Chicago’s loss is Obama’s loss is America’s loss
Wow, I can’t believe that Chicago isn’t part of the United States anymore. How did that happen?
The bizarre coverage of “Obama’s embarrassment” or as I like to call it Rio’s and South America’s triumph only goes to show the state of politics in America. Polarizing.
I have always been told that America and Great Britain are very similar- two peas in a pod if you will. We share the same language, share an unfair hatred of the French and Germans and we have that thing they call “the special relationship”.
But with all our similarities I don’t believe that anyone here in Britain of any political stripe would have reacted with joyous refrain had London not won the 2012 Olympics. I truly don’t believe it. This reaction from the GOP truly puzzles me. Are they not American? (UPDATE: Go here to see some conservatives cheer Chicago not getting the Olympics.)
I understand the politics of such a strategy. Taking away Obama’s shine on the International stage, a stage in which he has performed to the highest of standards will make him weaker and bring down his poll numbers – but it will also make America (the country which Chicago was once situated) weaker.
Let me try and put it another way.
Britain is bidding for the 2018 Football World Cup (soccer to Americans, a change of phrase which I have never understood- if anyone can be so kind as to explain to me why you call football “soccer” and a game which people hardly use their foot “football,” I would be very thankful) – a bid which is likely to be unsuccessful for the fact that London (a City located in Britain…I think) already has the 2012 Olympics. Now it is expected that the Prime Minister of Britain, who ever that may be at the time, takes the time out of his schedule to support the country’s bid. It makes sense right? Shouldn’t the leader of the country make the pitch for a major International event and explain why it should be held in his back yard?
If Obama did not go and support Chicago, a city in the state he served for so many years, and the city still lost, what would have been made of Obama then?
Obama is the US International Spokesperson, it was only right that he was there– that’s what leaders do. I do not believe that this is a liberal or conservative position, I believe this is just common sense – a moderate position if you will.
UPDATE II: Read Andrew Sullivan.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
54 Responses to “Chicago’s loss is Obama’s loss is America’s loss”
Olympic committees in the U.S. have minority set aside contracting requirements just like other wasteful city contract. Chicago is an extreme example that even things like Ohare airport concessions are handed out of the basis of race. Why would any conservative be interested in supporting an Olympic bid that seemed designed to maximize the amount of pork spending and race based contracting.
And no, cities usually do not have enough stadiums. Soldier field would probably not work as an Olympic stadium. However, there are arenas for basketball, gymnastics. etc. A swimming venue would have had to been built and probably everything that does with bicycling. Of course, the infrastructure, the security systems, etc would have to built with the accompanying minority set aside contract.
shannonlee, I take it that you have never worked with minority set aside contractors. They get to charge above market rates and usually subcontract all of the real work to non-minority companies. Minority contracts and especially the type used in Chicago is pure rent seeking. So, by definition, it is not a good value.
“And no, cities usually do not have enough stadiums.”
It’s not a matter of “enough”. It’s a matter of degree. Urban areas have vastly more resources and infrastructure to cater to such large events than do non-urban areas. Of course some venues would have to be constructed, but necessities such as a large nearby international airport, mass transit, large-scale accommodations for athletes and dignitaries, etc… already exist, and many of the large existing sports venues could be retrofitted for other uses.
I too am not in favor of contract quotas per se—so here we agree. But with or without such quotas, the games would still disproportionately help minorities in ANY urban area simply due to the fact that they comprise a high percentage of the population and have a higher than average rate of unemployment. Even open-bid contracts would disproportionately help minorities. I see that as a product of circumstance, not social welfare.
Anyhow, I just think it is irrational to argue that conservatives should not support Chicago or other “dens of liberalism” (otherwise known as metropolitan America) hosting the summer Olympics. They are the only places capable of doing so without requiring a massive infrastructural buildup. Fight against contract quotas if you wish, but to reject the games altogether based on them is like throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
First, the word “soccer” is a completely British-coined term. It is an abbreviation of “Association Football):
From http://www.wordorigins.com:
The Football Association was formed in London in October 1863 when representatives of eleven clubs and schools met in an attempt to standardize the rules of the game. One of the rules prohibited the carrying of the ball, a rule that would lead to the Rugby-oriented clubs leaving the Association several months later. The name “Association Football” was coined to distinguish it from Rugby.
By 1889, the abbreviation socca’ was in use, and the spelling soccer had made its appearance by 1895.
As far as anyone cheering the failure of an American city's bid for the Olympics, it is shameful.
Of course, the reference given comes from that gem of anti-spin, The Huffington Post (sarcasm intended), so it's hardly representative of true conservatives. For the partisans, however, it was a joyful time apparently. If they don't “slow their roll”, their gonna screw up a golden opportunity next year to regain seats in Congress.
I for, one, am saddened that Chicago did not get the games.
Wait a second, Green…..
Political Football is really fun…..especially when the other team fumbles!
LOL
Or should I say, “Politcal SOCCER”?