11.8%-4th | 34.9%-2nd | 40.3%-1st |
02/07 | MN | 10.8%-4th | 27.1%-2nd | 16.9%-3rd | 44.9%-1st |
02/11 | ME | 6.2%-4th | 35.7%-2nd | 39.2%-1st | 17.7%-3rd |
02/28 | AZ | 16.2%-3rd | 8.4%-4th | 47.3%-1st | 26.6%-2nd |
02/28 | MI | 6.5%-4th | 11.6%-3rd | 41.1%-1st | 37.9%-2nd |
03/03 | WA | 10.3%-4th | 24.8%-2nd | 37.6%-1st | 23.8%-3rd |
03/06 | AK | 14.1%-4th | 24.0%-3rd | 32.4%-1st | 29.2%-2nd |
03/06 | GA | 47.2%-1st | 6.6%-4th | 25.9%-2nd | 19.6%-3rd |
03/06 | ID | 2.1%-4th | 18.1%-3rd | 61.6%-1st | 18.2%-2nd |
03/06 | MA | 4.6%-4th | 9.5%-3rd | 72.2%-1st | 12.0%-2nd |
03/06 | ND | 8.5%-4th | 28.1%-2nd | 23.7%-3rd | 39.7%-1st |
03/06 | OH | 14.6%-3rd | 9.2%-4th | 37.9%-1st | 37.1%-2nd |
03/06 | OK | 27.5%-3rd | 9.6%-4th | 28.0%-2nd | 33.8%-1st |
03/06 | TN | 23.9%-3rd | 9.0%-4th | 28.1%-2nd | 37.2%-1st |
03/06 | VA | 0%-4th | 40.5%-2nd | 59.5%-1st | 0%-4th |
03/06 | VT | 8.2%-4th | 25.5%-2nd | 39.8%-1st | 23.7%-3rd |
03/06 | WY | 0%-4th | 2.5%-3rd | 55.7%-1st | 30.5%-2nd |
| All | 14.98% av | 17.50% av | 39.54% av | 24.85% av | |
| Total Votes | 1,827,336 | 900,399 | 3,196,326 | 1,957,727 | |
| Average Votes | 83,061 av | 40,927 av | 145,288 av | 88,988 av | |
| Gingrich | Paul | Romney | Santorum |
Saturday, March 3, 2012
When Did Name Calling Become Acceptable?
I want to offer full disclosure before I start on my latest rant. I acquired the use of naughty words in my vocabulary in the eighties, developed the skill through the nineties, and have spent the last fifteen or so years trying to eradicate them from my life. I have to admit it's far easier to learn foul language than it is to quit using it. Based on my life experience I know how easy it is to take the road we're used to rather than the one less traveled.
I watched Sean Hannity last night on the Fox News Network. The focus of the show covered liberal media versus conservative media. Sean wanted to know why it is okay for liberal television hosts to use vile words when describing people, and it's not okay for conservative hosts to do the same. My reaction to Sean's question comes with another question. Why is it okay for anyone to publicly say vile and disgusting things about anyone? I realize that the censorship levels of network television are decidedly more lax than are the rules of what's allowed on so-called public airways. I also understand that these rules are determined by what the public says is acceptable. I guess my real question then is; 'Why do we citizens think it's okay for anyone to publicly use profanity, vile name-calling, and outrageous insults?'
The issue came up on the Hannity show because of two events that occurred this week. On Rush Limbaugh's radio program he called a woman who appeared before congress over the current contraception issue a slut. The other thing that happened was conservative media publisher Andrew Breitbart died, and a lot of public figures made nasty comments about him. More to the point regular everyday folks left rude and incendiary comments on places like Twitter and Facebook concerning both subjects. Contrary to popular opinion hate speech is acceptable in our society by just about everyone.
We all say, "oh how sad", when a teen commits suicide because a bunch of school bullies made the kid's life unbearable at school, and on-line. We blame the parents, the school, and the on-line social sites. Why don't we look in the mirror, and accept a good deal of the blame for our own involvement? If you think I'm wrong go on-line, find articles covering the election and the candidates, and read some of the comments left behind by visitors. They range from argumentative to horrifically vile. Our world has changed. We no longer have debates about issues. Today it's quite fashionable to attack the person who voices opposition to what we believe, rather than arguing the issue. The enemy becomes anyone who disagrees, or has a differing point of view.
If it can be proved in court that a person physically attacked someone else because of a skin color, or sexual preference prejudice, that person can be charged not only with assault, but with committing a hate crime as well. There is no difference between students tormenting the fat kid, the shy kid, the homely kid, the black kid, or the gay kid. The attack happens because someone is perceived as different, and thereby becomes a target. They're all crimes based on hate. Perhaps we've reverted back to the days when citizens gathered to watch Christians being fed to the lions, betting on the outcome, and feeling superior, and self righteous.
