PDA

View Full Version : Why do the Republicans hate America?


nikkibong
10-02-2009, 05:58 PM
http://tpmlivewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/10/weekly-standard-newsroom-erupts-into-cheers-at-news-of-olympics.php?ref=fpblg

Whatfur
10-03-2009, 06:22 PM
Maybe because.... (http://www.weaselzippers.net/blog/2009/10/scrubbed-ny-times-scrubs-their-olympic-fail-article-no-mention-of-barack-odogmas-and-rahms-quotesscr.html)

Arrogance maybe? (http://www.realclearsports.com/articles/2009/10/03/arrogance_dooms_olympic_dream_96494.html)

Lets check in with the NYT editorial staff..,. (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/opinion/03sat4.html?ref=opinion)

bjkeefe
10-03-2009, 07:27 PM
John Cole (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=27767):

First, I would like to point out to both of these folks [Rick Moran and Ben Smith] that the leaders of every nation attended. Did they all lose prestige, too? Is the “diminishment” of Spain’s head of state also good news for Republicans? And where did I find this little morsel of information?

Why, a little website called the POLITICO.

Second, if Chicago had won the bid, what prestige would the Presidency gain? New constitutional powers? Would he be addressed as “President and successful Olympics lobbyist Barack Obama” from here on out? Would this prestige pass on to future Presidents? Or just this White House?

Finally, what prestige did he lose? Did they take away the football? Will they no longer call him President? Will he have to give up Air Force One? Was he kicked out of the White House? Will members of his secret service detail think to themselves “Yesterday, I would have taken a bullet for him. Now, with the stench of defeat all over him, I’m not so sure.” What foreign leader who would have answered a call from the White House yesterday will today refuse because Chicago did not get the Olympics? Same for members of congress? Or fundraisers? If the White House said they would like for Ben Smith to conduct an interview, would Ben say “No thank you, your diminished status as President leaves me no choice but to decline.”

This is the kind of mind-numbingly stupid wankery that we get when people have nothing to say but feel the need to say something anyway. The President went, like every other head of state, to try to get the Olympics for his country. It was awarded to Rio. Nothing else happened, and anyone who states otherwise is simply sniffing glue. And no matter what happened, the Republicans would be claiming that it is bad for Obama.

Also, this is excellent news for John McCain.

And you know what the wingnuts would have been saying if Chicago had been picked after Obama made his pitch? Why, let's ask JC (http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=27656) again:

You know who else hosted an Olympics?

Hitler.

Just saying…

Wonderment
10-03-2009, 07:56 PM
Reasons:

1) First South American country to host ever.

2) Democratic country (unlike the last host)

3) Protesters will be very active, heightening awareness of North/South inequities and sociopolitical and environmental problems in Brazil and the rest of Latin America.

4) Spain and the US have both had the Olympics before; give other countries a chance.

5) This is such a complete and utter non-story about Obama that the pundits who are jumping on it will all look like fools in a few days.

claymisher
10-03-2009, 08:08 PM
Reasons:

1) First South American country to host ever.

2) Democratic country (unlike the last host)

3) Protesters will be very active, heightening awareness of North/South inequities and sociopolitical and environmental problems in Brazil and the rest of Latin America.

4) Spain and the US have both had the Olympics before; give other countries a chance.

5) This is such a complete and utter non-story about Obama that the pundits who are jumping on it will all look like fools in a few days.

Agreed. I've read that the USOC is a trainwreck too. Besides, South America deserves an Olympics.

graz
10-03-2009, 08:09 PM
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/9972/brazil8.jpg

BRAZIL CELEBRATES INDEPENDENCE DAY IN CAMPINAS, SAO PAULO .

Ocean
10-03-2009, 08:57 PM
Reasons:

1) First South American country to host ever.

2) Democratic country (unlike the last host)

3) Protesters will be very active, heightening awareness of North/South inequities and sociopolitical and environmental problems in Brazil and the rest of Latin America.

4) Spain and the US have both had the Olympics before; give other countries a chance.

5) This is such a complete and utter non-story about Obama that the pundits who are jumping on it will all look like fools in a few days.

Yes to all the above (preemptive short Ocean).

Ocean
10-03-2009, 08:58 PM
... Besides, South America deserves an Olympics.

Yes to that too.

kezboard
10-03-2009, 09:12 PM
Total co-sign with Wonderment, BJ, and John Cole. I have to say, though, that the pointless hating on both Chicago and Obama that has been coming from the vast right-wing conspiracy for the past couple of days is seriously poor form, although I'm relieved that we're not getting the Olympics.

Lyle
10-04-2009, 07:04 AM
Just for arguments sake, some Europeans seem to think President Obama might have hurt Chicago's chances by only showing up for 5 hours.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20091002/koebenhavn/91002197/&ei=bqbGSuqVIo_Q8Qb60rThCA&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=1&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKai%2BHolm:%2BChicago%2Bviste%2Bmange l%2Bp%25C3%25A5%2Brespekt%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=http://www.berlingske.dk/article/20091002/koebenhavn/91002207/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DKai%2BHolm:%2BChicago%2Bviste%2Bmange l%2Bp%25C3%25A5%2Brespekt%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff&rurl=translate.google.com

Which cuts against what David Axelrod is saying, that it was the right thing to do (my guess is it probably was, because if he did didn't go and Chicago failed to get it, he'd be criticized from that angle as well, especially from his home team in Chicago).

