Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Olympics Spotlights Mitt Romney's Turnaround Skill
Newsmax ^ | Feb 1, 2012 | Ronald Kessler

Posted on 06/01/2012 10:13:24 PM PDT by Innovative

Mitt Romney often is described as a turnaround artist. No better example of that is how he turned a failure into a success with the 2002 Winter Olympics.

Romney "can see into a situation very quickly," Bullock says. "He's very facile with numbers. He's got that raw intellect which lays a great foundation. And then he's combined that with a very significant layering upon layer of education and business experience that has given him now the base from which he can make pretty sound judgments pretty quickly."

"Mitt is a cheapskate," says Bullock, who is now managing director of Sorenson Capital, a leveraged buyout firm. "He does not tolerate one iota of waste."

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: 2002olympics; elections; olympics; romney; romneyrecord
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-171 next last
To: RightFighter; Diogenesis; BlackElk; EternalVigilance; ansel12; LibLieSlayer
"My recollection of Romney's record as Massachusetts governor is much different than yours"

You're right. It is. But you can spare me the Willardbot talking points. I've heard everything, and you can refer to my thousands of posts from the period 2005/06 up to the present day on the subject to set you straight.

81 posted on 06/02/2012 4:34:24 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj

No, I won’t pardon you for ensuring the total destruction of America by your stealth support for 0bama.

I completely understand how frustrating it is for us Conservatives to be forced to choose the lesser of two evils.

Think about the SCOTUS. 0bama appointees are what will destroy our country.

82 posted on 06/02/2012 4:40:03 AM PDT by panaxanax (Voting 'Third Party' will ensure a Communist-Marxist-Socialist dominated Supreme Court!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: trebb; Diogenesis

Diogenesis knows Willard is a liar, a cheat, a Socialist and a fraud and has the links to back it up. Therefore, Dio is a lot more trustworthy and knowledgeable on the subject of Willard than his peanut gallery of mindless groupies.

BTW, trebb, your hypocrisy is showing lecturing others on “schoolyard cutdowns” when you punctuate it with a particularly vicious and unsubstantiated attack on Diogenesis.

83 posted on 06/02/2012 4:46:10 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: panaxanax

The argument for SCOTUS would be valid... HOWEVER, there is an enormous problem with that. Willard cannot be trusted on judges, period. He lined the benches of the commonwealth with ultraleft Democrat hacks (very few were Republicans, and those that were likely anything but Conservative). I suggest you look up the case of Brian & Beverly Mauck. We’ve discussed it ad infinitum on Free Republic.

84 posted on 06/02/2012 4:49:05 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Regarding serving in lower political office as a minimal prerequisite, I don't think that is what our founders had in mind. In fact, they seemed to advocate "public service" as being only a brief detour in an otherwise private career. That is to say, serve a term or two in office and then move on back to private life.

I think it is a mistake that we have allowed the notion to prevail that only those with law degrees or "C" level executive experience need apply and then that you should make your politics your entire career, in which case, your upward progression is dependent upon how many favors you can give and how many palms you can grease on the way up.

The establishment have created these rules to keep regular people out of the process and as a result, we have political cronyism in place - an entire class of people who have no issue imposing socialism on the rest of us because they know that they will be part of the protected class that gets to make all the rules for everybody else.

Perfect case in point is this Obama socialized medicine. It's good enough for us rabble but note that government workers have their own health care system which is far superior to what anybody has in the private sector. In fact, you would see Obama-Care repealed on Monday morning if it were to be imposed upon congressmen today.

As for Palin, I would have voted for her. I spent all last summer boosting her candidacy and I was 95% sure (at this time last year) that she was running. I think had she run, none of us would be talking about Mitt Romney today as I think Palin would have won this going away. However, I think the liberal media would have launched a smear campaign against her the likes we have never seen. The liberals are not as threatened by Romney (but they may be in for a surprise). At any rate, I think a Palin vs Obama race in November would have united the conservatives and we would prevail - though it would have been much uglier.

Lastly, totally agree on the flawed process. In a nutshell, this is the remedy I have been proposing:

Hold THREE national primary elections (actually three sets of 50-state primary elections).

The first set of state primaries to be held in February. Only those with 15% of the state vote move on. (This should weed out the fringe candidates and the pretenders.) No delegates to be awarded in this first run-off.

