Quote :

"In a stunning development, Chicago was the first city eliminated on Friday in IOC voting to be host city for the 2016 Summer Olympics"

Seriously-- the POTUS flew in and made his case in person.

Chicago couldn't have placed second?


And the conservative internets are messing themselves:

Quote :

"THE EGO HAS LANDED WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND"

...says Drudge. Let's cheer for an American city losing the Olympics. This will end well.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 11:59 AM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 11:55:33 AM

Despite the prestige, the Olympics are net economic loser - just ask Montreal. If anything, Chicagoans should be thankful Obama flubbed it.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/business/july-dec09/olympics_10-01.html

10/2/2009 11:58:43 AM

I'd rather have Rio win anyways. It has never been hosted in South America before. About time that continent gets acknowledged. Madrid is beautiful, but after hosting the last couple in Eurasia, they need to change it up some.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 12:03 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 12:03:11 PM

10/2/2009 12:07:54 PM

Soap Box?

10/2/2009 12:11:49 PM

WE AMERICA #1 WE DEMAND THE OLYMPICS TO BE IN CHICAGO OR ELSE!!!

10/2/2009 12:23:48 PM

I think Wichita should get it! Or Albuquerque!

10/2/2009 12:25:32 PM

I'm going to turn this into a "haha, the GOP hates the Olympics, now" thread.

Because it apparently does, given the reaction I'm seeing.


Drudge just whipped out the siren for this one! DEVELOPING...



[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 12:28 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 12:25:55 PM

Haha, seriously... I was surprised by the outcry that Obama got for going to Denmark. Didn't GWB go to China just to watch the games? Obama would have been the only leader of a country in the final four to not make a pitch. Why shouldn't he have?

10/2/2009 12:28:48 PM

So all the country's leaders attended?

I retract the title of this thread.

10/2/2009 12:30:23 PM

nevermind

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 12:34 PM. Reason : I won't rub it in.]

10/2/2009 12:31:15 PM

Meh... while a bit of an ego blow for the President, I'm not surprised. As pointed out, no South American nation has ever hosted an Olympic games, and Brazil's Rio, which is already scheduled to host the World Cup 2014 and has successfully hosted the Pan-American Games, is a prime candidate to do it. Brazil as a whole is overdue.

As for the President going to Copenhagen, I don't have any criticism for him doing it. Pretty much every head of state for the host countries were there, so I don't think the POTUS going overseas to pitch for the US hosting is overkill or anything.

10/2/2009 12:31:46 PM

^ yeah.

Chicago didn't seem to want the games and only two weeks ago, Obama himself didn't think it was that important. Rio or Madrid would both be excellent choices.


And the IOC doesn't owe us anything, no matter who shows up to pitch their country. That line of thought is just asinine.

10/2/2009 12:33:48 PM

Quote :

"Despite the prestige, the Olympics are net economic loser - just ask Montreal. If anything, Chicagoans should be thankful Obama flubbed it."

i don't really think it's fair to lump the winter games in to those findings. i mean, the summer games are by and large more popular than the winter games. barcelona is the easy counter to the montreal argument, as that city has been able to revitalize itself during and after the games.


the ioc just wants a chance to go samba, and having the world cup in the city in 2014 makes rio that much more of a convincing location, as the country will already have new venues to host the games.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 12:44 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 12:37:44 PM

we just had the olympics in the US

Quote :

"Why shouldn't he have?"

Because he has more important things to do don't you think? He has a job and promises to keep. The failing economy, failing health care reform and two failing wars to oversee. Americans are sick of seeing obama on tv everyday instead of doing his job. He goes to hollywood events and does stand up, appears on damn near every tv show and then calls a press conference every two seconds to campaign again but he's really not DOING anything. He even had the nerve to take time out of his day to speak with a white sox pitcher that had a great game. America's tired of his never ending sharades.

10/2/2009 12:43:00 PM

^that's stupid. you clearly just hate him.

how dare a man speak to an athlete on his favorite team. He should lock himself in a room until the economy is fixed! how dare a president multi-task.