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/03/sports/03obama.html?_r=3&hp

“Most of our information came from the committee and the Chicago folks,” said David Axelrod, a senior adviser to the president. “But I don’t want to leave the impression that somehow we went on the basis of faulty information. We went because it was the right thing to do.”

Worse is Valerie Jarrett's reference to Copenhagen being like the Iowa Caucuses, because if that is the case, why didn't Obama spend more time in Denmark, which is what the Iowa Caucuses are all about?

A sense of stunned bewilderment suffused Air Force One and the White House. Only after the defeat did many advisers ask questions about the byzantine politics of the Olympic committee. Valerie Jarrett, the president’s senior adviser and a Chicago booster who persuaded him to make the trip while at the United Nations last week, had repeatedly compared the contest to the Iowa caucuses.

In the end though Rio de Janiero had a more compelling story. So Obama, in my opinion, is ultimately not responsible for not bringing the Games to Chicago. Perception matters though, I guess.

Whatfur
10-04-2009, 08:49 PM
Sad but true...and a little funny. (http://hotair.com/archives/2009/10/04/video-snl-goofs-on-obama-for-accomplishing-nothing/) (the guy needs to get the voice down better)

rfrobison
10-24-2009, 06:46 AM
Oh, come now, Nikki, you can do better than that, can't you? The right-wing pundits your link refers to aren't exactly representative of "Republicans," just right-wing pundits and their followers.

Moreover, imagine that GWB were still president and Dallas put in a bid, which he personally endorsed with a visit to Geneva. Are you seriously going to say that the left-ocracy wouldn't have gloated just as much had such a bid failed?

Gimme a Texas-sized break. Not only would they have wet themselves with glee, they'd have trotted out the old trope that this only goes to show how much Bush has sullied America's once good name in the world...yada, yada, yada.

[ADDED]:

It's crass partisanship to be sure, but it's not as if only one side does it. I realize you're still smarting over criticism by some of your ideological soul-mates that you've been too easy on us righties lately, but geez!

nikkibong
10-24-2009, 11:00 AM
Oh, come now, Nikki, you can do better than that, can't you? The right-wing pundits your link refers to aren't exactly representative of "Republicans," just right-wing pundits and their followers.

Moreover, imagine that GWB were still president and Dallas put in a bid, which he personally endorsed with a visit to Geneva. Are you seriously going to say that the left-ocracy wouldn't have gloated just as much had such a bid failed?

Gimme a Texas-sized break. Not only would they have wet themselves with glee, they'd have trotted out the old trope that this only goes to show how much Bush has sullied America's once good name in the world...yada, yada, yada.

[ADDED]:

It's crass partisanship to be sure, but it's not as if only one side does it. I realize you're still smarting over criticism by some of your ideological soul-mates that you've been too easy on us righties lately, but geez!

I've changed the subject line. Apologies for including you in the original version. :)

But more the point: yes, the subject line was crass. But let me try to explain where it's coming from. As I'm sure you'll recall, for eight years under Bush, anyone to the left of Tom Delay was accused of anti-Americanism. So there is a certain (crass) satisfaction in seeing those same arbiters of all things Patriotic turn tail and celebrate a defeat for the United States. Generally, I think it's a dangerous thing to label one's opponents "unAmerican or anti-American." (Jacob Weisberg's ridiculous piece (http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192) labelling Fox "unamerican" is a good example.) We have got to do away with that cheap trick, and start arguing these points on the merits.

The Olympics - unlike the absurd Nobel Prize - would have been an unalloyed (economic, cultural) good for the United States. Cheering its loss was not cheering an Obama defeat; it was cheering an American defeat.

(BTW: I was rooting for Chicago. But my second choice was your current home, Tokyo. Japan needs the morale boost, I think.)

rfrobison
10-24-2009, 09:11 PM
I've changed the subject line. Apologies for including you in the original version. :)

But more the point: yes, the subject line was crass. But let me try to explain where it's coming from. As I'm sure you'll recall, for eight years under Bush, anyone to the left of Tom Delay was accused of anti-Americanism. So there is a certain (crass) satisfaction in seeing those same arbiters of all things Patriotic turn tail and celebrate a defeat for the United States. Generally, I think it's a dangerous thing to label one's opponents "unAmerican or anti-American." (Jacob Weisberg's ridiculous piece (http://www.newsweek.com/id/218192) labelling Fox "unamerican" is a good example.) We have got to do away with that cheap trick, and start arguing these points on the merits.

The Olympics - unlike the absurd Nobel Prize - would have been an unalloyed (economic, cultural) good for the United States. Cheering its loss was not cheering an Obama defeat; it was cheering an American defeat.

(BTW: I was rooting for Chicago. But my second choice was your current home, Tokyo. Japan needs the morale boost, I think.)

I take your point. And again, I agree with the underlying sentiment that it's stupid to try to make political hay from something like this. Would the Obama-haters cheer if Hawaii sank into the ocean because that's where he spent his youth?

As to the Olympics, specifically, I guess the IOC figured it was just time for South America to get one. I have serious doubts about the whole selection process, though. Back when Nagano was awarded the winter games one of the Japanese Olympic Committee members, if I recall, basically admitted that they paid people off to get them. Then when the government (or somebody) investigated, they found that the paperwork had all been destroyed. Oops. Then there was the whole Salt Lake City thing. If the Olympics can corrupt "Jerusalem West," they can dirty anyplace.