Hold a second set of primaries around the April timeframe. In these primaries, 50% of the available delegates are awarded on a proportional basis. In this manner, we should narrow the field to 2-3 finalists as those with lesser delegates will run out of money and drop out.

The third and final set of primaries to be held in June. The remaining 50% of delegates to be awarded in each state on a proportional basis.

The candidates will then take those delegates to their respective conventions in which a nominee will be chosen to represent their party in the November elections.

Let me mention one more thing. These primaries must be CLOSED to party members only. So if you are a registered Republican, you have no business voting in a Democrat primary - and vice versa. If you are registered Independent, sorry, you don't get to vote in a primary. Unless you want to register as a Republican or a Democrat, or a third party (such as the Libertarians), you have no business selecting a party nominee. (You may vote as you choose in the general however.)

In this manner, all citizens who belong to a political party will have an equal say in who their party's nominee will be.

I'm open to ideas of a better way but that's my best effort so far.

85 posted on 06/02/2012 5:01:56 AM PDT by SamAdams76
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
BTW, trebb, your hypocrisy is showing lecturing others on “schoolyard cutdowns” when you punctuate it with a particularly vicious and unsubstantiated attack on Diogenesis.

I have had several "debates" with him and, like you, he has a serious case of Romney derangement to the point where another term for Obama is preferable if it means Romney loses. Your argument for my "hypocrisy" is akin to the race-baiters using the charge of racism against those willing to see/state the truth because they can't/won't see or acknowledge the truth. I liked Bachmann/Cain/Perry/Gingrich, but none of them is still in the game, except they are able to make the distinction and prefer Romney to Obama. Rush, Levine, and a host of other good minds also make the distinction, so I am comfortable with wanting to stop Obama even if it means Romney is the one who wins.

86 posted on 06/02/2012 5:03:09 AM PDT by trebb ("If a man will not work, he should not eat" From 2 Thes 3)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
87 posted on 06/02/2012 5:13:43 AM PDT by A.Hun (Common sense is no longer common.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


>>Newt’s toast. Stay home or move the ball in the right direction. It may not be a TD but its a turnover.<<


88 posted on 06/02/2012 5:14:42 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; trebb

I wish it was ABR but it isn’t. It’s MR or this dude...

1. Do you know anyone who has the understanding and gained their understanding of Jesus Christ and defend it, and they got that understanding from someone like Jeremiah Wright? Do you know anyone who is a good Christian that believes there is no salvation unless there’s collective salvation?

2. Do you know somebody who is raised and/or mentored by communists?

3. Do you have friends or acquaintances that are Marxists, Communists, or have been actively engaged in the overthrow of the United States government?

4. Have you ever been at a party celebrating someone who has been accused of domestic terrorism?

5. Do you know anyone or have you ever been to a party and gave a toast to someone who is accused of being a Muslim terrorist?

6. Do you or any of your friends have the belief that terrorism doesn’t really exist? And that by definition jihad is only a holy struggle?

7. How many of you or how many of your friends have hired members of the Muslim Brotherhood to provide security for your business or their business? Or would hire members of the Muslim Brotherhood to go through and put together your security for your town?

8. Do you have any friends that believe the Muslim Brotherhood is largely secular and good?

9. Do you know anybody that thinks NASA’s foremost goal should be Muslim outreach, so you can help them and NASA can help them feel good?

10. Do you know anybody who believes that Occupy Wall Street features the best people in our country right now?

11. Is it even conceivable that anyone you know or associate with would think that killing Osama Bin Laden was a tough decision? With that, you have a single friend who in that case would make sure that we have a “blame someone else” memo ready just in case it went wrong?

12. Do you have anybody in your circle of friends or your circle of influence that believes America and Israel is the biggest obstacle to peace and stability in the world. Do you know anyone who believes the United States constitution needs to be a photo negative to be right with the world today?

13. Would you or anyone you know take a gift given to the United States after 9/11, a bust of Winston Churchill, and try to give it back to the prime minister on your first meeting? And when he says, “No, no, that’s a gift, you can keep it,” would you or anyone in your circle of influence then take that bust, box it up, ship it back yourself and say “We don’t need it anymore”?

14. Do you know anyone, a single person, who has a wife or a husband that has never been proud of the United States of America until something good happened in their life?

