The headline that caught my eye this morning read, "GOP Rooting Against America". The author, one Glenn Thrush, does a decent job of presenting the facts of the story without injecting personal views. The premise is that a) Republicans called Democrats 'unpatriotic' when the Dems questioned the Bush administrations desire to defend America from what it viewed as threats (specifically: Iraq, intelligence, surveillance) and b) Democrats are now calling Republicans 'unpatriotic' for criticizing the Obama administration's extremely poor track record thus far on the economy (ineffective stimulus packages, continually rising unemployment) and the IOC's "snub" of Chicago as an Olympic host city despite Obama lending his star power to the sales pitch personally.
I suppose one could attempt to make that argument - if recklessly borrowing trillions of dollars to fund fruitless, ineffective ideological programs, systematically dismantling the world's greatest military, subsidizing ill advised home and auto purchases, perpetuating the entirely unproven fear of global warming solely for the purpose of consolidating power, refusing to wear an American flag lapel pin, and failing to salute the American flag during the National Anthem - if those activities are in fact patriotic, then I suppose opposition to such would have to be considered unpatriotic.
It was also silly to presume the city of Chicago was somehow the de facto front runner in its bid for the 2016 Olympic games. A "snub", as I understand it, is when the obvious choice is not made - like how Pee Wee Herman was somehow overlooked for the 1986 Oscar. To suggest that Madrid, Tokyo or Rio were less deserving than Chicago is, I think, an insult to those great cities. Why do the Olympics have to be in the US every time? That's not un-American of me to say. If I've learned anything at all from the Opening Ceremonies it is that the Olympics are about one world; one people. In my modest lifespan the US has already hosted four Olympics - two Summer and two Winter (Lake Placid, Los Angeles, Atlanta, Salt Lake). These Rio de Janeiro games, which are still seven years away, will be the FIRST time ever that ANY country in South America has hosted. How can anyone be upset or bitter about that? I'm happy for Rio. Brasil is an up-and-coming world power.
As a potential Olympic viewer, what backdrop would you rather see? a tropical paradise in the exotic, legendary land of Samba that most people have only read about? or Chicago, the scenery of which can be seen daily on WGN - the local Chicago television station that for some reason broadcasts to the entire nation on basic cable.
If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.
Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.
Parabens pra meus amigos brasileiros! Parabens mesmo.
Rio de Janeiro won its bid for the 2016 Olympic games. This will be the first time the Olympics visit South America, believe it or not. The Brazilians will be outstanding hosts, of that you can be sure. I'm excited for all of the NBC vignettes that will bring the marvelous beauty that is Brazil into the world's living rooms. At a minimum, I hope to be able to buy Guaraná Antárctica at my local supermarket when all is said and done.
Let me know if you're interested in a translation of the music.
-----
Almost as gratifying is the humiliating beatdown received by President Obama and Omarosa. They flew into Denmark with all of the swagger and the cameras and the press to personally ensure the games would be awarded to Obama's "hometown" (I thought he said he was from Hawaii), Chicago, only to be eliminated in the very first round of voting. That means it wasn't even close!
To have the president of the United States and his wife personally appear, then this should happen in the first round is awful and totally undeserving.
I'm shocked. The whole thing doesn't make sense other than there has been a stupid bloc vote.
What's the problem? Obama has lambasted "American arrogance" and yet the assumption was that he need only show up in order to win the vote? That his presence would somehow matter to the IOC? Is that not arrogance? Erick Erickson of RedState.com put it this way, "So Obama's pimped us to every two bit thug and dictator in the world, made promises to half the Olympic committee, and they did not even kiss him."
On the other hand, any day that Obama spends doing something other than presidenting (TM) is a good great day for America. That's one less trillion dollar expense he was able to conjure. One less non-elected and unaccountable czar put into a position of extraordinary power. One less non-reciprocated concession that weakens our national security. One less naive, wasteful commitment to "fight global warming."
-----
I find it hilarious and incredibly dishonorable how at every opportunity, Obama feels the need to take shots at President Bush. You've all heard it. Said one journalist, "Obama had held out the enticing prospect of a Chicago games helping to reconnect the United States with the world after the presidency of George W. Bush," - John Leicester, AP sports writer.
Obama is like the insecure girlfriend: I'm prettier than her, right? I'm smarter than she is, right? I'm more fun to be with, right? You never loved her, did you? You're happier now, right?
Like it or not, George W. Bush was the president for eight years, which is at least four more years than you [this is directed at President Obama, whom I'm told follows this blog religiously] will "serve". That means Bush won two elections. Aside from the odd person that claims embarrassment at having voted for Bush, there are still many millions of Americans that would prefer Bush and all his warts to the legacy you are building (or destroying, depending upon your perspective). May your successor treat you with a bit more dignity than you have shown your predecessor.
If you liked this entry, please 'Digg' it.
Want to chime in? Leave a comment to further the discussion.