The media from both sides of the aisle plays this game everyday in the public square. Concerning Mr. Breitbart's death Rolling Stone ran an article entitled, 'Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche'. We should all be shocked, but further investigation proves that during his career this same Mr. Breitbart made a great many public comments that were just as shocking, and vile about those he opposed. Fans of Mr. Breitbart have emailed Rolling Stone with complaints, and even threats. Those who opposed Mr. Breitbart's work when he was alive have filled the airwaves and the internet with nasty comments about the man's life and his death. It makes me think of the Queen's famous line in Alice In Wonderland. "Off with their heads".
The only way this kind of behavior can be stopped will be when and if the public rises above the need to belittle those we disagree with and says 'ENOUGH'. Boycotting advertisers, changing channels, and unsubscribing are some of the tools that can be used to bring a wayward media back into line, but that won't happen until the public has had enough, and right now the public seems to be not only eating it up, but are also eager participants. It's kind of like when the kids are supposed to be in bed and asleep and you hear them laughing and giggling, and jumping on the bed. You call out to them to get to bed, and it gets quiet for a while. Pretty soon the noise begins again. Depending on your patience, coupled with your energy level you'll eventually be forced to actually get up and go into the kid's room to make them understand that when you say get to bed you really mean it. Hopefully the day is near at hand when we, (the real silent majority), who find this vicious, nasty talk unacceptable, and offensive no matter who it's coming from will get out of our comfortable easy chairs and tell the world to knock it off, and let them know we really mean it. Until that day comes it's okay to remind people, (whenever we get the chance), in a very polite, no-nonsense way that profanity, name calling, and general hate messages are not appropriate under any circumstances.
I watched Sean Hannity last night on the Fox News Network. The focus of the show covered liberal media versus conservative media. Sean wanted to know why it is okay for liberal television hosts to use vile words when describing people, and it's not okay for conservative hosts to do the same. My reaction to Sean's question comes with another question. Why is it okay for anyone to publicly say vile and disgusting things about anyone? I realize that the censorship levels of network television are decidedly more lax than are the rules of what's allowed on so-called public airways. I also understand that these rules are determined by what the public says is acceptable. I guess my real question then is; 'Why do we citizens think it's okay for anyone to publicly use profanity, vile name-calling, and outrageous insults?'
The issue came up on the Hannity show because of two events that occurred this week. On Rush Limbaugh's radio program he called a woman who appeared before congress over the current contraception issue a slut. The other thing that happened was conservative media publisher Andrew Breitbart died, and a lot of public figures made nasty comments about him. More to the point regular everyday folks left rude and incendiary comments on places like Twitter and Facebook concerning both subjects. Contrary to popular opinion hate speech is acceptable in our society by just about everyone.
We all say, "oh how sad", when a teen commits suicide because a bunch of school bullies made the kid's life unbearable at school, and on-line. We blame the parents, the school, and the on-line social sites. Why don't we look in the mirror, and accept a good deal of the blame for our own involvement? If you think I'm wrong go on-line, find articles covering the election and the candidates, and read some of the comments left behind by visitors. They range from argumentative to horrifically vile. Our world has changed. We no longer have debates about issues. Today it's quite fashionable to attack the person who voices opposition to what we believe, rather than arguing the issue. The enemy becomes anyone who disagrees, or has a differing point of view.
If it can be proved in court that a person physically attacked someone else because of a skin color, or sexual preference prejudice, that person can be charged not only with assault, but with committing a hate crime as well. There is no difference between students tormenting the fat kid, the shy kid, the homely kid, the black kid, or the gay kid. The attack happens because someone is perceived as different, and thereby becomes a target. They're all crimes based on hate. Perhaps we've reverted back to the days when citizens gathered to watch Christians being fed to the lions, betting on the outcome, and feeling superior, and self righteous.
The media from both sides of the aisle plays this game everyday in the public square. Concerning Mr. Breitbart's death Rolling Stone ran an article entitled, 'Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche'. We should all be shocked, but further investigation proves that during his career this same Mr. Breitbart made a great many public comments that were just as shocking, and vile about those he opposed. Fans of Mr. Breitbart have emailed Rolling Stone with complaints, and even threats. Those who opposed Mr. Breitbart's work when he was alive have filled the airwaves and the internet with nasty comments about the man's life and his death. It makes me think of the Queen's famous line in Alice In Wonderland. "Off with their heads".
The only way this kind of behavior can be stopped will be when and if the public rises above the need to belittle those we disagree with and says 'ENOUGH'. Boycotting advertisers, changing channels, and unsubscribing are some of the tools that can be used to bring a wayward media back into line, but that won't happen until the public has had enough, and right now the public seems to be not only eating it up, but are also eager participants. It's kind of like when the kids are supposed to be in bed and asleep and you hear them laughing and giggling, and jumping on the bed. You call out to them to get to bed, and it gets quiet for a while. Pretty soon the noise begins again. Depending on your patience, coupled with your energy level you'll eventually be forced to actually get up and go into the kid's room to make them understand that when you say get to bed you really mean it. Hopefully the day is near at hand when we, (the real silent majority), who find this vicious, nasty talk unacceptable, and offensive no matter who it's coming from will get out of our comfortable easy chairs and tell the world to knock it off, and let them know we really mean it. Until that day comes it's okay to remind people, (whenever we get the chance), in a very polite, no-nonsense way that profanity, name calling, and general hate messages are not appropriate under any circumstances.
