Obama's Olympic pitch draws GOP complaint

[MacNut]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-ubeZxp4teymzpNsaikQFX-UYOwD9B15GJ05
NEW YORK — President Obama's decision to travel to Copenhagen to boost Chicago's chances of winning the 2016 Olympics has drawn criticism from some Republicans, who call it a boondoggle for Obama's hometown allies and evidence the president has blurred his priorities.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele denounced the visit on a conference call with reporters Tuesday. Calling it "noble for the president to pitch his home city, Chi-town," before the International Olympic Committee Friday, Steele said it nonetheless was a distraction from more pressing issues such as health care, job creation and other urgent demands on Obama's time.

However, Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and 2008 Republican presidential contender, said Obama was right to make an appearance.

"In the current environment, the presence of a head of state is important to get the Games," Romney, who headed the 2002 Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, said, noting that former British Prime Minister Tony Blair had set a new standard by personally lobbying for his country's succesful 2012 Olympic bid.

Steele said it raised questions about Obama's priorities.

"Where is the focus?" Steele asked. "At a time of war, at a time of recession ... I think this trip is nice but not necessary for the president. The goal should be creating job opportunities not seven years from now, but job opportunities today."

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs laughed when told of Steele's criticism of Obama's trip.

"Who's he rooting for?" Robert Gibbs said. "Is he hoping to hop a plane to Brazil and catch the Olympics in Rio? I don't know. Maybe it's Madrid."
Steele's comments echoed those of Rep. Peter Hoekstra of Michigan, the ranking GOP member of the House Intelligence Committee, who told reporters Obama should focus on the escalating conflict in Afghanistan.

Just last week Obama said he wouldn't make the trip to Copenhagen, citing his need to press for health care reform legislation instead. White House officials mentioned the economic benefits the U.S. would receive from a winning Olympics bid in explaining the president's sudden change of heart.
First Lady Michelle Obama was originally slated to represent Chicago before the IOC but will now share the duties with her husband.

The city's bid is competing with bids from Rio de Janeiro, Madrid, Spain and Tokyo, and the heads of state from Brazil, Spain and Japan are appearing in person to make their countries' pitch.

Indeed, Curt Hamakawa, director of the Center for International Sport Business at Western New England College in Massachusetts, said Chicago would likely lose the bid if Obama had chosen not to go.

"For the president not to attend would send a signal, and it would not be helpful to Chicago's bid. Almost certainly it would result in Chicago not having a chance," Hamakawa said, adding that if Obama had stayed home and Chicago wasn't selected, "Republicans would have been crabbing that he didn't do enough."

GOP strategist John Feehery said it was important for Republicans to pick their battles in deciding how and when to criticize Obama.

But Feehery, a Chicago native who said he is rooting for the city to win the Games, said GOP complaints about Obama's trip were well-founded.

"He's taking a bunch of Chicago cronies on an all expense paid trip to Copenhagen for just one reason, to get the Olympics," Feehery said. "For me it makes him seem unserious and look slightly desperate."

Grumbling about Obama's trip began to bubble up on conservative blogs and Web sites soon after the White House announced Obama's trip Monday.

"It's not like the president doesn't have anything to do, nothing important on his plate at the moment, right?" the blog Rightwing Nuthouse.com asked, while the conservative Drudge Report posted a television news story about a Chicago teen beaten and murdered in gang warfare there last week.

"Olympic Spirit," the Drudge Report declared in a headline.Has any other sitting president gone this far to get the Olympic bid, not criticizing just asking. Curious what other Chicagoans think about this.

[thegoldenmackid]

It is one day. Steele is an idiot that isn't even respected in his own party. Clearly other Presidential activities such as meeting with the champions of respective sporting events are more meaningful then spending a day on a trip that could result in billions of dollars being spent in the United States.

How many jobs or how much resolution on health care can Obama do in the one day that he is going to be gone. This is why someone's party is laughed upon.

[yg17]

Hypocrites. Where was the outrage from the GOP when Bush went on vacation practically every weekend?

[Zombie Acorn]

The area could use the economic boost. I think we have a few more pressing matters though.

[thegoldenmackid]

Hypocrites. Where was the outrage from the GOP when Bush went on vacation practically every weekend?

The wood that he sawed in Crawford created jobs and the lawyer that Cheney shot was really an enemy combatant.

The area could use the economic boost. I think we have a few more pressing matters though.

I agree Health Care more important then Olympics, but seriously, it's not as if 100 percent of the President's time is going to be spent on the Olympics. It's rather the opposite, explain to me what one day is going to matter.

I mean, he's also the head of state and should act like one. Going to lobby for the Olympics seems better then...
http://cache.daylife.com/imageserve/07EG5CUguj7nL/610x.jpg
http://photos.upi.com/Photos_of_the_Day/349a5c622e847f44d91f078c8d8f40f3/September-10-2009_10.jpg

[MacNut]

The area could use the economic boost. I think we have a few more pressing matters though.How much will it cost Chicago to build everything. Will they be in debt before they turn a maybe 2 week profit.

[Eraserhead]

The wood that he sawed in Crawford created jobs and the lawyer that Cheney shot was really an enemy combatant.

ROFL.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-ubeZxp4teymzpNsaikQFX-UYOwD9B15GJ05
Has any other sitting president gone this far to get the Olympic bid, not criticizing just asking. Curious what other Chicagoans think about this.

Its one day, and he has "adopted" Chicago as his city. I don't think any of the press made an issue about Blair supporting the London Olympic bid - let alone an MP.

[MacNut]

ROFL.



Its one day, and he has "adopted" Chicago as his city.Do the people of Chicago want the Olympics.

[thegoldenmackid]

How much will it cost Chicago to build everything. Will they be in debt before they turn a maybe 2 week profit.

Who knows, but I imagine Chicago would come out with a profit in the end.

Do the people of Chicago want the Olympics.

Nearly two-thirds of Chicago-area residents want the city to host the 2016 Summer Olympic Games,

Seems the citizens have the right idea (http://archives.chicagotribune.com/2009/feb/08/local/chi-olympics-poll08feb08) to avoid the problems of debt/taxes.

[MacNut]

Chicago-area residentsThose are not people in the city who would have to put up with it.

[niuniu]

Good on Obama for making the pitch. I'm not his no.1 fan, but some critics are childishly transparent and there's no way you can pin a lack of focus on any policy over Obama taking a day trip to pitch an economically important event.

[leekohler]

Can Obama breath without the GOP throwing a fit?

[electroshock]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g-ubeZxp4teymzpNsaikQFX-UYOwD9B15GJ05
Has any other sitting president gone this far to get the Olympic bid, not criticizing just asking. Curious what other Chicagoans think about this.

Not a Chicagoan but one word best summarizes the reported remarks: unbelievable.

[.Andy]

Can Obama breath without the GOP throwing a fit?
That is their job as opposition. Just be glad on this occasion they haven't tried to liken it to hitler in some way (yet).


edit: really like the word boondoggle.

[MacNut]

Can Obama breath without the GOP throwing a fit?Lee you live in Chicago, do you want the games there?

[gilkisson]

Wait.. Mitt Romney being the be-all-end-all savior of the Olympics meant, back then, that he was qualified and interested in promoting America.

But now it's a horrible corrupt thing to do?

[leekohler]

That is their job as opposition. Just be glad on this occasion they haven't tried to liken it to hitler in some way (yet).


edit: really like the word boondoggle.

Wait- didn't Hitler have the Olympics too? :rolleyes::D

Lee you live in Chicago, do you want the games there?

No- the majority of people don't. But I don't see the fuss over Obama pitching the Games.

[electroshock]

That is their job as opposition. Just be glad on this occasion they haven't tried to liken it to hitler in some way (yet).

It's understandable that Mr. Steele would have to make these comments lest he risk a leadership power struggle from within his own party over efforts to aggressively present a counterviewpoint.

But he would also do well to remember what the Olympic movement is all about: a temporary truce amongst nations involved, free of politics (or so goes the ideals), to mount the greatest exhibition of athletic competition on Earth. He doesn't have to like or agree with Mr. Obama's views, but he could at least try not to make such comments to derail this nation's tough bid -- or at least hold such comments until after the outcome is known.

[thegoldenmackid]

Those are not people in the city who would have to put up with it.
The people in the area will have to "live with it." Why do you despise the Olympics.

Can Obama breath without the GOP throwing a fit?
Nope.

Wait- didn't Hitler have the Olympics too? :rolleyes::D
Yeah, Hitler also had a dog.

[MacNut]

Why do you despise the Olympics.When did I say that?? I like to watch them, would want to go sometime. Not sure I would want it in my back yard though.

[yg17]

My money is on Rio getting them anyways, South America has never hosted the Olympics before.

I can't say I'd want them in my city either, it would be a huge clusteryou-know-what. I think Chicago hosting the Olympics would benefit St. Louis and other nearby cities, what with people visiting Chicago wanting to see other cities too and perhaps people who live in Chicago just wanting to get the hell away from the mess, but I wouldn't want the Olympics themselves here.

[.Andy]

It's understandable that Mr. Steele would have to make these comments lest he risk a leadership power struggle from within his own party over efforts to aggressively present a counterviewpoint.

But he would also do well to remember what the Olympic movement is all about: a temporary truce amongst nations involved, free of politics (or so goes the ideals), to mount the greatest exhibition of athletic competition on Earth. He doesn't have to like or agree with Mr. Obama's views, but he could at least try not to make such comments to derail this nation's tough bid -- or at least hold such comments until after the outcome is known.
Which is exactly why the good cop bad cop routine is so effective here. Steele playing politics to solidify support from opponents of obama with the point of view that pimping chicago is undermining the presidency. And romney saying that it's a worthwhile goal for the sake of america. That's the beauty of being in opposition. You can attack from multiple angles. On issues such as this there is little impetus on displaying a united front.

When did I say that?? I like to watch them, would want to go sometime. Not sure I would want it in my back yard though.
When they were in sydney I think they were awesome. Wasn't that enthusiastic beforehand but it turned out pretty cool.

[PlaceofDis]

as a chicagoan i do NOT want the Olympics here at all. and while i don't care that Obama wants to go and support the bid, the only reason it bothers me at all is that it strengthens Chicago's chances of getting the games... something i'm opposed to.

the city is in debt already, these massive projects might spur some growth, but in the end we'll end up even more in debt. at best i think it'd end up being a break-even gamble.

[thegoldenmackid]

When did I say that?? I like to watch them, would want to go sometime. Not sure I would want it in my back yard though.
Yes, I would love for Dallas to host them. It would be cool to get to experience that in my backyard.

Which is exactly why the good cop bad cop routine is so effective here. Steele playing politics to solidify support from opponents of obama with the point of view that pimping chicago is undermining the presidency. And romney saying that it's a worthwhile goal for the sake of america. That's the beauty of being in opposition. You can attack from multiple angles. On issues such as this there is little impetus on displaying a united front.
Yes, but illogical points.

as a chicagoan i do NOT want the Olympics here at all. and while i don't care that Obama wants to go and support the bid, the only reason it bothers me at all is that it strengthens Chicago's chances of getting the games... something i'm opposed to.

the city is in debt already, these massive projects might spur some growth, but in the end we'll end up even more in debt. at best i think it'd end up being a break-even gamble.
But if private funds (I know that won't happen) paid for them, would you support it?

[yg17]

But if private funds (I know that won't happen) paid for them, would you support it?

It's a huge logistical nightmare. Yeah, it's nice to have your city in the international spotlight for a couple weeks, but events like that create a huge mess for people that live there. St. Louis had the MLB All-Star Game this year, and I work downtown a few blocks from Busch Stadium. Luckily, I had the luxury of working from home for those 2 days (home run derby and the game) but others didn't, and the traffic, closed streets, detours, scarce and expensive parking, etc, just created a big problem for them, and I can't even begin to imagine how much worse the Olympics would be. And employers aren't going to let employees off work for 3 weeks just because the Olympics are in town.

[leekohler]

as a chicagoan i do NOT want the Olympics here at all. and while i don't care that Obama wants to go and support the bid, the only reason it bothers me at all is that it strengthens Chicago's chances of getting the games... something i'm opposed to.

the city is in debt already, these massive projects might spur some growth, but in the end we'll end up even more in debt. at best i think it'd end up being a break-even gamble.

Ditto. We'll get stuck with the bill no matter what they say.

[Zombie Acorn]

Yes, I would love for Dallas to host them. It would be cool to get to experience that in my backyard.


Yes, but illogical points.


But if private funds (I know that won't happen) paid for them, would you support it?

Whos to say that private funds won't cover much of the cost? Its been the way before IIRC, and the cities who hosted came out ahead. (given the people that live there have to deal with the cluster**** for a while).

[yg17]

Ditto. We'll get stuck with the bill no matter what they say.

My money is on Rio getting them anyways, South America has never hosted the Olympics before and IIRC, they're the first South American city to actually be in the final stages of bidding.

[.Andy]

Yes, but illogical points.
This doesn't matter when the people you are courting are partisan.

[MacNut]

Whos to say that private funds won't cover much of the cost? Its been the way before IIRC, and the cities who hosted came out ahead. (given the people that live there have to deal with the cluster**** for a while).Didn't Greece come close to going bankrupt.

