Why are conservatives cheering Chicago's lost Olympic Bid?

[e-brake]

Originally Posted by jaesun

Healthcare coverage is NOT a right. IMO emergency healthcare treatment is, however. What makes you think everyone is somehow owed healthcare coverage?

And were drugs involved in your 5:38AM post? Is this the morning for you or is it still last night?

Fire and police protection are not rights yet we still implemented socialist government fun fire and police departments to provide these basic services to all Americans. The arguments that the conservatives are putting up against national healthcare are almost identical to the arguments that were used to rally against public fire departments in the 1850's.

[zymote]

[B]From the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/op...=1&ref=opinion

OP-ED COLUMNIST
The Politics of Spite

By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: October 4, 2009
There was what President Obama likes to call a teachable moment last week, when the International Olympic Committee rejected Chicago’s bid to be host of the 2016 Summer Games.

“Cheers erupted” at the headquarters of the conservative Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of the magazine’s staff, with the headline “Obama loses! Obama loses!” Rush Limbaugh declared himself “gleeful.” “World Rejects Obama,” gloated the Drudge Report. And so on.

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

But more important, the episode illustrated an essential truth about the state of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle of one of our nation’s two great political parties is spite pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be good for the president, they’re against it — whether or not it’s good for America.

To be sure, while celebrating America’s rebuff by the Olympic Committee was puerile, it didn’t do any real harm. But the same principle of spite has determined Republican positions on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences — in particular, in the debate over health care reform.

Now, it’s understandable that many Republicans oppose Democratic plans to extend insurance coverage — just as most Democrats opposed President Bush’s attempt to convert Social Security into a sort of giant 401(k). The two parties do, after all, have different philosophies about the appropriate role of government.

But the tactics of the two parties have been different. In 2005, when Democrats campaigned against Social Security privatization, their arguments were consistent with their underlying ideology: they argued that replacing guaranteed benefits with private accounts would expose retirees to too much risk.

The Republican campaign against health care reform, by contrast, has shown no such consistency. For the main G.O.P. line of attack is the claim — based mainly on lies about death panels and so on — that reform will undermine Medicare. And this line of attack is utterly at odds both with the party’s traditions and with what conservatives claim to believe.

Think about just how bizarre it is for Republicans to position themselves as the defenders of unrestricted Medicare spending. First of all, the modern G.O.P. considers itself the party of Ronald Reagan — and Reagan was a fierce opponent of Medicare’s creation, warning that it would destroy American freedom. (Honest.) In the 1990s, Newt Gingrich tried to force drastic cuts in Medicare financing. And in recent years, Republicans have repeatedly decried the growth in entitlement spending — growth that is largely driven by rising health care costs.

But the Obama administration’s plan to expand coverage relies in part on savings from Medicare. And since the G.O.P. opposes anything that might be good for Mr. Obama, it has become the passionate defender of ineffective medical procedures and overpayments to insurance companies.

How did one of our great political parties become so ruthless, so willing to embrace scorched-earth tactics even if so doing undermines the ability of any future administration to govern? (emphasis mine)

The key point is that ever since the Reagan years, the Republican Party has been dominated by radicals — ideologues and/or apparatchiks who, at a fundamental level, do not accept anyone else’s right to govern.

Anyone surprised by the venomous, over-the-top opposition to Mr. Obama must have forgotten the Clinton years. Remember when Rush Limbaugh suggested that Hillary Clinton was a party to murder? When Newt Gingrich shut down the federal government in an attempt to bully Bill Clinton into accepting those Medicare cuts? And let’s not even talk about the impeachment saga.

The only difference now is that the G.O.P. is in a weaker position, having lost control not just of Congress but, to a large extent, of the terms of debate. The public no longer buys conservative ideology the way it used to; the old attacks on Big Government and paeans to the magic of the marketplace have lost their resonance. Yet conservatives retain their belief that they, and only they, should govern.

The result has been a cynical, ends-justify-the-means approach. Hastening the day when the rightful governing party returns to power is all that matters, so the G.O.P. will seize any club at hand with which to beat the current administration.

It’s an ugly picture. But it’s the truth. And it’s a truth anyone trying to find solutions to America’s real problems has to understand.

[johnny861]

[matias pecile]

Originally Posted by jaesun

Well I can say I did do a little pointing and laughing (Nelson 'Ha ha' style) at the TV when I saw the crowds in Chicago go "EeeeeEEEEhh???.....Aaaaahhhhhh....." when they heard the news. Its like a thousand people all at once going "Here it is guys! We won this bish!......wait, what?....aaaaaah fuck....(kicks dirt)"

how American of you to rejoice in Chicago's loss .. Chicago IS in Canada after all, isn't it?

[david austin]

The lost bid really has more to do with revenue sharing regarding TV/marketing contracts.

Look at the members of the IOC. Look at the contracts. Its not hard to see the correlation as the EU members thumb their nose to the US.

[tricky]

Originally Posted by zymote

[B]From the NY Times today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/05/op...=1&ref=opinion

i liked this better

So what did we learn from this moment? For one thing, we learned that the modern conservative movement, which dominates the modern Republican Party, has the emotional maturity of a bratty 13-year-old.

[PETA]

Originally Posted by J. Fees

i think it would be more like getting into club with 10 of your homies would be more of an accurate analogy, because we all know this is more of an ordeal than a nod from a doorman.

