Is Winning at any cost an American thing, not just a George Bush

thing? look how we admire winners regardless of how they reach their goal.The gymnast Paul Hamm knew well that he did not deserve a gold medal over the South Korean gymnast at the olympics but did not have the grace to acknowledge it and return his medal.Jennifer Capriati knew Serna Willams' ball landed within the lines but took the point anyway so she would get a crucial advantage. This list goes on and on.

Let us face it.We like George Bush because he is a winner even though he took office in a stolen election.We dislike al Gore because he lost by playing fair.In our book, playing fair is for losers.

This attitude toward winning starts early.In my daughters' seventh grade and tenth grade classes many kids get good grades by cheating on homework and tests. I am sure that at least some of the parents know that their kids are not capable of getting the kinds of grades they bring home but do not want to ask too many questions because they are "winning".

No wonder they say we deserve the kind of President we have.

"Winning's not everything. Its the only thing."

This quote is on posters on walls in offices throughout the country.

Tom Buchanon goes to extreme measures to destroy Gatsby in every way possible (including Gatsby's murder indirectly) and to continue to control his wife, Daisy, indefinitely. Tom does not like to lose . . .

Tom has no identity at all.

Christ should have said, "The rich will always be with you," because their selfishness and entitlement is an endless obstacle to any nation.

Tom was written as an example of a destructive element in society that caused harm. He was in no way the hero.

The ostentatious selfishness of America's wealthy led to laws restricting that wealth. Their selfishness in business led to labor laws, food and drug regulations, a whole host of restrictions on their damaging, dangerous greed. All the rules that George is rolling back were put in place because the rich had too much and wanted more, even if fellow Americans suffered and died.

The fact that great fortunes are never made honestly is not a good reason to discard honesty. It is a reason to control the acquisition of wealth. (When I say great fortunes, I don't mean Oprah's money which is honestly earned. As a comedian said on one of her shows, if Bill Gates woke up one morning as rich as Oprah, he'd jump out a window and kill himself.)

Two women came to him, each claiming to be the mother of a certain baby. Neither would retract her story. Solomon raised a sword, saying the only fair way to settle the issue would be to cut the child in two, giving one half to each mother. One of the women cried out, "No! I am not his mother! Give him to her!" Solomon put down the sword and took up the baby. He placed the baby in the arms of the woman who had cried out, because she was willing to lose the child rather than see him harmed.

Gore did that. Gore was willing to lose the Presidency rather than see the nation divided in two.

So, no. Winning at any cost is NOT an American thing. It is a fascist thing. It is an ethically-challenged thing. It is a treasonous thing. But the traditions of America have been to fight and triumph over such behavior.

That fool Hamm cost himself millions in endorsements by refusing to be generous about the medal. Had he given it up, he would have made more than he would have winning it, because he would then have stood out from other medal winners as being the epitome of good sportsmanship. Now, he's the example of poor sportsmanship. You won't see him wearing Nikes on TV.

I was raised with "It's not whether you win or lose, but how you play the game." To me THAT is the American way. People who couldn't adhere to that were either bad winners or sore losers. The latter were often understood, as loosing is hard. But the former, bad winners, were inexusable.

I certainly did not grow up with that approach, and my parents were both Republicans (and my father admired Vince Lombardi, the "winning is not everything, it's the only thing" guy).

I think a lot of the win-at-any-cost attitude comes disproportionately from two sources: the current GOP leadership and media coverage of sports. For a good 20 years or so I have noticed that broadcasters treat silver and bronze medals as though they indicated no ranking at all; the athlete "lost" if he/she didn't win the gold medal. An American athlete recently pointed this out to a journalist who stupidly treated the athlete's winning of a medal as a disappointment, as a loss. "We just won a medal at the Olympics." the young woman said.

Then there's the GOP, or at least the current leadership of the GOP. We saw with Clinton's impeachment and the elections of 2000, 2002, and 2004 that some in the GOP no longer think it's enough to get the right number of votes; the reputation and standing of the opponent must be destroyed. Impeachment wasn't about chastity or even about lying; it was about crippling Clinton and hopefully driving him out of the presidency.

The same thing is true in the treatment of Al Gore and John Kerry. The goal is not to attract supporters but to impugn as many aspects of he candidate's character and record as possible, particularly in areas where the candidate shows strength.

And it's no coincidence that George W. Bush uses this technique in all of his "successful" campaigns, including the primary campaign against McCain. Bush was rolling in cash and name recognition and GOP establishment support, and he still trashed McCain's record and reputation. It was done by surrogates, mind you, so the fiction of Bush as a nice guy could be maintained, but again, the American people should ask themselves why a "nice guy" always runs intensely negative, angry campaigns.

Note that not all Republicans use this technique. McCain certainly didn't stoop to it. Note also that Bush has no compunction about turning on members of his own party if they block him in any way. This is one of the reasons why the long-term prospects of the GOP are not as rosy as conventional wisdom supposes. They definitely stand to alienate both their base and members of the electorate as a whole.

I can only pray that the American people will soon understand what a soulless, vicious, vindictive creature George W. Bush is, and that it would be completely stupid to trust him with national security or our economic system.

and then decide if it is only the US that can behave this way.

For the rest of his life, when Paul Hamm holds that medal in his hand, it will be meaningless because he didn't win it. He should have had more pride. Refusing to return a tarnished prize does not change the outcome, but it does change many people's perception of the young man's character. His good name should be worth more than a gold medal.

On the other hand, look at the actions of Mohammed Ali. After he won the Olympic gold medal, he threw his medal off a bridge in Louisville, Kentucky because a restaurant refused to serve a black man. He won that medal fair and square, but he did not value it over his own character. He had more pride.

There is a code of honor that draws a clear line between what is honorable and what is not. Ask Tanya Harding and her kneecap smashing boyfriend.

Only rightwingers and guests on the Jerry Springer Show believe winning at any cost is worthy of respect.

they got caught.What if they didn't get caught? Is getting caught the only bad thing?

and brag to all your friends who didn't know the truth about your victory? And if not, why not?

I used to cheat at Solitaire when I was a kid. My dad would laugh and say, "You can't cheat Old Sol. That's just cheating yourself."

on edit: typo

Hamm didn't make the mistake. Why should he give up a medal he earned because of someone else's error? I mean, I can see doing it out of good sportsmanship, at the same time, you'd think the other athletes and their coaches might have paid attention to something as important as a difficulty rating of a routine. It's a bigger issue than just 'he was a bad sport to not give it up', IMHO.

I think there will always be some people who believe that winning at all costs is acceptable. I agree that the focus on 'first place' as the only place isn't a great thing. But I don't think you can blame it all on a political group or sports or anything of that nature. If you watch even very young children, some are naturally more aggressive and persistant about going after what they want. I think it's human nature, and our society encourages it, but doesn't cause it in the first place.

And during my youth sports referee/umpire days, I made plenty of bad calls myself. I never gave back a win or asked for a loss to be taken away because of a bad call. It's part of the game.

Though I am still pissed about that spot on 4th and 1 in the McKinley game my senior year. Fucking ref.