Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

For discussion of liberty, freedom, government and politics.
Post Reply
lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by lundbaek »

Here's one for you, Ezra:

"To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1935 General Conference)

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Ezra »

lundbaek wrote: January 12th, 2018, 10:34 am Here's one for you, Ezra:

"To me...that statement of the Lord, "I have established the Constitution of this land," puts the Constitution of the United States in the position in which it would be if it were written in this book of Doctrine and Covenants itself." (J. Reuben Clark, April 1935 General Conference)
That’s the one I was looking for thanks

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Michelle »

Vgbnd wrote: January 12th, 2018, 9:02 am
Ezra wrote: January 11th, 2018, 6:45 pm The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.
Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.
Interesting choice of words:
There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.
I was just listening to and re-reading "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson this week. First page of the booklet he quotes Albert E. Bowen and says
"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference in which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution. (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, p. 21-2)
The italics in the quote are printed in the booklet. The blue highlighting is my addition.

So, I guess what I'm trying to point out is that there is, in fact, a right and a wrong to political questions, as confirmed by President Benson.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Michelle wrote: January 12th, 2018, 11:02 am
Vgbnd wrote: January 12th, 2018, 9:02 am
Ezra wrote: January 11th, 2018, 6:45 pm The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.
Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.
Interesting choice of words:
There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.
I was just listening to and re-reading "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson this week. First page of the booklet he quotes Albert E. Bowen and says
"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference in which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution. (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, p. 21-2)
The italics in the quote are printed in the booklet. The blue highlighting is my addition.

So, I guess what I'm trying to point out is that there is, in fact, a right and a wrong to political questions, as confirmed by President Benson.
After you have a few people, who is to say what is right and wrong?

For example, should a person of voting age from Utah vote for Romney if he runs for senate? 70% of Utahns would probably vote for Romney.

Some on this board are adamant that voting for Romney is sinful, sinful enough to take you to the Telestial kingdom.

Do you agree with that?

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Michelle »

Arenera wrote: January 12th, 2018, 11:18 am
Michelle wrote: January 12th, 2018, 11:02 am
Vgbnd wrote: January 12th, 2018, 9:02 am
Ezra wrote: January 11th, 2018, 6:45 pm The constitution is not some mystery in how it’s to be interpreted.

It’s to be interpreted with the scriptures and what has been explained as being good and right by god.

Like to not covet. Not steal. Not kill. Kindness,charity

D&c 121 41 No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned;.

Which mean you don’t get to steal others property because you and a bunch of others voted to. You don’t get to demand they pay for your health your children’s education.
No unjust unwarranted searches seizures.

The principals of the constitution are simple. You allow people respect and freedoms to do what ever they want to do as long as that doesn’t take away others freedoms or harm them.


We were tested by the choice we made during the war in heaven and we are still being tested today on the same thing but with the vail in place.

God will not give a commandment to us to choose his side of agency vs force in this life. That would defeat the purpose of that part of the test. We have the guild lines. We have been warned. Many will fail the test. But we have been warned and we know it’s a slothful servant who need to be commanded in all things.

Having studied the words of our prophets on this subject from Joseph Smith on Down this seems to me a nobrainer. I’m surprised it’s so difficult to understand by so many. It makes me wonder if they simply do not understand simple morals or just haven’t pondered on how those morals are to be practiced in our daily life’s. In our vote. in our righteous participation in politics.
Of course its not a mystery, its an inspired document that should guide the US government. But just because its not a mystery doesn't mean is all binary. It is not scripture and can't be treated as scripture, and although some scriptural principles can easily be extended to interpreting the Constitution, other's can't--one of them being simple good/bad evaluations of policy choices. It is simple. We don't have to be instructed in all things. There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.

And while the Constitution doesn't authorizing "Stealing" people's property and giving it to another, it does authorize transferring property from x group to y--by the voice of the people. The conditions of such transfer are also subject to debate by the voice of the people.

