WHERE ARE ALL THE ‘GOOD GOVERNMENT’ LIBERALS?
I’ve had one of my justly famous “Whither Conservatism” posts scrambling my brains for the past three days but haven’t quite focused on it and given it the time it deserves. Perhaps tomorrow I can tie the threads together from 4-5 separate articles and essays I’ve read recently and make prime rib out of the hash.
Instead, there are a few more things that need to be said about Obama pitching the Chicago Olympics and the reaction on both right and left to both the junket itself and Obama’s failure to sway the IOC to give Chicago the nod.
First, I think the left has a point about misplaced righty triumphalism regarding Obama’s failure. It is unseemly. And regardless of whether you believe the left had similar gloats during the Bush years, this particular effort - one I criticized before Obama even left - did indeed reflect a rejection of America itself. So cheering the failure is akin to cheering a failure of America.
Now, if I were a lefty, I would be extremely careful about asking why America was rejected. Let’s play with a hypothetical; suppose there was the president of a country, newly elected, who went around the world, in venue after venue, telling anyone who would listen about the numerous faults, mistakes, missteps, and evil perpetrated by his own country. These words would fall upon ears eager to hear about that nation’s dirty laundry because it reinforces their own skewed view of what that nation is all about.
Then suppose the same newly elected president showed up at a forum where it was important that the positive about his country be emphasized to the exclusion of the negative so that a group of judges chose his country to play host to the world at an important event.
He speaks in glowing terms about his country and how the world would be welcomed in his hometown. But the judges aren’t idiots. They have heard this same president speak of his own nation’s many shortcomings for nearly a year.
In all honesty, ask yourself why those judges should choose this president’s country to host an event when they have heard so many negative things about it?
I am not saying that the president’s habit of reciting his version of American history - both recent and ancient - played the decisive role in Chicago’s rejection. But if it played any role at all - and I fail to see how it couldn’t - then the president has himself to partly blame for this failure.
I am put off by the happiness shown by the right over this personal failure by the president. And I am snickering over the left’s charges that the right “hates” America because they are gloating over it.
Excuse me, but we just spent 8 years being told that it was the right’s uncritical patriotism - love of country - that got the United States into so much trouble and fostered the notion that it was the left that actually hates America. Are we to take seriously the idea that all of a sudden, the right hates America because Obama was elected? The premise is laughable on its face. Equating Obama with the country itself is an error made by partisans and those infected with excessive ideology. The president is not America; he is a servant of the people. You can oppose or even hate the president and not be considered traitorous to the United States - unless the Constitution has been changed when I wasn’t looking.
Now it is unhealthy for the nation for a large part of the opposition to hate the president. Unhealthy, but not illegal. And I can understand the left’s eagerness to tar the right with the “unpatriotic” meme. They had to put up with it for 8 years so payback’s a bitch, isn’t it?
Allow me to say once again for the benefit of both sides; trying to quantify how much someone loves the United States is pathetic. Both liberals and Conservatives love America. They just show that love in different ways. This is how I explained it one Fourth of July a few years ago:
Herein lies the great chasm that separates liberals and conservatives when it comes to defining the word “patriotism.” The right sees patriotism as a physical, emotional connection with the past; an open acknowledgment and tribute to those who came before us and guaranteed with their blood, sweat, and tears that we, their progeny, would live in freedom. We are aware that America is not all it could be but rather than dwelling on our imperfections, we celebrate all that is good and decent in this land and its people.
The flip side of the same coin is how liberals define patriotism. They seem to intellectualize their love of country. They distrust outward displays of patriotic emotion, tending to equate fervor with patriotism’s evil twin - nationalism. Liberals see a problematic past for America and are not shy about pointing out where America has fallen short in its promises of liberty and equality.
But does this mean that liberals are less patriotic than conservatives?
Is it unpatriotic to want your country to live up to its extraordinary ideals? Is it unpatriotic to criticize what liberals see as hypocrisy in our history, where we celebrate freedom while keeping millions in bondage? Or speak glowingly of Native American culture while treating them abysmally?