[PlaceofDis]

But if private funds (I know that won't happen) paid for them, would you support it?

nope. its a mess. the construction and all the planning leading up to it is going to make it a nightmare to live here, as well as the mess of three weeks of the games actually going on. overcongestion much? and the public transportation here is decent, but i can't imagine how swamped it'd be then. and its out of money too. where is that money going to come from?

we already have the highest sales tax in the nation the last time i checked, what are they going to do, raise it even more and make the poor poorer just so we can be in the spotlight? chicago is already known around the world, it doesn't need to have the spotlight on it really.

[Zombie Acorn]

Didn't Greece come close to going bankrupt.

I was talking about American host cities, not sure about Greece. I believe the government handled some infrastructure type things, but private took up a large majority of the costs when the US held it.

[thegoldenmackid]

Whos to say that private funds won't cover much of the cost? Its been the way before IIRC, and the cities who hosted came out ahead. (given the people that live there have to deal with the cluster**** for a while).

Usually it's federal money that is a large chunk that is not recoverable. Given the way are government throws around billions, this seems like something that would be a good investment.

[Eraserhead]

Didn't Greece come close to going bankrupt.

I very much doubt it, the Olympics is only a few billion dollars to host.

Athens may have nearly gone bankrupt, and Montreal (from 1976) is apparently still paying off their debt for hosting it.

[MacNut]

How much money goes back to the host city. Don't most ticket sales go to the IOC.

[.Andy]

How much money goes back to the host city. Don't most ticket sales go to the IOC.
It's your thread man how about you try and find some figures :D!

[Zombie Acorn]

How much money goes back to the host city. Don't most ticket sales go to the IOC.

I would think the rise in economic activity in the area of chicago would be more profitable then tickets. I looked up the olympics in Angeles and Atlanta and it appears both turned a profit.

[Little HZ]

"The Los Angeles Games in 1984 were the first to make a profit since 1932, scooping a $1.4bn windfall for the city. Atlanta in 1996 also made a profit. However, the real benefits of hosting the Games are often to the host country’s economy. South Korea’s economy grew 12% in the year of the Seoul Olympics. The Sydney Games in 2000 boosted the Australian economy by $3.3bn. But perhaps the most successful Olympics of modern times were the Barcelona Games in 1992, which marked the start of an economic and cultural renaissance for the Catalan capital."

From:

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/will-greece-be-an-olympic-winner.aspx

[NT1440]

"The Los Angeles Games in 1984 were the first to make a profit since 1932, scooping a $1.4bn windfall for the city. Atlanta in 1996 also made a profit. However, the real benefits of hosting the Games are often to the host country’s economy. South Korea’s economy grew 12% in the year of the Seoul Olympics. The Sydney Games in 2000 boosted the Australian economy by $3.3bn. But perhaps the most successful Olympics of modern times were the Barcelona Games in 1992, which marked the start of an economic and cultural renaissance for the Catalan capital."

From:

http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/will-greece-be-an-olympic-winner.aspx

That would be nice.

[MacNut]

Read a paragraph up in that article.Are the Olympics usually a bonanza for the host country?No. Far from it. The Montreal Games in 1976 were a financial disaster. Costs spiralled to four times their original estimate, and to this day the city’s smokers are obliged to contribute a sixth of every cent they spend on their habit to help pay off the lingering debt. Quebec residents will not finish paying for the Games until 2006, by which stage the main stadium, known locally as “The Big Owe”, will have cost $2.4bn.

[Thomas Veil]

In other news, John Boehner criticized President Obama's bowel movements today. "Too many sinkers, not enough floaters," Boehner said.

[takao]

not that chicago has much of a chance anyway against Rio... especially after Atlanta competing in 1996 simply with coca colas money, going against Athens pitching for 100 year anniversary at the time ... and winning :rolleyes:

and let's not forget how "great" the 1996 games where

[leekohler]

not that chicago has much of a chance anyway against Rio... especially after Atlanta competing in 1996 simply with coca colas money, going against Athens pitching for 100 year anniversary at the time ... and winning :rolleyes:

and let's not forget how "great" the 1996 games where

I'm hoping Rio gets it too. I'm also thinking Daley is using this to keep Fitzgerald off his crooked a**. He got our Governor, we're hoping Daley is next.

[rdowns]

If he didn't go, they would have criticized him for not going and only sending his wife. :rolleyes:

[ucfgrad93]

Can Obama breath without the GOP throwing a fit?

No more than Bush could without the Dems throwing a hissy fit.

But, I think this is not a big deal.

[thegoldenmackid]

No more than Bush could without the Dems throwing a hissy fit.

But, I think this is not a big deal.
This really seems to be a different extent. Mr. Steele seems significantly more concerned with what Obama does then what his party didn't do in the last election.

How much money goes back to the host city. Don't most ticket sales go to the IOC.

Umm ticket sales are minor, there are:
New Construction with new jobs
Hotels
Food
Airport Taxes
Road Taxes
International Recognition, bringing in more tourism
Tourists visiting general tourists sites

The people bring money to the city to be spent.

[bradl]

I will say, though, that 2001-2002 may come back to bite Obama and Chicago in general when it comes to at least getting people in and out of the area proper.

Keep in mind that while ORD has expanded to as much as it can, MDW can't expand any further, and King Daley destroyed Meigs Field to turn it into a park for his wife, without notifying anyone with the FAA nor the DOT, and against federal law at that. If Chicago gets it, they may not have the capacity to accommodate everyone. There is Chicago Int'l Airport, but that's actually in Gary, Indiana; which Chicago wouldn't get a cent of that money; obviously, it would go to Indiana.

Living in Las Vegas while being part of the chaos that was Salt Lake City in 2002, I can guarantee you that there may not be the capacity to handle everyone. SLC2002 was when every flight into the area had to land at a designated satellite airport, be inspected, and then continue on to SLC; those airports being Vegas, Boise, Seattle, LAX, and Denver. A lot of the flight that came through Vegas on the way up were not commercial. ORD doesn't have the capacity for it, nor does MDW. Meigs was the best place to handle it. Now that they don't have that... well.. One of many reasons why King Daley has to go.

BL.

[Tomorrow]

There shouldn't be a story here.

The American President is pitching for the Olympics to come to America. It's a coincidence that Chicago seems to be the American front-runner, and that Obama is from Chicago. When I was in Chicago a few months ago, there were stands, signs, etc. all over town about bringing the Olympics to town.

All that being said, I lived in Norman, OK when the Goodwill Games were being held there. They were not anywhere near as big a deal as the Olympics, but it turned the town upside-down and made things as simple as going to class or getting out to buy groceries a pain in the ass, because they were diverting traffic all over the place.

Overall, I wouldn't mind seeing the Olympics held in the U.S., but I wouldn't want it to be to close to where I live.

[yg17]

I will say, though, that 2001-2002 may come back to bite Obama and Chicago in general when it comes to at least getting people in and out of the area proper.

Keep in mind that while ORD has expanded to as much as it can, MDW can't expand any further, and King Daley destroyed Meigs Field to turn it into a park for his wife, without notifying anyone with the FAA nor the DOT, and against federal law at that. If Chicago gets it, they may not have the capacity to accommodate everyone. There is Chicago Int'l Airport, but that's actually in Gary, Indiana; which Chicago wouldn't get a cent of that money; obviously, it would go to Indiana.

Living in Las Vegas while being part of the chaos that was Salt Lake City in 2002, I can guarantee you that there may not be the capacity to handle everyone. SLC2002 was when every flight into the area had to land at a designated satellite airport, be inspected, and then continue on to SLC; those airports being Vegas, Boise, Seattle, LAX, and Denver. A lot of the flight that came through Vegas on the way up were not commercial. ORD doesn't have the capacity for it, nor does MDW. Meigs was the best place to handle it. Now that they don't have that... well.. One of many reasons why King Daley has to go.

BL.

Well, there's still STL, IND, MKE, MSN and DTW nearby. And if they want some of the airport tax revenue to remain in Illinois, I have the perfect spot for them. Mid America Airport. Just outside of St. Louis in Illinois, it was originally built to be a reliever airport to STL when it was a busy TWA hub, but now it remains pretty much unused.

[callmemike20]

I'm hoping Rio gets it too. I'm also thinking Daley is using this to keep Fitzgerald off his crooked a**. He got our Governor, we're hoping Daley is next.

Lol. I actually agree with you on something Lee. Daley just gets away with everything.

Although, I do wish Chicago could get the olympics without having the taxpayers involved. But Chicago is too crooked to do anything efficient financially. Living in the loop and being a student, I've had the opportunity to meet a lot of aldermen, county commissioners, and even Mayor Daley (went to his office with my class). Based on my political opinion, Tony Peraica is the only normal guy out of all of them. He is actually exposing a lot of stuff on Scrohger (or however the heck you spell his name).

But if chicago got the olympics, many jobs would be created for primarily union workers, more buildings will go up, the city will be seen more on a global scale, and maybe more businesses will move into the city (that is, unless, taxes skyrocket).

[bradl]

Well, there's still STL, IND, MKE, MSN and DTW nearby. And if they want some of the airport tax revenue to remain in Illinois, I have the perfect spot for them. Mid America Airport. Just outside of St. Louis in Illinois, it was originally built to be a reliever airport to STL when it was a busy TWA hub, but now it remains pretty much unused.

Would people going to the Olympics after a 5 hour or longer flight still want to drive another 4 - 5 hours to get there? That would be like flying into LAX or PHX just to drive up to Las Vegas. It just doesn't make sense.

There just may not be the capacity at the Chicago airports, and Daley shot themselves in the foot rather bad by destroying Meigs.


I've had the opportunity to meet a lot of aldermen, county commissioners, and even Mayor Daley (went to his office with my class).


You should have taken a leak on his desk. ;)

BL.

[NC MacGuy]

I don't think it's a big deal at all and the GOP is grasping here.

Realistically, Chicago is not a good place due to the concerns already addressed in this thread. I can't stand going to the RSNA there every year and it's supposed to be a slow time.:eek:

[yg17]

Would people going to the Olympics after a 5 hour or longer flight still want to drive another 4 - 5 hours to get there? That would be like flying into LAX or PHX just to drive up to Las Vegas. It just doesn't make sense.

I thought the idea was, at least for the international flights, to clear customs and immigration at an alternate airport and continue on to Chicago as a domestic flight that can land there without C&I, which would be a huge bottleneck at ORD.

[DiamondMac]

I don't think it's a big deal at all and the GOP is grasping here.

Of course, they need something to cry about and think this is some sort of controversy which nobody else agrees with them except their extreme base which diminishes by the year.

It's hilarious watching them continue killing any sort of chance at the White House in '2012

[callmemike20]

I thought the idea was, at least for the international flights, to clear customs and immigration at an alternate airport and continue on to Chicago as a domestic flight that can land there without C&I, which would be a huge bottleneck at ORD.

That wouldn't be a bad idea. Personally, I think traffic is the thing they should worry the least about. They have so many options. They plan on spreading the activities all around the city. The red and blue lines will probably be the hardest hit CTA wise. They have plenty of options with airports. And if you ever go to the loop after 5pm, its nearly a ghost town. In fact, I could never find anything to eat because everything closed at 5. Now, lake shore dr, that will be the worst and probably be the biggest traffic concern. I say they build a monorail along lakeshore dr.

[callmemike20]

Of course, they need something to cry about and think this is some sort of controversy which nobody else agrees with them except their extreme base which diminishes by the year.

It's hilarious watching them continue killing any sort of chance at the White House in '2012

I'm a republican and I think its smart of Obama to do what he is doing. Mitt Romney also believe so (and I voted for him in the primaries).

[freeny]

Lets face it, Obama could promote smaller government, anti abortion and the establishment of America as a "Christian country" and the GOP would STILL oppose it.

[MacNut]

Lets face it, Obama could promote smaller government, anti abortion and the establishment of America as a "Christian country" and the GOP would STILL oppose it.Is this really anything new, didn't the Dems criticize everything Bush did.

[Metatron]

Lets face it, Obama could promote smaller government, anti abortion and the establishment of America as a "Christian country" and the GOP would STILL oppose it.

I will oppose obama because one of his first acts in office was to take 800 bn of my children's money. I hold W's last days in office in the same light.

[.Andy]

I will oppose obama because one of his first acts in office was to take 800 bn of my children's money.
You've got rich children.

[Zombie Acorn]

You've got rich children.

Thats just what they get for an inheritance... balla

[NT1440]

I will oppose obama because one of his first acts in office was to take 800 bn of my children's money. I hold W's last days in office in the same light.

So you will oppose everything he does because of one thing you dislike? How....childish.

[sushi]

There shouldn't be a story here.

The American President is pitching for the Olympics to come to America. It's a coincidence that Chicago seems to be the American front-runner, and that Obama is from Chicago. When I was in Chicago a few months ago, there were stands, signs, etc. all over town about bringing the Olympics to town.

All that being said, I lived in Norman, OK when the Goodwill Games were being held there. They were not anywhere near as big a deal as the Olympics, but it turned the town upside-down and made things as simple as going to class or getting out to buy groceries a pain in the ass, because they were diverting traffic all over the place.

Overall, I wouldn't mind seeing the Olympics held in the U.S., but I wouldn't want it to be to close to where I live.
Well said. Nothing wrong with a president trying to help his country.

