Chicago - 2016?

[theexorcist]

This seemed easier than spending time on the Roman Polanski thread - really, he's an evil person who don't think that the rules apply to him, so please don't clutter up that thread when we can go to town on the Olympics.

I despise the IOC. They whitewashed China's human rights record, and let a thuggish regime take over. Samaranch and his successor both play the role of petty dictator very well, getting feted by princes and prime ministers.

And the Games are almost always a financial drag on the city. They're useful for a city or country's coming-out party (Edmonton lost its status to Calgary after the '88 games, Barcelona emerged as a tourist destination after 1992, and China used the Beijing Games to introduce modern China to the world).

But, really, Chicago? They're a powerful city on the world stage - asking for the Olympics seems really unnecessary. Nobody's going to think of Chicago as different since they hosted a Games.

And, as a US taxpayer, if stuff goes wrong (Beijing spent obscene amounts of money on security, and London's going to be worse), I get stuck with the bill.

Comments?

[Elvado]

This full court press by the White House only makes sense if some high-ranking White House official has ties to the company that owns the land that would be purchased for the Chicago Olympic Stadium. Otherwise, I don't get it at all...

[Boz]

Is there really that much chance that this is not a done deal already? I know that's the conservative meme right now, so you can criticize it on that basis if you want, but you've got to admit that it makes a certain amount of sense.

Look at it this way. Obama is already getting criticized (by conservatives, yes, but also increasingly by otherwise liberal pundits such as Richard Cohen and Howard Fineman) for pulling yet another "publicity stunt" in the wake of Iran, and his own call to urgent action on health care, among other crises like Afghanistan and now American Samoa. (edit: OK, probably not fair to include American Samoa in the group with the rest of these things)

So, going to Copenhagen already is not a widely popular move.

Think of the political embarrassment if he takes this risk and then the IOC doesn't give the games to Chicago.

Then the story becomes, not only should he not have gone, but he couldn't even pull it off when he did go. Not good at all.

I don't think that's a hit the President wants to take right now.

I think it's already in the bag.

My $0.02.

FWIW, I also think the IOC is a quasi-criminal organization for whom extortion is just day-to-day business.

And a very funny line by elvado, if you don't mind me saying... ;D

[EasyEd]

White House involvement is merely another ego trip seeking (and obtaining) adulation.

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 30, 2009 15:52:09 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

White House involvement is merely another ego trip seeking (and obtaining) adulation.

I think that's a fairly unfounded comment about character that need not be dignified.

That being said, I find it telling that the Olympics have turned into a political issue, and it isn't because, as theexorcist had the courage to admit, that the Republicans simply do not want the Olympics to occur in Illinois or the US, for that matter. Far better to only support programs when they are in line politically and to seek to the extent possible an opt-out when we pay for other things. Instead, we're caught up in this posturing about health care, American Samoa tsunami, and the like. During another administration, such arguments were called "rooting against America."

If Mitt Romney has commented on this, I'd love to hear what he has to say.

Usually, political disputes in the Olympics rise to a higher level, like issues with Communism during the Cold War. Remarks that the First Lady is better suited to make the case and the like are simply snipes that speak to the character of a regional party rather than high-minded ideals.

As far as American Samoa, I think that is well-founded to some extent. It is a major issue and has no doubt occupied significant attention today. Obama's involvement is through briefing and arms-distance direction. You can bet that he isn't going there tomorrow to survey damage, an act that would likely interfere with rescue/assessment and so forth.

[theexorcist]

Sept 30, 2009 16:01:42 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Sept 30, 2009 15:52:09 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

White House involvement is merely another ego trip seeking (and obtaining) adulation.

I think that's a fairly unfounded comment about character that need not be dignified.

That being said, I find it telling that the Olympics have turned into a political issue, and it isn't because, as theexorcist had the courage to admit, that the Republicans simply do not want the Olympics to occur in Illinois or the US, for that matter. Far better to only support programs when they are in line politically and to seek to the extent possible an opt-out when we pay for other things. Instead, we're caught up in this posturing about health care, American Samoa tsunami, and the like.

If Mitt Romney has commented on this, I'd love to hear what he has to say.

Usually, political disputes in the Olympics rise to a higher level, like issues with Communism during the Cold War. Remarks that the First Lady is better suited to make the case and the like are simply snipes that speak to the character of a regional party rather than high-minded ideals.

As far as American Samoa, I think that is well-founded to some extent. It is a major issue and has no doubt occupied significant attention today. Obama's involvement is through briefing and arms-distance direction. You can bet that he isn't going there tomorrow to survey damage, an act that would likely interfere with rescue/assessment and so forth.