Your point about morals is actually more relevant--the Constitution itself says little about morals, but if we apply gospel principles to the framework set out by the Constitution, it authorizes moral (and immoral) laws...the choice before us is to choose people who implement moral ones.
Interesting choice of words:
There aren't right or wrong answers to all political question.
I was just listening to and re-reading "The Proper Role of Government" by Ezra Taft Benson this week. First page of the booklet he quotes Albert E. Bowen and says
"Are there not, in reality, underlying, universal principles with reference in which all issues must be resolved whether the society be simple or complex in its mechanical organization? It seems to me we could relieve ourselves of most of the bewilderment which so unsettles and distracts us by subjecting each situation to the simple test of right and wrong. Right and wrong as moral principles do not change. They are applicable and reliable determinants whether the situations with which we deal are simple or complicated. There is always a right and wrong to every question which requires our solution. (Albert E. Bowen, Prophets, Principles and National Survival, p. 21-2)
The italics in the quote are printed in the booklet. The blue highlighting is my addition.

So, I guess what I'm trying to point out is that there is, in fact, a right and a wrong to political questions, as confirmed by President Benson.
After you have a few people, who is to say what is right and wrong?

For example, should a person of voting age from Utah vote for Romney if he runs for senate? 70% of Utahns would probably vote for Romney.

Some on this board are adamant that voting for Romney is sinful, sinful enough to take you to the Telestial kingdom.

Do you agree with that?
Arenera,
"Who is to say what is right or wrong?"
I will ask God and expect to receive the answer through study and prayer. I am no fan of moral relativism or private interpretations. You will vote for who you choose and I will vote for who I choose and we will both stand accountable before God. If 70% of Utahns choose to vote for Romney they will do the same. I am not about to make final judgement on anybody based on whether they would vote for Romney or not. I am also not going to be persuaded that something being popular makes it the correct choice.

That being said, I don't expect to vote for Romney.

Edited: I accidentally pushed submit before I finished typing.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Michelle wrote: January 12th, 2018, 11:34 am Arenera,
"Who is to say what is right or wrong?"
I will ask God and expect to receive the answer through study and prayer. I am no fan of moral relativism or private interpretations. You will vote for who you choose and I will vote for who I choose and we will both stand accountable before God. If 70% of Utahns choose to vote for Romney they will do the same. I am not about to make final judgement on anybody based on whether they would vote for Romney or not. I am also not going to be persuaded that something being popular makes it the correct choice.

That being said, I don't expect to vote for Romney.

Edited: I accidentally pushed submit before I finished typing.
I have no issues with your position or your approach. I appreciate your point on not judging people over their politics.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Michelle »

Arenera wrote: January 12th, 2018, 11:39 am
Michelle wrote: January 12th, 2018, 11:34 am Arenera,
"Who is to say what is right or wrong?"
I will ask God and expect to receive the answer through study and prayer. I am no fan of moral relativism or private interpretations. You will vote for who you choose and I will vote for who I choose and we will both stand accountable before God. If 70% of Utahns choose to vote for Romney they will do the same. I am not about to make final judgement on anybody based on whether they would vote for Romney or not. I am also not going to be persuaded that something being popular makes it the correct choice.

That being said, I don't expect to vote for Romney.

Edited: I accidentally pushed submit before I finished typing.
I have no issues with your position or your approach. I appreciate your point on not judging people over their politics.
I'm not sure if I should write this or let it go.

I actually WILL judge people based on their politics. Much of politics is simply a continuation of the war in heaven and our understanding and defense of those eternal principles about agency and force. I WILL NOT, however, make final judgement (meaning the kingdom of glory they will receive) because it is neither mine to do, nor have they finished their probation.

My stance on judging others can be found summarized on lds.org:

https://www.lds.org/topics/judging-others?lang=eng

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by lundbaek »

Judgement of LDS voters in issues like those we are discussing here is difficult because so many now have not been exposed to those statements of the Lord and of Latter-day Prophets that urge us to protect our rights of free exercise of conscience, control of property, and to life. These things are not talked or written about as they were "in my day", and there is a good reason for that - to protect the Church from retribution, a danger that was not nearly so serious "in my day". And many members of the Church have not had occasion to think about the ramifications of things that are promoted as in harmony with the gospel but in fact lead to infringements of our God-given and inalienable rights. As examples of such, I offer some of the very things that MItt Romney has promoted.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