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
The Moral Decay Of Rick Santorum
Today is February 28, 2012, the day that Michigan and Arizona Republicans go to their polling places to cast their ballots for their choice of the Republican presidential nominee. The Michigan primary is an open primary where anyone Republican, Democrat, or Independent can vote. If this contest was like the one in 2008 Democrats would be voting for the Democrat nominee, and Republicans would be voting for the Republican nominee, and citizens unaffiliated with either party could cast their vote for whichever candidate they wished. In this 2012 election the Democrats have an incumbent president who is running for reelection. He has no opposition, and so the Democrats have the opportunity to play games at the Republican primaries and help their candidate win in the general election by voting for the Republican candidate they think would be the least likely to defeat their man. It's unethical, dishonest, and slimy, but some think winning the election is worth any cost.
An interesting situation arose yesterday when it was discovered that a Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, who has portrayed himself as the social conservative in this election, and has campaigned against moral decay, and promoted christian values was making robo-calls to Michigan Democrats telling them to vote for him. This action may profit him to some degree with a few votes, but I wonder if in the long run such underhanded chicanery won't cause him more harm. Mark 8:36- For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
I think what bothers me most about this whole thing is that this man who supposedly represents the moral, and ethical values of very conservative christian Republicans is sending the message that conservative Christians are willing to do, or say anything to win, even if it involves throwing integrity out the window. It reminds me of the scandal that broke years ago when a bunch of evangelical preachers came under national scrutiny because of extramarital affairs, and immoral behavior. The Santorum request of the Michigan Democrats, in my opinion, is a request that asks these people to participate in something that is dishonest and unethical. They may choose to do so, and are responsible for their decisions, but by asking them to do an under-handed thing Santorum is in effect trying to lead them astray. Isaiah 9:16- For the leaders of this people cause them to err, And those who are led by them are destroyed.
Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a Romney supporter, but at one point I actually considered Santorum as my second choice. At first I thought he was who he portrayed himself to be. Over time and a good deal of research I have changed my mind about his qualifications as the man to lead this country. This latest action on his part only cemented my resolution that he is not qualified, and now I am convinced he has the morals of an alley cat. He may not be one who sleeps around, but since all sin is equal in the eyes of God someone who plays fast and loose with honesty and integrity is just as wicked as an adulterer. I don't expect perfection in a candidate. We all fall short of the glory. Candidates make mistakes all the time when it comes to stating what they believe to be facts. Those are honest mistakes, but Santorum is purposely trying to mislead people, and that is not an accident, a slip of the tongue, or even an embellishment of truth. It's an outright dishonest act, and worst of all it's a lie that tries to get others involved in the telling.
An interesting situation arose yesterday when it was discovered that a Republican candidate, Rick Santorum, who has portrayed himself as the social conservative in this election, and has campaigned against moral decay, and promoted christian values was making robo-calls to Michigan Democrats telling them to vote for him. This action may profit him to some degree with a few votes, but I wonder if in the long run such underhanded chicanery won't cause him more harm. Mark 8:36- For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?
I think what bothers me most about this whole thing is that this man who supposedly represents the moral, and ethical values of very conservative christian Republicans is sending the message that conservative Christians are willing to do, or say anything to win, even if it involves throwing integrity out the window. It reminds me of the scandal that broke years ago when a bunch of evangelical preachers came under national scrutiny because of extramarital affairs, and immoral behavior. The Santorum request of the Michigan Democrats, in my opinion, is a request that asks these people to participate in something that is dishonest and unethical. They may choose to do so, and are responsible for their decisions, but by asking them to do an under-handed thing Santorum is in effect trying to lead them astray. Isaiah 9:16- For the leaders of this people cause them to err, And those who are led by them are destroyed.
Anyone who knows me is aware that I am a Romney supporter, but at one point I actually considered Santorum as my second choice. At first I thought he was who he portrayed himself to be. Over time and a good deal of research I have changed my mind about his qualifications as the man to lead this country. This latest action on his part only cemented my resolution that he is not qualified, and now I am convinced he has the morals of an alley cat. He may not be one who sleeps around, but since all sin is equal in the eyes of God someone who plays fast and loose with honesty and integrity is just as wicked as an adulterer. I don't expect perfection in a candidate. We all fall short of the glory. Candidates make mistakes all the time when it comes to stating what they believe to be facts. Those are honest mistakes, but Santorum is purposely trying to mislead people, and that is not an accident, a slip of the tongue, or even an embellishment of truth. It's an outright dishonest act, and worst of all it's a lie that tries to get others involved in the telling.