It is nonsensical to have these arguments about who loves America more - or less. We are two sides of the same coin - both liberals and conservatives need each other to complete the essence of what America was, is, and should be. Our view of America and how we love her complements each other - while fostering a healthy contrast that keeps us striving to live up to the best of our ideals.
Aside from this idea that the right “hates” America because they wished Obama to fail, I am at a loss to explain where all the “good government liberals” have gone in recognizing that giving the Olympics to Chicago in the first place would have been a travesty.
Used to be that “progressive” and “good government” went hand in hand. Politicians like Hubert Humphrey, Paul Simon (former senator from IL), and William Proxmire would have been outraged that the president had gone to Denmark to plead the case for investing billions in a city as corrupt and venal as Chicago unless they had some way to make sure that the money was given to the city without it being tainted by contact with the Machine.
So where are the “good government” liberals opposing this monumental opportunity for graft that would have come Chicago’s way if the president had succeeded? At one time, these men and others were not afraid to speak up and challenge their own party when it came to corruption. Recall Connecticut’s feisty, governor Abraham Ribicoff shaming Richard Daley the elder at the podium during the 1968 convention riots in Chicago.
This kind of boondoggle would have been tailor made for good government liberals of the past. But has partisanship so infected both parties that opposition to Obama’s trip to fill the coffers of Daley cronies and friends (not to mention the surety that organized crime would have been in for a slice of the pie), was left to conservatives?
I heard a few liberals after Obama’s failure say he shouldn’t have gone to begin with - for the same reasons that John Cole evidently finds so incredible. Outside of this piece in The Nation, I can find no opposition on the left to the idea of bringing the Olympics to Chicago because of the inevitable cost overruns due to corruption.
This triumph of partisanship over what many believe is an issue of supporting good government is truly sad. It reveals how truly sick our political culture is at the moment. As for a remedy, I have none. Nor, do I suspect, does anyone else.
I cannot find that line in Article II of the federal Constitution that makes pleading before the International Olympic Comittee part of the President’s job description.
I hope that I would be as critical of a more-conservative President, or one less tainted by connections to Da Machine, for debasing his Office in the same way.
Comment by Stephen Karlson — 10/3/2009 @ 11:41 am
WHERE ARE ALL THE ‘GOOD GOVERNMENT’ LIBERALS?”
This is a great question, but I thought you would raise in the context of more serious violations of basic ethical governance happening right now in the Senate’s mad rush to pass ObamaCare.
I speak of the following:
- The outrageous and unseemly refusal of the Senate under Reid and the Baucus Senate Finance Committee to properly write legislative language and allow people to read bills before voting on it
- The comments of Sen Carper, Sen Kerry and others laughing at the very suggestion that Senators read bills
- The refusal to take the time to get the bill scored by CBO for cost … so that the Senate and House will quickly pass THE LARGEST EXPANSION OF GOVERNMENT IN DECADES WITHOUT EVENT A BASIC UNDERSTANDING OF ITS ACTUAL COST ESTIMATE!
- The bait-and-switch of voting provisions down in committee and using the ‘nuclear option’ of reconciliation to get public option passed …
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/10/02/the-vapor-bill-%E2%80%93-congress%E2%80%99-secret-plan-to-pass-obamacare-update/
“Senator Reid uses all the procedural tactics in his toolbox to shut down debate and control the Amendment process to get this Senate debate completed by the end of October. They can add the Public Option as an amendment on the Senate floor with a simple majority if they have the will.”
You spoke of making prime rib out of hash. Right now the Senate has concocted uncooked hash, and are in a mad rush to pass whatever horrible bad bill they can, and do it in a way that makes a mockery of legislative consideration.
So I ask, with you: Where are the ‘good Government’ liberals on this horrendous act of sausage making?
Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/3/2009 @ 12:09 pm
I agree the hoopla regarding this trip is a bit much. The past 2 selections should affirm that the IOC wants the president/prime minister or whoever to show up and declare the nation wants the games. Out of the 4 finalists, all the leaders were there. If President O had not gone, the fan base would say “its because he wasn’t there to state the case”. So he went…big deal. I’m not an Obama fan, but get over it. The ‘right’ needs to calm down and focus on the important issues. Why do we get bogged down for the minor stuff and let others think we’re all nut cases? This country did not need the Olympics this go anyway. Did everyone forget that Mayor Daley may have nixed this when he critcized the other cities?
Comment by pkmom — 10/3/2009 @ 1:33 pm
I didn’t like Obama going to beg for the Olympics. I did like that it didn’t succeed for one reason. He would have been hoisted up on shoulders and treated like a conquering hero. I want the Olympics in the US but the credit would have gone to him rather than those that worked to make it happen. The other thing honestly where do you want to summer? You have a choice of Chicago, Tokyo, Madrid, and Rio de Janiero. I’m headed to Rio everytime. Now if the choice was Detroit, Philadelphia, Buffalo, or Chicago, then Chicago has a better chance.
Comment by Bubbasgotgas — 10/3/2009 @ 2:31 pm
“I want the Olympics in the US but the credit would have gone to him rather than those that worked to make it happen.”
Then it’s certainly better we didn’t get it. I’m sure that makes all of those that did work to bring it here feel much better. Makes sense to me.
Comment by busboy33 — 10/3/2009 @ 3:25 pm
I’m not sure I see the correlation between the failure of N-Obama to get the Olympics in his dear Chi-town and the failure of America. I believe that these Olympic Committee folks saw through the fact that all N-Obama wanted was the pat on the back he would have gotten here in America for getting the Olympics. Not to mention the audacity of a sitting American president to actually think that his mere presence would sway people who more than likely hate America anyway!
I don’t see this as a failure for America. Just another nail in the political coffin of a man who believes his press clippings! This feeling that if a American president fails America fails is wrong. Carter failed miserably! America came out of that better for it. Just like we will when N-Obama is voted out! Come on 2012!
N-Obama needs to come down out of the clouds and learn to govern the country he claims to love so much. (Still not so sure how his wife feels about America though).
Go GOP!
God blass America!
-j-
Comment by James Jordan — 10/3/2009 @ 3:37 pm
P.S - Forgot to mention… nice blog! Great writing style! Keep up the great work!
-j-
Comment by James Jordan — 10/3/2009 @ 3:38 pm
@pkmom:
Well said! One could also point out the unfair IOC voting setup as a cause for Chicago’s unsuccessful 2016 bid.
Comment by Surabaya Stew — 10/3/2009 @ 3:55 pm
“Not to mention the audacity of a sitting American president to actually think that his mere presence would sway people who more than likely hate America anyway!”
So, let me get this straight. Obama should have been the only leader of a country up for the Olympics who didn’t turn up, yes?
And if all the other leaders were there and Obama didn’t bother, you would have been praising his sound judgement, yes?
Comment by Drongo — 10/3/2009 @ 5:05 pm
Of course not! But to live and shout this negative and poisonous attitude day in and day out, to the near exclusion of celebrating the good in America, is a huge turnoff, and an excellent reason to avoid or suppress such soreheads. It is the origin of the feeling that the left is not at all patriotic. Why do they need to ensure that the entire world is thoroughly informed of our past sins every year, over and over? Move on!
Then too, there is the fact that their financial and social goals are ruinous and actually anti-American, which makes it virtually impossible for conservatives to grant leftwing liberals any kind of patriotism at all.
Only one measure is needed to illustrate the point: the latest prediction of the national debt under Obama, in the year 2019, is $31 trillion, without considering Obamacare.
This is unforgivable.
Comment by Mannning — 10/3/2009 @ 7:11 pm
Question for Rick:
“He speaks in glowing terms about his country and how the world would be welcomed in his hometown. But the judges aren’t idiots. They have heard this same president speak of his own nation’s many shortcomings for nearly a year.”
