Darn Good Question

The Olympics are a huge waste of money, and Chicago is better off without them. No host city has broken even in decades, and the attention and visitors' dollars attracted don't compensate for the money lost.

Regardless, Obama was in a no-win situation. Anybody who paid attention knew the games were going to Rio since there had never been a South American host before. Had he stayed home, the same people would be criticizing him for not going, claiming he hadn't done all he could to secure the games.

One issue is whether or not the US should again host the games. Certainly the US has more than its share of hosting opportunities. Bejing got the games because they had never been to China (or many places in Asia outside of Japan or Australia). Chicago was the IOC's safety choice if the Rio or Madrid bids were unworkable.

The other issues is whether Obama should have personally spoken to raise support. It has a precedent, many credit Tony Blair's speech as pushing London over Paris for 2012. But over the history of the games, it hasn't happened often. I have to think after months of trips, lobbying and inspections, most of the delegates have a strong idea where they will vote before the speeches.

The last issue is whether Republicans should make hay from this.

As for the economics, to Palmie's point, yes the numbers don't add up on the balance sheet. But after the games are over, the host cities have new facilities that will last for years, new affordable housing that may not have otherwise been built, a boost in tourism, and so on.

I do think its a cheap shot to mock Obama for not winning, lets face it, you cannot win if you do not play, and most players will not win.

James

I was typing up all the reasons why Chicago was facing a stacked deck, and why I'm glad the city didn't get the games. However, that would have been a Tolstoy-esque post. So, here it is in a nutshell:

A broke city that can't provide basic services (garbage collections, for example), ignores the plight of its citizens, suffers from graft at every level of government, depends on antiquated & dilapidated infrastructure and is run by a mob (Daley, O'Reilly, Madigan, Quinn, Murphy, Walsh, Ryan---slainte, you crooked bastiges) simply has no business hosting the games.

Collapsible stadiums---seriously???

The only real losers are the community activists turned real estate moguls in the areas where Olympic venues were to be put.

Well, they can all stay there.

I'd like to give her my own specialized Borg implant. ]:)

Sad how the immigrants that came here to work for a better life...their children have so quickly got corrupted by "The American Way".

Oh well. I wish I could help you out. But, it seems that corruption is everywhere.

..... and then go find some ammunition to support the attempt. That's all Roland S. Martin did.

And which prominent Republican did he cite? Erick Erickson, a blogger at "RedState" blog, who wrote, [i]"Hahahahaha ...... I thought the world would love us more now that Bush was gone."[/i]

Heck, maybe Roland should start trolling the discussions here at TR to find more ammunition for his agenda of discrediting the entire Republican Party.

But Roland's ONLY reference was a blogger? Ooooookay.

Besides, the only quote provided is pretty accurate. If Chicago's loss was because of a tarnished US image (which is pure speculation), and if a cornerstone of Obama's campaign was to immediately (and yes, he did make such a claim) improve that image, then Erick Erickson's comment was pretty accurate and should have been expected.

Out of curiosity, I searched for the cited blog for full context:

http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/10/02/breaking-world-rejects-barack-obama-no-chicago-olympics/

I wonder if Roland will ever cite something I say as a basis for criticizing the entire "GOP"?

Recipe for a politically motivated article:

Take one ounce of speculation (rejection due to tarnished US image), add a pound of desired end conclusion (let's discredit the GOP), look for whatever supporting evidence is available (RedState blog site) and season to taste. Sprinkle with the usual political platitudes ("Buy American" or "Support our troops"), and presto, you have an article.

P.S. Jessie Jackson, in a recent speech in Chicago, blamed GW Bush!

Put political mud-slinging aside for a moment (mud-slinging from both sides), and try to find the REAL reasons Chicago was rejected. Other than politically motivated speculation (Bush's tarnished image of the USA or Obama's failure to be taken seriously), I haven't seen much in the way of real, verifiable, and factual reasons. Have you?

...the simple fact that Rio was a better choice this time?

I know I may be over simplifying this, but couldn't the fact be that the choice was more about Rio than the US and its politics?

I may be naieve but I think the committee was not thinking of either former Pres GWB or current Pres Obama, nor were they considering the corruption or transportation of Chicago...I think they were considering Rio for many reasons, one of which was a first time venue.

I think sometimes we Americans take things a tad too personally...JMO

.....that jck was simply adding to the [i] political pot-stirring[/i].

I have no dog in the Chicago Olympics hunt. I don't care one way or the other - about the reason or the outcome.

I would guess (based on what NotSoChiGuy has said, as well as what 2 of my friends that live in the Chicago metro) that Chicago was probably rejected because of lack of facilities, infrastructure, etc., that other cities already have.

One for instance: Football, or as Americans and Aussies call it: Soccer.

When you have the world's most popular sport being played, having a stadium that seats about 62,000 people like Soldier Field is probably not going to be adequate.

Even Rio De Janiero's Estadio do Maracana may not be large enough with seating at almost 89,000. Football is a HUGE sport in Brasil.

I don't doubt for a minute most (if not all) of the matches will be sold out.

I was just curious as to where you got the remark that he wasn't taken seriously. That's all.

Actually, Obama's hometown isn't Chicago. Honolulu, Hawaii is.

Chicago is his city of full-time residence for the past several years. But, he has bounced between New York and Chicago and California before that.

The closest you will come to a president's hometown is William Howard Taft, who was born in Cincinnati, did nothing to represent Cleveland's bid and to get the 1916 olympics in his home state.

Point is, no other president has made the effort at all no matter what.

But if you request sources for one thing from one person you feel should give, and then you make an allusion to something yourself...should you not validate what you state with information just as you request from someone else?

Just found it interesting that crept its way into the dialogue as a descriptive item about Obama.

That's all I'm saying.

I don't see how presidential politics really plays into this; other than giving people the opportunity to sling mud at their favorite target.

Rio was the favorite going in, and Rio got the games. Anything past that doesn't much matter.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1S1-9200704150666904.html

For the purposes of the Olympics, Chicago's bid was the US bid.

and don't call me 'Shirley'.

We're here all week, folks! Try the eggplant! Don't forget to tip your waitress! Remember, our Saturday matinee is a 'No Smoking' show! Tell your friends!