Thursday, February 23, 2012
It's Still About The Economy
A certain segment of the Republican party wants to make the 2012 election about social issues. The Obama administration would be very happy if the election was focused on social issues rather than on his presidential record when it comes to the economy. Polls show that the major problems facing this country, (as viewed by the American people), is about the economy. Social issues such as abortion, same sex marriage, and the environment are not considered to be pressing issues by most Americans. I did some on-line research, and here's what's going on in the country both economically and socially based on Gallup polls ranging from 1 to 10 year studies:
•Only 13% of Americans are satisfied with the nation's economy.
•Unemployment has decreased from 10.3% in Feb 2011 to 9% in Feb 2012.
•In the spring of 2011 60 to 69% of Americans favor off-shore drilling with 77% saying gas prices are extremely important.
•The majority (56%) still favor nuclear power plants and think U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
•Raising the debt ceiling is still viewed as unfavorable by 42%
•Over 40% of Americans believe that the health spending bill (Obamacare) will make things worse.
• 50% of Americans think abortion should be legal only under some circumstances
• 64% think Gay rights should be legal
• 60% find same sex marriage morally acceptable
• 41% favor developing fossil fuel over saving the environment
• 48% think the environment is getting worse down 20% from 2008
• 43% believe that global warming statistics are exaggerated
ECONOMY
January 23, 2012
Americans' satisfaction with the state of the nation's economy has dropped by 23 percentage points since January 2008 to 13%, according to a Jan. 5-8, 2012 Gallup poll.
These figures represent both the lowest rate of satisfaction and the biggest decline seen for any of 24 issues measured in the survey.
Attitudes toward the moral and ethical climate and the size and power of the federal government are similar to each other. Slightly fewer than 3 in 10 Americans are satisfied with each, down from about 4 in 10 in
2008, the last presidential election year and the last time Gallup measured satisfaction on all 24 items.
Americans' satisfaction with the size and power of government has declined fairly steadily since January 2002, just months after 9/11 and at a time when Americans were positive about most things relating to the government. Confidence in the economy has dropped sharply since 2008 after fluctuating between 2002 and 2007. Confidence in the moral and ethical climate was flat through January 2008, before falling to the new low.
At least half of Americans are also satisfied with the influence of organized religion, the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, the state of race relations, the quality of the environment, the nation's gun laws, and the nation's policies to reduce or control crime.
Satisfaction has been stable on all of these except satisfaction with the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, which has fallen 15 points since 2008, paralleling the sharp decline in satisfaction with the economy.
Unemployment
March 3, 2011
Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.3% in February -- up from 9.8% at the end of January. The U.S. unemployment rate is now essentially the same as the 10.4% at the end of February 2010.
February 2012
Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January.
This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup's Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012.
Energy
Off Shore Drilling
•Americans are deeply concerned about rising prices. April 2011 polling by AP-GfK/Roper shows that 77 percent say gas prices are extremely/very important to them, ranking fifth out of 14 other issues. Sixty-four percent told CNN/ORC pollsters in March that gas price increases had caused financial hardship for their household.
•After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010, attitudes towards offshore drilling soured. A plurality of 48% told AP-GfK pollsters in August 2010 that they favored "increasing drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas around the United States". 36% were opposed.
60% in a March 2011 Gallup poll favored increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas; 37% were opposed.
In an April 2011 CNN/ORC poll, 45% strongly favored increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in U.S. waters, up from 26% who gave that response in 2010. Overall, 69% in the new CNN poll favored increased offshore drilling and 31% were opposed.
Nuclear Power
•Attitudes towards nuclear power have grown more negative in the wake of the problems at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan.
While March 2011 Gallup polling shows more in favor (56 percent) than opposed (38 percent) to the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, polling from CBS and CNN/ORC shows more opposition that support to building more nuclear power plants. Americans appear to believe that U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
Debt Ceiling
July 12, 2011
Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure. This 20-percentage-point edge in opposition to raising the debt ceiling in Gallup's July 7-10, 2011 poll is slightly less than the 28-point lead (47% vs. 19%) seen in May.
Obamacare
March 24, 2011
• Two thirds of Americans believe the Democrats health spending bill would make things worse (37%) or make no difference (29%) for themselves and their families.
• A majority of Americans believe the bill will make things worse (44%) or maintain the status quo (13%) for the United States, while only 39% see any benefit for the country.
• Only a third (33%) see a benefit for middle-income families, while most believe those families’ situation will get worse (44%) or see no benefit (17%).
• Most Americans see no benefit for doctors and hospitals while a plurality believe the bill will make things worse for both.
• Despite all the tough talk about tacking insurance companies, only 51% believe the bill will make things worse for insurance companies.
