While there might be some, I don't see the talk in conservative circles as being happy Chicago lost. I do see a lot of it as more "I told you so" about the President--his arrogant belief that he can just talk and make things happen, his so-called "smart diplomacy", his lack of priorities, his total unpreparedness for the job, his continual rookie mistakes. And come on, this is a funny jab:
"As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed". (from first link above)
The world's supposed to love us now! Oh, but after 8 years of George Bush, they don't love us (or Obama) enough. Yeah right.
I'm not a fan of the Olympics. Of course I'll pay attention to the medal count, because I'm competitive that way, and I want the US to come out on top, but if the Olympics disappeared tomorrow it would have zero impact on my life. So it doesn't matter to me where they are held. I'll admit, though, that I can't see anything happening in Chicago without massive graft and corruption, so in that regard the citizens just dodged a bullet. But whether or not the games are held in Chicago or not means nothing to me. When San Francisco lost out (and some of the venues would have been in Sacramento), I felt bad for about 3 seconds and that was it. I didn't hear anyone from either side make any political hay out of it. It's the President who injected himself into this issue, and now that he's failed, the liberals are angry that some are using it for political purposes. Of course, the liberals wouldn't have trumpeted Obama The Great had Chicago been awarded the Olympics; no, it's just those evil Republicans.
How angry liberals are, though, shows that they just can't accept that they're the only ones in the world who see President Obama as a God-man. They view this as a stinging rebuke of Obama himself, and they'll blame anyone they can for it--and if they can blame Republicans, so much the better! It's funny to go to the comments at the links above and read how angry they are. If you don't believe yet that this President has nothing going for him but a cult of personality, go read. There's not one comment there about good Chicago would have been for a choice, how Chicago has a track record of being able to organize such massive events (if indeed it has one), nothing like that. It's all anti-Republican.
Because that's all that really matters to the lefties.
No city has ever really made a profit on the Olympics. Chicago is a very economically depressed city right now, and the didn't pony up with enough cash to sway the vote. I also believe that the long faces in Chicago have to do with the strings attached to stimulus money being used to create the infrastructure facilities for the Olympics. This was to be the cover for funneling millions, perhaps billions, of dollars to participants in the Daley Machine and the Friends of Obama. As crowded as the central core of Chicago might be, it would require building up down the south of Lakeshore past the convention center. This, ironically, is almost all low income or subsidized housing. For a long time now Chicago has had a turf war with her suburbs, and I am sure that they would have loved the excuse of the Olympics to force low income housing on the suburban communities and school districts in order to clean up their own image. So much of the wailing is based on folks who aren't getting the political payback they expected.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Rio did offer more money, a private beach for athletes and far more space. It's the first time the Olympics have been held in South America. I say good luck to them, they will need it.
In the meantime, I have already read three columns labeling the IOC as racist for failing to give in to the combined willful auras of Oprah and the Obamas. Isn't that just a tad bit arrogant? Maybe they didn't like the bid because they were pushy.
Let's see:
ReplyDeleteCheers erupted in the offices of the Weekly Standard. Glenn Beck told listeners to "savor the moment" because "it is so sweet, let me break it to you." Video of a conference at the conservative Americans for Prosperity "erupted in applause." Red State's Erick Erickson wrote "Hahahahahaha."
I'd say that's pretty widespread and pretty pathetic.
Additionally, the administration received calls for a visit from the US Olympic committee who knew "the decision was close" and they had inside info that "a trip from the president could clinch the deal." So, he went. A nice diplomatic attempt in support of the "country."
Some rational, pragmatic conservatives like Joe Scarborough (the kind of Republican I vote for) offered thanks to the President for trying and called the GOP critics of the action "stupid." Which they were.
There's a lot to criticize in politics. But from Hannity talking about "mustard on a hamburger" to Limbaugh criticizing "dates to New York" and "private schools" to Beck descending into unbalanced references to the Manchurian candidate, the right wing noise machine has just gotten stupid.
Luckily, only about fifteen million Americans take them seriously these days, which is why Obama won. This is a point made very well recently by David Brooks, a true conservative conservative - a Burkean conservative. It was echoed by Lindsay Graham, another rational conservative I support who called people like Beck and his conspiracy crowd "crazy" and "pessimistic."
Rod Dreher recently lamented the lack of a modern William Buckley in the conservative world. I echo this need. Perhaps people like Joe Scarborough and Lindsay Graham are finally stepping up to the plate.
That will bring independents and moderates back to the party that has lately been campaigning for the title of "the party of crazy."
You can choose to believe that if you'd like. I see it as a defeat for Obama personally, not for the US. He's the one that made it political. If it were so close that his appearance might have swung the deal, Chicago wouldn't have come in last place.
ReplyDeleteI'll believe this anti-Americanism when it's the Republicans who want to cut and run in Afghanistan and Iraq. Until then, the left needs a bogeyman for this loss, and they don't want to look at their own guy.
Yes, its a defeat for Obama personally. The bid that was started in the BUSH era, and which was up against Rio, a city on a continent that has never held the games is a personal defeat for Obama. If you say so.
ReplyDeletePart 1
ReplyDeleteThank you Michael….I’ve had a really screwed up few days and I needed a laugh. You provided it for me.
“Cheers erupted in the offices of the Weekly Standard. Glenn Beck told listeners to "savor the moment" because "it is so sweet, let me break it to you." Video of a conference at the conservative Americans for Prosperity "erupted in applause." Red State's Erick Erickson wrote "Hahahahahaha."
I'd say that's pretty widespread and pretty pathetic.”
Please don’t forget the top of the Drudge Report, copied by Limbaugh all day Friday on his show: “The Ego has Landed”! Mazenko, in past I’ve pointed out to you multiple times that B Hussein Obama has no executive experience and now this chicken has come home to roost (Roost…more like breaking the perch!). You notice the PM of Japan or any of the other chief executives were not in the country during the vote. They would not risk it. Your prestige is valuable as the man in charge. Now if someone, dare I say competent on the Obama staff (Hello Rham, are you listening) was doing the job BO needs done, they would have slapped him in the face (figuratively that is…for now) and said “Mr President, do not make this personal like this. If you fail, you look like a complete idiot and failure in front of the entire world! The degrades you personally, but more importantly it degrades the office of the Presidency and the US. And an Olympic game is not worth that gamble!” And did he make it personal? Let’s see:
“President Barack Obama might not show up in Copenhagen next week to lobby personally for Chicago's bid for the 2016 Summer Games, but he seems determined to win over members of the International Olympic Committee from a distance. …Obama sent letters touting Chicago's virtues to the 100-plus members of the IOC, which will select the 2016 host Oct. 2 from among Chicago, Rio de Janeiro, Tokyo and Madrid…"The City of Chicago is designed to host global celebrations and it will deliver a spectacular Olympic experience for one and all," Obama said in the letter, which was dated Sept. 10. “
Source: Washington Post (Charter Member VRWC…right), http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/22/AR2009092203700.html
Part 2
ReplyDeleteNow from the speech BO gave to the IOC last week:
“…So I’ve come here today to urge you to choose Chicago for the same reasons I chose Chicago nearly twenty-five years ago – the reasons I fell in love with the city I still call home. And it’s not only because it’s where I met the woman you just heard from – though after getting to know her this week, I’m sure you’d all agree that she’s a pretty big selling point. You see, growing up, my family moved around a lot. And I never really had roots in any one place or culture or ethnic group. Then I came to Chicago. And on those Chicago streets, I worked alongside men and women who were black and white; Latino and Asian; people of every class and nationality and religion. I came to discover that Chicago is that most American of American cities, but one where citizens from more than 130 nations inhabit a rich tapestry of distinctive neighborhoods.
Each one of those neighborhoods – from Greektown to the Ukrainian Village; from Devon to Pilsen to Washington Park – has its own unique character, history, song, and sometimes language. But each is also a part of our city – one city – a city where I finally found a home….
…And I ran for President because I believed deeply that at this defining moment, the United States of America has a responsibility to help lead that effort, and to forge new partnerships with the nations and peoples of the world…..
…Nearly one year ago, on a clear November night, people from every corner of the world gathered in the city of Chicago or in front of their televisions to watch the results of the U.S. Presidential election. Their interest wasn’t about me as an individual. Rather, it was rooted in the belief that America’s experiment in democracy still speaks to a set of universal aspirations and ideals. …there is nothing I would like more than to step just a few blocks from my family’s home and welcome the world back to our neighborhood.
Source: White House Blog, Fox News, http://whitehouse.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/10/02/president-obama-remarks-at-ioc-meeting/
Notice one of the most common words in the speech Mazenko….”I”. It was personal. And the world rejected Barrack Hussein Obama, personally.
“Additionally, the administration received calls for a visit from the US Olympic committee who knew ‘the decision was close’ and they had inside info that ‘a trip from the president could clinch the deal.’ So, he went. A nice diplomatic attempt in support of the "country.’”
Again, I point out, you don’t bet your prestige (personal and official) on a shaky bet...and if he didn’t see it as shaky, that shows a lot for his judgment doesn’t it. Now, will the Iranian take him seriously…or the Chinese…or the Russians? Is the point made… prestige means a lot in the presidency. If BO had even had to make a decision with consequence (like a Governor…or a Mayor…or a business executive….or a Battery Executive Officer (Hello Darren)…or a Company Commander, he may have comprehended that fact before he made a fool of himself. It’s something that comes with experience….not something that comes with a Harvard (excuse me, HARVAAAARD) degree.
“Some rational, pragmatic conservatives like Joe Scarborough (the kind of Republican I vote for) offered thanks to the President for trying and called the GOP critics of the action ‘stupid.’ Which they were.”
That tells me enough…Joe was part of the Class of 94 and a reliable conservative, but after getting a job at P MSNBC he’s showing more liberal colors.
Part 3
ReplyDelete“There's a lot to criticize in politics. But from Hannity talking about "mustard on a hamburger" to Limbaugh criticizing "dates to New York" and "private schools" to Beck descending into unbalanced references to the Manchurian candidate, the right wing noise machine has just gotten stupid.”
Oh, like wondering why B Hussein won’t send his kids to public school (as opposed to his predecessor who’s daughters were in public school through HS graduation) and in one of his first acts as president killed a voucher program for poor (dare I say it…women and minorities hardest hit) people in DC….a program that would allow young poor kids to get a good education…alongside kids like the Obama girls. BTY, would you explain the “mustard on a hamburger”…and yes, spending 80K of a date is a bit excessive…he’s the president, not the monarch.
“Luckily, only about fifteen million Americans take them seriously these days, which is why Obama won. This is a point made very well recently by David Brooks, a true conservative conservative - a Burkean conservative. It was echoed by Lindsay Graham, another rational conservative I support who called people like Beck and his conspiracy crowd "crazy" and ‘pessimistic.’ “
Damned you ain’t good at this. There are several reasons why BO won…Bush fatigue, white guilt and not the least of which was a very weak candidate in McCain. McCain, who had as one of his greatest supporters...Graham. And again, I go back to our pervious postings. McCains and Graham are Republicans…they are not conservatives.
“Rod Dreher recently lamented the lack of a modern William Buckley in the conservative world. I echo this need. Perhaps people like Joe Scarborough and Lindsay Graham are finally stepping up to the plate.”
Bill Buckley was a Reagan Republican, not a conservative but Mr. Conservative, conservative before it was in style. He was one of Reagan’s earliest and greatest supporters. He was no political friend of McCain or Graham. He would oppose McCain’s attempt to make take over the Republican party with “moderates” who are Democrats light.
“That will bring independents and moderates back to the party that has lately been campaigning for the title of ‘the party of crazy.’"
Party of crazy…that is definitely the Democrats. The party of open borders, multi-trillion dollar deficits, nationalization of industry, double digit unemployment, defeat in Afghanistan and Iraq, nuclear armed Iran, socialized health care, surrender in Poland, BO can’t talk to the field commander in over two months but he can at a drop of a hat fly to an IOC meeting. That’s not the party of FDR, Truman, FDR or even LBJ. It is the party of BO…and Stretch Pelosi…and Harry Reid. And again mazenko, I’ll draw you to the definition of leadership: “process of social influence in which one person can enlist the aid and support of others in the accomplishment of a common task”. Reagan got the Conservative Democrats to support him by using his ability to show them how their support would help him accomplish goals that were good for the country, e.g. employment, victory in the Cold War, end of Carter stagflation, etc. Moderates by definition cannot lead…they go with the wind. Leaders will decide where they want to take a group (be it a football team, police force, bureaucracy or nation) and use leadership techniques to get support. As a lifelong Republican, I saw the disaster that was McCain 08 and I declare we need a new Reagan. Is Palin it? Time will tell.
Come on mazenko and and say it...you know you want to say it for your boy..."Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm. Barack Hussein Obama! Mmm, mmm, mmm," :<)
Yeah, what Mike said.
ReplyDelete“Yes, its a defeat for Obama personally. The bid that was started in the BUSH era, and which was up against Rio, a city on a continent that has never held the games is a personal defeat for Obama. If you say so.”
ReplyDeleteAnon, have you passed a sixth grade composition class? I wonder. Yes, Chicago started its bit sometime earlier in this decade (i.e. sometime between Jan 20, 2001 and Jan 20, 2009) and the odds are pretty good it was during the administration of George Walker Bush, 43rd President of the United States. Now, if you can show me evidence of him personally sending multiple letters to the IOC, claiming Chicago as home, flying to the IOC at a moment’s notice and begging “Please send the Olympics to Chicago”, then it will W’s fault. Until that, it’s B Hussein Obama’s embarrassment.
Well said, MikeAT
ReplyDeleteOne of the major factors involved is likely to have been the difficulty there is in getting a visa to the USA these days. There are dozens of stories of people trying to visit the US for sporting or cultural reasons and being denied due to the post 9-11 visa culture. That is going to have made it very hard for Chicago.
ReplyDeleteChicago dodged a bullet. Hosting the Olympics creates massive debt that cities in the US are still paying off. And it's fairly pathetic, not to mention a bit humorous, that lefties who have pushed for the defeat of US troops in Iraq and now, Afghanistan, think schadenfreude over Obama not getting the Olympics for Chicago is "anti-American."
ReplyDelete