I suppose the issue is that it's Chicago and he's from there. But economy wise, having the Olympics is better than not having the Olympics.

[bradl]

I thought the idea was, at least for the international flights, to clear customs and immigration at an alternate airport and continue on to Chicago as a domestic flight that can land there without C&I, which would be a huge bottleneck at ORD.

During the Winter Olympics in SLC in 2002, it was any flight bound for the SLC area that had to stop at an alternate airport and be inspected. And I have to correct myself here: the TSA only listed 4 airports designated for this: LAS, SLC, BOI, and DEN. So every SLC-bound flight had to stop at one of those airports.

In Chicago's case, Meigs could have helped to offset the capacity issues they would already have with ORD and MDW. GYY is close, but not really close. MKE is almost 2 hours drive; same with Peoria. STL is at least 4. Rockford and Prospect Heights might help, but based on what I saw of the flights stopping at LAS and flying on, there would be a LOT of them.

I hope they have some sort of plan for capacity for not just the airports, but people there. If they don't, they're in some serious kimchee.

BL.

[fivepoint]

Interesting how this bunch of liberals seem to be concerned about Obama spending money he doesn't have now. Why is it that you're more concerned about this local spending than federal spending? You say this will put Chicago billions of dollars in debt... well BO is attempting to put America TRILLIONS of dollars more in debt. Healthcare is going to cost Trillions, additional entitlements are going to cost Trillions, additional war with Afghanistan is going to cost Billions, Cap and Trade is going to cost Billions. He's digging us and our children further and further into crippling debt and no one seems to care. And yet, you're all convinced that getting the olympics in Chicago would be a DISASTER! Ah, the hypocrisy. :eek:

[Pocket lint]

Interesting how this bunch of liberals seem to be concerned about Obama spending money he doesn't have now. Why is it that you're more concerned about this local spending than federal spending? You say this will put Chicago billions of dollars in debt... well BO is attempting to put America TRILLIONS of dollars more in debt. Healthcare is going to cost Trillions, additional entitlements are going to cost Trillions, additional war with Afghanistan is going to cost Billions, Cap and Trade is going to cost Billions. He's digging us and our children further and further into crippling debt and no one seems to care. And yet, you're all convinced that getting the olympics in Chicago would be a DISASTER! Ah, the hypocrisy. :eek:

I don't see any hypocrisy at all, and it's not because I'm dumb or thickheaded.

The reality is that national healthcare has long-term benefits, hosting the Olympics is a gamble with questionable benefits, even in the short term.*

You're comparing apples to oranges all in an effort to argue "hypocrisy", not because there is any real hypocrisy present. In other words, you try to make the facts fit your opinion instead of letting the facts form your opinion.


*I'd personally love to live in a city hosting the Olympics. I'd really like to experience something like that.

[.Andy]

Interesting how this bunch of liberals seem to be concerned about Obama spending money he doesn't have now. Why is it that you're more concerned about this local spending than federal spending? You say this will put Chicago billions of dollars in debt... well BO is attempting to put America TRILLIONS of dollars more in debt.
You've yet again demonstrated an uncanny inability to read a thread. Macnut is the individual who is most concerned with cost and you'll find that he's probably not too keen to be labelled as a liberal. The majority of the objections so far are from people who are concerned of the logistics of the event and disruption to their lives. But as usual don't let reality come in the way of you banging away at your culture wars keyboard.

[fivepoint]

You've yet again demonstrated an uncanny inability to read a thread. Macnut is the individual who is most concerned with cost and you'll find that he's probably not too keen to be labelled as a liberal. The majority of the objections so far are from people who are concerned of the logistics of the event and disruption to their lives. But as usual don't let reality come in the way of you banging away at your culture wars keyboard.

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that liberals don't care about deficit spending, crippling debt in any circumstance... in Chicago for the Olympics or in the Federal government for entitlement programs? That they're generally not concerned with basic fundamental economics and over-burdening our youngest Americans for their own perceived current benefit? You're saying that liberals don't care about spending billions of dollars to hold the Olympics in Chicago? Interesting...

[Pocket lint]

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that liberals don't care about deficit spending, crippling debt in any circumstance... in Chicago for the Olympics or in the Federal government for entitlement programs? That they're generally not concerned with basic fundamental economics and over-burdening our youngest Americans for their own perceived current benefit? You're saying that liberals don't care about spending billions of dollars to hold the Olympics in Chicago? Interesting...

Talk about misrepresenting other people's arguments :rolleyes:

"Interesting ... "

[.Andy]

So, let me get this straight. You're saying that liberals don't care about deficit spending, crippling debt in any circumstance... in Chicago for the Olympics or in the Federal government for entitlement programs? That they're generally not concerned with basic fundamental economics and over-burdening our youngest Americans for their own perceived current benefit? You're saying that liberals don't care about spending billions of dollars to hold the Olympics in Chicago? Interesting...
No. I'm saying the culture wars baiting of your previous post is completely unsubstantiated. But you've got no shame at all and will just continue to forge ahead regardless.

[fivepoint]

No. I'm saying the culture wars baiting of your previous post is completely unsubstantiated. But you've got no shame at all and will just continue to forge ahead regardless.

It wasn't unsubstantiated at all. I just find it humorous how people's opinions change once the 'pain' gets closer to home. A new large federal government entitlement program is hard to get your hands around, to fully appreciate what it will cost, who will pay for it, what the economic damage is.

On the other hand, having to pay for something closer to home with a less broad audience responsible for paying for it, less ability to 'pass the buck' if you will, people tend to get more conservative with their money. I find it to be an interesting fact regarding human nature. Very similar to our freedoms and liberties. It's ok to take them away from someone else when it doesn't directly or considerably affect our own lives, but when it's our freedoms being taken away all of a sudden we're quoting the constitution and wondering why no one else is willing to stand up for our rights. It's unfortunate there are so few of us who are willing to stand up for these rights all the time regardless of whether it affects us personally or not. It's also unfortunate there are so few of us who are willing to stand up for conservative economics, not spending ourself silly, not promoting entitlement programss, etc. whether or not it affects us personally.

Like I said, the hypocrisy is laughable.

[PlaceofDis]

Interesting how this bunch of liberals seem to be concerned about Obama spending money he doesn't have now. Why is it that you're more concerned about this local spending than federal spending? You say this will put Chicago billions of dollars in debt... well BO is attempting to put America TRILLIONS of dollars more in debt. Healthcare is going to cost Trillions, additional entitlements are going to cost Trillions, additional war with Afghanistan is going to cost Billions, Cap and Trade is going to cost Billions. He's digging us and our children further and further into crippling debt and no one seems to care. And yet, you're all convinced that getting the olympics in Chicago would be a DISASTER! Ah, the hypocrisy. :eek:

stereotype much? hyperbole much?

Chicago has a ton of problems as a city, i live here, i pay my taxes and i see this as a frivolous attempt by our corrupt mayor to line his pockets and remain in power in a city that he has run into the red drastically even when our sales tax is outrageous and unfair in the manner that it is so convoluted that there are so many tiers and a different tax for so many different things; he is doing it for his own benefit, not the city's.

the city is just not going to be able to cope with the stress of having the olympics here imo. now if the city wasn't in shambles i'd be all for it honestly.

this is a corrupt local government. the federal government has its own flaws, and due to a multitude of factors we are creating a huge deficit to get ourselves out of a mess, healthcare reform is desperately needed in this country, and the starting costs of a federally run program might be prohibitive, but the outlasting benefits such a system would bring in the long term is what matters here. the olympics are a three week period that we'll have to spend billions on for the next 6-7 years if not longer after they're over and done with, for minimal gain. creating a healthy country where people have access to care that make their lives healthier and less costly will improve the country as a whole. not line some pockets of a mayor and his cronies. or the pockets of the insurance companies that we have today.

[Iscariot]

edit: really like the word boondoggle.

Hornswoggle has my vote for under-used descriptor.

OP: I'm pretty certain that if Obama stepped down and handed the presidency over to a Republican, it would draw GOP complaints. I don't really think this should be news.

[leekohler]

stereotype much? hyperbole much?

Chicago has a ton of problems as a city, i live here, i pay my taxes and i see this as a frivolous attempt by our corrupt mayor to line his pockets and remain in power in a city that he has run into the red drastically even when our sales tax is outrageous and unfair in the manner that it is so convoluted that there are so many tiers and a different tax for so many different things; he is doing it for his own benefit, not the city's.

the city is just not going to be able to cope with the stress of having the olympics here imo. now if the city wasn't in shambles i'd be all for it honestly.

this is a corrupt local government. the federal government has its own flaws, and due to a multitude of factors we are creating a huge deficit to get ourselves out of a mess, healthcare reform is desperately needed in this country, and the starting costs of a federally run program might be prohibitive, but the outlasting benefits such a system would bring in the long term is what matters here. the olympics are a three week period that we'll have to spend billions on for the next 6-7 years if not longer after they're over and done with, for minimal gain. creating a healthy country where people have access to care that make their lives healthier and less costly will improve the country as a whole. not line some pockets of a mayor and his cronies. or the pockets of the insurance companies that we have today.

I don't know why you bother. He's not going to get it. He doesn't want to understand, and doesn't care to.

That said, we are in total agreement on this. You and I have discussed this before in person. Daley is just trying to keep Fitzgerald off his butt.

Also, while we may have our problems, there is no denying that this is a fantastic city in which to live. Let's not forget that. There is no other place I would live in the United States.

No more than Bush could without the Dems throwing a hissy fit.

Don;t even try it. Bush actually did horrible things. Going to promote the Olympics is hardly a scary thing.

[.Andy]

It wasn't unsubstantiated at all. I just find it humorous how people's opinions change once the 'pain' gets closer to home. A new large federal government entitlement program is hard to get your hands around, to fully appreciate what it will cost, who will pay for it, what the economic damage is.
Again your culture wars baiting has little if anything to do with wthat has been discussed in this thread. Everyone else can have a discussion of logistics, disruption, pros and cons, and the possible injection of tourism and people to one's city by hosting the olympics. All you can do is beat your tiresome ideological culture wars drum.

[Mike Teezie]

Jesus.

The GOP reaaaaaalllllyyy grasps at straws don't they?

[MacNut]

Chicago the first city eliminated.

[arkitect]

Chicago the first city eliminated.

Tokyo gone as well…

[MacNut]

It's going to go to Rio.

[arkitect]

From the BBC's live commentary (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/olympic_games/8283061.stm):

BBC News' Adam Brookes in Chicago: "The shock of Chicago's elimination was greater for the fact that it came in the first round. And greater for the fact that President Obama had taken valuable hours from his packed and tense political schedule to travel to Copenhagen. His legendary powers of persuasion will be said to have failed him, though in reality it will be Chicago's bid that failed him. Nonetheless, this is a moment which allows the president's detractors to allege waning prestige on the part of his presidency. And it will raise questions about the political advice that he is receiving."

[ucfgrad93]

It is not President Obama's fault, it is the city of Chicago's fault. Clearly their bid was not up to the others.

Like MacNut, I think it will go to Rio.

[arkitect]

It is not President Obama's fault, it is the city of Chicago's fault. Clearly their bid was not up to the others.

Like MacNut, I think it will go to Rio.

I was just quoting a BBC reporter. And if you read it he says:
in reality it will be Chicago's bid that failed him.

;)

[yg17]

Chicago the first city eliminated.

That's quite a shock. I didn't think Chicago would get it, but I thought they would beat out Tokyo and Madrid and make it to the final round of voting and then lose to Rio.

[squeeks]

It is not President Obama's fault, it is the city of Chicago's fault. Clearly their bid was not up to the others.

Like MacNut, I think it will go to Rio.

Yes it is, he fails at nearly everything he does

I.E.

Stimulus Bill (unemployment is what 2%? 3%? higher then he promised it would be)

Cash for Clunkers (ran out of money in 2 days)

Health Care (a watered down version MIGHT pass eventually)

Holding an office for more than 2 years (he has ADD and wants to run for something else)

The only thing he’s been successful at was to LIE to the American people into voting for him. How many campaign promises has he kept? Zero??

[fivepoint]

Wow... in fact they were the first City eliminated! Way to go Mr. President. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/8283061.stm

1625: Well, isn't that a turn up for the books? Chicago are eliminated in the first round - cue audible gasps around the auditorium - and a second round of voting opens immediately.

CHICAGO ELIMINATED FROM THE 2016 HOST CITY VOTE

1623: The vote closes and the scrutineers are now checking the results. If there is no majority for one city, remember, the city with the least votes will drop out and another vote will take place.

[arkitect]

Chicago lost the Olympic bid... in fact they were the first City eliminated! Wow. Way to go Mr. President. :)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/olympic_games/8283061.stm

See top of this page. ;)
You're a tad late…

[leekohler]

Thank god. We did not need this cover for Daley's misdeeds. Now he's actually going to have to face the music, and deal with the problems facing Chicago.

Mr Fitzgerald, if you need a place to stay while taking down King Daley, I've got some extra space at my place.

[yg17]

Stimulus Bill (unemployment is what 2%? 3%? higher then he promised it would be)


A small percentage of stim funding has been distributed, it was said from the start that a majority would come out in 2010 and 2011 after projects are planned.