What makes this more accurate than the following:
“He speaks in glowing terms about his country and how the world would be welcomed in his hometown. But the judges aren’t idiots. They have heard his own citizens screaming that he is the living reincarnation of Hitler and Stalin rolled into one. They see citizens proudly showing off their weapondry as they stand outside his ‘town halls’. They see the barely disguised calls for armed revolution played out on national media . . . and they certainly don’t want to give the violent opposition an easy public target to attack.”
I certainly don’t suppose that the IOC followed that thought process. I have absolutely no reason (aside from my personal bias) to think it was the Obama-haters fault. But I could wildly speculate that was the cause, and thereby put all the “blame” for not getting the nod on the Tea Party crowd. What makes your assignation of blame any more accurate?
Correlation never automatically equals causation, and attempting to do so is either a sign of ignorance as to the prior statement (which I don’t believe applies to you) . . . or it represents an attempt to “cheat” an argument forward with weak or nonexistent support.
One weak or unsupported facet of an argument poisons the rest, however valid. You make good points . . . then throw them away. My personal opinion, it is better to make a shorter stronger argument than to add some weaksauce for bulk. Your call, but just my 2 cents.
I assume your analysis is targeted at the indecisives in your audience. You don’t have to say anything for the Haters — all you have to do is post “Obama iz Teh Stoopid” and they’ll fall all over themselves singing your praises. The people who might be pursuaded are a skittish lot . . . don’t spook them with biased insanity or your rational snare goes to waste.
Comment by busboy33 — 10/3/2009 @ 7:25 pm
Rick said:
“In all honesty, ask yourself why those judges should choose this president’s country to host an event when they have heard so many negative things about it?”
“this president’s country”??…Really?
What about THIS Rick??
“Equating Obama with the country itself is an error made by partisans and those infected with excessive ideology.”
Good one.
Why not just say “America”??…instead you say “this president’s country”?
Language like that is why some people think that you hate this place Rick..
Then you say:
“I am put off by the happiness shown by the right over this personal failure by the president.”
This is another one of those “problems of perception”..
You may be put off by the happiness Rick, but by continually calling this a “personal failure” by the president, you’re buying into the premise…and celebrating in your own subtle way..
There are some probable reasons besides a “personal failure by Obama” for America losing the bid..
“America’s visa processing issues have been well-publicized throughout much of the world, with some tourists waiting six months or more to have a 10 minute appointment with a visa examiner in an embassy or consulate to visit America on a vacation. Business visas or those for cultural ambassadors, like artists and athletes, are similarly problematic.
Pakistani IOC member Syed Shahid Ali correctly noted the significant difficulties facing foreigners seeking entry into the United States.
The Wall Street Journal speculates that Chicago’s loss has more to do with the heavy European membership at the IOC and Latin American IOC members lining up behind Rio; however, the visa issue has been an growing problem since new requirements were issued after 9/11.”
These could be deciding factors Rick, maybe even more influential to judges than your theory that Obama speaking the truth abroad has hurt our image sooo badly in the past year that it cost us the olympics and that is a “personal failure” by the president..
Check the latest polling numbers…The image of the United States has improved markedly in most parts of the world since Obama became president..
Israel doesn’t like us very much, but they’ll still take our billions in aid…lol
Why would judges award an international event to a country that makes it such a hassle to travel to Rick?…Especially when we’ve already had Atlanta and Salt Lake City in recent history??
Yet in 3 posts on this topic here, you haven’t even considered these factors once..
We never stood a chance…out in the first round…business is business man..
Here’s my theory:
Obama likely knew that chances were slim, but he used to live in Chicago, and since other world leaders attended, he felt like he should stand up for America and Chicago. He was being a “servant of the people”…and in that capacity, this can hardly be called a “personal failure”…He ultimately did what was right, even though he knew he would pay a price at home.
Regarding your “Chicago as the most corrupt city in America” argument…Most people know that corruption is everywhere, and an argument could be made against any city based on corruption…Add to that the documented corruption of republicans far and wide, and the unprecedented level of contract fraud associated with the Bush Iraq war, and you can see why your argument carries little weight with the public..
