[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[ucodegen]

I agree ucodegen. But in order to return to those values we need to dismantle the social safety net. I could support that if we were truly honest at returning to those values of self-sufficiency.

Remember that the Right now is arguing against universal health care because of rationing. The Right should SUPPORT rationing (including medicare benefits). If citizens want something beyond the minimum (socialized health care or not) they should save and pay for it themselves.

I am generally considered a ‘conservative’ and have no problems with this. One of the things that is indirectly being pointed out by the ‘Right’, is that without a form of rationing, nationalized health care would not work. Costs would spiral, but how can you argue when nationalized health is presented as ‘all the health care you need with no additional costs’? We need real debate on this, not the far left labeling people who ask questions as ‘un-American’ or the far right claiming ‘death squads’.

Originally, the ‘safety net’ was supposed to be bare subsistence, below poverty level. I have no problem with this. I have no problem with rationing on health care either. Anything additional is self pay. Somehow, the ‘safety net’ has become something more comfortable than it was supposed to be. Why get off welfare when you can just ‘drop another baby’ and get more.. octamom style?

NOTE: Medicare is an insurance system.. oddly the first attempt at nationalized health system for older adults. It takes about 2.9% of your income during your lifetime.. (actually 1.45% from you and 1.45% from your employer). I can see a problem trying to restrict senior who paid into the system when it wasn’t restricted. The amount paid into it vs. amount being received begs many questions as to where is all that money going?

NOTE: Medicaid is not an insurance program, it rides on US Social Security system, but is better states as part of a welfare medical aid system.

Another note as to religion:
*I tend to be ‘conservative’, but I am not a pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
*I know several people who vote ‘liberal’, but are very pro-life/anti-abortion/strongly religious.
One needs to keep in mind that being ‘Republican’ does not mean that you are strongly religious, and being ‘Democrat’ doesn’t mean you are not strongly religious. I have several Catholic acquaintances who vote Democratic.

[ucodegen]

ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

Too easy.. I pick Pelosi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/tight-spot-pelosi-calls-health-care-critics-american/

Traditional American values were self sufficiency. There are still some of us out there. Part of the health care plan that Pelosi was pushing is manditory insurance (you have no choice to opt out), in spite of the fact that insurance doesn’t really reduce cost. Insurance’s only benefit is the reduction of risk (distributes the risk across the client base).

It is also NOT un-American to criticize or discuss controversial issues. In fact, it is quite American to do it. Unlike other countries, we air our dirty laundry and debate it.. America was formed by non-conformists.

As for additional failings of Pelosi; how about the fact that she, in concert with Barney Frank and Reines blocked all attempts to further regulate the GSEs as well as additional regs on banks during the 2005-2007 period. I could refer you to youtube videos of the congressional action, but oddly, these have been taken down. Unfortunately I was not able to ‘capture’ them before this time.

One thing to realize about congress, many have driven at least one business into the ground. Several of them have questionable criminal records.
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/spousal_abuse.htm
— no party particulars here. some cited numbers:
* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can’t qualify for a
credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

The telling aspect of skill at leading the people on, is that the people don’t realize they are being controlled. I also think that Rush Limbaugh’s alleged popularity is not real. How do you tell how many people are listening to the radio? Radios don’t call in and ‘rat’ on you.

As for Fox news, they picked up on several stories that the rest of the news avoided. I listen to both (Fox and so called mainstream). I like Beck in only that he gets into stories that the rest of the media is avoiding. Unfortunately he gets a bit too extreme come-on Beck, quit it with the tears.

[ucodegen]

ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

Too easy.. I pick Pelosi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/tight-spot-pelosi-calls-health-care-critics-american/

Traditional American values were self sufficiency. There are still some of us out there. Part of the health care plan that Pelosi was pushing is manditory insurance (you have no choice to opt out), in spite of the fact that insurance doesn’t really reduce cost. Insurance’s only benefit is the reduction of risk (distributes the risk across the client base).

It is also NOT un-American to criticize or discuss controversial issues. In fact, it is quite American to do it. Unlike other countries, we air our dirty laundry and debate it.. America was formed by non-conformists.

As for additional failings of Pelosi; how about the fact that she, in concert with Barney Frank and Reines blocked all attempts to further regulate the GSEs as well as additional regs on banks during the 2005-2007 period. I could refer you to youtube videos of the congressional action, but oddly, these have been taken down. Unfortunately I was not able to ‘capture’ them before this time.