What do you mean "courage to admit"? Montreal's tax problems after the Games were legion. Beijing's Olympic Stadium sits unused (except for tours that are given every so often). There exists a very real threat of terrorism, the mitigation of which costs billions.

And for what? So Chicago can say it's in the same league as hosts like St. Louis, Antwerp, and Barcelona?

This is not a Republican/Democratic issue. I'm fine with the Games being held in non-repressive countries that want to play with the big boys on the world stage - knock yourselves out. But it's not worth the money which will be spent if Chicago wins, which could be better spent on a variety of items (and Chicago's pretty modern, so the excuse of using the Games to modernize infrastructure doesn't seem to hold water.

I opposed Washington's bidding for 2016, and I'm hoping Chicago doesn't win. This is too expensive of a vanity project for my blood.

[jerseyhoya34]

My point is merely that your argument is easily distinguished from that which is being made publicly by the Republican Party. The leader of the RNC even made the crude argument that the First Lady is better suited to make the argument. That's how stupid the discourse has become and how this turns into a right vs. left issue.

I don't disagree necessarily with your point, but I don't see the right (or anyone in politics) making an argument about how Montreal's tax structure was affected. It mostly relates to new found sympathy for the folks in American Samoa, the importance of the healthcare debate, and other issues of the day.

[Bando]

The only reason to get the Olympics, in my view, is to get the infrastructure improvements that come along with it. Suddenly every project that's been put off for years is suddenly green lit. Those improvements can do a lot to help people out once the games are gone.

[kchoya]

Sept 30, 2009 16:01:42 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

Sept 30, 2009 15:52:09 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

White House involvement is merely another ego trip seeking (and obtaining) adulation.

I think that's a fairly unfounded comment about character that need not be dignified.

That being said, I find it telling that the Olympics have turned into a political issue, and it isn't because, as theexorcist had the courage to admit, that the Republicans simply do not want the Olympics to occur in Illinois or the US, for that matter. Far better to only support programs when they are in line politically and to seek to the extent possible an opt-out when we pay for other things. Instead, we're caught up in this posturing about health care, American Samoa tsunami, and the like. During another administration, such arguments were called "rooting against America."

If Mitt Romney has commented on this, I'd love to hear what he has to say.

Usually, political disputes in the Olympics rise to a higher level, like issues with Communism during the Cold War. Remarks that the First Lady is better suited to make the case and the like are simply snipes that speak to the character of a regional party rather than high-minded ideals.

As far as American Samoa, I think that is well-founded to some extent. It is a major issue and has no doubt occupied significant attention today. Obama's involvement is through briefing and arms-distance direction. You can bet that he isn't going there tomorrow to survey damage, an act that would likely interfere with rescue/assessment and so forth.

So would be equally undignified to comment on Howard Fineman's dig at the President:

"The president's problem isn't that he is too visible; it's the lack of content in what he says when he keeps showing up on the tube. Obama can seem a mite too impressed with his own aura, as if his presence on the stage is the Answer. There is, at times, a self-referential (even self-reverential) tone in his big speeches. They are heavily salted with the words "I" and "my." (He used the former 11 times in the first few paragraphs of his address to the U.N. last week.)"

Also, Mitt Romney has said he's in favor of TOTUS going to the IOC meeting, though I think he's speaking more from his experience as SLOC than anything else.

[jerseyhoya34]

That particular commentary did not reflect Fineman's best work.

Apart from the analysis, I think many historians will be hard pressed to identify a more transformational figure in American politics since Ronald Reagan, some 20 years ago. In terms of African-American politics, one must go back to Martin Luther King, Jr., and that analysis, I don't think, could be disputed credibly, reverence of Michael Steele notwithstanding.

Does it entitle Obama to have a chip on his shoulder, if there is one? I wouldn't say so. Can we focus on other things more productively than something that could be construed by some people as a effort to portray Obama as uppity? Absolutely.

In other words, the value of the analysis is simply not there when weighed against the social value of refraining from engaging in this kind of analysis that, to some people at least, could rightly be interpreted as offensive (regardless of whether Fineman is a racist, which I don't think anybody would argue in the affirmative).

[Boz]

Sept 30, 2009 17:40:50 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

That particular commentary did not reflect Fineman's best work.

I'm sure you preferred it when Fineman called Obama God. ;D

(though yes, it's a fair bit ironic for someone who once referred to the President as God to be calling him out now about his "aura" and calling him "self reverential." -- I'll prefer to think of it as the scales falling from Mr. Fineman's eyes.... ;D )

[jerseyhoya34]

Fineman lost me when he started changing hair colors every full moon. I simply got weirded out.