Cash for Clunkers (ran out of money in 2 days)

How is that a failure? That means people were buying cars and it gave a huge boost to dealers and the automakers. CARS was a huge success.


Health Care (a watered down version MIGHT pass eventually)

Lets wait until something passes before you make that point. The public option isn't dead yet and it may still pass.


Holding an office for more than 2 years (he has ADD and wants to run for something else)

Having ambitions is a bad thing?


The only thing he’s been successful at was to LIE to the American people into voting for him. How many campaign promises has he kept? Zero??
What did he lie about? If you're going to make a BS claim like that, be specific.

[DiamondMac]

Amazing the American spirit of hoping a city in the US doesn't get it by Republicans

Wonder if it would be that way if Bush had lobbied for it?

Don't worry, everyone knows the answer

[Pocket lint]

Amazing the American spirit of hoping a city in the US doesn't get it.

Wonder if it would be that way if Bush had lobbied for it?

Don't worry, everyone knows the answer

I don't understand what you're saying. Are you implying some conspiracy or something else?

[squeeks]

A small percentage of stim funding has been distributed, it was said from the start that a majority would come out in 2010 and 2011 after projects are planned.


Yes But! that dont change the fact that umeployment is higher than he said it would go.


How is that a failure? That means people were buying cars and it gave a huge boost to dealers and the automakers. CARS was a huge success.


the whole program was a failure, most dealerships arent getting the money they paid out of pocket to cover the $4500, and now that the program is over car sales have dropped to almost nothing

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/09/19/car_showrooms_quiet_after_clunkers_clamor_ends/

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,553823,00.html


Lets wait until something passes before you make that point. The public option isn't dead yet and it may still pass.

May


Having ambitions is a bad thing?



no comment, lets see if he sticks it out for 4 years

What did he lie about? If you're going to make a BS claim like that, be specific.

specifics? we're still in Iraq and Afgan arent we?

[electroshock]

Yes it is, he fails at nearly everything he does

[...]

The only thing he’s been successful at was to LIE to the American people into voting for him. How many campaign promises has he kept? Zero??

Would you prefer someone who at least tries (and fails) or someone who doesn't try at all?

You're also assuming voters who did vote for him did so on basis of campaign promises -- which I think is a dangerous assumption. That's because a person of average intelligence knows that politicians rarely fulfill their promises or significantly waters it down. It's more likely that voters had other reasons for their selection.

Am I a Republican, Democrat, Green, Whig, Independent first and American second? Or is it the other way around? Since I say I'm an American first, I say I'm sorry we didn't get the bid but proud we tried real hard, and congratulations to the eventual winner. I would have had said it regardless of whomever was in office or their politics. The Olympics should transcend politics, after all, doesn't it?

Looking forward to a great Games in 2016.

[DiamondMac]

specifics? we're still in Iraq and Afgan arent we?

Probably due to how terribly Bush messed up with them in the first place

[leekohler]

Amazing the American spirit of hoping a city in the US doesn't get it by Republicans

Wonder if it would be that way if Bush had lobbied for it?

Don't worry, everyone knows the answer

Wrong- many people in Chicago have been against it for a while. I have been since day 1. It was nothing more than a political stunt by Daley to cover up his misdeeds. I bet he's shaking in his boots now.

[MacNut]

And the winner is...Rio 2016

[leekohler]

And the winner is...Rio 2016

I knew it would be Rio, based on the fact that South America has never hosted the Olympics.

[rdowns]

Maybe if Obama would stop wasting his time on health care, bailouts, paling around with terrorists or covering up his birth certificate, Chicago may have won.

[DiamondMac]

Wrong- many people in Chicago have been against it for a while. I have been since day 1. It was nothing more than a political stunt by Daley to cover up his misdeeds. I bet he's shaking in his boots now.

Many are for it and many are against it.

Cities have had people for and against it for years now.

Nothing new

I just got done living in Chicago and found almost everyone I know was 100% in support. I have also seen the polls not wanting it.

Seems similar to Atlanta

[Rodimus Prime]

A small percentage of stim funding has been distributed, it was said from the start that a majority would come out in 2010 and 2011 after projects are planned.



So if I have this straight the stimulus does jack **** and is more a huge waste of tax payers money because by the time the money is spent the economy will be turning around any how.

Why am I not surprised the government used just fund tons of little pet projects for themselves and to waste money and get away with it.

[ucfgrad93]

I knew it would be Rio, based on the fact that South America has never hosted the Olympics.

Agreed. This isn't surprising at all.

[it5five]

I'm glad Chicago didn't get it. I don't like when the games hosted are by a US city. They always seem to be way more corporate than games held in other countries. I was really young during the Atlanta games, but one of the things I remember best is the disgusting amount of advertisements surrounding the games.

[Zombie Acorn]

A small percentage of stim funding has been distributed, it was said from the start that a majority would come out in 2010 and 2011 after projects are planned.

If it was supposed to be a long term plan and we weren't going to push it out fast why was there such a hurry to pass it, especially considering the massive size of the legislation?

Also the CARS program was successful at giving money away that will drive demand down for the rest of the year. Hope the auto industry bought Christmas presents early.

[Zombie Acorn]

I'm glad Chicago didn't get it. I don't like when the games hosted are by a US city. They always seem to be way more corporate than games held in other countries. I was really young during the Atlanta games, but one of the things I remember best is the disgusting amount of advertisements surrounding the games.


It's probably the sole reason the us games have been profitable.

[leekohler]

It's probably the sole reason the us games have been profitable.

Umm...you might want to check that statement.

[MacNut]

The reason the games are profitable is because of TV contracts.

[Zombie Acorn]

Umm...you might want to check that statement.


I was under the impression that Atlanta and angeles were both profitable.

[leekohler]

I was under the impression that Atlanta and angeles were both profitable.

Yes, but not necessarily by advertising. ;) See above.

[fivepoint]

Clearly the Olympic Committee is racist. :D

[MacNut]

Clearly the Olympic Committee is racist. :DMaybe not racist but it is corrupt.

[kavika411]

Clearly the Olympic Committee is racist.

I disagree. It's time to call a spade a spade. It is Bush's fault that the U.S./Chicago didn't get the Olympics. Bush had information, early in his administration, that he ignored which led directly to this calamity. And then, while others argued in favor of more Olympic regulation, Bush championed the continued de-regulation of the Olympics. Then he lied to the American people, justifying his behavior by saying Marion Jones was telling the truth. This result was inevitable. The only way to get us out of this predicament is to instigate an award stimulus, whereby Olympic gold medals will be minted at a level never seen before; the supply of awards will drive up demand. The Bush/Reagan pro-doping athlete years are over. It's time to learn from Bush's mistakes.

[NT1440]

So if I have this straight the stimulus does jack **** and is more a huge waste of tax payers money because by the time the money is spent the economy will be turning around any how.

Why am I not surprised the government used just fund tons of little pet projects for themselves and to waste money and get away with it.

Yes, infrastructure and the likes of that are such a waste :rolleyes:

[ucfgrad93]

I disagree. It's time to call a spade a spade. It is Bush's fault that the U.S./Chicago didn't get the Olympics. Bush had information, early in his administration, that he ignored which led directly to this calamity. And then, while others argued in favor of more Olympic regulation, Bush championed the continued de-regulation of the Olympics. Then he lied to the American people, justifying his behavior by saying Marion Jones was telling the truth. This result was inevitable. The only way to get us out of this predicament is to instigate an award stimulus, whereby Olympic gold medals will be minted at a level never seen before; the supply of awards will drive up demand. The Bush/Reagan pro-doping athlete years are over. It's time to learn from Bush's mistakes.

Best post of the thread! Thanks for the afternnoon laugh!

[macfan881]

I didtn. Think chicago would win but im more shocked that chicago made the to the finalst lists. I also see that beck and limbaugh are gloating that chicago failed and obama:rolleyes:

[leekohler]

I didtn. Think chicago would win but im more shocked that chicago made the to the finalst lists. I also see that beck and limbaugh are gloating that chicago failed and obama:rolleyes:

Then they're stupid. Most of Chicago is happy this didn't happen. There's nothing for them to gloat about.

I disagree. It's time to call a spade a spade. It is Bush's fault that the U.S./Chicago didn't get the Olympics. Bush had information, early in his administration, that he ignored which led directly to this calamity. And then, while others argued in favor of more Olympic regulation, Bush championed the continued de-regulation of the Olympics. Then he lied to the American people, justifying his behavior by saying Marion Jones was telling the truth. This result was inevitable. The only way to get us out of this predicament is to instigate an award stimulus, whereby Olympic gold medals will be minted at a level never seen before; the supply of awards will drive up demand. The Bush/Reagan pro-doping athlete years are over. It's time to learn from Bush's mistakes.

Except that no one said that. If you'd read the thread, maybe you'd see that no one has even come close. Oh wait! I forgot- you guys hate facts.

[Tomorrow]

Amazing the American spirit of hoping a city in the US doesn't get it by Republicans

So Republicans are the ones who didn't want the Olympics to come to the U.S. while the Democrats wanted it...riiiiiiight. :rolleyes:

I'm curious, where were you, and what exactly were you doing when you made this up?

Many are for it and many are against it.

Cities have had people for and against it for years now.

Nothing new

I just got done living in Chicago and found almost everyone I know was 100% in support. I have also seen the polls not wanting it.

Seems similar to Atlanta

Contradict yourself much? Come on, either the Republicans were against it, or they weren't. If "cities have had people for and against it for years now," was that split along party lines?

Please.

[Rodimus Prime]

Yes, infrastructure and the likes of that are such a waste :rolleyes:

Umm considering how little of the stimulus was infustructure yes yes it is.

The Stimulus was shoved down on us saying high ways roads ect was the biggest part of it. yet it worked out to be less than 10%.... I think we have yet more proof of the lies that comes out of DC.

Btw the lies I am talking about does not refer to either part just the fact that US government is full of liers crooks and has been for far far to long.

[Eraserhead]

Yes, infrastructure and the likes of that are such a waste :rolleyes:

The following sounds reasonable (source (http://www.economist.com/world/americas/displayStory.cfm?story_id=14576023&source=features_box1)):

But is staging the Olympics such a great coup? The pluses may seem obvious. Big building projects will employ lots of people who will spend their wages in the rest of the economy. Railways and roads will be built that might otherwise have stayed on the drawing board for years. Visitors will come from far and wide, either for the games or as tourists afterwards. That all sounds especially alluring in a recession.

The pro-Olympics lobby tends to downplay the disadvantages. Building in the host city may push up wages and prices and crowd out investment elsewhere. Hurrying up building projects raises costs. What suits the games may not be best for the city afterwards. Not every visitor during the games is an extra one; tourists may time long-wished-for trips to watch the sport. Crowds or inflated hotel prices may deter others from coming.

By and large, economists have found it hard to detect the benefits of big sporting events. Robert Baade, of Lake Forest College, near Chicago, describes the Olympics as a “high risk, low reward proposition”, but concedes that the games may prompt spending, say in transport, which boosts a region’s economy in the long term.

The right event at the right time can give a city a lift: Barcelona, host in 1992, is a case in point. However, Stefan Szymanski, an economist at Cass Business School in London, suggests that hosting the Olympics may be a mark of recognition: the effect rather than the cause of change. If so that should also count as another reason for wild partying deep into the Rio night.

[Juventuz]

Except that no one said that. If you'd read the thread, maybe you'd see that no one has even come close. Oh wait! I forgot- you guys hate facts.

Um, did you actually read what he wrote? Go back, you should enjoy it.

[leekohler]

Um, did you actually read what he wrote? Go back, you should enjoy it.

I did read what he wrote. Am I missing something?

[DiamondMac]

Contradict yourself much?

There wasn't a single contradiction in what I stated but since you know how idiotic Republicans argument is with Obama and the trip he made, you are doing your best to find something....anything...to latch onto

Having lived in Chicago, I understand why those locals don't want it....whether it is the traffic, massive infrastructure needed, etc....I see their point

Then you have Republicans outside the city blasting Obama for this strictly because he is a Democrat and anything he does generally is evil, bad, etc....might as well insert any sort of negative comment

Where you see any similarity between the two is beyond me.

[ucfgrad93]

I did read what he wrote. Am I missing something?

I think he wrote that tongue-in-cheek.

[leekohler]

I think he wrote that tongue-in-cheek.

Oops! OK. It's been a week! :)

[MyDesktopBroke]

Apparently a lot of conservatives are using this as a "win" against Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/conservatives-revel-in-ob_n_307794.html

Warning: biased Web site warning.

[leekohler]

Apparently a lot of conservatives are using this as a "win" against Obama?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/conservatives-revel-in-ob_n_307794.html

Warning: biased Web site warning.

That's so idiotic. I swear to god- I will never vote for another Republican again. Done with that party. They're nothing but a petty pack of fools.

[Thomas Veil]

Yes it is, he fails at nearly everything he doesI think you're confusing Obama with

http://blog.kir.com/archives/George-Bush%20frowning.jpg

Holding an office for more than 2 years (he has ADD and wants to run for something else)I think you're confusing Obama with

http://www.treehugger.com/large_palin_sarah.jpg

The only thing he’s been successful at was to LIE to the American peopleI think you're confusing Obama with

http://osmoothie.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/fox-news-logo.jpg

[aethelbert]

That's so idiotic.
Given.