Don't change the facts of my hypo... point is he tried to apply his clout to sway the vote and failed to do so.

How about you were trying to bring a great DJ to town to play this club and some other promoter got him to play theirs... would you have been snubbed?

[FarangBa]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Fire and police protection are not rights yet we still implemented socialist government fun fire and police departments to provide these basic services to all Americans. The arguments that the conservatives are putting up against national healthcare are almost identical to the arguments that were used to rally against public fire departments in the 1850's.

Dude, your sarcasm and radical tactics ain't workin'. Those that already believe what you believe are gonna agree. However, everyone else already knows that your Saul Alinsky tactic is designed to browbeat anyone who disagrees with your ideology. It won't work, but it's fun to watch.

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)

RULE 4: "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules." If the rule is [no socialism -- then bring up every government backed program that could be considered a socialist policy and say that "If you don't want this or that, then obviously you must be against ~Police, Firefighting, etc~."

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon." There is no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

[BradH]

canyoureplytosomeonewithoutcopyingandpasting

[johnny861]

Originally Posted by BradH

canyoureplytosomeonewithoutcopyingandpasting

probablynotlolz

[PETA]

Originally Posted by e-brake

Fire and police protection are not rights yet we still implemented socialist government fun fire and police departments to provide these basic services to all Americans.

At the municipal level... Federalism 101

[-m-]

Originally Posted by HighspdGorilla

Chicago doesn't deserve an Olympic Games. Besides house music and O'hare airport that city is absolute chaos politically, economically, and socially. Why do you think conservatives cheered about that honestly? Maybe because this idiot has so much pride in himself to push an Olympic bid in his own home city. What's next Air Obama shoes?

Yeah because corruption, political back handedness and social inequality aren't present in any other major city.

If I don't recall the Chinese shut down all commerce in Beijing for month (maybe more, I can't recall at the moment) unless it was directly related to the games, causing a tremendous amount of economic strife within the lower income bracket.

Yeah but anyway, fuck Chicago.

[tricky]

stewart: repulicans, showing they hate obama more than the love america

[zymote]

Originally Posted by PETA

Don't change the facts of my hypo... point is he tried to apply his clout to sway the vote and failed to do so.

How about you were trying to bring a great DJ to town to play this club and some other promoter got him to play theirs... would you have been snubbed?

Eh, I thought Feez's analogy was sound.

As far as your DJ comment - no, that's how the business works for DJ's that people actually want to see (and by people, I mean lots of people, not some dipshit wannabe promoter and their scenster ass friends). They have multiple offers for any given night. You put in a bid, and if your bid is highest, you get the DJ. Anybody who would bitch because they lost out on a bid is a whiny crybaby that shouldn't be in the business.

Conversely, anybody who would cheer because a promoter lost out on booking, say, Tiesto, because he got a better offer to go play Rio, is a hatin' ass bitch with no class or tact.

[FarangBa]

This pretty much sums up why anyone would be happy about the failed bid.

Conservative media suggest Obama's Olympics bid is cronyism

And the amount of money spent to take (2) jets to Copenhagen. I for the Prez and one for Mrs. Prez, Oprah and the others.

President Barack Obama’s failed bid to bring the 2016 Olympic Games to Chicago cost more than a bruised ego.
Taxpayers shelled out probably $1 million or more for the president, his wife and others to fly to Copenhagen and back to woo members of the International Olympic Committee.
A 2006 congressional study pegged the cost of flying Air Force One at $56,518 an hour. The Pentagon recently said it cost $100,219 an hour to fly the huge, reconfigured Boeing 747 without Obama aboard. The Pentagon estimate included more costs for support needs, such as maintenance.
At those rates, the president’s 14-hour trip to Copenhagen and back cost about $790,000 to $1.4 million.

Remember the First Lady flew separately to Copenhagen — adding another estimated $395,000 to $700,000 in flight and maintenance costs alone — before joining her husband on Air Force One for the losers’ flight home.
And remember: Federally-funded Cabinet members on the Chicago Olympics entourage included White House Senior Adviser Valerie Jarrett, Education Secretary Arne Duncan, and Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood.
Then there’s the Air Force One back-up plane, security, and overseas transport of the Obama’s armored presidential limousines.

Originally Posted by Keith P

Think he was just trying to bring some economy, work into the city.

Sure, like Valerie Jarret's Habitat Corporation? I would be talking about the rat infested buildings her 'Corporation' built. You know, the one where the 'poor' people she supposedly cares about live with caved in roofs. When tenants ask over and over why they can't get any maintenance, they are told that there is no more money. Of course, Valerie Jarret was still raking in over 1 million dollars a year.

Carries as baggage: Ms. Jarrett specializes in smoothing feathers, not ruffling them, but her link to Habitat could raise complications. The company, the court-appointed overseer of vast tracts of Chicago’s public housing, has been accused of mismanaging some of those projects, allowing them to deteriorate even more than they had under government supervision.

Here's more about our President's "Trusted Personal Advisor"
She would be the one who:
Sought out and Hired the Communist Van Jones
Gave President Obama his first job in Government
Was given the job she had by William Ayers Father
Introduced Bill Ayers to Barack Obama

This is just the short list... feel free to look her up yourself