• Most Americans believe the bill will help (34%) or maintain current status (18%) for pharmaceutical companies.
SOCIAL ISSUES
Abortion
2001 May 10-14- Legal under any circumstances- 26%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 58%, Illegal in all circumstances- 15%, No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Legal under any circumstances- 27%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 50%, Illegal in all circumstances- 22%, No opinion- 2%
According to these polls whether abortion should be legal or not hasn't changed much over a ten year period. The majority of people still agree that it should be legal in some circumstances down 8%.
Gay Rights
2001 May 10-14- Should be legal- 54%, Should not be legal- 42%, No opinion- 4%
2011 May 5-8- Should be legal- 64%, Should not be legal- 32%, No opinion- 4%
Same Sex Marriage
2001 May 10-14- Morally acceptable- 53%, Morally wrong- 42%, Depends on situation- 3%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- 1%, (vol.) No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Morally acceptable- 60%, Morally wrong- 36%, Depends on situation- 1%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- *, (vol.) No opinion- 3%
The Environment
•For only the second time since the question was asked in 1984, more respondents (41%) told Gallup that they would prioritize economic growth over the environment "even if the environment suffers to some extent."
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 48% said the quality of the environment nationally is getting worse. In 2008, 68% gave that response.
Global Warming
•When the Pew Research Center updated its yearly poll in January 2011, 26% said global warming should be a top priority. Only "dealing with obesity in this country" ranked lower out of the twenty-two issues Pew asked about.
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 43% said that what was said about global warming in the news was generally exaggerated. This is down slightly from 2010 (48%), but up considerably since the question was first asked in November 1997 (31%).
•Only 13% of Americans are satisfied with the nation's economy.
•Unemployment has decreased from 10.3% in Feb 2011 to 9% in Feb 2012.
•In the spring of 2011 60 to 69% of Americans favor off-shore drilling with 77% saying gas prices are extremely important.
•The majority (56%) still favor nuclear power plants and think U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
•Raising the debt ceiling is still viewed as unfavorable by 42%
•Over 40% of Americans believe that the health spending bill (Obamacare) will make things worse.
• 50% of Americans think abortion should be legal only under some circumstances
• 64% think Gay rights should be legal
• 60% find same sex marriage morally acceptable
• 41% favor developing fossil fuel over saving the environment
• 48% think the environment is getting worse down 20% from 2008
• 43% believe that global warming statistics are exaggerated
ECONOMY
January 23, 2012
Americans' satisfaction with the state of the nation's economy has dropped by 23 percentage points since January 2008 to 13%, according to a Jan. 5-8, 2012 Gallup poll.
These figures represent both the lowest rate of satisfaction and the biggest decline seen for any of 24 issues measured in the survey.
Attitudes toward the moral and ethical climate and the size and power of the federal government are similar to each other. Slightly fewer than 3 in 10 Americans are satisfied with each, down from about 4 in 10 in
2008, the last presidential election year and the last time Gallup measured satisfaction on all 24 items.
Americans' satisfaction with the size and power of government has declined fairly steadily since January 2002, just months after 9/11 and at a time when Americans were positive about most things relating to the government. Confidence in the economy has dropped sharply since 2008 after fluctuating between 2002 and 2007. Confidence in the moral and ethical climate was flat through January 2008, before falling to the new low.
At least half of Americans are also satisfied with the influence of organized religion, the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, the state of race relations, the quality of the environment, the nation's gun laws, and the nation's policies to reduce or control crime.
Satisfaction has been stable on all of these except satisfaction with the opportunity to get ahead through hard work, which has fallen 15 points since 2008, paralleling the sharp decline in satisfaction with the economy.
Unemployment
March 3, 2011
Unemployment, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, hit 10.3% in February -- up from 9.8% at the end of January. The U.S. unemployment rate is now essentially the same as the 10.4% at the end of February 2010.
February 2012
Regardless of what the government reports, Gallup's unemployment and underemployment measures show a sharp deterioration in job market conditions since mid-January. The U.S. unemployment rate, as measured by Gallup without seasonal adjustment, is 9.0% in mid-February, up from 8.6% for January.
This is consistent with a similar decline in Gallup's Job Creation Index to +13 in the second week of February, from +16 for January. It is also consistent with an economy that continues to struggle with modest growth, particularly as gas prices surge. Further, it suggests that it is premature to assume the condition of the economy will not remain a major issue for Americans both financially and politically in 2012.
Energy
Off Shore Drilling
•Americans are deeply concerned about rising prices. April 2011 polling by AP-GfK/Roper shows that 77 percent say gas prices are extremely/very important to them, ranking fifth out of 14 other issues. Sixty-four percent told CNN/ORC pollsters in March that gas price increases had caused financial hardship for their household.
•After the Deepwater Horizon rig exploded on April 20, 2010, attitudes towards offshore drilling soured. A plurality of 48% told AP-GfK pollsters in August 2010 that they favored "increasing drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas around the United States". 36% were opposed.
