Chicago - 2016?

[theexorcist]

Oct 2, 2009 12:35:33 GMT -5 hoyawatcher said:

Oct 2, 2009 12:28:57 GMT -5 hoya95 said:

I've never been to Rio, but isn't August basically the late winter for them? What's the weather going to be like?

Looks like they will be the "fall" olympics - average high of 78 and low of 66 but no rain. While not "summer" temps as we know em doesn't look too bad in reality. You will probably see things like swimming and diving go indoors but I think most of the rest can tolerate those kind of temps.

link - www.weather.com/outlook/events/weddings/wxclimatology/monthly/graph/BRXX0201?from=yest_bottomnav_wedding

We need them during Carnival. Rio will then be untouched by the laws of man or God and Hobbesian social relations will follow.

[FormerHoya]

worst part of all this?

Me having Duran Duran stuck in my head all morning...

[SFHoya99]

Is it beneath the Presidency to try to broker international deals for US Companies?

Just curious what people think, because it happens all the time, and has a real impact on US jobs as well.

[theexorcist]

Oct 2, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Is it beneath the Presidency to try to broker international deals for US Companies?

Just curious what people think, because it happens all the time, and has a real impact on US jobs as well.

We do it all the time for jet buys. So, no.

But lobbying the IOC is different. It's like begging the UN to do something - we're above that, and US presidents up until now hadn't gotten involved. Let Putin push for Sochi - the US president gets to do the hard stuff.

My objection is increased since POTUS was lobbying for something that comes with a giant price tag.

[whatmaroon]

Oct 2, 2009 13:42:44 GMT -5 FormerHoya said:

worst part of all this?

Me having Duran Duran stuck in my head all morning...

Glad to hear I'm not the only one, though not feeling like I have to move out of the area in the next 6 years helps make up for it.

[theexorcist]

www.suntimes.com/sports/olympics/1802993,chicagoans-reaction.article

"Others were less gracious.

“This vote today was, without a doubt, ridiculously political and mean-spirited,” said state Rep. Susana Mendoza. “I travel a lot. I was literally nearly killed in Rio three years ago when I was there representing the U.S. government. I thought we had really turned a corner with the election of President Obama. People are so much more welcoming of Americans now. But this isn’t the people of those countries. This is the leaders still living in the Stone Age.”"

[kchoya]

Oct 2, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Is it beneath the Presidency to try to broker international deals for US Companies?

Just curious what people think, because it happens all the time, and has a real impact on US jobs as well.

Just curious, what business deals have past Presidents personally brokered?

[theexorcist]

Oct 2, 2009 16:37:12 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Oct 2, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Is it beneath the Presidency to try to broker international deals for US Companies?

Just curious what people think, because it happens all the time, and has a real impact on US jobs as well.

Just curious, what business deals have past Presidents personally brokered?

They don't personally broker deals. But they do indicate how a certain buy may be on the White House's radar.

Brazil's making a decision on a new jet fighter now. Word is that Obama has promised help with export control issues (always a BIG issue).

Merkel called Obama on the Opel deal - Obama decided not to get involved.

It really only happens with aircraft - they're really the big government procurement item that makes engagement worthwhile. Any time a national carrier has a big aircraft buy, it's in the briefing folder.

[FLHoya]

I'm curious on this one, for those who were not in favor of President Obama making the pitch in Copenhagen, which precise category you fall into:

1. Disapprove because it's beneath POTUS to lobby to host any international competition, regardless of the competition/location.

2. Disapprove because it's the Olympics (don't think they benefit the host city, hate the IOC, etc.)

3. Disapprove because of the timing (would ordinarily be in favor, but POTUS has more important things to deal with at home right now, like health care)

4. Disapprove because it's Obama


I ask because another decision on an international competition will come around not too long from now: FIFA in December 2010 will name the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup. The US is bidding for both, although most of what I read indicates 2022 is a more realistic possibility (2010 is South Africa, 2014 is Brazil, 2018 would seem more likely to go to Europe).

The World Cup is obviously a different animal than the Olympics--it's spread out over 8-12 cities, you don't need to build as much stuff/infrastructure--most of the 32 stadiums on the list in the US bid are already built or in the process, etc.

So let's say it gets down to decision day in December 2010, and the finalists are making their last big push. Would you support President Obama traveling to wherever the FIFA meeting is to make the closing argument?* Does it depend on what's going on a few weeks after the mid-term Congressional elections? Is the answer different because it's not the Olympics?

Curious.

(*EDIT: I'm not 100% sure if FIFA's bid process includes the final in-person presentations like we saw in Copenhagen today. However, Obama has already reached out to FIFA President Sepp Blatter in person and in writing in support of the US 2018/22 bid, so you'd think he'd be at least moderately engaged in this.)

[Nevada Hoya]

Oct 2, 2009 12:38:09 GMT -5 Boz said:

Doesn't Chicago basically try to kill off all its seniors with blistering heat waves every summer though?

