| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front: Politix |
| White House: Opposing Obama's Olympics Lobbying Is Unpatriotic or Something |
| 2009-10-04 |
| Earlier this week, House Republican Leader John Boehner criticized Obama's Olympics lobbying jaunt to Copenhagen. "Listen I think it's a great idea to promote Chicago but he's the president of the United States, not the mayor of Chicago," Boehner said. "And the problems we have here at home affect all Americans and that's where his attention ought to be." RNC Chairman Michael Steele also said he wanted the Olympics to come to Chicago, but thought that "at a time of war, at a time of recession ... this trip, while nice, is not necessary for the president." Maybe, just maybe, it would have made more sense to focus on winning the war in Afghanistan than winning the Olympics for Chicago. On Tuesday, the White House struck back. Press Secretary Robert Gibbs falsely implied that Steele opposed bringing the Olympics to Chicago: "Who's he rooting for? (Laughter) Is he hoping to hop a plane to Brazil and catch the Olympics in Rio? (Laughter.) Maybe it's Madrid." The official White House blog also claimed that "In the past, hosting the Olympics has been a source of pride and unity for the country." Actually, that's not always been true: In 1972 60 percent of Coloradans voted against hosting the 1976 Olympics. But the facts weren't really important. The point was that White House wanted you to know that if you opposed bringing the Olympics to Chicago--or even criticized Obama's trip to Copenhagen--you didn't really have "pride" in your country (unlike Michelle Obama, who might have been proud of her country for the second time in her adult life had Chicago won). I was rooting for Rio. The United States has hosted the Olympics eight times before. Not a single South American country has ever hosted the games. Isn't it only fair for Brazil to get its day in the sun? And after declaring that "no world order that elevates one nation or group of people over another will succeed," wasn't it hypocritical for the most powerful man in the world to jet to Copenhagen to demand his country get the Olympics for the 9th time? Wouldn't it have been smart diplomacy for Obama to have opted not to throw his weight around? Or does "smart diplomacy" only involve sacrificing our interests and the the interests of our democratic allies to appease our autocratic adversaries? Furthermore, 45 percent of Chicagoans oppose bringing the Olympics to Chicago (47 percent were in favor). Presumably opponents have reasons other than a deep-seated hatred of America for wanting to see the city fail in its bid? Or does the White House think Chicagoans who don't want the games are unpatriotic, too? It seems that, like Obamacare, the more people learned what hosting the Olympics really means -- higher taxes, heavy traffic, more corruption -- the less support there was. So, I was wrong to write this morning that Chicago lost. It didn't lose. Neither did America. Obama's cowboy diplomacy lost. And I cheered. |
| Posted by:Grutle Slavith8727 |
| #19 Thanks for the explainer, DV! |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-04 23:11 |
| #18 Well, advocating Barak Insein Obama's failure for the Olympic is really a tempest in a teapot compared to Congressional Demoncats rooting for the US defeat in Iraq. |
| Posted by: HammerHead 2009-10-04 12:45 |
| #17 Soci@lism contains ci@lis Actually, Soci@lism contains varying amounts of Communism which is often associating with economic decline and piles of corpses, something even more annoying than spambots. |
| Posted by: SteveS 2009-10-04 12:37 |
| #16 Hey, Chicago got 18 votes in the first round. 18! |
| Posted by: Woozle Uneter9007 2009-10-04 11:16 |
| #15 "He is either self-serving or a fool." No reason he can't be both, gorb. |
| Posted by: Barbara Skolaut 2009-10-04 10:27 |
| #14 Gorb, I saw this explained elsewhere. Soci@lism contains ci@lis, which is a male enhancement drug used by spam bots. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2009-10-04 08:46 |
| #13 Sorry for the mess. Fred, your filters wouldn't allow the word I wanted to use get through, so I replaced it with "social-izm". Is this intentional? |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-04 05:45 |
| #12 social-izm in the guise of public healthcare, and plotting to fatten his post-presidential bank account in order to squeeze in a few minutes with his top general in Afghanistan in response to some inconvenient public perceptions about maybe having been ignoring him. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-04 05:43 |
| #11 the groundwork for |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-04 05:40 |
| #10 I'm glad he could find the time between looking in the mirror, scheming to get out of Afghanistan, laying |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-04 05:38 |
| #9 How much did he get paid to diminish the office? How much more would he have been paid had he actually been successful? Who would have benefitted? He is either self-serving or a fool. Neither belong in the office. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-04 05:30 |
| #8 Who's he rooting for? It's not who he's rooting for, it's what he's rooting for. He's rooting for the office of the President. |
| Posted by: gorb 2009-10-04 05:29 |
| #7 Top 10 reasons President Hussain did not get the Olympics 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. |
| Posted by: Besoeker in Duitsland 2009-10-04 03:09 |
| #6 Congratulations and best wishes to Rio for landing the 2006 summer olympics. See, Ima good sport and have no bitter feelings [other than shame and anger at the world class carbon footprint left by AF-1 between Wash DC and Copenhagen]. /heh |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2009-10-04 01:29 |
| #5 Hey, don't you dare question my patriotism! (Dissent is still patriotic, right?) |
| Posted by: Cornsilk Blondie 2009-10-04 01:24 |
| #4 Tarzan say - Carmen Miranda pictures required - and Bob Hope movie - Road to Rio only then will it all fall into picture. |
| Posted by: Tarzan Crereling6523 2009-10-04 01:20 |
| #3 Hear hear 3dc. All it takes is somebody changing a tire on the side of one of the expressways and the entire highway net comes to a complete halt. No redundancy in the system whatsoever. Daley the Elder had all sorts of expressways planned that were never built, and you'll get the Olympics in Chicago three times in a row before you build another highway in that city. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2009-10-04 01:14 |
| #2 HMMMM, HMMMMM, wehell, a lady friend here on GUam believes that the USA should not fret about losing the 2016 Olympics bid as SOUTH AMERICA + RIO are long overdue to hosting one - she does think, however, that POTUS BAMMER should have sent Lady Love MICHELLE-O intead of self, IIUC so that the USA + OBAMA ADMIN could still gain political points wid the Amer people + UNOC-World while still letting Rio have the Olympics, i.e. "lose with grace"??? |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2009-10-04 00:48 |
| #1 ya know... some of us just like to go between points A and B in greater Chicago. It is hard enough to do so now. With an Olympics it and prior construction it would be near impossible. |
| Posted by: 3dc 2009-10-04 00:48 |