If Chicago had gotten the Olympics, those same people would be giving him hell for caring more about that than domestic issues and would crucify him for the tax increases in Chicago. A Chicago Olympics would have been tremendous for the Republicans in Illinois.
I think what they are cheering is Obama's inability to get his whishes granted by the IOC by simply showing up. To say they are cheering an "American Defeat" is a bit over the top. IMHO.
Let's ask Quebecers: Stadium financing Despite initial projections in 1970 that the stadium would cost only C$134 million to construct, strikes and construction delays served to escalate these costs. By the time the stadium opened (in an unfinished form), the total costs had risen to C$264 million. The Quebec government introduced a special tobacco tax in May 1976 to help recoup its investment. By 2006, the amount contributed to the Olympic Installations Board accounted for 8% of the tax revenue earned from cigarette sales. The 1976 special tobacco tax act stipulated that once the stadium was paid off, ownership of the facility would be returned to the City of Montreal. In mid-November 2006 the stadium's costs were finally paid in full.[6] The total expenditure (including repairs, renovations, construction, interest, and inflation) amounted to C$1.61 billion. Despite initial plans to complete payment in October 2006, an indoor smoking ban introduced in May 2006 curtailed the revenue gathered by the tobacco tax.[6] Perceived by many to be a white elephant, the stadium has also been dubbed The Big Owe, Uh-O or The Big Mistake.
I think the fact that you think this was somehow Obama's motivation or thinking says more about you and your attitudes than anything else. America lost out on competitive bid, and you are - literally - cheering. And solely because Obama was involved, however tangentially. Frankly, I think you would have taken whatever position necessary to take a swipe at Obama that the outcome dictated.
I don't necessarily disagree with the general thrust of any of that, but the point I was making was more restricted. Fact is, to those of us watching from the sidelines, it doesn't seem to matter who's in power - the arguments used are the same by either side. Bottom line - left and right in America are, in some specific contexts, indistinguishable from one another. Not the point. It's about message, not reality. Rewind to 2004/5 and it was Bush and his wingnut mouthpieces on Fox News telling the world that "libs" wanted America to lose in Iraq, wanted America to cede global leadership on "The War on Terror" to wimpy European diplomats, wanted America to fail. The message and particular the characteristics of the message - the vehemence, the bitterness, the conviction - all are identical.
Hey foos, I get that you don't like me but can you point to where I was cheering? See you in the Nordecke tonight.
If Obama "fails" as the #1 American on the world stage and our biggest cheerleader, either with Olympic bids or talks with Iran, then wingers are happy as pigs in shit. I don't think there's any doubt about that. Compare that attitude with the 90% of Americans who threw support behind Bush post 9/11 and who were hoping he'd do the right thing and this false equivalence is completely silly. Republicans #1 goal is winning elections, period. That means constant demonization from the day Obama took the oath. We saw this playbook during the Clinton yrs. Nobody should be shocked.
Well, to be honest, I am shocked about one thing: that the DNC, the DCCC, and the Obama administration all seem to have been completely unprepared for this tactic, and thus very ineffective at countering it.
I don't think you can equate an Olympic bid with talks with a possibly nuclear Iran. Then to throw in the support shown for Bush after 9/11 and equate that to an Olympic bid doesn't make sense, either. I will agree that the right likes to make hay while the sun is shining, same as the left. But to equate something as trivial as an Olympic bid with national security issues is just plain dumb. I wish Chicago would have gotten the bid so I could have seen some of the soccer games and I did think Obama's influence would help. I was wrong.
I don't like your internet persona, but I don't really know you. We might get along just fine. Sadly - as you might have guessed from the timestamp on this post - I won't be there. I'm not in a position where I've got money to spend on going to games, especially since my wife's car died unexpectedly and we had to buy a new car today (just missed C4C. Stupid car couldn't have bit the dust 2 months ago? The Nissan Versa we got might have been efficient enough to make a 10 year old Honda CR-V qualify for the program.)
I don’t see what’s wrong with questioning the wisdom of putting Presidential prestige online, especially when the effort seems so inept. And it isn’t just the “WingNuts” asking the question: An Interesting take from the NY Times … Mr. Obama’s decision to become the first American president to lobby the Olympic committee in person, just two weeks after saying he was too busy with health care legislation, was a gamble from the start. It was predicated on the theory that Mr. Obama’s star power overseas — “the best brand in the world,” as his advisers have put it — was luminescent enough to make the difference. … A sense of stunned bewilderment suffused Air Force One and the White House. Only after the defeat did many advisers ask questions about the byzantine politics of the Olympic committee. Valerie Jarrett, the president’s senior adviser and a Chicago booster who persuaded him to make the trip while at the United Nations last week, had repeatedly compared the contest to the Iowa caucuses. But officials said the administration did not independently verify Chicago’s chances, relying instead on the Chicago 2016 committee assertions that the city had enough support to finish in the top two. Mr. Obama, Michelle Obama, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and Ms. Jarrett worked the phones in recent weeks without coming away with a sense of how behind Chicago really was. “Most of our information came from the committee and the Chicago folks,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president. “But I don’t want to leave the impression that somehow we went on the basis of faulty information. We went because it was the right thing to do.” When Chicago was eliminated in the first round after receiving only 18 of 94 votes, senior Democrats began debating whether it had been wise for the president to become so invested in the bid. But with Mr. Obama flying back to Washington and out of pocket for hours, Mr. Axelrod rushed onto television to defend the effort. “I don’t view this as a repudiation of the president and the first lady,” he said. “He would do it again if he had the opportunity.” Still, several friends and aides to Mr. Obama said Friday’s outcome had a similar feeling to the campaign’s loss in the New Hampshire primary. But unlike the presidential race, the quest to host the Olympic Games had no more contests to go.
So the Chicago OOC greatly underestimated the amount of cash that needed to go out in bribes or... No US city has enough money to bribe enough IOC members anymore. Either way,embarrassing.
I dont think artists who criticize the President should be allowed on the radio. Im sure the Wingers agree.
Small potatoes. Colin Powell ruined his well-earned rep. pimpin' for Bushie's fake WMD argument at the UN. Let's keep things in proper perspective.
The office has been tarnished beyond repair by Dick Cheney. President Obama cannot repair it completely, but any suggestion that he has left it vulnerable by trying to bring the USA another Olympiad is crackhead stupid whether it appears in the NYTimes or Grit. That said, he probably shouldn't have bothered.
I realize this is hyperbole, but talk about crackhead stupid, the "it's Bush's fault" defense is well past the sell by date.
Maybe Rio could offer IOC members a whole lotta something that wouldn't show up in their bank accounts?
Things that do not damage the prestige of the office: * Lying about getting BJs from a chubby intern * Showing visible signs of Altzheimer and going on autopilot during the second term in office * A clumsy espionage attempt at the Watergate office complex * Being a peanut farmer * Going completely off the grid during the worst domestic natural disaster of the last decade, then giving a hearty "Heckuva job" to the prime target of public anger and criticism * Puking on the Japanese PM * Effing things up so much that the preferred narrative is now, "He wasn't really in charge, Cheney was running things." Things that damage the prestige of the office: * Representing a losing bid to the IOC Well, okay. But we'll know if the prestige of the office is really shot when a journalist throws a shoe at a US President and candidates ask a president not to stump for them because he's so toxic.