15. Do you know anybody who would actively defend allowing a baby to die without treatment in a hospital if an abortion failed? That the baby would be born outside, the doctors would have it, and they would be allowed to put it in a closet and just let it die?

16. Would someone in your life withhold needed money from poor countries or suggest that needed money from poor countries was withheld unless they change the Constitution to be pro-abortion?

17. Do you know anybody who believes the only way out of debt is to spend $5 trillion in three and a half years? Or believes Solyndra and other green businesses were a good bet, and that the people’s hard earned money is something you should gamble with and you think that it should continue?

18. How many people do you know personally that would give a shout out to someone to say, “Hey, I just want to say hi to Bob over there and thank Bob – It’s been a great day, Bob,” before you had to announce to the country that 13 soldiers were murdered by an Islamic extremist on our own soil?

19. Do you know anybody who claims to be a huge Israeli supporter? Do you know anybody who says, “I’m the biggest fan of Israel, they’re our biggest and strongest ally, and I’m a huge supporter. I’m the best thing that has happened.” And that when the prime minister of that country flew from the other side of the globe to have a scheduled dinner with you, you would humiliate him and blow off for dinner? Let him eat alone while you had a quiet dinner someplace else with friends? Do you know anybody who says, “I am the biggest supporter of Israel,” and then visited all of the Muslim countries around Israel but couldn’t find the time to go to Israel? And that as Israel’s biggest, most loyal supporter, believes they should go back to the indefensible ’67 borders? I understand it if you’re not a fan of Israel, but if you’re a fan of Israel, do you know a soul that is a true fan of Israel that says, “Yes, go back to the ’67 borders”?

20. Do you know any committed capitalist who believes in redistribution of wealth?

See what we are up against?

To: EternalVigilance
So, you hate both Obama and Romney, yet the anti-Romney posts far outweigh the anti-Obama posts. Like a chicken coop getting ready to vote for either a fox or a chihuahua, to run the place, and spending all its energy attacking the chihuahua...
37 posted on Saturday, May 19, 2012 10:44:35 AM by trebb (”If a man will not work, he should not eat” From 2 Thes 3)

89 posted on 06/02/2012 5:19:27 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
Mmmm, lets see now, who is more of a "threat" to the safety and security of the United States among these 2?

Barack-Obama-arrogance Mitt-Romney-2756

And of these 2, which is more dangerous to our survival?

th 174678_178612982172493_29733_n

I especially welcome comments from those who (claim) that Mittens is 10 times worst than Dear Leader and thus, we shold all stay home or vote for someone else come November.

How's about any of you who have been disparaging the Mormon Religion (and no, I'm Catholic and thus do not necessarily support what Mormons advocate) provide ANYTING printed or advanced by Mormons which is even close to what many Muslims and specifically, the Muslim Brotherhood (which Obama supports and defends) do?

The Muslim Brotherhood Creed: “Allah is our objective; the Prophet is our leader; the Quran is our law; Jihad is our way; dying in the way of Allah is our highest hope.”

The Muslim Brotherhood Agenda as outlined in 1991 in Phildelphia:

"The process of settlement [of Islam in the United States] is a "Civilization-Jihadist" process with all the word means.


Without this level of understanding, we are not up to this challenge and have not prepared ourselves for Jihad yet. It is a Muslim's destiny to perform Jihad and work wherever he is and wherever he lands until the final hour comes, and there is no escape from that destiny except for those who choose to slack.


Rashad Hussain

Kifa Mustapha


Momamed Elibiary


Huma Abedin


Daliah Mogahed


Mohamed Magid

All it takes for .....

capt.photo_1245188299465-1-0 obama-rip-constitution


..... to triumph is for good men to do nothing.......!" know, like staying home or writing in someone's name which is the same thing as affirmatively, voting for the closest most of us will ever come to WITNESSING PURE EVIL while still alive...Barack, Barry, Hussein, Soetoro, Obama.

"Oh yeah, we'll stand on 'PRINCIPLES' and show them what's what, then in 2016, we will really, REALLY, work to elect a true Conservative....."

Yeah, right, provided there is still a United States of America left as we used to know it.

THEM: Oh, don't worry, we will keep the House and take the Senate and that way, we will keep Dear Leader in check.