But this is why Constitutional questions don't have easy right or wrong answers. Because the US Constitution actually DOES include both a "right to privacy" and a "right to abortion" because, since the Constitution lists only positive, enumerated powers, the absence of authority to proscribe those items means that technically they exist and can't be prohibited, EXCEPT by the States. This concept is why George Mason didn't want the Bill of Rights, because he essentially argued that if you list ten rights and say they are Constitutionally guaranteed, then by implication its ONLY those rights that are guaranteed--and he was proven right.
Which is the logic used by activist judges who twist the Constitution to fit their leftist agenda and then tell the public that to disagree with them means they are anti-constitutional.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

lundbaek wrote: January 12th, 2018, 12:27 pm Judgement of LDS voters in issues like those we are discussing here is difficult because so many now have not been exposed to those statements of the Lord and of Latter-day Prophets that urge us to protect our rights of free exercise of conscience, control of property, and to life. These things are not talked or written about as they were "in my day", and there is a good reason for that - to protect the Church from retribution, a danger that was not nearly so serious "in my day". And many members of the Church have not had occasion to think about the ramifications of things that are promoted as in harmony with the gospel but in fact lead to infringements of our God-given and inalienable rights. As examples of such, I offer some of the very things that MItt Romney has promoted.
If something is not in the open, discussed in church, taught by current living leaders, then it is as if there is no law. You may have an opinion that people are sinning, i.e. those that voted for Hillary, but it is not the case.

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by lundbaek »

Fortunately, there are those who do not have to be commanded in all things. I can only speak for myself. I have been constrained by the Spirit to study the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of the US Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, and to study
Ezra Taft Benson's 1968 conference address "The Proper Role of Government, and certain other writings and address that together have shaped my thinking and political persuasions. I have also ben constrained to run for US Congress, and find ways to enlighten LDSs to our doctrinal imperative to preserve liberty. And one of those ways will be a fireside in our home at which the LDS guest speaker will talk on "The Special Importance of the United States Constitution to Latter-day Saints". And I am not alone in such endeavours.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

lundbaek wrote: January 12th, 2018, 12:47 pm Fortunately, there are those who do not have to be commanded in all things. I can only speak for myself. I have been constrained by the Spirit to study the principles of the Declaration of Independence, of the US Constitution in the tradition of the Founding Fathers, and to study
Ezra Taft Benson's 1968 conference address "The Proper Role of Government, and certain other writings and address that together have shaped my thinking and political persuasions. I have also ben constrained to run for US Congress, and find ways to enlighten LDSs to our doctrinal imperative to preserve liberty. And one of those ways will be a fireside in our home at which the LDS guest speaker will talk on "The Special Importance of the United States Constitution to Latter-day Saints". And I am not alone in such endeavours.
Romney is a good example, also Mormon, who has been involved in Civic affairs and the political system.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

Romney is a good example, also Mormon, who has been involved in Civic affairs and the political system.
Would you buy a used car from Mitt Romney?

Would you buy one from Evan McMullin?

lundbaek
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 11123
Location: Mesa, Arizona

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by lundbaek »

Would you support the promoting and advocating of such things as mandatory government-run healthcare, war without a declaration of war by the Congress, "Bailouts" of floundering businesses with taxpayer money, denial of trial and the right of habeus corpus to those accused (not found guilty) of perceived terrorism, specifically the National Defense Authorization Act, and the Patriot Act, which allows homes to be entered and searched without probable cause ?

I suspose some of you would, if for no other reason than because Mitt Romney did.

Vgbnd
captain of 10
Posts: 11

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Vgbnd »

Fiannan wrote: January 12th, 2018, 12:33 pm
But this is why Constitutional questions don't have easy right or wrong answers. Because the US Constitution actually DOES include both a "right to privacy" and a "right to abortion" because, since the Constitution lists only positive, enumerated powers, the absence of authority to proscribe those items means that technically they exist and can't be prohibited, EXCEPT by the States. This concept is why George Mason didn't want the Bill of Rights, because he essentially argued that if you list ten rights and say they are Constitutionally guaranteed, then by implication its ONLY those rights that are guaranteed--and he was proven right.
Which is the logic used by activist judges who twist the Constitution to fit their leftist agenda and then tell the public that to disagree with them means they are anti-constitutional.
I’ll have to write more when I’m not traveling, But that’s the farthest thing in the world from an activist interpretation of the us federal Constitution. Activist hate that interpretation because it gives the 10th amendment meaning, and activist judges hate that. You’ve made some good points elsewhere, but to say that activist judges favor a strong 10th amendment is demonstrably false.