60% in a March 2011 Gallup poll favored increasing offshore drilling for oil and gas in coastal areas; 37% were opposed.
In an April 2011 CNN/ORC poll, 45% strongly favored increased drilling for oil and natural gas offshore in U.S. waters, up from 26% who gave that response in 2010. Overall, 69% in the new CNN poll favored increased offshore drilling and 31% were opposed.
Nuclear Power
•Attitudes towards nuclear power have grown more negative in the wake of the problems at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant in Japan.
While March 2011 Gallup polling shows more in favor (56 percent) than opposed (38 percent) to the use of nuclear energy to generate electricity, polling from CBS and CNN/ORC shows more opposition that support to building more nuclear power plants. Americans appear to believe that U.S. nuclear power plants are safe.
Debt Ceiling
July 12, 2011
Despite agreement among leaders of both sides of the political aisle in Washington that raising the U.S. debt ceiling is necessary, more Americans want their member of Congress to vote against such a bill than for it, 42% vs. 22%, while one-third are unsure. This 20-percentage-point edge in opposition to raising the debt ceiling in Gallup's July 7-10, 2011 poll is slightly less than the 28-point lead (47% vs. 19%) seen in May.
Obamacare
March 24, 2011
• Two thirds of Americans believe the Democrats health spending bill would make things worse (37%) or make no difference (29%) for themselves and their families.
• A majority of Americans believe the bill will make things worse (44%) or maintain the status quo (13%) for the United States, while only 39% see any benefit for the country.
• Only a third (33%) see a benefit for middle-income families, while most believe those families’ situation will get worse (44%) or see no benefit (17%).
• Most Americans see no benefit for doctors and hospitals while a plurality believe the bill will make things worse for both.
• Despite all the tough talk about tacking insurance companies, only 51% believe the bill will make things worse for insurance companies.
• Most Americans believe the bill will help (34%) or maintain current status (18%) for pharmaceutical companies.
SOCIAL ISSUES
Abortion
2001 May 10-14- Legal under any circumstances- 26%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 58%, Illegal in all circumstances- 15%, No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Legal under any circumstances- 27%, Legal only under certain circumstances- 50%, Illegal in all circumstances- 22%, No opinion- 2%
According to these polls whether abortion should be legal or not hasn't changed much over a ten year period. The majority of people still agree that it should be legal in some circumstances down 8%.
Gay Rights
2001 May 10-14- Should be legal- 54%, Should not be legal- 42%, No opinion- 4%
2011 May 5-8- Should be legal- 64%, Should not be legal- 32%, No opinion- 4%
Same Sex Marriage
2001 May 10-14- Morally acceptable- 53%, Morally wrong- 42%, Depends on situation- 3%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- 1%, (vol.) No opinion- 1%
2011 May 5-8- Morally acceptable- 60%, Morally wrong- 36%, Depends on situation- 1%, (vol.) Not a moral issue- *, (vol.) No opinion- 3%
The Environment
•For only the second time since the question was asked in 1984, more respondents (41%) told Gallup that they would prioritize economic growth over the environment "even if the environment suffers to some extent."
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 48% said the quality of the environment nationally is getting worse. In 2008, 68% gave that response.
Global Warming
•When the Pew Research Center updated its yearly poll in January 2011, 26% said global warming should be a top priority. Only "dealing with obesity in this country" ranked lower out of the twenty-two issues Pew asked about.
•In a March 2011 Gallup poll, 43% said that what was said about global warming in the news was generally exaggerated. This is down slightly from 2010 (48%), but up considerably since the question was first asked in November 1997 (31%).
Santorum & Democrats Together Again
I decided to do a little research about the Olympics since Rick Santorum and some Democrats have decided to make the Winter Olympics of 2002 an issue in this 2012 presidential election. The subject became an opportunity for these propagaters of speculation during the 10th anniversary celebration of the 2002 Olympics being celebrated in Utah this week. What I have gleaned from my research on this subject is that none of the individuals making negative comments about the problems, or the solutions involved have ever had any hands-on experience dealing with anything with the magnitude of issues Mr. Romney faced when he agreed to take on the Olympics in 2002. It appears to me that these individuals are hoping that their accusations will foster animosity and doubt towards Governor Romney, and discredit his accomplishments. Since these accusatory arm-chair quarter-backs have absolutely no credibility I am discounting their accusations to pangs of jealousy, and irrelevant political innuendo which does nothing but feed the press who is more than willing to report anything that further diminishes the solemn act of selecting the next President of the United States of America.
The Olympics In the 20th and 21st centuries
The host city for an Olympic Games is usually chosen seven years ahead of their celebration. The process of selection is carried out in two phases that span a two-year period. The prospective host city applies to its country's Olympic Committee; if more than one city from the same country submits a proposal to its NOC, the national committee typically holds an internal selection, since only one city per NOC can be presented to the International Olympic Committee for consideration.