Oh course you will with the Weeper of the House (Bone-er) and wuss, RINO extraodinaire and he who is afraid of his own shadow, Mitch McConnell leading the charge.

Mmm, mmm, mmm!

90 posted on 06/02/2012 5:25:27 AM PDT by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
The Olympics did not have entitlement deficits totaling almost 80 TRILLION DOLLARS... projecting out 20 years. The Olympics were not 15.8 Trillion in deficit and did not have interest on loans eating up a vast amount of revenue and projected to hit 100% of GDP in out years. Just because one can turn around the investment of a State in an event, does not mean that one has the skill set, the knowledge and the grace of GOD to be able to handle what is truly an insurmountable problem.

Most people that actually know the truth, see that there is no way to save our economic future. Half of America would rather die than give up their free stuff and the other half cannot sustain their greed. America will default and America will start over... this time we do it using the Constitution and this time we get it right for our Founders and GOD... who has gifted us with this “Greatest Republic”. I will either be part of that rebirth or I will die trying to restore what once was. I pray daily that I am wrong. If we had a Reagan to lead us from the wilderness, then I would not be so pessimistic... but we have obamao and willard. There is no Reagan at bat this time.


91 posted on 06/02/2012 5:30:08 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: SamAdams76

I don’t think our Founding Fathers would be happy at all with the spectacle of our country today. Ben Franklin probably might not be surprised, but still disappointed. Of course, when serving in national office at the time (let’s use 1789 as a baseline), this was a country of under 4 million people and mostly agrarian in nature (more like a large state in area by comparison today but with a small population). Serving in Congress then, you could personally know your member, and there’s a good chance you would’ve either taken a meal or sat down to drinks with them, either at a local tavern or at their home. Now ? It’s largely impossible when a single House member has to represent what is coming up on a million people (look at Montana). Senators, it’s even worse.

Even the legislature. Back then, you would’ve personally known virtually every person in your constituency, and in some cases, you’d cast your vote for a candidate right out in the open (and there’s a good chance if you were respected enough, you’d have been drafted to run and expected to serve). Now ? Some state legislative members represent more people now than entire members of Congress did 200 years ago. Even my member on a city council represents at or around 15,000 people (and that’s with a 40-member body !). You’re lucky to make contact with a fraction of that number, nevermind there’s no way to personally know all those voters.

Of course, what’s the alternative ? If we go Constitutionally on the number of federal legislators as it specified, it would swell to, what, over 10,000 members ? Forgive me, I recall calculating the exact figure, which escapes me. Sure, you’d have members closer to their constituents, but such a body would be a nightmare in action. Of course, one would say nothing could get done (and that might be a positive), but it would be too unwieldly in organization.

Of course, it might be interesting to see what it would look like in action, if only from an academic standpoint. It might turn out to be better, so long as in electing all those people we eliminated the bureaucratic army in DC that has been out of control for so long (btw, I actually favor eliminating civil service and return to the old standard of patronage. This is simply because that aforementioned army is a permanent political liberal Democrat class that remains with administration after administration, and when Republicans get in, they work mightily to undermine them and they’re almost impossible to remove. A return to patronage means that you bring all your people in, all the way down to janitor, they’re in for 2 years or 4 years or 6 or 8 (tops) and then everybody’s out and replaced by the succeeding party or candidate. Not without its downsides, but after more than about 130 years of it, we can see what a mess it has become).

Your primary idea is interesting. I think mine was revolving groups of states, with the most Republican ones going first and the least GOP last (DC & Hawaii, of which both should have zero impact on the GOP choice — the latter I favor cutting loose as a state, so long as we secure permanent access to our bases. DC should be retroceded to Maryland, which is already a cesspool).

Closed primaries, yes absolutely. Having Democrats come in and choose nominees in close races (be it President or on down) has got to stop. I’ll add in another controversial notion I make no apologies for — raising the voting age back up to 21. Brainwashed schoolchildren in college have no business casting votes, and most of those do so where they go to school (where they have no vested long-term interest in that given community), and that has to stop. The sole exception to that is 18-21 military. You’re old enough to fight for your country, you’re old enough to vote (and drink — lower the age back to 18. I’d rather college students get drunk than vote, anyhow). ;-)

92 posted on 06/02/2012 5:30:42 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: trebb

You may be “comfortable”, I am not — with either abomination.

