Azazello1313 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 If Chicago gets it, he doesn't look like he strongarmed anyone. You think the other bidders aren't trundling out their big guns too? I don't think rio de janiero has a "gun" as big as the leader of the free world. this sort of lobbying by the POTUS just doesn't strike me as very becoming. has any US president ever done something similar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I'm not saying that - you play every card in your hand. I just think it looks like payola. And if it goes like many olympics then he just ended up transferring taxpayer dollars into the hands of his cronies (because the city will end up with public debt while private entities will make money from it). Considering that Chicago has the highest sales tax in the US, all that residual hotel, restaurant and other purchased item income will be not too shabby . . . The Windy City machine . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Chicago has been bidding for the Olympics for at least four years - it's a very lengthy process and it is notorious for corruption within the IOC too. No doubt all the cities have been passing brown envelopes filled with cash under the table. Obama being a Chicagoan president is a happy coincidence for Chicago - he wasn't when the real maneuvering was taking place. Didn't Obama pretty much start running for president at the Democrat Primary Convention in 2004? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I Like Soup Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I don't think rio de janiero has a "gun" as big as the leader of the free world. this sort of lobbying by the POTUS just doesn't strike me as very becoming. has any US president ever done something similar? Exactly my first reaction when I heard Obamamessiah heading to Europe. Didn't Obama pretty much start running for president at the Democrat Primary Convention in 2004? Pretty much... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Have to agree here! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 I think he arguably looks worse if chicago DOES win. Here's my prediction... he he doesn't get it, you and your Have to agree here crew will lambaste Obama for it. And if he doesn't get it, you and your Have to agree here crew with lambaste Obama for it. Does that sound about right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perchoutofwater Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Here's my prediction... he he doesn't get it, you and your Have to agree here crew will lambaste Obama for it. And if he doesn't get it, you and your Have to agree here crew with lambaste Obama for it. Does that sound about right? Seeing as it is inappropriate of him to go in the first place and "sacrifice Oprah, Michelle, and his time", you are probably right. Still, if he doesn't get it and all my tax dollars pay for is him taking a short vacation to Denmark I'll be happier than if I'm having to pay for his vacation and improving Chicago's infrastructure. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evil_gop_liars Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 has any US president ever done something similar? Reagan officially opened the 84 Olympic games....and you're right Reagan looks like a tool. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bushwacked Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Seeing as it is inappropriate of him to go in the first place and "sacrifice Oprah, Michelle, and his time", you are probably right. Still, if he doesn't get it and all my tax dollars pay for is him taking a short vacation to Denmark I'll be happier than if I'm having to pay for his vacation and improving Chicago's infrastructure. Exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 Here's my prediction... he he doesn't get it, you and your Have to agree here crew will lambaste Obama for it. And if he doesn't get it, you and your Have to agree here crew with lambaste Obama for it. Does that sound about right? so you think it was a great idea with lots of political upside for him to go lobby the olympic committee. good for you, buckaroo, you are entitiled to that opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 The damned if he does, damned if he doesn't bit is neither unique to the right wing, nor even unique to whether or not he manages to win the bid for Chicago. Michelle Obama herself mentioned this, however, not exactly in the manner that is being discussed. He was already in a damned if does snafu before the notion of win or lose came up. He was in that tight spot with regards to whether or not he even lobbied. Damned if he does for all the reasons we're discussing here and damned if he doesn't considering the matter of national pride in hosting the olympics and knowing that our POTUS is from the very city that's being considered and yet didn't do anything to help win the bid. So, he was screwed on this deal long ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ursa Majoris Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 So, he was screwed on this deal long ago. Indeed. If he gets involved at any point: "Obama is throwing his weight around" If he doesn't: "Obama doesn't care about national pride" Bah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 anyone have a good chili recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 1, 2009 Share Posted October 1, 2009 so you think it was a great idea with lots of political upside for him to go lobby the olympic committee. good for you, buckaroo, you are entitiled to that opinion. I think it doesn't rank in the top 500 of stupid Presidential decisions of the last 10 years. And I also suspect that you and the Have to agree here crew would have found something to dislike if he didn't lobby the Olympic committee, because