The United States has hosted four Summer and four Winter Olympics, more than any other nation.
Summer Olympics
1904 - St. Louis, Missouri United States
1932 - Los Angeles, California United States
1984 - Los Angeles, California United States
1996 - Atlanta, Georgia United States
Winter Olympics
1932 - Lake Placid, N.Y., United States
1960 - Squaw Valley, California, United States
1980 - Lake Placid, New York, United States
2002 - Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics
In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse. The event had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. The bribery scandal did present an image problem for the games. Then Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was determined to find the right person to lead the games out of doubt and into success. Thanks to his reputation as a superb manager, Mitt Romney was asked by the Governor to take over.
Romney got to work wooing corporate sponsors and repairing the image of the games. He hired his former Bain Capital partner Fraser Bullock to be his Chief Operations and financial Officer. After accepting the job, Fraser Bullock worked alongside Romney every day for the next three years. He remembers Mitt's frugal sensibility.
President Bill Clinton established a White House task force to coordinate federal involvement in the 1996 Atlanta, Georgia summer olympics which would have been selected as the host city in 1989 during George H.W. Bush's presidency, and the 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah winter olympics, which would have been selected as the host city in 1995 during Clinton's presidency.
In 1999 Mitt Romney wasn't a congressman, or a governor. He was a citizen with a great deal of business experience. He didn't have the ability to budget money for the Olympics in Congress. He didn't hold any office, and most assuredly didn't have the vote, but Rick Santorum was in Congress at that time. He could have stepped forward and started a campaign to stop federal funding of the Olympics, but he didn't. He and his crony democrat supporters should all be answering the questions where were they and what were they doing when the federal government chose to spend money to insure security, and preparations for the games. Santorum was also in office when money was allocated to pay for planning and security for the Atlanta games held in 1996.
The 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah Winter Olympic games were the first since September 11, 2001, which meant a higher level of security than ever before was provided for the Games.
The Office of Homeland Security (OHS) designated the Olympics a National Special Security Event (NSSE).
Aerial surveillance and radar control was provided by the Marines of Marine Air Control Squadron 2 det C, from Cherry Point NC.
When he spoke during the opening ceremonies, Jacques Rogge, presiding over his first olympics as IOC president, told the athletes of the United States, the host country:
"Your nation is overcoming a horrific tragedy, a tragedy that has affected the whole world. We stand united with you in the promotion of our common ideals, and hope for world peace."
Questions About Taxpayer Money Spent On Olympics
OLYMPIC GAMES
United States General Accounting Office GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
Preliminary Information on Federal Funding and Support to John McCain:
December 21, 1999
The majority of the federal funding and support agencies reported providing to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games held in Atlanta and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games is reported to be for infrastructure projects to prepare the host city for the Olympic Games—projects that will also benefit the host city and state after the Games are held. However, although the completion of these projects was generally accelerated because of the Olympic Games, most of the funding for these activities probably would have eventually been provided to the host city regardless of the Games, according to federal and state officials.
For example, federal funding and support for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta totaled about $605 million and involved 24 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $184 million was spent on activities provided during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $92 million for safety- and security-related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games had not been hosted there. About $421 million was spent for highway, transit, public housing, and other capital projects related to preparing Atlanta for the Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $421 million would eventually have been provided to Georgia, regardless of the Olympic Games.
About $1.4 billion in federal funding and support is planned or has been provided for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City and involves 18 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $272 million is planned or has been provided for activities during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $200 million for safety- and security related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games were not being hosted there. About $1.1 billion is planned or has
been provided for highway, transit, and other capital improvement projects that appear to be related to preparing the host city for the Olympic Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $1.1 billion would have been eventually provided to Utah, regardless of the Olympic Games.
Again I don't see Rick Santorum being involved in questioning the use of taxpayer money being spent on Olympics being held in the U.S.
The Olympics In the 20th and 21st centuries
The host city for an Olympic Games is usually chosen seven years ahead of their celebration. The process of selection is carried out in two phases that span a two-year period. The prospective host city applies to its country's Olympic Committee; if more than one city from the same country submits a proposal to its NOC, the national committee typically holds an internal selection, since only one city per NOC can be presented to the International Olympic Committee for consideration.
The United States has hosted four Summer and four Winter Olympics, more than any other nation.
Summer Olympics
1904 - St. Louis, Missouri United States
1932 - Los Angeles, California United States
1984 - Los Angeles, California United States
1996 - Atlanta, Georgia United States
Winter Olympics
1932 - Lake Placid, N.Y., United States
1960 - Squaw Valley, California, United States
1980 - Lake Placid, New York, United States
2002 - Salt Lake City, Utah, United States
2002 Salt Lake City Winter Olympics
In 1999, the Salt Lake City Winter Olympics was on the verge of collapse. The event had been bogged down in a bid-rigging scandal, sponsors were fleeing, and the budget was bleeding red ink. The bribery scandal did present an image problem for the games. Then Utah Governor Mike Leavitt was determined to find the right person to lead the games out of doubt and into success. Thanks to his reputation as a superb manager, Mitt Romney was asked by the Governor to take over.