Rick says:
“I can find no opposition on the left to the idea of bringing the Olympics to Chicago because of the inevitable cost overruns due to corruption.”
That’s funny, I used to say something similar to that a while back..
…I can find no opposition on the right to the idea of bringing war to Iraq because of the inevitable cost overruns due to corruption.
Turns out Iraq made Chicago look like a pickpocket..
I guess this means that all those conservatives that supported the war also condoned seeing their money wasted or stolen rather than spent to support troops risking their lives and dying..
Only those involved in corruption condone it Rick..your “good government” liberals are my “fiscal” conservatives…they both look the other way when their guy is in the house..
And finally…A quote from George W. Bush:
“They say that the Olympics will come to Chicago if we’re fortunate enough to be selected, but really it’s coming to America, and I can’t think of a better city to represent the United States than Chicago.”
Comment by Moltenorb — 10/3/2009 @ 8:07 pm
“They have heard his own citizens screaming that he is the living reincarnation of Hitler and Stalin rolled into one.”
Busboy: Have they? Surely the lamestream media that IOC members read have relegated any Obama dissent to an irrelevent racist minority, barely stopping to recount the specifics. Please share the evidence that IOC voting members are readers of WorldNutDaily instead. That would be … interesting!
Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/3/2009 @ 10:19 pm
“Only one measure is needed to illustrate the point: the latest prediction of the national debt under Obama, in the year 2019, is $31 trillion, without considering Obamacare.
This is unforgivable.”
No wonder they are voting on Obamacare without scoring it! (They are hiding an over $2 trillion program over ten years, and it will grow.)
Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/3/2009 @ 10:21 pm
@ Travis Monitor:
“Busboy: Have they? Surely the lamestream media that IOC members read have relegated any Obama dissent to an irrelevent racist minority, barely stopping to recount the specifics. Please share the evidence that IOC voting members are readers of WorldNutDaily instead. That would be … interesting!”
There’s two things I’d like to say here.
The first is that apparently news of the whack-a-doodles has crossed the oceans, if you are to believe Comment 69 from Rick’s 9/29/09 thread about calling out idiots (”Silence Equals Assent”):
“Liza Said:
9:31 pm
It’s reassuring to see there is some intelligence left in your country. The seemingly mainstream Obama bashings and illogical comparissons to communism and nazism have reached us all the way down in Australia, completely baffling us. It’s so refreshing to see someone expressing an opinion rationally.”
Additionally Obama commented in a speech about a week or two ago about how an unnamed world leader asked him about the people making Hitler/Stalin analogies . . . but of course that’s straight from Obama so how credible you find that may vary.
Does that show that the IOC (a) heard the same things and (b) based their decision on it? No (although how do you know what they hear?). . . but that’s the second point.
It would be insane of me to blame the IOC’s decision on this factor . . . just as it is insane for Rick to not-to-subtly suggest that they based their decision on Obama’s comments about America:
“He speaks in glowing terms about his country and how the world would be welcomed in his hometown. But the judges aren’t idiots. They have heard this same president speak of his own nation’s many shortcomings for nearly a year.
In all honesty, ask yourself why those judges should choose this president’s country to host an event when they have heard so many negative things about it?
I am not saying that the president’s habit of reciting his version of American history - both recent and ancient - played the decisive role in Chicago’s rejection. But if it played any role at all - and I fail to see how it couldn’t - then the president has himself to partly blame for this failure.”
Rick says he’s not saying it played a decise role . . . but it must have played some role (”I fail to see how it couldn’t”) . . . and therefore the failure of Chicago to get the bid is traceable to Obama’s comments to some extent.
There is NO REASON to assume this. More specifically, there is no reason to assume this over assuming it was the whack-a-doodles infamy that “lost” the bid (which presumes that Chicago already had “won” the bid and somehow chased the nod away). Blaming the nutjobs is just as justified as blaming Obama, because there is no actual proof for either. I could also blame solar flares — they happened before the vote (correlation) so they must have influenced the vote (causation).
