Comments about ‘Games not over: Financial principles that saved the 2002 Olympic Winter Games’

This article should be required reading for anyone entering a voting booth or a caucus meeting.

This is Mitt when he is not in campaign mode, thus this is a believeable illustration of his nature. I am now leaning towards voting for him.

The four principles of management that Mitt Romney's team used to save the Winter Olympics could go a long way to help our government manage its budgetary problems. This is a great story, and what a novel concept to prioritize what's a must and what's nice. I like that they found alternative solutions to expensive items from private enterprise as well, like the story about the website.

(The Cool thing about Mitt is he has actual experiences doing exactly what we need to do to help the country... rather than just talk, talk, talk, talk, talk, talkie, talk...)

One of the greatest assets Mitt and Fraser had working for them was the tremendous volonteer effort put forth by many Utahns during the Olympics. Too bad the article didn't mention that.

This isn't a story about Mitt Romney. It's a story about Fraser Bullock, and how BULLOCK made the Olympics financially sound. It doesn't say anything about Romney's policies or qualiications. That should be made clear in the headline.

Furry1993,

"Fraser Bullock, Mitt Romney rose to challenges"

"That is how Mitt Romney... described the situation in 1999- 'I would concur with his opinion,' said Fraser Bullock"

""Mitt knew he had to get someone with a great business mind," (Fraser Bullock)

"Romney and Bullock knew each other from working together at Bain & Company."

"The first SLOC board meeting with Romney everything changed."

Romney wasn't the only focus in this article, but after reading these quotes we can clearly see that Fraser wasn't the only focus either. It was about both of them. The headline talks about 'what saved', the sub-header is mutually inclusive, and the article references both men only as much as necessary to get to the real point of 'what saved the games' which the pizza example illustrated so well.

To anyone,

This article was about two men and the fiscal principles they applied to recover the games. I found it interesting. Could it influence how people view him as a candidate? Yeah. However, unlike the national media campaign of "Can we trust Mormons?", this article is actually more useful to a voter. Common sense.

Mitt surrounded himself with great people.
Have you ever heard of Reagan?
Mitt 2012

The Story is, as the headline state: "Games not over: Financial principles that saved the 2002 Olympic Winter Games-Fraser Bullock, Mitt Romney rose to challenges"

Part of the economic genius of Mitt Romney is his ability to pull together teams of persons with expertise to tackle the impossible. He would be the first to say the team did it. I would expect the same thing of him as president - he would bring in experts - not just politicians and they would surgically operate on the economy

They used the simple, very sound principles of:

Weigh expenditures, Separate them into two categories.
What is necessary?
What is nice to have?

Don't spend money you donât have!

Save money for a rainy day.

Re: Furry1993 | 7:44 a.m. Feb. 6, 2012

It irritates liberals when they are faced with the fact that Romney orchestrated the financial recovery and success of the 2002 Games.

"It's the economy, stupid" was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against George H. W. Bush. Obama's primary problem is that the Republicans are going to dust that phrase off and ride it to victory in 2012.

This is exactly why Mitt Romney is hands down the best candidate in the field.

In a time of economic uncertainty, Newt Gingrich thought it would be a good time to announce his plans for a moon colony!

Rick Santorum has a history of supporting ear marks and voting for increases in the deficit while in the senate.

We've already seen that Barack Obama doesn't mind running the largest deficits in American History.

Ron Paul no chance of getting elected!

Mitt Mitt Mitt!!!

Proven experience, proven abilities. These are the things we should be focused on during an election year. Not a person's religion, how well he can debate, how often he says things that are at first misinterpreted, but upon closer examination actually made good sense. Mitt is well aware of his own short-comings, and would be so if he is elected as President, and he would surround himself with people who have the abilities and expertise that he might lack. I know that he does not like the negative campaigning he has had to do. It is not his preference to attack another person on a personal level, as Gingrich has done to Mitt. He would much rather discuss the nation's problems, and his ideas for solutions to those problems. I would rather learn what his ideas are than to have the debates, discussions, and news articles sink into the abyss of personal attacks as has happened in the past several weeks. So often we go to the polls to vote and have no clear idea of what our chosen candidate thinks, only what he or she does not like about the opponent, and vice versa.

Well if turning a profit at the Olympics makes you the best person for the job, we need to go vote in the Chinese guy who turned a profit 3x the size. Korea turned a profit. Atlanta turned a profit. The California Olympics turned a profit. You all act like this was yet another Utah Miracle. If doing what others have done makes it a miracle, well then we have a whole lot a people capable of turning miracles.

Does this mean Romney is worthy. No.

Does it mean he is, Nope.

He has simply done what many others did.

Re: UtahBlueDevil

"He has simply done what many others did." But how many of those people are running for office or already in government? Not many (and certainly not at the presidential level).

Are we to believe that once elected a "President Romney" would begin telling the truth and stick to a set of core principles without regard to political polling and promoting his own thirst for power?

Perhaps, but only in a second term when he would finally stop pandering for approval.

One nice thing about being a Romney supporter is you can espouse any number of positions on a myriad ofi issues. Mitt has been on three sides of most of them at one time or another.

Pete1215 posted:
This is Mitt when he is not in campaign mode, thus this is a believeable illustration of his nature. I am now leaning towards voting for him.
Pete1215,

I have read all this in Mitt's book, "Turnaround". And there is much more of this in his book!

Mitt is as open as a book..... if you'd read the book!

@UtahBlueDevil,

Yes, ALL the Summer Olympics have been profitable.

One one or two of the Winter Olympics have ever been profitable. Turning 2002 around from the mess it was in, was truly miraculous.

@ Pa. Reader,

For Mitt, It's not power, it's not money, it's about serving his country. He knows he can leave this country in better shape for his (grand) children.

Mitt has turned down his salaries, Olympic, Governor, and future POUS.

He is in an enviable position to give. "when ye are in the service of your fellow beings ye are only in the service of your God."

So many feel they have been "cheated" by our politicians, that they have trouble seeing such a high ideal.

Believe in America. Believe in Mitt Romney.

There is a difference between running the Olympics and running the government. Mitt Romney and his team could simply fire, hire or execute any policy they deemed necessary when he was running the Olympics. If he was elected president he can't just tell people what to do. He would have to work with many different interest and concerns. He would also have to, dare I say it, compromise.

Re: Shaun | 10:57 p.m. Feb. 6, 2012
"There is a difference between running the Olympics and running the government."

"It's the economy, stupid" was a phrase in American politics widely used during Bill Clinton's successful 1992 presidential campaign against George Bush. Obama promised us the moon. If Obama can't deliver the American working man is going to find someone else to replace him.