Michelle
captain of 1,000
Posts: 1795

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Michelle »

lundbaek wrote: January 12th, 2018, 12:27 pm Judgement of LDS voters in issues like those we are discussing here is difficult because so many now have not been exposed to those statements of the Lord and of Latter-day Prophets that urge us to protect our rights of free exercise of conscience, control of property, and to life. These things are not talked or written about as they were "in my day", and there is a good reason for that - to protect the Church from retribution, a danger that was not nearly so serious "in my day". And many members of the Church have not had occasion to think about the ramifications of things that are promoted as in harmony with the gospel but in fact lead to infringements of our God-given and inalienable rights. As examples of such, I offer some of the very things that MItt Romney has promoted.
I would agree with you to some extent when speaking specifically of politics and the Constitution.

But really, these are eternal principles that are being applied in a specific area. Anyone who is actually studying the gospel with the intent to know God's will (or has even heard the basic outline of the plan of salvation) should be able to distill the principle of agency vs. force.

Still, I concede that most do not see this. I believe that this is directly related to the fact that moral relativism and cognitive dissonance are so heavily taught and experienced currently in our society that most people have lost the ability to feel uncomfortable by it.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Health care is a right that shouldn't be contingent on the ideological agendas of politicians," said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees Medicaid.

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

Arenera wrote: January 13th, 2018, 9:13 am
Health care is a right that shouldn't be contingent on the ideological agendas of politicians," said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees Medicaid.
So now you are a fan of Wyden?

Ezra
captain of 1,000
Posts: 4357
Location: Not telling

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Ezra »

Arenera wrote: January 13th, 2018, 9:13 am
Health care is a right that shouldn't be contingent on the ideological agendas of politicians," said Sen. Ron Wyden of Oregon, the top Democrat on the Senate committee that oversees Medicaid.

Just because someone says it a right doesn’t make it a right.

South Africa says health care is a right yet its citizens don’t have healthcare.

So someone says healthcare is a right.

That mean that all the doctors who payed to put themselves through school do the work to study and learn have no right to the work they do. If others have a right to healthcare that means that the doctors have no choice in it. They have to provide it.

Even if the government mandated they provide healthcare to others. the effect of that would mean less people would become doctors because it’s not worth it. If they don’t make a good living there is no reason to go through and pay for all the schooling. If the state payed the schooling and payed for the doctors salary to work a job that they were required to do to provide healthcare the quality of the service would go down.

Healthcare is not a right. It’s a desire. It’s is our own responsibility to ensure for ourselves. It’s why following the word of wisdom very very closely is so important.

This is a nation of the people for the people. The governments power comes from the people for the good of the people.

If healthcare is a right that means that as an individual I have the right to have my neighbors pay for my healthcare.

That mean Arenera you are required to pay my healthcare. So pay up. If you don’t I will send the government over and fine you or put you in jail.

But I don’t really have that power do I. So if the government is doing that it has gone from being in service of the people to a tyrant of the people.

Healthcare is a desire not a right.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

2002 Winter Olympics
In 1998, Ann Romney learned that she had multiple sclerosis; Mitt described watching her fail a series of neurological tests as the worst day of his life. After experiencing two years of severe difficulties with the disease, she found – while living in Park City, Utah, where the couple had built a vacation home – a combination of mainstream, alternative, and equestrian therapies that enabled her to lead a lifestyle mostly without limitations. When her husband received a job offer to take over the troubled organization responsible for the 2002 Winter Olympics and Paralympics, to be held in Salt Lake City in Utah, she urged him to accept it; eager for a new challenge, as well as another chance to prove himself in public life, he did. On February 11, 1999, the Salt Lake Organizing Committee for the Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games of 2002 hired Romney as its president and CEO.

Before Romney took over, the event was $379 million short of its revenue goals. Officials had made plans to scale back the Games to compensate for the fiscal crisis, and there were fears it might be moved away entirely. In addition, the image of the Games had been damaged by allegations of bribery against top officials including prior committee president and CEO Frank Joklik. The Salt Lake Organizing Committee forced Joklik and committee vice president Dave Johnson to resign. Utah power brokers, including Governor Mike Leavitt, searched for someone with a scandal-free reputation to take charge of the Olympics. They chose Romney based on his business and legal expertise as well as his connections to both the LDS Church and the state. The appointment faced some initial criticism from both non-Mormons and Mormons that it represented cronyism and made the Games seem too Mormon-dominated. Romney donated to charity the $1.4 million in salary and severance payments he received for his three years as president and CEO, and also contributed $1 million to the Olympics.

Romney restructured the organization's leadership and policies. He reduced budgets and boosted fundraising, alleviating the concerns of corporate sponsors while recruiting new ones. Romney worked to ensure the safety of the Games following the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks by coordinating a $300 million security budget. He oversaw a $1.32 billion total budget, 700 employees, and 26,000 volunteers. The federal government provided approximately $400 million to $600 million of that budget, much of it a result of Romney's having aggressively lobbied Congress and federal agencies. It was a record level of federal funding for the staging of a U.S. Olympics. An additional $1.1 billion of indirect federal funding came to the state in the form of highway and transit projects.

Romney emerged as the local public face of the Olympic effort, appearing in photographs, in news stories, on collectible Olympics pins depicting Romney wrapped by an American flag, and on buttons carrying phrases like "Hey, Mitt, we love you!" Robert H. Garff, the chair of the organizing committee, later said "It was obvious that he had an agenda larger than just the Olympics," and that Romney wanted to use the Olympics to propel himself into the national spotlight and a political career. Garff believed the initial budget situation was not as bad as Romney portrayed, given there were still three years to reorganize. Utah Senator Bob Bennett said that much of the needed federal money was already in place. An analysis by The Boston Globe later stated that the committee had nearly $1 billion in committed revenues at that time. Olympics critic Steve Pace, who led Utahns for Responsible Public Spending, thought Romney exaggerated the initial fiscal state to lay the groundwork for a well-publicized rescue. Kenneth Bullock, another board member of the organizing committee and also head of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, often clashed with Romney at the time, and later said that Romney deserved some credit for the turnaround but not as much as he claimed. Bullock said: "He tried very hard to build an image of himself as a savior, the great white hope. He was very good at characterizing and castigating people and putting himself on a pedestal."

Despite the initial fiscal shortfall, the Games ended up with a surplus of $100 million. President George W. Bush praised Romney's efforts and 87 percent of Utahns approved of his performance as Olympics head. It solidified his reputation as a "turnaround artist", and Harvard Business School taught a case study based around his actions. U.S. Olympic Committee head William Hybl credited Romney with an extraordinary effort in overcoming a difficult time for the Olympics, culminating in "the greatest Winter Games I have ever seen". Romney wrote a book about his experience titled Turnaround: Crisis, Leadership, and the Olympic Games, published in 2004. The role gave Romney experience in dealing with federal, state, and local entities, a public persona he had previously lacked, and the chance to relaunch his political aspirations.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney


Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

Arenera wrote: January 14th, 2018, 8:20 pm Queuing up?

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/14/us/p ... -utah.html
Ah, the New York Times. Great source of unbiased information.

Perhaps the corporate military-industrial-entertainment complex sees in Romney a replacement for John McCain.

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

CelestialAngel wrote: January 15th, 2018, 4:20 pm I'll vote for Romney.
You're in good company. :)

User avatar
Arenera
captain of 1,000
Posts: 2712

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Arenera »

Mitt Romney didn’t say anything about running for Senate in Utah on Tuesday, even though he made a public appearance in the Beehive State, according to the Deseret News.

Romney spoke to reporters and attendees at the 2018 Economic and Public Policy Summit in Utah on Tuesday about the lack of action in Washington to fix problems ailing the nation and Utah.

“He said Utah has a lot to teach the rest of the country after showing a series of slides comparing the state favorably to the United States on a number of issues, including debt and job growth,” according to the Deseret News.

Romney said Utah also has a level of “goodness” that needs to be shared, too.

"But I think there's another component to greatness that we can't afford to lose, and that's goodness. I don't think a nation can be considered a great nation that's not good," he said.
Romney still mum

Fiannan
Level 34 Illuminated
Posts: 12983

Re: Hatch to Retire - Possible Senator Romney?

Post by Fiannan »

Arenera wrote: January 18th, 2018, 8:13 am
Mitt Romney didn’t say anything about running for Senate in Utah on Tuesday, even though he made a public appearance in the Beehive State, according to the Deseret News.

Romney spoke to reporters and attendees at the 2018 Economic and Public Policy Summit in Utah on Tuesday about the lack of action in Washington to fix problems ailing the nation and Utah.

“He said Utah has a lot to teach the rest of the country after showing a series of slides comparing the state favorably to the United States on a number of issues, including debt and job growth,” according to the Deseret News.

Romney said Utah also has a level of “goodness” that needs to be shared, too.

"But I think there's another component to greatness that we can't afford to lose, and that's goodness. I don't think a nation can be considered a great nation that's not good," he said.
Romney still mum
How does Mittens define "good?"

Post Reply