10/2/2009 12:46:41 PM

In all fairness, the economy shouldn't be the business of the President. I will readily lay the blame for economic fuck-ups at the feet of the government, but I do not lay the responsibility of the clean up at the feet of any party.

Quote :

"but he's really not DOING anything"

I for one, do not have a problem with this. Aside from his job as the Commander in Chief (which he's done less of than possibly anything else) I'm happy for the President, any President, to restrict his interference in my life.

10/2/2009 12:47:54 PM

Quote :

"Because he has more important things to do don't you think? He has a job and promises to keep. The failing economy, failing health care reform and two failing wars to oversee. Americans are sick of seeing obama on tv everyday instead of doing his job. He goes to hollywood events and does stand up, appears on damn near every tv show and then calls a press conference every two seconds to campaign again but he's really not DOING anything. He even had the nerve to take time out of his day to speak with a white sox pitcher that had a great game. America's tired of his never ending sharades."

This is so dumb. Past president's have spent weeks upon weeks at Camp David, in Kennebunkport or in some ranch in Texas. They had every right to do so. Taking a day to go speak on his countries behalf for an Olympic Bid or making a 2 minute phone call to a pitcher on his favorite team don't exactly use up all the time he has.

This argument is beyond retarded. Get on him for his policies. Get on him for his healthcare plan. Whatever, there are sound rational arguments against those type of things. Criticizing him for making a phone call? That is just stupid.

10/2/2009 12:54:55 PM

I don't just hate the man I used to like him but he's lied and hasn't lived up to any of his campaign promises. Hes basically just a spokesperson. He's a great speaker and he spoke his way into the white house but he doesn't really stand for anything. Hes not his own man. He has all of his duties divided up amongst czars so that he has nothing to do. He seems to be in it for the fame and power.

What about reading bills? he didn't have time to read the stimulus he signed. Hes met with the Afghan general once ever.

If he didn't make false promises I wouldn't have a problem with him doing things like this but none of his promises or deadlines have come true so he obviously needs to spend more time working.

Other presidents didn't have such critical times on there hands so they had more time to relax. Obama signed up to change the nation and bring us out of this so now he has the added responsibility and expectations.

The baseball thing and tv every night send the wrong message.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 1:05 PM. Reason : a message that americans are suffering while obamas living the limelife]

10/2/2009 1:04:00 PM

^yeah, way to go. that really added firepower to your original argument.


chicago is more than capable of hosting the games. the ioc clearly went with the sentimental pick, which isn't necessarily a bad thing. i for one am excited about the world cup being in south africa, as i think it can do wonders for international appeal/attention to be put on such a nation. an olympic games in south america will be nice, but it's just a real bummer that chicago had to lose, and to come in dead last is a surprise.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 1:17 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 1:12:12 PM

Obama is truly living the limelife.

10/2/2009 1:17:21 PM

I for one am over joyed that Obama failed and looked like an idiot

10/2/2009 1:26:00 PM

So that trumps your desire to see your country win, eh?

10/2/2009 1:38:46 PM

i could give two craps if chicago got the olympics, that is not America winning.

10/2/2009 1:51:42 PM

I can only guess the IOC has never visited Rio or used their airport.

10/2/2009 1:59:22 PM

Some people have pointed out that its really Chicago losing, not the US. I don't think most of the US even knew Chicago was in contention until the last few days; its anecdotal, but I certainly didn't know until about two weeks prior when I flew through O'Hare on my way back from Turkey and saw the banners. Meanwhile, its practically a national holiday in Brazil with their President weeping on public television.

The only embarrassment is that we were the first knocked out instead of Tokyo which apparently gave a dismal presentation.

10/2/2009 2:01:42 PM

If chicago has most of the facilities to host it already it would have been fine, but if they'd end up having to build alot of shit just for the olympics its entirely possible that they'd see a net economic loss on the entire thing.

10/2/2009 2:32:31 PM

Well, to be fair Chicago already has athletic facilities for two major baseball games at a time, and a plethora of smaller baseball fields that can be used. Scheduling around the Cubs and Sox would be a challenge but not impossible.

They already have several indoor arenas, and a large football stadium for opening and closing ceremonies along with track&field.