93 posted on 06/02/2012 5:31:57 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: A.Hun

Sorry, dude. No sale. Zero and Willard are both abominations, and I will not rubber stamp the false choice of one disaster over another.

94 posted on 06/02/2012 5:33:35 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: netmilsmom

They are both 100% unacceptable.

95 posted on 06/02/2012 5:34:26 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: Conservative Vermont Vet

Post #95.

96 posted on 06/02/2012 5:35:18 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj
ANYONE painting willard as anything other than a TED KENNEDY PROGRESSIVE is just lying to us and themselves. He may be better than obamao... but I am sick of these people trying to make willard into something he is not and has never been. I understand that many here are going to vote for him and I completely understand why. I have had that mindset for decades... but no more. They need to realize who and what they are voting for... to lie to oneself over something like this is just going to depress the hell of of them when reality sets in... IF willard can beat obamao. He will have to do it without my $$$ or vote however.


97 posted on 06/02/2012 5:36:02 AM PDT by LibLieSlayer (Don't Tread On Me)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: LibLieSlayer

That’s why we’ve got to draft Gov. Scott Walker. Look at what he’s managed to do in the face of a thugocracy in Wisconsin. THAT is what we need in a President.

98 posted on 06/02/2012 5:37:11 AM PDT by fieldmarshaldj (If you like lying Socialist dirtbags, you'll love Slick Willard)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Innovative

You can argue over whether the 2002 Olympics in SLC were a good thing, but you can’t argue the success.

99 posted on 06/02/2012 5:37:57 AM PDT by jimfree (In Nov 2012 my 11 y/o granddaughter will have more relevant executive experience than Barack Obama)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: fieldmarshaldj; Conservative Vermont Vet

This is chess and not checkers, my FRiend. The stakes are higher than discomfort. There are people who hate us, in the administration RIGHT NOW. We are not talking about the “end of the GOP” or “the end of conservatism”, we are talking about the end of the USA.

Though we are all aware of Obama’s proclivity towards appeasing Islam and Islamic Republics; his negotiating with our enemies (Taliban); his release of captured Terrorists; his support of the “Arab Spring” in the ME which has led to the takeover of those countries by Radical Islamists; etc, many are not aware of what he has done to facilitate their (Islamists) acceptance and appointment to positions of “trust” within our own Government

Here are but 6 of those individuals:

Rashad Hussain
Kifa Mustapha
Momamed Elibiary
Huma Abedin
Daliah Mogahed
Mohamed Magid

Considering that some Freepers have framed their arguments that voting for Romney would be not only NOT “Patriotic,” but worst, “Not Christian,” perhaps they should stop and consider what we face with another 4 years of a Regime under Obama would mean and his facilitating “Stealth Jihad” and the Islamization of America.

Islam is a frontal attack on Christianity and Judaism and its time we understood this threat and called it what it is. We are not in a “war on terror”, which so many politically correct politicians would have us believe.

The whole world is, and has been for 1,400 years, in a WAR AGAINST ISLAM! If we do not stand up against this cancerous enemy, whose ultimate goal is to bring the entire world into submission to Islam and have all people worship none but Allah, then Western Civilization and human freedom as we know it will soon cease to exist.

America faces in addition to the threat of violent jihad another, even more toxic danger – a stealthy and pre-violent form of warfare aimed at destroying our constitutional form of democratic government and free society. The Muslim Brotherhood is the prime-mover behind this seditious campaign, which it calls “civilization jihad.”

For a detailed description of who these individuals pictured above are, their goals and what damage they have done and the real threat they pose, see the following:

Muslim Brotherhood in America Part 8: Team Obama and the Islamists

IF after viewing this video, one does not come away with the resolve to do whatever it takes to defeat Barack Hussein Obama, then I worry about the future of our Great Republic.

PS: One should at least bookmark this most enlightening, informative, well researched and documented 10-part Series by Frank Gaffney (Muslim Brotherhood in America) and watch all of it as soon as time permits.
posted on by Conservative Vermont Vet (l)

100 posted on 06/02/2012 5:41:18 AM PDT by netmilsmom (Romney scares me. Obama is the freaking nightmare that is so bad you are afraid to go back to sleep)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 61-8081-100101-120 ... 161-171 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson