Chicago Eliminated from 2016 Olympics (Page 3)

The U.S. presidency... like Forensics for adults!

You left out the part where he sadly actually said 1/2 as much.  Do the math on the value of those words.  I mean, if you like Obama half as much as I do, then that means I like him twice as much as you and I'm not sure that's possible.   

Even David Gergen (of all people) opined on NPR (of all places) that President Obama was overexposing himself and lessening the effect of his appearances

Should I dare?






Attachments
----------------
Fail.JPG (24KB - 11 downloads)

Why does the US think that the Olympics should be here so often?  I don't have the statistics, but I feel that the Olympics are held here far more often than any other country.  It's an international competition and should be spread around.  

I'm happy that Rio won, since no one in South America has hosted the Olympics before.  I even happier that Rio is close to the same time zone as me.  (It appears they are one hour ahead of me.)  Beijing was killing me with the 12 hour time difference! 

The United States has hosted 8 times in the history of the Olympics (49 games - not including games cancelled because of WWI and WWII - which were 5 instances all in different countries not the United States)
Too much?

 




Edited by lisac957 2009-10-02 4:28 PM

Well, 4 of those times have been in my lifetime (I'm 30 years old), so like I said, it feels like they are always held here.

couple things.

chicago was selected as the US bid city in april of 2007 when barack obama couldn't fill an elementary school gymnasium and most didn't know his middle name is hussein.

brazil's president, japan's prime minister, and the king of spain all also traveled to copenhagen. this is common practice now.

so it seems just a sliiiiight stretch so say this is a rebuke or indictment of obama.

also, the 1984 LA olympics resulted in a $250M profit, and the 1996 olympics in atlanta resulted in a $10M profit. the 88, 92, and 2008 olympics also resulted in large profits (greece, i'm pretty sure, was a clusterfk, and i found conflicting reports for sidney). so while i understand the reticence of chicagoans to carry the risk, it's far from a certainty that it would have been an economic loss for chicago. rather, hosting the olympics would have generated billions in revenue and created tens if not hundreds of thousands of jobs. given that the unemployment rate this week inched closer to 10%, that seems like it would have been a positive development.

the glee from some at the US losing the bid is certainly interesting. especially given the flag-waving and claims of american exceptionalism that typically comes from those corners.

personally, idfc where they're held. good for brazil.

Is it too early for me to begin pitching Menomonee Falls for 2020?

We've got a really nice public pool and Karl's Market right down the road makes one heckuva bratwurst!

Top 10 Reasons Chicago Didn't Get the Olympics [Rich Lowry]

An e-mail:

10. Dead people can't vote at IOC meetings

9. Obama distracted by 25 min meeting with Gen. McChrystal

8. Who cares if Obama couldn't talk the IOC into Chicago? He'll be able to talk Iran out of nukes.

7. The impediment is Israel still building settlements.

6. Obviously no president would have been able to acomplish it.

5. We've been quite clear and said all along that we didn't want the Olympics.

4. This isn't about the number of Olympics "lost", it's about the number of Olympics "saved" or "created".

3. Clearly not enough wise Latina judges on the committee

2. Because the IOC is racist.

1. It's George Bush's fault.

Hey I am still trying to figure out how I can be the wax-ee for the "Speed Brazilian'ing" event.  Just thought I would lighten-up the thread!!! LOL

Stop by... I'll hook ya up. 

<---Me
<---You

Actually, Obama made one of the keynote speeches to the DNC in 2004.  That's where Chris Matthews got "goosebumps all down my spine."  He was very much known and could've filled a number of gyms.
Brazil, Spain, and Japan are all countries with lower GDP than the US, none of them are fighting 2 wars (or even 1 war), all of them have populations that want the Olympics (as opposed to Chi-town that overwhelmingly doesn't want it). The President of the United States IS a more significant position than the heads of those countries.  There's a lot more power and responsibility than the head of the government of Brazil and Japan and the King of Spain is largely ceremonial.
By your own admission, $250MM in 84, $10M in 1996...trending downward, and considering Chicago corruption, any profit would be in the pockets of the politicians.

I'm not saying we shouldn't get the olympics in the US, I just don't think Chicago is the right place and I don't think this is the right time for the Prez to be spending time lobbying for it.  Instead, the Olympics should go where it has already been and we should rennovate the facilities.  That way, your profit is significantly higher.  Atlanta, LA, Lake Placid, etc.

What's sad to me is that Obama was a 30 min chopper-ride from the hospital in Germany where we're bringing troops that are wounded in Iraq or Afgh.  Why didn't he go for a visit while he was there?  Is a boondoggle for his hometown more important than the guys who volunteered to serve this country and have nearly paid the ultimate price?  Every time W went to Europe, and every time he had an opening in his schedule, he made a trip to a Military Hospital.

1. At best, such an event is likely to garner only national press coverage and this administration is all about global exposure.
2. In this instance, even national press coverage would be overshadowed by his failure to land the games in the first place, so why visit if you dont get on TV for it.
3. "Thank you for your service and get well soon" does not have the same broadreaching and Quixotic ring to it as the policy hopes he likes to put out.
4. No teleprompters in ICU.
5. Obama still working on changing water to wine and must get that down before healing the sick.

Government by soundbyte is getting real old real fast.

I need to find it but I read that in the first 8 months of his presidency, the country was 4x more effed up than when Clinton or Bush started their presidencies. 

the poll of 350 people in chicago was split, 47-45 in favor of hosting the olympics there. it was much higher, around 70%, when there wasn't the risk of eating any losses. and i agree that was a stupid move.

well aware of obama's 2004 speech, i even watched it. point is, chicago was selected when obama was getting 25% in the democratic primary polling, long before he was president. there wasn't this same uproar about chicago when bush supported its selection, and i don't recall him being criticized for traveling to chicago last year to meet with the USOC in support of their bid. pretty sure that there were two wars going on and the economy was tanking then, too.

i assume you're talking about landstuhl. that's 600 miles from copenhagen, so that would have to be one fast chopper ride. and obama did visit there the last time he was in germany in june, though i doubt that made the headlines on Drudge. given the proximity of walter reed hospital to the white house, you could say the very same thing about many things any president does with his time. why wasn't bush at walter reed for 490 days instead of in crawford? is his ranch more important than the soldiers wounded in the war he sent them into? how about all those tee-ball games on the white house lawn?

did bush visit landstuhl last june when he traveled to europe for an entire week as part of his farewell tour? a lexis-nexus search doesn't return any results, and there's nothing on the white house archive to suggest that he did.



hey, remember back in 2005 when bush lobbied the IOC for the 2012 olympics to be held in new york, and then the US came in 4th, and liberals gloated and jumped for joy? no? that's because it didn't happen.

i've never seen conservatives so excited to root against their own country and so giddy to see america lose.

Pick 'n Save would be all over that one. 

I guess you forgot that Bush inherited a recession from Clinton - and FIXED the issue without a bloated spending bill that still doesn't have the money being spent and into the economy.

Oops, wrong thread, I thought that I was going to be reading about the 2016 Olympic selection, my bad.

Okay so a 4 hour detour on his way home.  He's spent longer than that doing photo shoots for supermarket magazines.  That doesn't absolve him from my concern that he really doesn't value the troops and their sacrifice as much as he does his political friends in Chicago.

As for Bush's 490 days in Crawford.  I'd rather have the President out of the limelight doing his job (in the full command post at the "Western White House") than to have him making every appearance for which he's invited.

I remember some columnist or comedian bashing Bush for being on vacation, and showed a picture of him at his ranch to prove it. Tony Blair was in the picture.

Anyway, I don't think this decision had much to do with Obama one way or the other. I think it was pro-Brazil and anti-Chicago.

My point is that when Obama took office he had a whole heck of a lot more to talk about than when Clinton or Bush took office. 

People always bash Obama for always being in front of a camera without discussing whether or not his speeches are purposeful. 

Reading this thread makes me feel like I am watching Fox News.