There are a lot of local universities that could've provide dorm space for the athletes.

I'm sure they'd have wanted to build one or two new complexes for the games, something nice and shiny they can show off, but most of the events could probably have been be placed in existing structures.

They'll probably try again. They should try again. They won't get it for 2020, since there's little chance they put the games in the western hemisphere twice in a row, but 2024 could be doable.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 2:40 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2009 2:39:49 PM

I'll be 40 in 2024. fuck my life. for what it's worth, chicago won't try again soon for a long time. a lot of this was daley's effort and this was a huge rejection to the civic community. oh well. raleigh in 2032.

Quote :

"He even had the nerve to take time out of his day to speak with a white sox pitcher that had a great game."

it was a PERFECT GAME

PERFECT!!!!!!!!!!!

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 3:15 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2009 3:08:15 PM

What's wrong with Rio? Women in Rio > women in Chicago.

10/2/2009 3:15:39 PM

Quote :

"Despite the prestige, the Olympics are net economic loser - just ask Montreal. If anything, Chicagoans should be thankful Obama flubbed it. "

I didn't check the whole link, but if I remember correctly, the Montreal games were an anomale because of Olympic Stadium (the dump the Expos played in). Basically, it was this massively expensive state-of-the-art retractable roof stadium they built then for the Olympics. After the games, it was discovered that the technology they'd spent so much money on for that roof failed, the main tenant brought in next to no money, and the place was just an eyesore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olympic_Stadium_(Montreal)

Atlanta, however, did make a decent profit off of its games:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1996_Olympics#Effect_on_the_city

10/2/2009 3:16:33 PM

The article doesn't mention Atlanta specifically, but it does mention something relevant to calculations of "profit" from the event:

Quote :

"With frequent overruns, few cities end up recouping any profits after the athletes have gone home. Even cities that cite surpluses, such as 1984 host Los Angeles and 1998 host Calgary, often don't include total expenditures in security and indirect costs in the final tally. And other cities find themselves far in the red. Montreal, host of the 1976 Summer Games, only finished paying off its Olympic debt in 2006. Officials in Nagano, Japan, spent so much on the 1998 Winter Games that they destroyed their financial records."

I am curious if Atlanta's $10 million "profit" calculation includes money spent upon security, particularly in the wake of the bombing.

In fact, your link seems to indicate that this was not included:

Quote :

"The cost to stage the Games was US$1.8 billion. Governmental funds were used for security, but not for the actual Games themselves.[1] To pay for the games, Atlanta relied on commercial sponsorship and ticket sales, resulting in a profit of $10 million.[2] It must also be stated that up to 500 million dollars of tax payer money was used on the physical infrastructure including streetscaping, road improvements, centennial park, expansion of airport, improvement in public transportation, and redevelopment of public housing projects.[3]"

So... $10 million, minus security, minus $500 million for infrastructure improvements.

Granted, infrastructure improvements persist, and are great on their own. But Atlanta is basically a "best case" scenario, and even then, it's anemic one.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM. Reason : ATL]

10/2/2009 3:26:04 PM

cheering at the loss of an economically dubious sporting event

vs.

cheering at the prospect of a losing war effort and the release of torture photographs from abu graib




.... discuss!

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 3:43 PM. Reason : s]

10/2/2009 3:43:17 PM

I'm pretty sure there would be nowhere near this much concern of if Chicago got the olympics or not if it was any other president than Obama that was pushing for it.

It seems because Obama is involved, people feel the need to be hyper-critical of the whole process. I can't say I know many people who care all that much about the olympics, other than how many medals the US takes home. The vast majority of people don't set their DVRs or go to bars to watch freaking olympic sports.

It does go to show though how nuts the hardcore OBama detractors are.

10/2/2009 3:57:13 PM

Quote :

"cheering at the prospect of a losing war effort and the release of torture photographs from abu graib"

i would cheer the second, only because it's a win for the first amendment and it would hopefully lead to a shaming of the people who did and approved of those things. the only better thing would be for those all the way up the chain to be put on trial for their despicable acts. but shaming is at least a start. unfortunately the obama admin./justice dept. doesn't seem too concerned with prosecuting the war criminals within our own gov't.