One thing to realize about congress, many have driven at least one business into the ground. Several of them have questionable criminal records.
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/spousal_abuse.htm
— no party particulars here. some cited numbers:
* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can’t qualify for a
credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

The telling aspect of skill at leading the people on, is that the people don’t realize they are being controlled. I also think that Rush Limbaugh’s alleged popularity is not real. How do you tell how many people are listening to the radio? Radios don’t call in and ‘rat’ on you.

As for Fox news, they picked up on several stories that the rest of the news avoided. I listen to both (Fox and so called mainstream). I like Beck in only that he gets into stories that the rest of the media is avoiding. Unfortunately he gets a bit too extreme come-on Beck, quit it with the tears.

[ucodegen]

ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

Too easy.. I pick Pelosi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/tight-spot-pelosi-calls-health-care-critics-american/

Traditional American values were self sufficiency. There are still some of us out there. Part of the health care plan that Pelosi was pushing is manditory insurance (you have no choice to opt out), in spite of the fact that insurance doesn’t really reduce cost. Insurance’s only benefit is the reduction of risk (distributes the risk across the client base).

It is also NOT un-American to criticize or discuss controversial issues. In fact, it is quite American to do it. Unlike other countries, we air our dirty laundry and debate it.. America was formed by non-conformists.

As for additional failings of Pelosi; how about the fact that she, in concert with Barney Frank and Reines blocked all attempts to further regulate the GSEs as well as additional regs on banks during the 2005-2007 period. I could refer you to youtube videos of the congressional action, but oddly, these have been taken down. Unfortunately I was not able to ‘capture’ them before this time.

One thing to realize about congress, many have driven at least one business into the ground. Several of them have questionable criminal records.
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/spousal_abuse.htm
— no party particulars here. some cited numbers:
* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can’t qualify for a
credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

The telling aspect of skill at leading the people on, is that the people don’t realize they are being controlled. I also think that Rush Limbaugh’s alleged popularity is not real. How do you tell how many people are listening to the radio? Radios don’t call in and ‘rat’ on you.

As for Fox news, they picked up on several stories that the rest of the news avoided. I listen to both (Fox and so called mainstream). I like Beck in only that he gets into stories that the rest of the media is avoiding. Unfortunately he gets a bit too extreme come-on Beck, quit it with the tears.

[ucodegen]

ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

Too easy.. I pick Pelosi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/tight-spot-pelosi-calls-health-care-critics-american/

Traditional American values were self sufficiency. There are still some of us out there. Part of the health care plan that Pelosi was pushing is manditory insurance (you have no choice to opt out), in spite of the fact that insurance doesn’t really reduce cost. Insurance’s only benefit is the reduction of risk (distributes the risk across the client base).

It is also NOT un-American to criticize or discuss controversial issues. In fact, it is quite American to do it. Unlike other countries, we air our dirty laundry and debate it.. America was formed by non-conformists.

As for additional failings of Pelosi; how about the fact that she, in concert with Barney Frank and Reines blocked all attempts to further regulate the GSEs as well as additional regs on banks during the 2005-2007 period. I could refer you to youtube videos of the congressional action, but oddly, these have been taken down. Unfortunately I was not able to ‘capture’ them before this time.

One thing to realize about congress, many have driven at least one business into the ground. Several of them have questionable criminal records.
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/spousal_abuse.htm
— no party particulars here. some cited numbers:
* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can’t qualify for a
credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

The telling aspect of skill at leading the people on, is that the people don’t realize they are being controlled. I also think that Rush Limbaugh’s alleged popularity is not real. How do you tell how many people are listening to the radio? Radios don’t call in and ‘rat’ on you.

As for Fox news, they picked up on several stories that the rest of the news avoided. I listen to both (Fox and so called mainstream). I like Beck in only that he gets into stories that the rest of the media is avoiding. Unfortunately he gets a bit too extreme come-on Beck, quit it with the tears.

[ucodegen]

ucodegen, I don’t see an equivalent to Rush on the left — someone who despite his own personal failings still commands a huge fanatical audience.

Too easy.. I pick Pelosi.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/08/10/tight-spot-pelosi-calls-health-care-critics-american/

Traditional American values were self sufficiency. There are still some of us out there. Part of the health care plan that Pelosi was pushing is manditory insurance (you have no choice to opt out), in spite of the fact that insurance doesn’t really reduce cost. Insurance’s only benefit is the reduction of risk (distributes the risk across the client base).

It is also NOT un-American to criticize or discuss controversial issues. In fact, it is quite American to do it. Unlike other countries, we air our dirty laundry and debate it.. America was formed by non-conformists.