[FLHoya]

Sept 30, 2009 15:10:02 GMT -5 theexorcist said:

But, really, Chicago? They're a powerful city on the world stage - asking for the Olympics seems really unnecessary. Nobody's going to think of Chicago as different since they hosted a Games.

It's not like Tokyo, Madrid, or Rio are exactly backwaters. This is the IOC's equivalent of the LCS series in baseball being Yanks-Sox and Cardinals-Dodgers or something.


The thing unmentioned so far in the thread--and why not stir the pot by bringing another fun element to the B&G--is that the "bring me your leader" strategy worked the last time the IOC handed out an Olympic games (to a place that, for too many reasons to count, will be an absolute disaster): www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1640197,00.html

[kchoya]

Sept 30, 2009 17:40:50 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

That particular commentary did not reflect Fineman's best work.

Apart from the analysis, I think many historians will be hard pressed to identify a more transformational figure in American politics since Ronald Reagan, some 20 years ago. In terms of African-American politics, one must go back to Martin Luther King, Jr., and that analysis, I don't think, could be disputed credibly, reverence of Michael Steele notwithstanding.

Does it entitle Obama to have a chip on his shoulder, if there is one? I wouldn't say so. Can we focus on other things more productively than something that could be construed by some people as a effort to portray Obama as uppity? Absolutely.

In other words, the value of the analysis is simply not there when weighed against the social value of refraining from engaging in this kind of analysis that, to some people at least, could rightly be interpreted as offensive (regardless of whether Fineman is a racist, which I don't think anybody would argue in the affirmative).

Wait, I thought anyone who criticized Obama was a racist?

Also, I agree that Obama will likely be seen as a transformational figure, though that could change if his track record doesn't improve.

[jerseyhoya34]

Sept 30, 2009 18:40:23 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Wait, I thought anyone who criticized Obama was a racist?

Perhaps tellingly, that belief is only manifested in RNC office cubicles and among people who use it as a defense mechanism against conduct that otherwise intentionally walks a very fine line. I have said and stand by the idea that certain criticism is designed to "other" Obama and that a heavy majority of critics have beliefs, passive and/or otherwise, about politics that are [mis]informed by conscious and unconscious racial thinking.
* * * * *
Obama won the "transformational leader" label in November 2008 by virtue of his election as the country's first African-American president, despite the "othering" attempted by certain politicians and activists. The event will receive treatment in most any responsible civics text in this country.

That being said, Obama's brand is on the line to the extent that he is not successful, and the degree of this success will influence the degree of his transformational-ness. I don't believe, however, that Republicans are there yet in claiming he is not transformational or anywhere close. The idea that he has not been able to tame the looneys on the right and left who rudely interrupt town halls, create millions of new jobs, or acquiesce to the demands of Republicans weighs heavily in this analysis, especially when a heavy majority of Americans believe that Republicans are just not operating in good faith on the key domestic issue of 2009 - health care.

[vcjack]

The last time there was a big international event in Chicago a serial killer murdered over 30 people

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H._H._Holmes

YET we still look back on it as one of the city's proudest moments. I think short of a major terrorist attack happening, we'll make a party out of it.

It will also be Daly's swan song for all you corruption haterz.

[hoya9797]

Sept 30, 2009 17:25:06 GMT -5 Bando said:

The only reason to get the Olympics, in my view, is to get the infrastructure improvements that come along with it. Suddenly every project that's been put off for years is suddenly green lit. Those improvements can do a lot to help people out once the games are gone.

Exactly and this is why I really hope we get it. I also think it will be a pretty cool thing to experience with my son who will be old enough to really get it in 2016. I think the IOC would love to find a way to give it to Rio but are afraid of the risk and will go to Chicago for more of a sure thing.

[mchoya]

Sept 30, 2009 16:01:42 GMT -5 @jerseyhoya34 said:

If Mitt Romney has commented on this, I'd love to hear what he has to say.

edition.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/29/obama.olympics.politics/

On Monday, former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney told the Washington Times that Obama's personal appearance is "likely to ensure the city lands the games."

"I think his presence makes it almost certain that Chicago will win the bid," he added.

...

Romney said he believes that while the president may risk some political capital, the trip is in the country's best interest.

[jerseyhoya34]

Kudos to former Governor Romney for taking that position.

[Bando]

I agree with others who have said that Obama's going only because Chicago has it in the bag.