10/2/2009 3:58:41 PM

Hahaha, this wouldn't even be a political issue or a soap box thread had Obama not flown out there for a day to take a crack at bringing the games here. Now Republicans hate the Olympics. Hilarious.

Quote :

"It does go to show though how nuts the hardcore OBama detractors are."

Pretty much.

Quote :

"I for one am over joyed that Obama failed and looked like an idiot"

Let me guess your next post -- "You know who else looked like an idiot? HITLER."

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 4:28 PM. Reason : .]

10/2/2009 4:23:20 PM

It's remarkable seeing how much it's all about "the Republicans hating the Olympics" when it's the resident liberals virtually sustaining this thread. One almost has to wonder where the real hysterics are.

10/2/2009 4:28:12 PM

^ Says the guy with the first reply.

10/2/2009 4:28:56 PM

Quote :

"Hahaha, this wouldn't even be a political issue or a soap box thread had moron not posted that he was angry that the President didn't get his way."

No one hates the Olympics. We just debate the reason for Obama's sudden change of heart, especially when the city in question was so closely tied to his past.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 4:30 PM. Reason : *stamps feet and pouts*]

10/2/2009 4:29:17 PM

^^To indicate that it was an economically fortuitous event; something I even backed up with an article! And as someone who used to live in that city, and was there when the bid went in.

Got any other keen observations for us?

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 4:31 PM. Reason : ^]

10/2/2009 4:30:44 PM

^ So as long as you sustain the thread it's OK. Got it.

10/2/2009 4:33:40 PM

Ohhhhh bumma' ... better luck next time.

10/2/2009 4:39:19 PM

Quote :

"It seems because Obama is involved, people feel the need to be hyper-critical of the whole process."

I think there are a number of factors at play here. First, he said himself that he didn't have the time to go, then he had a last minute change of heart. That in and of itself was quizzical. Second, there is the obvious connection between this administration and the Chicago political machine. Third, there is the pressing political issue of health care. The centerpiece of his early administration goals is in questionable straits and he chooses to dedicate his time to a Olympic bid that the citizens of the city in question are dubious about. Finally, there is the leaked report that Afghanistan is at a point where a decision needs to be made about troops which will impact the outcome of the war. This is from a confidential report made by a man not prone to hyperbole and backed up by a SecDef whose judgment is pretty well trusted. What does the President do? He dedicates time and energy to the promotion of his old stomping grounds.


There is a perception that this is a man who is increasingly demonstrated a reluctance to make hard decisions. He did not take a hard early stance on health care and, faced with mixed polls about Afghanistan, is reluctant to make a hard decision there. I read an article in the Economist sometime between the election and the inauguration which commented on his sensitivity to polls. This could be evidence of that.

10/2/2009 4:41:22 PM

and we're all racists for not caring that Chicago lost too, right moron?

This is great news, now Obama can focus on cheerleading for a 2018 US World Cup bid instead

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 4:46 PM. Reason : wc2018]

10/2/2009 4:45:14 PM

Quote :

"cheering at the loss of an economically dubious sporting event vs. cheering at the prospect of a losing war effort and the release of torture photographs from abu graib"

What if I cheer for both?

10/2/2009 4:46:17 PM

Quote :

""You know who else looked like an idiot? HITLER.""

actually, the 1936 olympics held in Berlin were a propaganda success for the Nazis.

10/2/2009 5:42:53 PM

^^^ Talk about a non sequitur.

[Edited on October 2, 2009 at 5:47 PM. Reason : ]

10/2/2009 5:46:00 PM

I'm just glad Chicago didn't get it because of all of the cities up for it, Chicago was just a horrible choice. I mean there's not a long list of American cities that I think of ideal for hosting the Olympics, but Chicago isn't one of them (neither was Atlanta, but that's already done)

10/2/2009 8:25:32 PM

10/2/2009 9:59:38 PM

if ( ( replies + 1 ) % 50 == 0 )

10/2/2009 10:24:59 PM