As for additional failings of Pelosi; how about the fact that she, in concert with Barney Frank and Reines blocked all attempts to further regulate the GSEs as well as additional regs on banks during the 2005-2007 period. I could refer you to youtube videos of the congressional action, but oddly, these have been taken down. Unfortunately I was not able to ‘capture’ them before this time.

One thing to realize about congress, many have driven at least one business into the ground. Several of them have questionable criminal records.
http://www.ontheissues.org/AskMe/spousal_abuse.htm
— no party particulars here. some cited numbers:
* 29 members of Congress have been accused of spousal abuse.
* 7 have been arrested for fraud.
* 19 have been accused of writing bad checks.
* 117 have bankrupted at least two businesses.
* 3 have been arrested for assault.
* 71 have credit reports so bad they can’t qualify for a
credit card.
* 14 have been arrested on drug-related charges.
* 8 have been arrested for shoplifting.
* 21 are current defendants in lawsuits.
* And in 1998 alone, 84 were stopped for drunk driving, but released after they claimed Congressional immunity.

The telling aspect of skill at leading the people on, is that the people don’t realize they are being controlled. I also think that Rush Limbaugh’s alleged popularity is not real. How do you tell how many people are listening to the radio? Radios don’t call in and ‘rat’ on you.

As for Fox news, they picked up on several stories that the rest of the news avoided. I listen to both (Fox and so called mainstream). I like Beck in only that he gets into stories that the rest of the media is avoiding. Unfortunately he gets a bit too extreme come-on Beck, quit it with the tears.

[ucodegen]

IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

[ucodegen]

IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

[ucodegen]

IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

[ucodegen]

IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

[ucodegen]

IMHO gerrymandering is a big contributor to the radicalization of US politics. Most electing districts have been designed to ensure that one party is essentially guaranteed to win it.

I would have to disagree with this. The first and foremost contribution to the radicalization is the media which prefers ‘dramatic heartrending’ stories to the facts. They will dress up anything to an extreme, including political positions. Both sides do it. They would rather concentrate on extreme points of view of the constituents rather than the facts. The media also prefers to address the party not the platform… Bush’s stimulus was bad and Obama’s good… because why? In many cases, politicians then take extreme positions to play to the ends and figure that the middle is not worth going for. The result being that the center, which happens to be the majority, is marginalized.

Another item that contributes to the radicalization is that you can’t vote for members of political parties outside of your party affiliation during the primary. The political party’s position on this is that people from the opposing political party would vote for someone to sabotage the political parties win. The last part of that sentence is important. The political party is more concerned with their win than what the voters really want. They strive to stay in power, no to represent the people of the country. I am not going to throw away my vote just to give the political party I am affiliated with, a better chance. I would vote as I always do, for the candidate that I feel would be better for the country.

Allan, you have to recognize that the radical right is better at it.

Actually, the left is. If you can recognize their drivel as drivel without thinking about it.. then you know they aren’t that good. If you are tempted to accept it as the truth, then you know they are good at dressing up the drivel to make it acceptable. It is the essence of being a good salesmen and to get the mark to not think about their purchase.

by drivel, I mean empty rhetoric, polemic and vitriol…

[ucodegen]

I am annoyed by the Republican vs Democrat mud throwing. This is what the powers that be want all debate to be reduced from. This way they can pass whatever they want be merely being Democrat or Republican.. which ever the current party in power is.

If you noticed, Chicago pulled out all the stops in terms of celebrity schmoozing. Unfortunately, like any group that is enamored by celebrities, they forget that celebrity schmoozing does not replace content.. though it might help win the election.

The IOC wanted to know how Chicago would support the Olympics from a technical point of view, but Chicago had a bunch of celebrities glad-hand them… thats how Chicago ended up near the bottom. The Olympics are also supposed to rotate amongst participating nations.

[ucodegen]

I am annoyed by the Republican vs Democrat mud throwing. This is what the powers that be want all debate to be reduced from. This way they can pass whatever they want be merely being Democrat or Republican.. which ever the current party in power is.

If you noticed, Chicago pulled out all the stops in terms of celebrity schmoozing. Unfortunately, like any group that is enamored by celebrities, they forget that celebrity schmoozing does not replace content.. though it might help win the election.

The IOC wanted to know how Chicago would support the Olympics from a technical point of view, but Chicago had a bunch of celebrities glad-hand them… thats how Chicago ended up near the bottom. The Olympics are also supposed to rotate amongst participating nations.

[Author]

Posts