I swear to god- I will never vote for another Republican again. Done with that party. They're nothing but a petty pack of fools.
So you have decided your future voting patterns based on a few morons in a single party at the present time? At all government levels, on all issues?

[macfan881]

Given.


So you have decided your future voting patterns based on a few morons in a single party at the present time? At all government levels, on all issues?

How about the Fact that they have thrown everything they can at him to as far as calling him Hitler? wouldnt that get you disgusted?

[Tomorrow]

*sigh* Yes, two - count 'em - TWO different Republicans criticized his trip to support Chicago for the Olympics.

We Republicans are a mighty horrible lot, aren't we all? :rolleyes:

[Iscariot]

*sigh* Yes, two - count 'em - TWO different Republicans criticized his trip to support Chicago for the Olympics.

We Republicans are a mighty horrible lot, aren't we all? :rolleyes:

Tits or GTFO.

[bobber205]

*sigh* Yes, two - count 'em - TWO different Republicans criticized his trip to support Chicago for the Olympics.

We Republicans are a mighty horrible lot, aren't we all? :rolleyes:

Just two? It still matters if they it was party leaders criticizing him, in this case it was... ;)

[Tomorrow]

Tits or GTFO.

Explain to me why the OP cited an article where two people criticized the President's trip in support of the Olympics in Chicago, and as a result ALL Republicans are jumping on board with that argument ONLY because Obama is a Democrat. Explain to me how ALL Republicans are referring to Obama as being Hitler. Explain how ALL Republicans completely disagree with EVERYTHING Obama does strictly to be disagreeable.

That, or kindly take your uncalled-for comments elsewhere.

[bobber205]

Explain to me why the OP cited an article where two people criticized the President's trip in support of the Olympics in Chicago, and as a result ALL Republicans are jumping on board with that argument ONLY because Obama is a Democrat. Explain to me how ALL Republicans are referring to Obama as being Hitler. Explain how ALL Republicans completely disagree with EVERYTHING Obama does strictly to be disagreeable.

That, or kindly take your uncalled-for comments elsewhere.

No one said all. However leaders in the party are and so far only Lindsey Graham of SC has had the balls to call one of the, Glenn Beck, out for what they really are.

[macfan881]

Yeah lindsay is probally the last Republican I have Respect for. It use to be him and McCain but with how low McCains party took the "mudslings" at Obama made me lost alot alot of respect for.

[sushi]

From the article:

Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin, meanwhile, wrote that the news effectively ended the Obama campaign motto of "Yes We Can" by dawning in a new slogan: "No, You Can't."

Hmmm.... A new motto in the making?

[.Andy]

From the article:

Hmmm.... A new motto in the making?
With that kind of clever command of the written word Conservative commentator Michelle Malkin is practically the Oscar Wilde of our generation.

[str1f3]

Explain to me why the OP cited an article where two people criticized the President's trip in support of the Olympics in Chicago, and as a result ALL Republicans are jumping on board with that argument ONLY because Obama is a Democrat. Explain to me how ALL Republicans are referring to Obama as being Hitler. Explain how ALL Republicans completely disagree with EVERYTHING Obama does strictly to be disagreeable.

That, or kindly take your uncalled-for comments elsewhere.

That is not simply the problem. The two people that had a problem with it were part of the GOP leadership. When a unbiased person sees all the birther comments, Hitler comments and posters, racist posters in Washington a few weeks ago, socialist comments, Glenn Beck calling the President a racist, and Rush Limbaugh being happy that Chicago didn't get the Olympics, it does not paint a pretty picture. I'm sure that all Republicans are not like this but they are now the face of the party.

The only people who sound remotely reasonable are Lindsey Graham, McCain, David Brooks and Matthew Continetti (Weekly Standard). That's only a few out of so many. Look at what is going on now. They would have been a time when someone like Michelle Bachmann would have never been elected. Now she is part of the leadership and she is a moron. The same goes for Sarah Palin though some refuse to admit it even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Joe Wilson managed to do something that was never done in the 150 years of a President giving a speech to Congress. Even when most polls show that more than half the country wants a public option and the Democrats were overwhelmingly voted into office, the Republicans have shown no willingness to compromise on any issue.

The party is changing. The extremists are not only controlling the party but they are electing fellow extremists. Also if you are considered a moderate Republican, you're seat is now under threat because the extremists are now supporting other extremists members to get the moderates kicked out of office. That is what happened with Arlen Specter and which is the reason he switched parties.

[sushi]

Looks like the T-Shirt is already out.

197319

[rdowns]

Explain to me why the OP cited an article where two people criticized the President's trip in support of the Olympics in Chicago, and as a result ALL Republicans are jumping on board with that argument ONLY because Obama is a Democrat. Explain to me how ALL Republicans are referring to Obama as being Hitler. Explain how ALL Republicans completely disagree with EVERYTHING Obama does strictly to be disagreeable.

That, or kindly take your uncalled-for comments elsewhere.



A few more who were happy.

Video link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/conservatives-revel-in-ob_n_307794.html)

[Queso]

So let me get this right? Are people honestly saying Rio only won because Obama failed?

How patronising is that? Rio won because Brazil is one of the world's up and coming countries, and because the IOC members think they offer the best opportunity for South America to finally hold a games. It has absolutely nothing to do with anti-USA feeling. There was nothing wrong with Chicago's bid, nor with the support it received from the US president.

It's similar to how the G20 has replaced the G8. The world has become far more multi-polar. Get used to it.

[Rt&Dzine]

So let me get this right? Are people honestly saying Rio only won because Obama failed?

How patronising is that? Rio won because Brazil is one of the world's up and coming countries, and because the IOC members think they offer the best opportunity for South America to finally hold a games. It has absolutely nothing to do with anti-USA feeling. There was nothing wrong with Chicago's bid, nor with the support it received from the US president.

It's similar to how the G20 has replaced the G8. The world has become far more multi-polar. Get used to it.

My sentiments exactly. It doesn't surprise me in the least, but putting the blame on Obama for this is asinine. I'm happy for the people of Brazil.

[leekohler]

That is not simply the problem. The two people that had a problem with it were part of the GOP leadership. When a unbiased person sees all the birther comments, Hitler comments and posters, racist posters in Washington a few weeks ago, socialist comments, Glenn Beck calling the President a racist, and Rush Limbaugh being happy that Chicago didn't get the Olympics, it does not paint a pretty picture. I'm sure that all Republicans are not like this but they are now the face of the party.

The only people who sound remotely reasonable are Lindsey Graham, McCain, David Brooks and Matthew Continetti (Weekly Standard). That's only a few out of so many. Look at what is going on now. They would have been a time when someone like Michelle Bachmann would have never been elected. Now she is part of the leadership and she is a moron. The same goes for Sarah Palin though some refuse to admit it even though there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Joe Wilson managed to do something that was never done in the 150 years of a President giving a speech to Congress. Even when most polls show that more than half the country wants a public option and the Democrats were overwhelmingly voted into office, the Republicans have shown no willingness to compromise on any issue.

The party is changing. The extremists are not only controlling the party but they are electing fellow extremists. Also if you are considered a moderate Republican, you're seat is now under threat because the extremists are now supporting other extremists members to get the moderates kicked out of office. That is what happened with Arlen Specter and which is the reason he switched parties.

Exactly- if Republicans want my vote again, then this kind of garbage has to stop. Otherwise, I can only assume that the "real Republicans" don't care that their party has been taken over by extremists- and I want no part of that.

[Rodimus Prime]

Exactly- if Republicans want my vote again, then this kind of garbage has to stop. Otherwise, I can only assume that the "real Republicans" don't care that their party has been taken over by extremists- and I want no part of that.

So you are just going to vote straight democrat which that party also has some pretty big self serving dumb-ass in it as well.

I like what my government teacher said in high school. Voting straight ticket people are the least informed voters and do not know what they are voting for.
Now people who vote for better candidate (dem, rep, or 3rd part) are the more informed voters. I go with that approach and I refuse to vote straight ticket for that very reason.

[Tomorrow]

A few more who were happy.

Video link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/conservatives-revel-in-ob_n_307794.html)

Yes, but that isn't what I said. There's a difference between being happy that Chicago lost the olympics and being critical of Obama's efforts. Hell, I've been reading in this forum that many in Chicago - several of whom I'm sure are not Republican - are glad Chicago didn't get it.

[leekohler]

So you are just going to vote straight democrat which that party also has some pretty big self serving dumb-ass in it as well.

I like what my government teacher said in high school. Voting straight ticket people are the least informed voters and do not know what they are voting for.
Now people who vote for better candidate (dem, rep, or 3rd part) are the more informed voters. I go with that approach and I refuse to vote straight ticket for that very reason.

Rodimus- how anyone could vote Republican after their disgusting behavior since Obama became president is beyond me. As for not being informed, it's quite the opposite, and you know it.The Republican party does not deserve my vote until it cleans house. Yeah- there's some bad dems, but you can't honestly say they're just as bad. Their leadership does not pull stunts like this. And if they do, they get called on it and shouted down.

Yes, but that isn't what I said. There's a difference between being happy that Chicago lost the olympics and being critical of Obama's efforts. Hell, I've been reading in this forum that many in Chicago - several of whom I'm sure are not Republican - are glad Chicago didn't get it.

Yes, we are glad. But that has nothing to do with Obama. He had nothing to do with my opinion of the Games being held here at all. He only came in late to help out, which is why it's ludicrous that the Reps are now trying to capitalize on it as if it were a campaign promise.

[Tomorrow]

Yes, we are glad. But that has nothing to do with Obama. He had nothing to do with my opinion of the Games being held here at all. He only came in late to help out, which is why it's ludicrous that the Reps are now trying to capitalize on it.

I sense that the sentiment people are reading into the whole thing - especially from rdowns's link - is that Obama and his massive ego took on the task of being the U.S.'s ambassador to the committee, and that he was so sure he would be successful, that it was pleasing to those people to see him knocked down a peg or two.

I don't know whether his trip to Copenhagen had anything to do with his ego, I just saw it as the President going to represent his country. I didn't construe the vote as a vote against Obama, although it certainly appears that there are some who choose to see it that way. Perhaps Obama came across as a little cocksure of himself, I don't know because frankly I didn't pay it any attention. But if he did, if he let his ego swell to the point that he came across as a little too sure of his popularity abroad, then it is a massive fail.

But again, I just figured this was about the American President trying to help bring the Olympics to America. This shouldn't have been a story.

[Rodimus Prime]

Rodimus- how anyone could vote Republican after their disgusting behavior since Obama became president is beyond me. As for not being informed, it's quite the opposite, and you know it.The Republican party does not deserve my vote until it cleans house. Yeah- there's some bad dems, but you can't honestly say they're just as bad. Their leadership does not pull stunts like this. And if they do, they get called on it and shouted down.


So you would rather vote for lets say a very courputed and dirty Democrat than lets say a very clean and straight Republican.

I vote for a candidate not a party. I would much rather have a Republican canidate who is honest and his stance on his issue I agree with (even if I do not agree with the party) than a Democrat can dishonest and I do not agree with(even if I I agree with the party.)

Please note I am not saying anything directly about one party or the other. I had to choose it listed like that to make a point. In the mid term election I will not be voting for the Republican representative currently in office for my congressman because I do not agree with his stances. But I will be looking at the Decocrate candidate and see if I agree with his. If not 3rd party I will vote.

I refuse to vote straight ticket because it allows people who should not be in office to get get in by party name alone.
When I have voted I have Rep, Democrats and some 3rd partys as my votes. I vote for who I think is the better candidate regardless of the party.

[gibbz]

Where was the outrage when we were facing an economic downturn and wartime, yet Bush traveled to the Olympics in Bejing 2008.

http://www3.pictures.gi.zimbio.com/Olympics+Day+3+Swimming+6dV6Fd4zfx9l.jpg
http://wizbangblog.com/images/2009/07/bush-smack-ass.jpg
http://www.tooprogressive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/08/everything-looks-perfect-from-his-point-of-view-2008-olympics2.jpg

[MacNut]

Where was the outrage when we were facing an economic downturn and wartime, yet Bush traveled to the Olympics in Bejing 2008.Bush was there supporting the athletes, I believe there was outrage that he wasn't boycotting the Chinese government. Obama went to lobby for the olympics even thought it wasn't a sure thing they would get them. It was a power play to sway the IOC nothing more.

[MyDesktopBroke]

I kept hearing about the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars the Chicago games could have generated, and the IOC has been swayed in the past by leaders like Tony Blair showning up to give a speech.

Also, I agree it's unfair to say "republicans" are celebrating this as an Obama defeat, but there are definitely conservatives or neo-cons that are. There are videos of them clapping and stuff.

[MacNut]

I kept hearing about the thousands of jobs and millions of dollars the Chicago games could have generated, and the IOC has been swayed in the past by leaders like Tony Blair showning up to give a speech.

Also, I agree it's unfair to say "republicans" are celebrating this as an Obama defeat, but there are definitely conservatives or neo-cons that are. There are videos of them clapping and stuff.The IOC knows where it is going years in advance, the vote is just for show and to get perks from each city. Im sure Rio was the picked city years ago.