"So I needed someone who could turn it around A person who could stand on the international stage and be viable and respected. A person who could turn the Olympics process itself around from just a dollar and cents point and then a person who raise and reignite the Olympic spirit again in Utah. And I think we got the right guy," said Leavitt."I'm immediately going to work with my staff as well to evaluate carefully the budgets that we have and make sure that we consider alternative budget levels, so that regardless of the revenue level we have, we spend within the amount of money that we take in. No shortfall, no shortfall is acceptable," said Romney in his acceptance speech to the Salt Lake Olympic Organizing Committee.
Romney got to work wooing corporate sponsors and repairing the image of the games. He hired his former Bain Capital partner Fraser Bullock to be his Chief Operations and financial Officer. After accepting the job, Fraser Bullock worked alongside Romney every day for the next three years. He remembers Mitt's frugal sensibility.
"He turned what was a cost center into a profit center and that message permeated throughout our entire organization because we were poor. We didn't have any choice and we watched every penny," said Romney.Fraser Bullock maintains that Romney's strong personality and unyielding work ethic restored the image of the games.
"So he (Romney) hired his own team of several very capable marketing and sales people and he went around the country himself with those people to raise money himself. And so when I say he's relentless if it needs to get done, he hires good people, he does the best that he can - but occasionally he'll even step in and do it himself, because he will not fail," said Fraser Bullock.Tax Payer Money And The Olympics
President Bill Clinton established a White House task force to coordinate federal involvement in the 1996 Atlanta, Georgia summer olympics which would have been selected as the host city in 1989 during George H.W. Bush's presidency, and the 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah winter olympics, which would have been selected as the host city in 1995 during Clinton's presidency.
In 1999 Mitt Romney wasn't a congressman, or a governor. He was a citizen with a great deal of business experience. He didn't have the ability to budget money for the Olympics in Congress. He didn't hold any office, and most assuredly didn't have the vote, but Rick Santorum was in Congress at that time. He could have stepped forward and started a campaign to stop federal funding of the Olympics, but he didn't. He and his crony democrat supporters should all be answering the questions where were they and what were they doing when the federal government chose to spend money to insure security, and preparations for the games. Santorum was also in office when money was allocated to pay for planning and security for the Atlanta games held in 1996.
The 2002 Salt Lake City, Utah Winter Olympic games were the first since September 11, 2001, which meant a higher level of security than ever before was provided for the Games.
Aerial surveillance and radar control was provided by the Marines of Marine Air Control Squadron 2 det C, from Cherry Point NC.
When he spoke during the opening ceremonies, Jacques Rogge, presiding over his first olympics as IOC president, told the athletes of the United States, the host country:
"Your nation is overcoming a horrific tragedy, a tragedy that has affected the whole world. We stand united with you in the promotion of our common ideals, and hope for world peace."
Questions About Taxpayer Money Spent On Olympics
OLYMPIC GAMES
United States General Accounting Office GAO
Report to Congressional Requesters
Preliminary Information on Federal Funding and Support to John McCain:
December 21, 1999
The majority of the federal funding and support agencies reported providing to the 1996 Summer Olympic Games held in Atlanta and planned for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games is reported to be for infrastructure projects to prepare the host city for the Olympic Games—projects that will also benefit the host city and state after the Games are held. However, although the completion of these projects was generally accelerated because of the Olympic Games, most of the funding for these activities probably would have eventually been provided to the host city regardless of the Games, according to federal and state officials.
For example, federal funding and support for the 1996 Summer Olympic Games in Atlanta totaled about $605 million and involved 24 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $184 million was spent on activities provided during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $92 million for safety- and security-related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games had not been hosted there. About $421 million was spent for highway, transit, public housing, and other capital projects related to preparing Atlanta for the Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $421 million would eventually have been provided to Georgia, regardless of the Olympic Games.
About $1.4 billion in federal funding and support is planned or has been provided for the 2002 Winter Olympic Games in Salt Lake City and involves 18 federal organizations. Of this amount, about $272 million is planned or has been provided for activities during the planning and staging of the Olympic Games, including about $200 million for safety- and security related services, which would not have been used for this purpose if the Games were not being hosted there. About $1.1 billion is planned or has
been provided for highway, transit, and other capital improvement projects that appear to be related to preparing the host city for the Olympic Games. According to federal and state officials, most of the $1.1 billion would have been eventually provided to Utah, regardless of the Olympic Games.
Again I don't see Rick Santorum being involved in questioning the use of taxpayer money being spent on Olympics being held in the U.S.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)