Why does Rick blame Obama’s comments? Because he is wearing his “Bad Obama” glasses, and it makes Obama the origin of anything negative.
My point is that such a viewpoint isn’t Conservative, it isn’t Republican, it isn’t rational . . . it’s blind (anti-)faith. My point to Rick was that there’s no need to go to his blog to hear the “Everything Bad That Happens Is Caused By Obama” stock speech. There’s plenty of paranoid whackjobs floating down the InterTubes providing that. People come here for a Conservative viewpoint — not dogma. This critique of Obama (his prior comments soured the bid for the IOC) is simply an attempt to blame Obama for SOMETHING. Its based on nothing more than an asusmption that his mere existence is a toxin, destroying anything it touches. It must be a blanket assumption, since there’s no evidence that could possibly justify it. And that’s amateur crap that personally I think this blog is better than.
Comment by Anonymous — 10/4/2009 @ 2:58 am
Comment #15 was from me, who obviously forgot the whole “enter your name” part of commenting. Apologies.
Comment by busboy33 — 10/4/2009 @ 2:59 am
Huh? I honestly can’t remember a single instance from the past eight years where someone on the political left asserted that people on the right are patriotic.
The idea that the right hates America is a strawman; the suggestion is that people on the right hate Obama more than they love their country. Nor is the suggestion that this is something “sudden;” rather the suggestion is that many people on the right weren’t patriotic even before Obama was elected.
Comment by Kenneth Almquist — 10/4/2009 @ 3:22 am
Hey Rick
Terrific writing. Your so correct about the IOC loss for the Chicago Outfit/Daley/Criminal Racketeering Enterprise Chicago City Hall/Fred Roti “Made Man of the Chicago Outfit” & 1st Ward Alderman/1st & 11th Ward Hired Truck Scandal/Family Secrets case Grand Ave., Rezco/Blago.
See: chicagoguncase.com. U.S.Supreme Court took 2nd Amendment Case See Fred Roti Ordinance on Chicago gun ban.
I believe I read Obama has reasigned Fitzgearld U.S. Atorney out of Chicago installed there by President Bush. HHHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.
I guess he was getting to close to bankrupting the Daley Machine of Corruption, so its good bye Mr. U.S. [A]ttorney since it was he who nailed them all thusfar, with Blago and company to go.
Lets see if the DOJ continues on with the prosecution[s] in the same manner as Fitzgearld would have done, or if the White House indulges in political “Executive” obstruction of Justice as in [Hint] the Black Panther dismissal to shut everyone up in the Chicago=Cook County Machine” et al including Springfield illinois in violation of the Three Seperation Of Powers Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
The voters reap what they sow and pick their same poison every election cycle. Be careful what you wish for it may just come true and boy they’re voting record sure proves their poison is killing them DALEY[pun intended] financially with taxes rats and fraud. So keep on voting. Twice, and don’t forget the dead including the wiseguys.
Comment by Chris Pedersen — 10/4/2009 @ 11:38 am
James Jordan said:
“I’m not sure I see the correlation between the failure of N-Obama to get the Olympics in his dear Chi-town and the failure of America. I believe that these Olympic Committee folks saw through the fact that all N-Obama wanted was the pat on the back he would have gotten here in America for getting the Olympics. Not to mention the audacity of a sitting American president to actually think that his mere presence would sway people who more than likely hate America anyway!”
Good grief! First of all, the Chicago 2016 bid was being put together LONG before Obama came along as Prez. The “Not to mention…” sentence is absolute nonsense. ALL of the heads of state were there–ALL OF THEM. Chicago didn’t lose because of anti-Americanism either: Chicago lost because their bid was bad–the Olympics there would have been a disaster.
Comment by Todd — 10/4/2009 @ 7:15 pm
“Additionally Obama commented in a speech about a week or two ago about how an unnamed world leader asked him about the people making Hitler/Stalin analogies . . . but of course that’s straight from Obama so how credible you find that may vary.”