[str1f3]

So you would rather vote for lets say a very courputed and dirty Democrat than lets say a very clean and straight Republican.

I vote for a candidate not a party. I would much rather have a Republican canidate who is honest and his stance on his issue I agree with (even if I do not agree with the party) than a Democrat can dishonest and I do not agree with(even if I I agree with the party.)

Please note I am not saying anything directly about one party or the other. I had to choose it listed like that to make a point. In the mid term election I will not be voting for the Republican representative currently in office for my congressman because I do not agree with his stances. But I will be looking at the Decocrate candidate and see if I agree with his. If not 3rd party I will vote.

I refuse to vote straight ticket because it allows people who should not be in office to get get in by party name alone.
When I have voted I have Rep, Democrats and some 3rd partys as my votes. I vote for who I think is the better candidate regardless of the party.

You're bringing up an extreme circumstance, especially considering that it has been far more Republicans this year (and in recent years) that have been involved in scandals (see Sen. John Ensign) than Democrats.

The problem is that you're solution for voting for a particular candidate is not that simple. As we all know politicians talk BS all day long and will tell you what you want to hear. The problem is that when they get into Congress (especially the House), they will vote the national party line (which is now anything anti-Democrat and extremist) and in the interests of those who funded his campaign. The reason why he will vote with the rest of the Republicans is that he is looking for maybe an important seat in a committee, funds from the RNC for re-election, and a possible future Senate run or even Presidential.

Yes, the same goes for both parties but the Democrats have been moving more towards the middle while the Republicans continue to move even further to the right. Things like universal health care and global warming are no longer leftist issues and have become part of a legitimate mainstream debate.

While the case you provided may happen in all likelihood the candidate would be asked to step down and he wouldn't raise any funds for re-election. The only such example that has happened in recent history where they were re-elected was the guy who had $10,000 in his fridge.

[hulugu]

Nate Silver at 538 (http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/) has some interesting data on the apportionment of IOC officials by continent and argues that the current IOC arrangement is inordinate especially when one averages the IOC membership with population, winning athletes, monetary support, etc.

From viewing this data, it appears that Obama had nothing to do with the IOC's decision and that whatever deal-making had been made was done before Obama even announced his trip.

Of course, I'm unsurprised that some Republicans are cravenly taking this issue and running with it, but I'm actually interested in how many conservative leaders are actually supporting the president. Seeing a gap of sunlight, however small and ultimately meaningless, between the rabid right and the middle right may be a good thing.

Also, there's an article from the NY Times (http://intransit.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/02/chicagos-loss-is-passport-control-to-blame/) that suggests US Passport control may have helped lose Chicago's bid.

[Thomas Veil]

A few more who were happy.

Video link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/02/conservatives-revel-in-ob_n_307794.html)That is utterly disgusting.

I guess for them patriotism, wanting your country to succeed, has to take a back seat to their hatred for and jealousy of Obama.

What vile people. What sorry excuses for Americans.

Ah well. More fodder to use against them in 2010.

[Eraserhead]

The IOC knows where it is going years in advance, the vote is just for show and to get perks from each city. Im sure Rio was the picked city years ago.

Maybe this time it was more obvious (assuming Rio's bid was decent). It was pretty tight between London and Paris for 2012...

[leekohler]

So you would rather vote for lets say a very courputed and dirty Democrat than lets say a very clean and straight Republican.

I vote for a candidate not a party. I would much rather have a Republican canidate who is honest and his stance on his issue I agree with (even if I do not agree with the party) than a Democrat can dishonest and I do not agree with(even if I I agree with the party.)

Please note I am not saying anything directly about one party or the other. I had to choose it listed like that to make a point. In the mid term election I will not be voting for the Republican representative currently in office for my congressman because I do not agree with his stances. But I will be looking at the Decocrate candidate and see if I agree with his. If not 3rd party I will vote.

I refuse to vote straight ticket because it allows people who should not be in office to get get in by party name alone.
When I have voted I have Rep, Democrats and some 3rd partys as my votes. I vote for who I think is the better candidate regardless of the party.

I would vote independent or third party in that case. Just because I refuse to vote Republican doesn't mean I have to vote Democrat.

[gibbz]

Bush was there supporting the athletes, I believe there was outrage that he wasn't boycotting the Chinese government. Obama went to lobby for the olympics even thought it wasn't a sure thing they would get them. It was a power play to sway the IOC nothing more.

So Obama wasn't supporting athletes?

[MacNut]

So Obama wasn't supporting athletes?No, he was supporting the politicians of Chicago.

Would he have made the same pitch if Miami or LA were biding.

[Unspoken Demise]

No, he was supporting the politicians of Chicago.

Do you believe that was his sole motive?
I mean, he must be supporting athletes a little.



Would he have made the same pitch if Miami or LA were biding.
Sure, why not?

[Rodimus Prime]

I would vote independent or third party in that case. Just because I refuse to vote Republican doesn't mean I have to vote Democrat.

Mostly I am just making sure you are not one of those people who vote straight ticket. I think straight ticket votes are that of uninformed voters.
I have met people who would of chosen the corrupted democrat for no other reason than they are a democrat. Even though they do not agree with the candidate or anything the candidate stands for.

I think those voters like I just listed above are worthless uninformed voters. They are just one step above non voters.

[MacNut]

Do you believe that was his sole motive?
I mean, he must be supporting athletes a little.I believe the main reason he went was to scratch Chicago's back. It was a thank you for his election.

[MacNut]

Sure, why not?Because he doesn't live there. It is a strange coincidence that Chicago was bidding, he lives in Chicago and that was where his political career started. I don't think he would have made a personal plea if it was any other city. This was a political power play that didn't work. If Chicago had gotten the bid he would come out looking like a hero.

[Lord Blackadder]

No, he was supporting the politicians of Chicago.

Hosting the Olympic games is a matter of big national prestige, so there is nothing unusual in a country sending important politicians and heads of state to promote their candidacy.

Besides it was the USOC, not Obama or the Democratic Party, who chose Chicago as the candidate city.

This is a partisan attack on the president.

[Unspoken Demise]

I believe the main reason he went was to scratch Chicago's back. It was a thank you for his election.
Hmm, I can see why it would look that way, seeing his political backround and hometown ties...

Because he doesn't live there. It is a strange coincidence that Chicago was bidding, he lives in Chicago and that was where his political career started. I don't think he would have made a personal plea if it was any other city. This was a political power play that didn't work. If Chicago has gotten the bid he would come out looking like a hero.

...but really, he would have looked like a hero if any US city had won the bid, wouldnt he? I guess I'm looking at this more simply/ less politically. I loved when the Olympics came to Atlanta. I was 5 and I actually attended. It would be great to have it in the States again.

[MacNut]

Hosting the Olympic games is a matter of big national prestige, so there is nothing unusual in a country sending important politicians and heads of state to promote their candidacy.

Besides it was the USOC, not Obama or the Democratic Party, chose Chicago as the candidate city.

This is a partisan attack on the president.I don't recall any other US president going to personally make a plea for the games. Did this happen when Atlanta was going after it?

[MacNut]

Hmm, I can see why it would look that way, seeing his political backround and hometown ties...



...but really, he would have looked like a hero if any US city had won the bid, wouldnt he? I guess I'm looking at this more simply/ less politically. I loved when the Olympics came to Atlanta. I was 5 and I actually attended. It would be great to have it in the States again.We don't know if he would have gone for another city. What we do know is Obama is Chicago's son so he would have gotten all the praise.

[Lord Blackadder]

I don't recall any other US president going to personally make a plea for the games. Did this happen when Atlanta was going after it?

Must there be a precedent for it to be acceptable? Every other country bidding for the games this time sent either a Prime Minister, a President, or a King to Copenhagen. Who would you have sent - John Boehner? :rolleyes:

[Unspoken Demise]

Must there be a precedent for it to be acceptable? Every other country bidding for the games this time sent either a Prime Minister, a President, or a King to Copenhagen. Who would you have sent - John Boehner? :rolleyes:
Thats something I keep gravitating to. We needed a representative. Obama is Head of State. Seems right.

And if you dont like Chicago as the hosting city, (this is an open question not directed at anyone in particular) what city do you feel Obama should have lobbied for?

[yg17]

Thats something I keep gravitating to. We needed a representative. Obama is Head of State. Seems right.

And if you dont like Chicago as the hosting city, (this is an open question not directed at anyone in particular) what city do you feel Obama should have lobbied for?

Well, Chicago was in the running for awhile, probably since before he was even elected. I think he would've gone for any American city, the fact it was Chicago was just a coincidence.

[MacNut]

Must there be a precedent for it to be acceptable? Every other country bidding for the games this time sent either a Prime Minister, a President, or a King to Copenhagen. Who would you have sent - John Boehner? :rolleyes:This is the city that makes the pitch, not the federal government. Usually the mayor or the olympic comity of that city is the one that makes the argument for hosting. I don't think it is the presidents place. Leave it up to the host city.

[leekohler]

I believe the main reason he went was to scratch Chicago's back. It was a thank you for his election.

Chicago didn't elect him. The people of the United States elected him. And of course he would have gone if it were another city.

The fact remains- Republicans are acting as if this were some failed campaign promise. It wasn't. It was a pretty last-minute thing.

But Mayor Daley is now looking out his window and seeing the hens coming home to roost.

[Unspoken Demise]

Well, Chicago was in the running for awhile, probably since before he was even elected. I think he would've gone for any American city, the fact it was Chicago was just a coincidence.

Thats what Im thinking! I think while it is a coincidence, it does not mean there were ill intentions behind his lobbying for Chicago. As Lord Blackadder mentioned it is a matter of national prestige. Personally, I dont care what city hosts it if US won the bid. I just want it (the olympics) back in the US.

Oh, and I wasnt insinuating Rio doesnt deserve it. I'll watch it regardless.

[Lord Blackadder]

This is the city that makes the pitch, not the federal government. Usually the mayor or the olympic comity of that city is the one that makes the argument for hosting. I don't think it is the presidents place. Leave it up to the host city.

As I said before, hosting an Olympic games is not just a local or regional matter, though they may be the ones most directly impacted. Our President is our ultimate representative so I don't understand why you think it inappropriate for him to promote our (notice I say "our", not "Chicago's") Olympic bid to an international selection committee.

[MacNut]

Chicago didn't elect him. The people of the United States elected him. And of course he would have gone if it were another city.

The fact remains- Republicans are acting as if this were some failed campaign promise. It wasn't. It was a pretty last-minute thing.

But Mayor Daley is now looking out his window and seeing the hens coming home to roost.Why was it last minute, they knew Chicago was in the running for months now. I think Obama's advisers told him that Chicago was a lock and his speech would seal the deal.

[leekohler]

Thats what Im thinking! I think while it is a coincidence, it does not mean there were ill intentions behind his lobbying for Chicago. As Lord Blackadder mentioned it is a matter of national prestige. Personally, I dont care what city hosts it if US won the bid. I just want it (the olympics) back in the US.

Oh, and I wasnt insinuating Rio doesnt deserve it. I'll watch it regardless.

The support of it wasn't here in the city either. Less than half of the population wanted the games here. The IOC looks at that too. Trust me- there were very large groups of citizens ready to protest if we'd been selected.

Why was it last minute, they knew Chicago was in the running for months now. I think Obama's advisers told him that Chicago was a lock and his speech would seal the deal.

No- that's probably what Daley told him. Obama's involvement was indeed last minute. Daley probably saw the prospects sinking and was hoping that Obama would give him a boost. This wouldn't be the first lie Daley's told. Mr Fitzgerald, please come for a visit soon.

[Unspoken Demise]

The support of it wasn't here in the city either. Less than half of the population wanted the games here. The IOC looks at that too. Trust me- there were very large groups of citizens ready to protest if we'd been selected.

How do you personally feel about it, as a Chicagoian? If Chicago had been selected, that is.

[MacNut]

No- that's probably what Daley told him. Obama's involvement was indeed last minute. Daley probably saw the prospects sinking and was hoping that Obama would give him a boost.So it probably was political. If it was last minute would he have done it for any other city.

[leekohler]

How do you personally feel about it, as a Chicagoian? If Chicago had been selected, that is.

I'd have hated it for reasons PlaceofDis and I have mentioned before. This was nothing but an attempt at a money grab by Daley and his cronies and to keep Fitzgerald off his crooked behind.

So it probably was political. If it was last minute would he have done it for any other city.

I'm sure he would have if they'd asked.

[Lord Blackadder]

Why was it last minute, they knew Chicago was in the running for months now. I think Obama's advisers told him that Chicago was a lock and his speech would seal the deal.

I think that's just idle speculation. Chicago was considered the favorite because the city has good infrastructure and with solid financial backing the risk of preparations not being up to scratch (see the Athens games) was low. But Brazil had a strong bid since the games have never been held in South America.

I think the notion that there is some subterfuge here is laughable. At the very worst, if there is an element of back-scratching here it is no worse (and probably far more innocuous) than anything that goes on in Washington from both parties every day.

[NT1440]

I don't recall any other US president going to personally make a plea for the games. Did this happen when Atlanta was going after it?

So when someone does something new, its always for bad reasons? :rolleyes:

The US getting the games again would have been a boon to the national economy. That is the most sensible explanation.

[MacNut]

So when someone does something new, its always for bad reasons? :rolleyes:

The US getting the games again would have been a boon to the national economy. That is the most sensible explanation.I think the only reason he went was because it was Chicago. We will never know if he would have gone for another city. He was pitching his home town nothing more.

[leekohler]

I think the only reason he went was because it was Chicago. We will never know if he would have gone for another city.

If we will never know, then why bother making the claim?

[NT1440]

I think the only reason he went was because it was Chicago. We will never know if he would have gone for another city. He was pitching his home town nothing more.

Underlined for assumptions.

You declared all of this on your own idle speculation.

[Unspoken Demise]

I think the only reason he went was because it was Chicago. We will never know if he would have gone for another city. He was pitching his home town a United States city, nothing more.

Fixed.

[obeygiant]

I think the only reason he went was because it was Chicago.

Of course it was. Why would Michelle go as well and talk about "growing up in Chicago." Why is it so hard to accept?

Also they couldn't get Rod Blagojevich to speak! :D

[MacNut]

Underlined for assumptions.

You declared all of this on your own idle speculation.It is mighty suspicious that he lives in Chicago.

Fixed.How do you know that wasn't the reason?

[MacNut]

Also they couldn't get Rod Blagojevich to speak! :DHe would have spoke, they didn't want him too.:D

[Unspoken Demise]

How do you know that wasn't the reason?

I dont, and neither do you, and neither of us will ever know the true reason behind it. My statement was broader and more fact based, versus speculation.

[NT1440]

It is mighty suspicious that he lives in Chicago.


I take it you don't understand what a mere coincidence is?

Then again I bet you think he's been secretly planning to become president for decades to accomplish his lifelong goal of bringing the Olympics to Chicago right?

Pure and Simple, hosting the Olympics may have finally put us back on a good record with the rest of the world and shown them we have turned around, as well as bring tons of business. Did you even bother to think about how it would have been great for the country on the global scale?

Nah, im sure he just wanted to walk down the street from his house and watch the games, thats the most obvious conclusion right? :rolleyes:

[MacNut]

I take it you don't understand what a mere coincidence is?And if you think it was a coincidence that is fine. I don't think it was.

[NT1440]

And if you think it was a coincidence that is fine. I don't think it was.

Then stop declaring it wasn't. You understand how the burden of proof works when making claims right?

[rdowns]

Then again I bet you think he's been secretly planning to become president for decades to accomplish his lifelong goal of bringing the Olympics to Chicago right?




They planned this right after they planned his fake Hawaii birth and birth announcements. :rolleyes:

[NT1440]

They planned this right after they planned his fake Hawaii birth and birth announcements. :rolleyes:

No, don't you see, its ALWAYS been planned out in the stars! The antichrist is here and everything he does should be viewed from the black and white scope of good VS evil!

:p

[MacNut]

Then stop declaring it wasn't. You understand how the burden of proof works when making claims right?So by that logic you can't prove that he would have helped another city. We don't know what his motives were. Everything is just idol speculation.

[leekohler]

So by that logic you can't prove that he would have helped another city. We don't know what his motives were. Everything is just idol speculation.

Exactly right.

[Lord Blackadder]

And if you think it was a coincidence that is fine. I don't think it was.

Oh, I don't see it as being as suspicious as that. Chicago makes a good Olympic candidate because it is the third largest city in the US. And even if Obama went to Copenhagen with the thought of promoting the US and his hometown first and foremost, I still don't see it as a waste or inappropriate, as he was attempting to bring additional money and prestige to the US. That's one of the president's jobs.

[obeygiant]

Then stop declaring it wasn't. You understand how the burden of proof works when making claims right?

I really don't see what the problem is. Obama and his wife have deep roots in Chicago and they wanted to see that city get an chance at the Olympics. Are you really saying one has NOTHING to do with the other? :confused:

[MacNut]

Oh, I don't see it as being as suspicious as that. Chicago makes a good Olympic candidate because it is the third largest city in the US. And even if Obama went to Copenhagen with the thought of promoting the US and his hometown first and foremost, I still don't see it as a waste or inappropriate, as he was attempting to bring additional money and prestige to the US. That's one of the president's jobs.That may all be true, but I think being his home town was a big incentive. Any other city and I don't think it is a sure thing that he goes.

[yg17]

I really don't see what the problem is. Obama and his wife have deep roots in Chicago and they wanted to see that city get an chance at the Olympics. Are you really saying one has NOTHING to do with the other? :confused:

And are you really saying that Obama wouldn't have gone if it was any other American city?

[NT1440]

I really don't see what the problem is. Obama and his wife have deep roots in Chicago and they wanted to see that city get an chance at the Olympics. Are you really saying one has NOTHING to do with the other? :confused:

I'm sure there is sentimental feelings attached, but the people claiming this is some sinister politicking annoy the hell out of me. Anyone can see that the USA (anywhere in the friggin country) would be a boon both economically as well as a chance to boost our image back from the lows we've experienced. I really believe he would have tried to get the games in the US, wherever they were.

[obeygiant]

And are you really saying that Obama wouldn't have gone if it was any other American city?

Hard to say. Did Clinton go to beg the IOC for the games in Atlanta?

Obama's trip was unprecedented wasn't it?

[obeygiant]

I'm sure there is sentimental feelings attached, but the people claiming this is some sinister politicking annoy the hell out of me.

politicking yes. sinister, probably not.

[MacNut]

Hard to say. Did Clinton go to beg the IOC for the games in Atlanta?

Obama's trip was unprecedented wasn't it?What year did Atlanta win the bid, was that under Clinton's term? I think Atlanta was under Bush 1 Utah was under Clinton, but who wasn't. ahaa.

[obeygiant]

What year did Atlanta win the bid, was that under Clinton's term?

Well the games were in 1996 and Clinton was in the WH from 1993-2001.

[MacNut]

Well the games were in 1996 and Clinton was in the WH from 1993-2001.The bid had to be 91-92?Atlanta was selected in September 1990 in Tokyo, Japan, over Athens, Belgrade, Manchester, Melbourne and Toronto. Atlanta's bid to host the Summer Games that began in 1987 was considered a long-shot, since the U.S. had hosted the Summer Olympics just 3 games earlier in Los Angeles. Atlanta's main rivals were Toronto, whose front running bid that began in 1986 seemed almost sure to succeed after Canada had held a successful 1988 Winter Olympics in Calgary and Melbourne, Australia, who hosted the 1956 Summer Olympics and felt that the Olympic Games should return to Australia. The Athens bid was based on sentiment, the fact that these Olympic Games would be the 100th Anniversary of the first Summer Games in Greece in 1896.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Summer_Olympics

[leekohler]

What year did Atlanta win the bid, was that under Clinton's term? I think Atlanta was under Bush 1 Utah was under Clinton, but who wasn't. ahaa.

It would have had to be during the first Bush's term.

[Lord Blackadder]

I think it's disingenuous to raise an eyebrow over the whole affair. Glenn Beck might see some sort of conspiracy here, but I don't.

Whether Obama went to Copenhagen for Chicago or the US first and foremost is a matter of supreme indifference to me. He was supporting a US Olympic bid either way.

[yg17]

Obama's trip was unprecedented wasn't it?

In the past, heads of state have traveled to pitch to the IOC in person. Tony Blair did it for the 2012 Olympics and Vladimir Putin did it for the 2014 Olympics. Obama may have been the first American president to do it but he's not the first head of state to do it.

[Eraserhead]

The bid had to be 91-92?

The bid is before the city is selected, so it would be 88-90...

[Iscariot]

Explain to me why the OP cited an article where two people criticized the President's trip in support of the Olympics in Chicago, and as a result ALL Republicans are jumping on board with that argument ONLY because Obama is a Democrat. Explain to me how ALL Republicans are referring to Obama as being Hitler. Explain how ALL Republicans completely disagree with EVERYTHING Obama does strictly to be disagreeable.

That, or kindly take your uncalled-for comments elsewhere.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tits+or+gtfo

Some of you guys are wound so tight.

[hulugu]

I think it's disingenuous to raise an eyebrow over the whole affair. Glenn Beck might see some sort of conspiracy here, but I don't.

Whether Obama went to Copenhagen for Chicago or the US first and foremost is a matter of supreme indifference to me. He was supporting a US Olympic bid either way.

I agree.

[Zombie Acorn]

In the past, heads of state have traveled to pitch to the IOC in person. Tony Blair did it for the 2012 Olympics and Vladimir Putin did it for the 2014 Olympics. Obama may have been the first American president to do it but he's not the first head of state to do it.

Exactly the point, why would we now put ourselves out there if it not for Chicago being "his" city? More than half of the city didn't even want the games to start with.

[Macaddicttt]

Exactly the point, why would we now put ourselves out there if it not for Chicago being "his" city? More than half of the city didn't even want the games to start with.

So Chicagoans didn't want the games, but the only reason Obama made the pitch do the IOC is because he's a Chicagoan?

[leekohler]

So Chicagoans didn't want the games, but the only reason Obama made the pitch do the IOC is because he's a Chicagoan?

Well of course. Everything is a big conspiracy ya know. God, this is tired. :mad:

[yg17]

Exactly the point, why would we now put ourselves out there if it not for Chicago being "his" city? More than half of the city didn't even want the games to start with.


The trend of heads of state going to pitch for the Olympics started in 2005 with Tony Blair. Putin did it in 2007, and then in 2009, the heads of state from all 4 candidate cities went. This is a new thing for everyone, it's not like it's something that's been going on for the past 50 years and the president is just now going to pitch.

[Zombie Acorn]

The trend of heads of state going to pitch for the Olympics started in 2005 with Tony Blair. Putin did it in 2007, and then in 2009, the heads of state from all 4 candidate cities went. This is a new thing for everyone, it's not like it's something that's been going on for the past 50 years and the president is just now going to pitch.

Tony Blair actually won the bid for london though didn't he? The fact that we were first elimination says more than anything I believe.

[yg17]

Tony Blair actually won the bid for london though didn't he? The fact that we were first elimination says more than anything I believe.

No it doesn't say a thing. Just like if Chicago won the bid, it wouldn't say anything about Juan Carlos, Yukio Hatoyama or Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

[geese]

Tony Blair actually won the bid for london though didn't he? The fact that we were first elimination says more than anything I believe.

Not really - Tony Blair helped, but it was a combination of factors. If anyone was actually 'won' the bid, it was Sebastian Coe (who led the bid). On the voting weekend he pitched a very emotional and impressive speech to the IOC members, which helped beat Paris.

Seb Coe was also ran and helped assemble a British Olympic team for the 1980 Moscow Olympic back in his running days. This was when Thatcher was urging the team to boycott Moscow, along with the USA. Londons winning bid was seen in part as a thank you to Seb Coe's help at Moscow '80.

Lets not forget, that London hadnt hosted an Olympic since 1948 and that its Olympic bid was amongst the best.

Chicago's bid was never the favourite to win, especially when Rio had a strong bid (and was thus a regional rival) and was the best chance the IOC had to host the games in South America.

I doubt there was anyone person who could have swung it for Chicago. Its bid wasnt that strong.

[Zombie Acorn]

No it doesn't say a thing. Just like if Chicago won the bid, it wouldn't say anything about Juan Carlos, Yukio Hatoyama or Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva

You are entitled to your opinion.

[bobber205]

You are entitled to your opinion.

So it would say something negative about them?
At least be consistent.

[Thomas Veil]

Oh for godsakes' you guys. If Obama hadn't gone to make the pitch, and then they announced Chicago lost the Olympics, the conservatives would be all over Obama. They'd have been saying we would've won if he had gone, but he didn't, and so we lost the Olympics. :rolleyes:

[Zombie Acorn]

So it would say something negative about them?
At least be consistent.

None of those countries hold the prestige of the US. The president of the most powerful country in the world shows up and you eliminate him first. That says something.

[bobber205]

None of those countries hold the prestige of the US. The president of the most powerful country in the world shows up and you eliminate him first. That says something.

Sigh. There's always a reason that makes you right. Since you aren't aware, there are some HUGE beefs between the U.S. and the international council that decides this. I've heard and read that it'll be a surprise if we ever get the Olympics again in our lifetime. There's also something to do with international visitors, Chicago airports in particular, and our general homeland security policies. They IOC doesn't want visitors not attending because of airport problems.

So please, the world did not decide against Chicago b/c of Obama. South America really NEEDS the Olympics while we don't as much.

Even in this fantasy world where it speaks ill of Obama, what does this gain you? Would you feel justified in that your conspiracy theory is true? The world thinks pretty highly of Obama... ;)

[Zombie Acorn]

So please, the world did not decide against Chicago b/c of Obama. South America really NEEDS the Olympics while we don't as much.

Even in this fantasy world where it speaks ill of Obama, what does this gain you? Would you feel justified in that your conspiracy theory is true? The world thinks pretty highly of Obama... ;)

Highly enough to not give him dead last in an olympic bid when he is the first US president to show up personally? :hmm:

[leekohler]

Sigh. There's always a reason that makes you right. Since you aren't aware, there are some HUGE beefs between the U.S. and the international council that decides this. I've heard and read that it'll be a surprise if we ever get the Olympics again in our lifetime. There's also something to do with international visitors, Chicago airports in particular, and our general homeland security policies. They IOC doesn't want visitors not attending because of airport problems.