The Rio weather sounds great by comparison.

I saw a comparison of the four cities with bids. Part of the comparison was average daytime temperatures in each of the four. Tokyo and Madrid were about 87 F, while Rio and Chicago were 78 F. So, for the sake of endurance runners and racewalkers, I favored the lower temperature cities. Rio is probably better, since it is winter still there.

[Boz]

Oct 2, 2009 17:30:56 GMT -5 FLHoya said:

I'm curious on this one, for those who were not in favor of President Obama making the pitch in Copenhagen, which precise category you fall into:

1. Disapprove because it's beneath POTUS to lobby to host any international competition, regardless of the competition/location.

2. Disapprove because it's the Olympics (don't think they benefit the host city, hate the IOC, etc.)

3. Disapprove because of the timing (would ordinarily be in favor, but POTUS has more important things to deal with at home right now, like health care)

4. Disapprove because it's Obama


I ask because another decision on an international competition will come around not too long from now: FIFA in December 2010 will name the hosts for the 2018 and 2022 World Cup. The US is bidding for both, although most of what I read indicates 2022 is a more realistic possibility (2010 is South Africa, 2014 is Brazil, 2018 would seem more likely to go to Europe).

The World Cup is obviously a different animal than the Olympics--it's spread out over 8-12 cities, you don't need to build as much stuff/infrastructure--most of the 32 stadiums on the list in the US bid are already built or in the process, etc.

So let's say it gets down to decision day in December 2010, and the finalists are making their last big push. Would you support President Obama traveling to wherever the FIFA meeting is to make the closing argument? Does it depend on what's going on a few weeks after the mid-term Congressional elections? Is the answer different because it's not the Olympics?

Curious.

I know people probably won't believe me, but for me it's a lot of 1,2,3 and very little of 4.

You can rest assured that if George Bush had tried to lobby the IOC for games back in 2004, I would have almost surely disapproved of that as well.

I want to be clear. It's not so much the lobbying. If the President had made some calls, or even recorded a video for the presentation or something like that, that seems more appropriate to me. It's just the flying there like some kind of supplicant that turned me off. It's fine for Oprah, or Pele, or heck even his wife to do that, but to me that just seems like it's beneath him.

That, and the fact that there are so many other things that HE said were urgent. The Olympics really didn't really seem to rise to that level and it was really God awful timing.

So, with respect to FIFA, no I wouldn't want the President to go and make a presentation to them either. I wouldn't mind if he worked some channels or tried to throw some weight around, but I don't want to see him flying off to ask if we can host their tournament.

[theexorcist]

It's really #1.

On that, no FIFA. If we don't get that, what's on the next lowest rung? The World Cup of Curling?

[SFHoya99]

Oct 2, 2009 16:37:12 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Oct 2, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Is it beneath the Presidency to try to broker international deals for US Companies?

Just curious what people think, because it happens all the time, and has a real impact on US jobs as well.

Just curious, what business deals have past Presidents personally brokered?

I don't have a complete list, but it has happened often with aircraft, construction, merger deals, etc. To reference another thread, Bush actively got involved trying to ge a power plant built in Afghanistan by lobbying American companies personally. He failed, but I think it was a worthy cause and not at all demeaning to the office or the person.

I have no problem with the President using personal influence to try and forward something he believes is in the best interest of the U.S. I may not always agree with what he believes is the best interest, but that's true whether he's lobbying Air France to buy Boeing or whether he's signing a bill or declaring war.

Conservatives dislike this because its Obama -- and that's all. There are plenty of liberals who would've hated it if Bush did it. This is a standard damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, and lends itself to partisan politics quite well.

[Jack]

I really want the World Cup, so I hope he goes if it comes to that. Then again, I had no problem with him spending 5 hours in Denmark to lobby the IOC. But I would think he would actually be more influential with FIFA, given that there is a belief that the US doesn't really care enough about soccer to deserve to host the World Cup- it would show people that there is some serious interest here.

[The Stig]

Leaders lobbying is more common with other countries. For example, Sarkozy and Lula both got personally involved with the Brazilian decision to buy French fighter jets. I also remember Hu Jintao making a speech on the floor of the Boeing factory outside Seattle.

I think it was right for Obama to go. All the other countries sent their heads of state/government, and Obama's absence would have stood out in a big way, especially with his Chicago connection.

As far as the decision itself, it was purely geographical. If it came down to who had the best bid, Madrid would have won easily.

[HoyaLawya]

Oct 2, 2009 17:57:31 GMT -5 Jack said:

I really want the World Cup, so I hope he goes if it comes to that. Then again, I had no problem with him spending 5 hours in Denmark to lobby the IOC. But I would think he would actually be more influential with FIFA, given that there is a belief that the US doesn't really care enough about soccer to deserve to host the World Cup- it would show people that there is some serious interest here.