Yawn. Obama pushing the lamestream narrative only shows he and they are locked at hips or lips or both. Reality check: That narrative is not the main substance of the disagreement and dissent of Obama’s Government power grabs, but a hyperbolization of it, designed to marginalize all Obama criticisms in order NOT to actually respond to it.
The Obama Power grabs of concern are:
1. Health Care Reform ($1.7 trillion+ in 10 years, with more in the out years)
2. Cap and Trade.
3. The Stimulus ($787 billion)
4. The Omnibus ($410 billion) & massive planned deficit spending ($9 trillion in deficits)
5. Antitrust lawsuits against Google, et al.
6. Czarist power: Pay Czar, Green Jobs Czar (oops, by Van Jones), Car Czar, etc.
7. Turning Pell Grants into an entitlement.
8. Having the Food and Drug Administration regulate tobacco.
9. Consumer Financial Protection Agency.
10. Federal Trade Commission overreach.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/4/2009 @ 8:55 pm
Busboy made some okay points, but … “Blaming the nutjobs is just as justified as blaming Obama, because there is no actual proof for either. I could also blame solar flares”
… you lost your argument here. Nobody on the right went to Copenhagen. Obama did. The analogy doesnt hold.
Obama went to Copenhagen personally to sell Chicago 2016 Olympic bid to the IOC. Chicago lost. Whether Obama was the cause of the failed bid (doubtful), the fact remains that Obama attempted to get X to happen (Chicago 2016 Olympics) and it didnt happen. If he could influence the IOC, whatever he did didnt measure up (knocked out in first round). If he himself could not influence the IOC decision outcome on this to any extent anyway, then he never should have gone in the first place.
Either way, that makes his trip a failure, and only Obama is responsible for that.
Comment by Travis Monitor — 10/4/2009 @ 9:08 pm
“Either way, that makes his trip a failure, and only Obama is responsible for that.”
That’s a statement that I can agree with in a rational sense. I don’t agree that it is a “Capital ‘F’ FAILURE” which seems to be the tenor of the criticism, but it is, in the sense you defined it, a literal failure to achieve that goal, so the statement is gramatically “fair”. I’ll agree to that.
But that’s not what Rick said. He blamed it on Obama’s past statements, and developed an argument that he was “not-ready-for-primetime” which is demonstrated by his making “bad” statements that were destructive to America’s interests (getting the nod). A capable leader would know not to say such things bacuase of exactly this kind of fallout. Amatuer!
And that is an ENTIRELY different kettle of fish.
Rick isn’t saying Obama failed to sell the bid — he argued that the prior statements of Obama ruined the sales job before it even happened. Whether Obama went to the IOC or not isn’t what settled the Chicago bid in his post — it was what people heard/thought of America from Obama before he went. He “badmouthed” America, so hell no we won’t give you a bid. It wasn’t a failure of salesmanship, but rather his traitorous slander that scared the IOC.
What Rick implied is that if Obama hadn’t made “those” statements, then Chicago would have had a better chance at the bid. “Well, we might have held the Olympics in Chicago, but this friggin’ jagoff shows up asking us to do it? If he asked me to keep breathing I’d hold my breath until I pass out — did you hear he said America wasn’t always perfect?!? What a dickhole!”
Perhaps Obama can be blamed in some manner for the IOC decision — since we don’t know why Brazil got it and we didn’t, we don’t know if Obama was a hindrance or a benefit that ultimately wasn’t enough. Leaping to “Obama’s Anti-American ideologically driven rants influenced the deal” is wishful thinking, and hurtful, unproductive, destructive, hate-fulled wishful thinking at that.
I said we have no idea what motivated the IOC decision, but let me try to go beyond that. I’m not an IOC member. You aren’t either (an educated guess on my part). But just to fantasize, what issues do you think influence their decision? Potential for profit? Potential facilities? How much the members get bribed? Favoritism? How the selection will play out in the world media? Begging? I could imagine any and/or all of these playing some role in their decision.