So please, the world did not decide against Chicago b/c of Obama. South America really NEEDS the Olympics while we don't as much.

Even in this fantasy world where it speaks ill of Obama, what does this gain you? Would you feel justified in that your conspiracy theory is true? The world thinks pretty highly of Obama... ;)

Completely agreed. This had absolutely nothing to do with Obama. It's unbelievably silly to think it did.

Highly enough to not give him dead last in an olympic bid when he is the first US president to show up personally? :hmm:

You continue to amaze. :rolleyes:

[bobber205]

Highly enough to not give him dead last in an olympic bid when he is the first US president to show up personally? :hmm:

Hmm, maybe they made it based on what would be the best city and didn't go "obama sucks, let's kick his city out first". :rolleyes:

I would think people like Zombie and the other posts in this thread would have a "screw the world, USA! USA! USA!" attitude...

[Zombie Acorn]

Hmm, maybe they made it based on what would be the best city and didn't go "obama sucks, let's kick his city out first". :rolleyes:

I would think people like Zombie and the other posts in this thread would have a "screw the world, USA! USA! USA!" attitude...

You seem to misinterpret my message as a slight against Obama, this is clearly a kick in the teeth to send America a message. I don't personally agree with Obama heading personally to push Chicago, he certainly wasn't enough to detour these people from digging a hole for America to lay in. I find him partly responsible for using his seat to put us out there, it makes us look weak.

[leekohler]

You seem to misinterpret my message as a slight against Obama, this is clearly a kick in the teeth to send America a message. I don't personally agree with Obama heading personally to push Chicago, he certainly wasn't enough to detour these people from digging a hole for America to lay in.

Why does it even matter to you? WTF is wrong with the president pushing for the Olympics to be held in the US? Honestly- I really can't believe this.

[bobber205]

You seem to misinterpret my message as a slight against Obama, this is clearly a kick in the teeth to send America a message. I don't personally agree with Obama heading personally to push Chicago, he certainly wasn't enough to detour these people from digging a hole for America to lay in. I find him partly responsible for using his seat to put us out there, it makes us look weak.

Lol. Do the other countries look any weaker because they lost as well? Tokyo's pretty damn important and their PM went over to try to get the games there. They aren't any weaker in the world because of it.

I still don't get what you have to gain by believing this...

[leekohler]

Lol. Do the other countries look any weaker because they lost as well? Tokyo's pretty damn important and their PM went over to try to get the games there. They aren't any weaker in the world because of it.

I still don't get what you have to gain by believing this...

This is what he gains- "See! Obama can't even get us the Olympics!"

Yes, it's that petty.

[Zombie Acorn]

Lol. Do the other countries look any weaker because they lost as well? Tokyo's pretty damn important and their PM went over to try to get the games there. They aren't any weaker in the world because of it.

I still don't get what you have to gain by believing this...

I imagine more people in the world know the president of the US's name than the PM of Japan, thats just a guess though. Like I said before if you want to believe there was no agenda behind giving the US last place in the bid thats your deal, I could care less.

[bobber205]

I imagine more people in the world know the president of the US's name than the PM of Japan, thats just a guess though. Like I said before if you want to believe there was no agenda behind giving the US last place in the bid thats your deal, I could care less.

People in the world have Google so knowledge like this doesn't prove much. I assumed when you talked about "power" you meant actual power, not knowledge of the names of our leader. :rolleyes:

[Zombie Acorn]

People in the world have Google so knowledge like this doesn't prove much. I assumed when you talked about "power" you meant actual power, not knowledge of the names of our leader. :rolleyes:

In terms of actual power they would be dwarfed even further by the US.

[bobber205]

In terms of actual power they would be dwarfed even further by the US.

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Japan has mechs.

http://www.japanator.com/elephant/ul/6798-3d_gundam.jpg

[Zombie Acorn]

I'm not sure if you're aware, but Japan has mechs.

http://www.japanator.com/elephant/ul/6798-3d_gundam.jpg

:p

[MacNut]

Oh for godsakes' you guys. If Obama hadn't gone to make the pitch, and then they announced Chicago lost the Olympics, the conservatives would be all over Obama. They'd have been saying we would've won if he had gone, but he didn't, and so we lost the Olympics. :rolleyes:I don't think anyone would have said anything if he didn't go. Besides Chicago I don't think the country really cares if we got the bid or not. I don't even think the bid was news until after Obama's involvement.

You seem to misinterpret my message as a slight against Obama, this is clearly a kick in the teeth to send America a message. I don't personally agree with Obama heading personally to push Chicago, he certainly wasn't enough to detour these people from digging a hole for America to lay in. I find him partly responsible for using his seat to put us out there, it makes us look weak.The IOC had probably made it's decision long before Obama's involvement. The vote is just for show, Rio was probably their chose for a few years.

[rdowns]

The endless bickering over nothing in this thread is of Olympic proportions. Medals awarded as follows.

Gold- MacNut
Silver-leekohler
Bronze- Zombie Acorn

Congratulations to all the winners. Now please stand for the national anthem.

[obeygiant]

^^^ Hardy-har... wait two silvers?


This article sums up some people's feelings on the matter:

And it is expected that the next monthly unemployment report scheduled to be released at the end of this week will show our national jobless rate risen to a quarter-of-a-century high of 9.8 percent for September.

In short, this is no time for President Obama to make a special trip to Copenhagen to join his home base of Chicago in its final bid for the 2016 Olympics. Just two weeks ago, Obama even admitted he was too busy with health care reform to go to Copenhagen on Oct. 2 to personally pitch Chicago for the Summer Olympics.

A two-week international sports spectacle seven years from now makes about as much sense being on the president's agenda at this moment as timeout for tiddlywinks.

It has been pointed out that Obama is simply doing what other national leaders have done. For example, when London was vying for the 2012 Olympics, British prime minister at the time, Tony Blair, and his wife, Cherie, went to Singapore, where IOC members were holed up before casting their final votes, and spent a couple of days glad-handing voters. Two years later in 2005, Vladimir Putin, Russian president then, visited IOC voters to support Sochi's bid for the 2014 Winter Games.

But Great Britain then didn't have the host of problems facing Obama, and Blair was six years rather than nine months into his office. Putin was in his second term as president when he championed Sochi's bid and, while facing many struggles, exercised his broad authority to get done almost anything he wanted.

Furthermore, London is England. It is synonymous with its home country, it is its heartbeat. And Russia had never hosted a Winter Games.

Chicago is but one of our biggest cities with about 2.8 million people. Another 300 million or so of us make up the rest of the United States. What positive tangible impact will a Chicago Games have on, say, Raleigh, N.C.? Did the Salt Lake City Winter Games help Buffalo, N.Y.?

Hosting an Olympics in this country is a municipal or regional concern. It is not a national issue and, as such, certainly not something that should rise to the docket in the Oval Office. We've seen eight Summer and Winter Games in this country from New York to California and in between. A president need not make the Olympics a special case.

Chicago is merely Obama's adopted hometown, too. He was born in Honolulu, no matter what those crackpots among us known as "birthers" have cooked up for us to believe.

If Hawaii was bidding for the 2016 Summer Games, I would better understand Obama dropping a day or two worth of work for the nation to hobnob with international sports officials in Europe. But it isn't.

This should be an assignment solely for the first lady, who is as much a part of Chicago as deep dish pizza. She was actually born and reared there. Leave it to her.

This is not about the president spreading himself too thin, either, which is a criticism that has been raised as he has sought to orchestrate an economic bailout, two wars (the Iraq war is ongoing), reform of health care, closing the Gitmo prison by his deadline (he is likely to miss it), etc. This is a case of the president getting himself involved in something that is not worthy of the Oval Office, like the arrest last summer of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. into which the president inserted himself.

And therein rests the danger. Like in the Gates' case, the president is exposing himself unnecessarily to a losing proposition. There is still a lot of animosity towards the United States outing of foreign IOC members stuffing their pockets in Salt Lake City. The president's involvement doesn't make winning the games a slam dunk. As former Vice President Al Gore staffer Chris Lehane told Politico.com on Monday: "If they don't come back with the gold, clearly there will be the same questions that American basketball would get if they don't come back with the gold -- they are expected to win."

President Obama isn't in need of another perceived setback.link (http://kevin-blackistone.fanhouse.com/2009/09/29/obamas-olympics-pitch-is-ill-timed)

[leekohler]

^^^ Hardy-har... wait two silvers?


This article sums up some people's feelings on the matter:

link ("http://kevin-blackistone.fanhouse.com/2009/09/29/obamas-olympics-pitch-is-ill-timed/)

Link doesn't work. Could it maybe be a right wing blog? ;)

The endless bickering over nothing in this thread is of Olympic proportions. Medals awarded as follows.

Gold- MacNut
Silver-leekohler
Silver- Zombie Acorn

Congratulations to all the winners. Now please stand for the national anthem.

Sweet! Thanks. :) I'm gonna try for the gold.

[obeygiant]

Link doesn't work. Could it maybe be a right wing blog? ;)
.

Fix'd the link. I think its a sports column tho. Who knew right?

[leekohler]

Fix'd the link. I think its a sports column tho. Who knew right?

Why is it a sports column? :confused:

[Lord Blackadder]

I would think people like Zombie and the other posts in this thread would have a "screw the world, USA! USA! USA!" attitude...

...except when they have the opportunity to have a "Screw Obama, GOP! GOP!, GOP!" attitude.

[obeygiant]

Why is it a sports column? :confused:

Maybe something to with the fact that it concerns the Olympics, which is a huge 2 week sports spectacle that happens every 2 to 4 years in various countries. :D

[Zombie Acorn]

...except when they have the opportunity to have a "Screw Obama, GOP! GOP!, GOP!" attitude.

Believe it or not, most people don't have a personal investment in Obama's life. It seems that most who voted for him take all attacks as personal, a minority of the right likes to dog him for pure pleasure. Some just like to call a stupid move when they see it.

[leekohler]

Believe it or not, most people don't have a personal investment in Obama's life. It seems that most who voted for him take all attacks as personal, a minority of the right likes to dog him for pure pleasure. Some just like to call a stupid move when they see it.

And there is still no rational explanation as to why it was stupid.

[Zombie Acorn]

And there is still no rational explanation as to why it was stupid.

On a political scale it was an opening for failure, on a global scale it was another chance to open America up for failure, especially when its the first US president to extend himself.

On top of that most of Chicago didn't even want the games there, we are in the middle of an economic crisis and job losses were reported on the same day he left (which he inevitably knew about before they were released).

Priorities.

[rdowns]

And there is still no rational explanation as to why it was stupid.

I think it was a stupid move because he was on record as saying he was too busy tending to health care to go. Then he goes and provides his opposition the kindling for their fire.

[Lord Blackadder]

On a political scale it was an opening for failure, on a global scale it was another chance to open America up for failure, especially when its the first US president to extend himself.

On top of that most of Chicago didn't even want the games there, we are in the middle of an economic crisis and job losses were reported on the same day he left (which he inevitably knew about before they were released).

Priorities.

Total nonsense. It was for an Olympic bid - and nothing ventured nothing gained, right? What if Kennedy thought the Apollo program was an "opening for failure"? :rolleyes: There is absolutely no shame in not getting chosen for the Olympics, though it would have been nice.

Where do you get this "most of Chicago didn't even want the games there"? You're going to have to cite something or I'll have little choice but to consider it an invention.

Bringing an Olympics to Chicago would bring money to the US, so you could hardly have chosen a worse example to argue against the bid on economic grounds.

I don't take every attack on Obama personally, though you are absolutely correct that many right wingers do it out of spite for "pure pleasure". But I will defend against spurious accusations like the present one.

[abijnk]

If you shouldn't do anything because you might fail, then how do you ever do anything?

[Shivetya]

Believe it or not, most people don't have a personal investment in Obama's life. It seems that most who voted for him take all attacks as personal, a minority of the right likes to dog him for pure pleasure. Some just like to call a stupid move when they see it.

Nah, too many people need to feel as if they are victims. So, even if something totally unrelated to them happens they will claim offense so that they feel important enough to be a victim.

Then again, we have a number of people who take all negative comments about him as personal attacks because, well because they cannot think or act rationally even today.

[Zombie Acorn]

Total nonsense. It was for an Olympic bid - and nothing ventured nothing gained, right? What if Kennedy thought the Apollo program was an "opening for failure"? :rolleyes: There is absolutely no shame in not getting chosen for the Olympics, though it would have been nice.

This is like comparing setting your own goal to run a mile in 4 minutes and having someone else judge your clothing style to see if you are fashionable.


Where do you get this "most of Chicago didn't even want the games there"? You're going to have to cite something or I'll have little choice but to consider it an invention.

Support dropped from 2-1 in February to 47 percent in favor currently.

Bringing an Olympics to Chicago would bring money to the US, so you could hardly have chosen a worse example to argue against the bid on economic grounds.

Not necessarily true especially when the US isn't the only one hurting economically.



I don't take every attack on Obama personally, though you are absolutely correct that many right wingers do it out of spite for "pure pleasure". But I will defend against spurious accusations like the present one.

You have a personal investment in Obama, I have nothing of the sort so I will call an ace an ace. I didn't vote for either side in this election.