What about 1994 when we hosted it and it had the largest attendance up to that date of any World Cup?

www.fifa.com/worldcup/archive/edition=84/index.html

I think we should have dispelled those doubts ... and never mind the '99 USA women's win in the sport (Brandi Chastain ... the sports bra seen round the world?)

'94 was a hoot. Italian team took over an entire hotel near our home and used a nearby school's playing field as their practice facility. In fact, the school installed a new field just to accommodate the team and then named it "World Cup Field" and used it for their own h.s. varsity team's games. Life was less bucolic for a few weeks.

www.nytimes.com/1994/06/12/nyregion/with-the-world-cup-near-teams-pick-practice-sites-in-state.html?pagewanted=all


As far as informal "pick up a phone" lobbying, I don't have a problem. But I lean toward #1 as far as the overt pitches like what happened in Copenhagen today. Heads of state showing up like regular "supplicants" to a committee overseeing (bottom line) GAMES ... SPORTS ... when they all have pressing matters like their economies and worldwide recession and military tensions. It's almost like an "arms race" to attract the hosting honors, and we might be losing sight of a sense of proportion / balance.

[EasyEd]

#4 with me. I said before he went that it was all about his ego and his search for adulation. Whether you like it or not, the whole story before the selection of Rio was about President Obama and Michelle Obama. The story was "will President Obama be able to secure the Olympics for his home city of Chicago". This is what he wanted, the focus on him and the adulation that accompanied it. He got just what he sought. Even now, many in the press are writing that he made a gallant attempt but it's the corrupt IOC. And, even though they lost, Michelle Obama really wowed the committee with her personal story.

So, for me it's #4. I don't like President Obama because, among other reasons, the whole presidency has been him pontificating on the latest "crisis" that must be solved immediately and his donning his professor's cap to instruct the uneducated masses as he spends us to oblivion and intrudes more and more into our lives.

[Bando]

Oct 2, 2009 16:37:12 GMT -5 kchoya said:

Oct 2, 2009 14:42:13 GMT -5 SFHoya99 said:

Is it beneath the Presidency to try to broker international deals for US Companies?

Just curious what people think, because it happens all the time, and has a real impact on US jobs as well.

Just curious, what business deals have past Presidents personally brokered?

Let me introduce you to the defense industry.

[The Stig]

Oct 3, 2009 13:36:04 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

#4 with me. I said before he went that it was all about his ego and his search for adulation. Whether you like it or not, the whole story before the selection of Rio was about President Obama and Michelle Obama. The story was "will President Obama be able to secure the Olympics for his home city of Chicago". This is what he wanted, the focus on him and the adulation that accompanied it. He got just what he sought. Even now, many in the press are writing that he made a gallant attempt but it's the corrupt IOC. And, even though they lost, Michelle Obama really wowed the committee with her personal story.

So, for me it's #4. I don't like President Obama because, among other reasons, the whole presidency has been him pontificating on the latest "crisis" that must be solved immediately and his donning his professor's cap to instruct the uneducated masses as he spends us to oblivion and intrudes more and more into our lives.

So were all the other heads of state (or in Japan's case, head of government) there just to stroke their own egos?

Having the Olympics in Chicago would have been a nice economic boost to my home city (Milwaukee). Tons of people would have stayed there, and I'm sure all the proposed infrastructure improvements between Milwaukee and Chicago (more highways, faster Amtrak trains, Metra extension into Wisconsin) would have been finished a lot sooner. The improved Milwaukee-Chicago links would have given Milwaukee a lot of long-term benefits by making it easier for people who work in Chicago to live in Milwaukee.

[jerseyhoya34]

Oct 3, 2009 13:36:04 GMT -5 EasyEd said:

#4 with me. I said before he went that it was all about his ego and his search for adulation. Whether you like it or not, the whole story before the selection of Rio was about President Obama and Michelle Obama. The story was "will President Obama be able to secure the Olympics for his home city of Chicago". This is what he wanted, the focus on him and the adulation that accompanied it. He got just what he sought. Even now, many in the press are writing that he made a gallant attempt but it's the corrupt IOC. And, even though they lost, Michelle Obama really wowed the committee with her personal story.

So, for me it's #4. I don't like President Obama because, among other reasons, the whole presidency has been him pontificating on the latest "crisis" that must be solved immediately and his donning his professor's cap to instruct the uneducated masses as he spends us to oblivion and intrudes more and more into our lives.

I am a bit bewildered by some of this criticism but can understand the pride with which it is offered after what truly was an inspirational showing by the Bush-Cheney administration. Be that as it may, could any Republican critic of Obama on this board give us a top 5 in terms of policy of what needs to be done right now? In other words, 5 things that, if Obama proposed it, you would stand down on criticizing Obama at least as to those policies. Perhaps some of these things are left overs that you wish had been done during the Bush administration but they did not get around to it despite their feverish attention to policy matters and fiscal responsibility, but perhaps not.