How unsupportive a country’s leader has been of past administrations for the bidding country? I really can’t imagine that would factor at all. If the new President said something like “We’ve stopped most of the roaming death squads, but there’s still a few out there we’ll try to clean up before the games” . . . then maybe, but that to me falls more under “not making the games look bad with a massacre” and less under “the leader isn’t supportive enough of past regimes”.
Furthermore, that assumes that Obama’s statements were offensive to the IOC. I know that to the True Red Faithful, his comments (which were precisely what?) were the equivilant of a Black Mass . . . but did non-Americans recoil in horror? Did they condemn Obama? Did they care? Wasn’t most of the planet moderately pissed off at us already? I sort of thought they were pissed off because of exactly what Obama was talking about — wouldn’t that mean that the comments HELPED, instead of hurt?
That he did not secure the bid is an undisputed fact. Should he have tried to get the bid without having a guarantee that his efforts would pay off? Maybe, but maybe not. I think that’s a debatable point, but a fair debate in that there are credible views on both sides (to me, at least).
That the bid failed to some extent because of prior Obama comments unrelated to the Olympic bid? That’s uncredible regardless of whether he brought the bid home or not. To propose that, as Rick did, can’t be motivated by any facts, but rather by unsupported hatred. And that’s what I’m complaining about. I understand disliking a person, but that’s not a justification for criticism — it’s a replacement for justification.
Since it isn’t based on facts, we can just keep saying it no matter what happens. Dow went down? Obama shouldn’t have made those comments. What an Amatuer. Dow went up? The market rallied just to show Obama that nobody respected him for being such an amatuer and making those statements. Friggin’ amatuer. I get it. Obama is wrong in thought, word, and deed. Nothing more to add? Then I’m going to stop listening . . . and I don’t want to stop listening.
You’ve explained how Obama failed in his mission, and fairly so. Can you explain how Obama’s comments “speaking negatively of his country” (again . . . what exactly did he say?) influenced the failure? If it did, or if it reasonably could have . . . then I’m wrong and I’ll learn something about how the world works. If it didn’t or couldn’t reasonably have influenced the failure . . . then Rick is wrong and he shouldn’t stoop to that crap.
Comment by busboy33 — 10/5/2009 @ 12:24 am
I agree with the author. My question is have the Olympics out lived their usefulness? This huge corporate/public extravaganza uses athletic competition and national pride to make huge sums of cash. Bread and cicuses, For the first time I did not watch one day or event at the China games and did not miss it. Obama did not get the games because his bribes and butt kissing did not reach the level necessary to placate the regal princes of the IOC. The whole operation is besotted with money, pride and envy hardly the Olympic ideal.
Comment by J. C. Gorman — 10/5/2009 @ 9:22 am
@Travis Monitor (#21) So by your thinking if the competition is down to the top four, the President should not do anything unless it is already guarantee that the US is getting the contract.
That is kind of like saying that unless you know for a fact that you are bringing home Super Bowl rings, then you shouldn’t put your best quaterback on the field. Don’t want to risk his getting hurt or anything, you know.
As to no one on the Right going: Does this mean that none of them care enough about America to go and try and get the countless jobs that this would have spurred? To try and get the money that would have poured in from the rest of the world? Why didn’t they try to do something? Or are you trying to suggest there was some vast conspiricy that stopped them from going?
Do you think that maybe the fact that we are in the midst of two wars, and constantly worrying about terrorist attacks, might have had a little to do with it? That Brazil was not impacted as hard by the recession, and looks like it is already starting to come out of it, meaning that they have the money to spend on building stuff, might also have had a small bit of influence on the subject.
Comment by KenGirard — 10/5/2009 @ 1:21 pm
Contradiction in terms, good government liberal has no place in the American political discussions. Liberal politicians and there Hollywood elite friends have the same sense of superiority that make their opinion correct no matter what the peons think. The peons must be made to understand what they tell you is for your own good.
Comment by John — 10/8/2009 @ 2:08 pm