As someone who has worked for three different television networks at three different Olympic Games, I have a vast fondness for the event and a little understanding of how such decisions are made. Rio was the right choice for several reasons: the first South American games in history, and the ability for the games to change the city, what with all the infrastructure that must be built over the next seven years, the money that will flow in and, yes, work its way down to local businesses and workers, and the pride it instills, putting the city on the map, looked at in a way it hasn't been before.
Madrid, Tokyo and Chicago can't make that claim for 2016.
Since all the other national leaders of contending cities showed up, I'm glad Obama went as well. Imagine the reaction if the result had been the same and he'd been the one who hadn't shown up. Yet for some reason, wait a minute, it's coming to me...yes, now I remember why so many conservatives and Republicans were gleefully celebrating America's loss of the 2016 Summer Olympic Games: their undisguised hatred of President Barack Obama. Stronger than their love of America. Perhaps revealing their hatred of America, i.e. the America of today and the future?
Check out this gathering of conservatives erupting into unanimous applause. This is the so-called Americans For Prosperity -- one of the main organizing groups behind the tea party protests -- yet they don't seem to be behind prosperity for Chicago in 2016:
Credit where credit is due: former GOP Representative Joe Scarborough thanks the President for trying. And sure, there are good reasons from a progressive standpoint to oppose Chicago winning the Olympics and be happy for the loss -- this way, no poor renters will be displaced by new Olympic stadiums and the city won't incur Olympian debt; but bottom line is that it's not as big a deal for Chicago to lose as it is for Rio to win.
Check out their celebration. With bonus Pele:
Now that's going to be a hell of a party in 2016.
3 comments:
BHO is cool, but Pele is Pele.
btw: Since Republican Leaders stopped the nation's most important business for a year purely to mount an attempt to destroy Bill Clinton, and since many of them openly side with the vilest, most dangerous, and most divisive fringe factions in the land, it's hard to understand why anyone would be surprised at their Olympics reaction. It was as predictable as night following the day.
They hate working Americans, they hate women, they hate minorities, they hate the egalitarian and democratic principles on which the nation was founded, they hate the Constitution, and if you're reading this they probably hate you, too.
They represent the interests of .5% of the public; anyone who has a net worth of less than $100 million and votes Republitard is profoundly confused about what their party actually stands for.
Apparently BHO can't do any wrong. I'm not glad Chicago lost the bid, I'm downright ticked. It would of meant a lot for the U.S. and the Chicago economy. I read somewhere The Olympics seems todo a little better $$ wise better, especially for the host city, when it's on U.S. soil.
Also the meeting with McCrystal was a spin to show that Copenhagen wasn't a complete failure. Losing the voting in the first round, should be an embarrassment, and viewed a complete waste of time and resources. I wonder if Michelle now thinks the sacrifice was worth it?
Anonymous I vote Republican, I know what the party stands for. It's ideals for personal responsibility, with lesser government. The problem with the party is that they're are two cliques. The first clique is the religious right, they're a large part of the base that their ideas should have really little say in our Government based on our Constitution. The second is the economic Conservative base.
People that vote for Democrats are quick to give up control, seem to be more fond of the Matrix battery system. Just plug yourself in, and some overlord will decide what you can and can't do.
That's a little bit over the top but really, what it comes down to is that the Democratic party believes you are too stupid or lack the responsibility to make a decision for yourself. So unless you're the one making the decisions, are you too stupid or do you just lacking personal responsibility?
It's very noble to make decisions that effect the entire nation just to provide for your voting base right? The Democrats are a reactionary party, that pass legislation as temporary fixes.
Think of Minimum Wage hikes, just temporary fixes until the Dollar menu becomes the 1.50 menu right? Think of foreclosure law changes to protect the homeowners, this doesn't stop foreclosures it just delays them.
Like I've said before, unless this administration gets a big win, and soon. There's going to be a huge shift in 2010.
You're making my point for me.
You may believe in personal responsibility but when Republican leaders talk about "Personal responsibility" what they mean is "Personal responsibility for everybody else."
Your party's leaders GWB & Cheney have gone through their entire lives w/o taking responsibility for anything. I won't bother getting into 2 of the guys until recently named as possible 2012 presidential nominees, Ensign and Sanford.
Turn on the TV and you'll see members of your party now lying that it BHO who bailed out Wall Street, not Republican GWB and his Republican Treasury sec'y, and their appointed Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke. You will also see the guy who was the principal cause of the economic disaster that Dems now have to clean up -- arch-republican Alan Greenspan -- writing op-ed piece after op-ed piece that none of this was his responsibility.
As for limited government, all I can say is: wake up and smell the coffee. This doesn’t look like limited gov't to me:
http://debtprison.net/images/signs/Natl_Debt_Chart.jpg
Slogans are great, but at some point it's important to take a look at what the people we vote for actually do.
Post a Comment