that's what you do. And that's all you do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brentastic Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 anyone have a good chili recommendations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gilthorp Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Where is the government empowered to confiscate money from me under the threat of imprisonment to give it to a foreign interests? I'm all for helping others of my own accord, but not because the government tells me I have to. Also, aren't their more important things our government should be doing for our own people right now? ETA: And if the goal is to get wheelchairs to third world countries, couldn't we do it cheaper if we just had wheel chairs made, instead of having stadium seats made, then melting them down and making them into wheel chairs? I'd rather see permanent structures built that at least those that whose money was confiscated might one day have the chance to use. It is not a goal perch, it's going to be a bi-product. You say "the only people that will benefit"...and I'm saying you are short sighted with that blanket statement. Perm structures will be built, others aren't needed as perm. I'd be curious as to what you'd say if your boys were in office when this bid came through. I'm sure you wouldn't whine about it as much, but I'm sure you would still whine. Again, I'm on record as saying I can't buy into the Chicago Olympics because it would take many YEARS to recoup. The city could use the infrastructure upgrades...especially the transit system. If you have to pay an extra $97.54 for it, I'm sure you can handle it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azazello1313 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 The damned if he does, damned if he doesn't bit is neither unique to the right wing, nor even unique to whether or not he manages to win the bid for Chicago. Michelle Obama herself mentioned this, however, not exactly in the manner that is being discussed. He was already in a damned if does snafu before the notion of win or lose came up. He was in that tight spot with regards to whether or not he even lobbied. Damned if he does for all the reasons we're discussing here and damned if he doesn't considering the matter of national pride in hosting the olympics and knowing that our POTUS is from the very city that's being considered and yet didn't do anything to help win the bid. So, he was screwed on this deal long ago. except I don't really see how he's damned if he refrains from doing something no president has ever done before him. if he just says," I certainly hope the olympics come to chicago, it's an exciting prospect for the city I have called home for many years, and I know we can do a great job hosting." and then if someone asks, why he isn't flying around the world lobbying the olympics people, he just says, "well that's not really my job now, is it". I don't see how anyone could take issue with that sort of position. to me, it seems like that avenue has no downside. the route he chose seems to have no upside. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bpwallace49 Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Wont improving the infrastructure of Chicago and building these venues generate jobs and reduce unemployment? Isnt that GOOD? Plus the residual income from all the service spending and tax income realized from that spending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westvirginia Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 except I don't really see how he's damned if he refrains from doing something no president has ever done before him. if he just says," I certainly hope the olympics come to chicago, it's an exciting prospect for the city I have called home for many years, and I know we can do a great job hosting." and then if someone asks, why he isn't flying around the world lobbying the olympics people, he just says, "well that's not really my job now, is it". I don't see how anyone could take issue with that sort of position. to me, it seems like that avenue has no downside. the route he chose seems to have no upside. Bingo - he either gets it and it looks like graft, or he doesn't and Sarkozy looks even more correct - he's weak and arrogant. If he'd done what Az suggested then he's clean either way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AtomicCEO Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 (edited) Bingo - he either gets it and it looks like graft, or he doesn't and Sarkozy looks even more correct - he's weak and arrogant. If he'd done what Az suggested then he's clean either way. I agree that the safest course of action is always to do absolutely nothing. I believe it was Vince Lombardi who said that. Edited October 2, 2009 by AtomicCEO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yukon Cornelius Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 I agree that the safest course of action is always to do absolutely nothing. I believe it was Vince Lombardi who said that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
posty Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 First vote is now open... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
posty Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Eliminated in first round: Chicago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
budlitebrad Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Eliminated in first round: Chicago Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randall Posted October 2, 2009 Share Posted October 2, 2009 Eliminated in first round: Chicago WOW. Now Hannity can blame you know who. Curious why they got the least votes. I would like to see Rio to see it in South America for the first time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.