Conservatives Revel In America's Olympic Defeat

[bobalot]

Conservatives Revel In America's Olympic Defeat
Rachel Slajda | October 2, 2009, 3:09PM

When the International Olympic Committee voted against Chicago's bid for the 2016 Olympics this morning -- after the President and First Lady flew to Copenhagen to push for it in person -- the Weekly Standard newsroom burst into applause.

"Cheers erupt at Weekly Standard world headquarters," wrote editor John McCormack in a post titled "Chicago Loses! Chicago Loses!"

The line was quickly removed, but ThinkProgress caught it in time and posted a screenshot of the post.

But even with the edits, McCormack is still obviously reveling in America's defeat.

"As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed," he wrote.

McCormack's fellow conservatives joined in the celebration.

"Chicago and Tokyo eliminated. No Obamalypics," Michelle Malkin tweeted, following up with, "Game over on Obamalympics. Next up, Obamacare."

"Please, please let me break this news to you. It's so sweet," said Glenn Beck on his radio show.

"Hahahahaha," wrote Red State's Erick Erickson. "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. So much for improving America's standing in the world, Barry O."

The Drudge Report announced the news like so: "WORLD REJECTS OBAMA: CHICAGO OUT IN FIRST ROUND. THE EGO HAS LANDED."

"The worst day of Obama's presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama," echoed Rush Limbaugh.

"For those of you ... who are upset that I sound gleeful, I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy," Limbaugh said. "Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me."

"President Obama fails to get the Olympics while unemployment goes to 9.8% Iran continues nuclear program. America needs focused leadership," Newt Gingrich tweeted. Then he added, "Somehow charm and oratory dont seem to work in foreign affirs but historians have warned that foreign policy is different than campaigning." (sic)

"ChicagP\/\/n3D!" tweeted Newsmax, of recent fame for running, then pulling, a column about an impending military coup against Obama.

Apparently no one read the tweet from former Bush flack Scott Stanzel.

"Note to GOP officials/consultants - resist the temptation to pile on about Chicago losing the Olympic bid just because Obama made the pitch," he wrote, advice reportedly passed on by Former Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden.

Fox News, however, saw it coming. A Fox anchor told senior adviser David Axelrod she could "imagine the headlines" that would come out of this, that Obama had been "rebuked," and had "failed." Axelrod simply responded that no one could doubt Obama's influence after watching the G-20, and said neither he nor the President have any regrets about trying.

I'm not sure how they can call their political opponents anti-American with a straight face.

[Tasoth]

So lemme get this straight: the olympic council did not choose Chicago, so it's stunning blow to Obama as president? They're really setting low goals for huge victories against the president.

Also, why hasn't anyone pointed out to the pundits that them not choosing Chicago is probably a statement more about America on a whole then the President?

[Anguirus]

^ I suspect that if anything it's a statement on Chicago as a whole.

Also, how many times has the US hosted the Olympics again? This is the first time the CONTINENT of South America has gotten the chance.

[Axis Kast]

"For those of you ... who are upset that I sound gleeful, I am. I don't deny it. I'm happy," Limbaugh said. "Anything that gets in the way of Barack Obama accomplishing his domestic agenda is fine with me."

The rationale, for those really, truly shocked, is all right here.

It's hypocrisy at its finest, but there's no doubt that many, many a conservative believes that politics is now about "all the marbles." I don't know if it's always been this way, but it certainly explains why you get folks saying things like, "We want him [Obama] to fail!" They have built such a terrifying strawman that they can no longer sleep at night, for fear that all which is Good and Righteous shall be washed away in a tide of remorselessly liberal policy changes, including: (1) the use of federal money to support "unconscionable" acts like abortion; (2) the creation of a hugely expensive money-pit that ruins the quality of health care in this country, called "Obamacare;" (3) "slavish" self-subjugation to the whims of the international community, fueled by an inability to comprehend that the world wants to stick us in the eye.

Expect to hear conservatives roll out a host of arguments relating to why it's "okay" that Obama lost the Olympics, some of which will have credibility independently (i.e., "It's expensive!") and some of which won't (i.e., "We'd offend others if denied them the opportunity!").

[Patrick Degan]

^ I suspect that if anything it's a statement on Chicago as a whole.

Also, how many times has the US hosted the Olympics again? This is the first time the CONTINENT of South America has gotten the chance.

That's why I think the Olympic committee had really already made up their minds ahead of time about choosing Rio as the venue for the 2016 games and that the competition was a mere show.

And so, as a tawdry and soon-to-be-forgotten footnote to the affair, we have the revels over a president's failure over a set of games coming from the cheerleaders for the people who failed at both war and high finance. That's comedy.

[Ryan Thunder]

I actually thought this was an Onion article.

[B5B7]

"As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed," he wrote.

This statement is opposed in some of its alleged sentiments to Republican policy and practice, and therefore is a mix of truth (that he is glad) with lies.
Republicans have no interest in being citizens of the world, and certainly do not act as world citizens should. Jingoism is a concept typically associated with, you guessed it, the Republicans.
What allies are these - the Republicans' allies - ie tinpot dictatorships & some similarly right-wing nations, or America's allies that the Bush administration continuously antagonized?

That one could claim to believe that the President could give a last minute speech that could alter the decision already made based on the submissions prepared by the applicants over a long period (plus also internal IOC politics) is naive, or deliberately dishonest.

[Ryan Thunder]

Actually, where's the link? I want to see that it isn't an Onion article. It's that bad...

[JLTucker]

Actually, where's the link? I want to see that it isn't an Onion article. It's that bad...

It's from Talking Points Memo.

[SirNitram]

It's hypocrisy at its finest, but there's no doubt that many, many a conservative believes that politics is now about "all the marbles." I don't know if it's always been this way, but it certainly explains why you get folks saying things like, "We want him [Obama] to fail!"

It was around in Clinton's Presidency, hence endless attempts to impeach him over anything, anything at all. The problem was, as the attempt to crush Clinton picked up steam, two things happened:

The Republicans tapped into the extremists more than ever. The anti-government extremists who led to the Oklahoma City Building being bombed, the Religious Right no matter what, and so on. These alliances were existant, but this was a new height.

The Democrats built their party to get anyone with a D- by their name, not any interest in the party's general goals. This excaberated the problem, as even Dem majorities, combined with the GOP's mechanically united votes, meant it was extremely hard to do things. Thus allowing the GOP was to fuel itself.

It went a bit quiet over Bush's term, but it's back(And Bush is now Not A Conservative), and it's armed.

[Axis Kast]

Republicans have no interest in being citizens of the world, and certainly do not act as world citizens should. Jingoism is a concept typically associated with, you guessed it, the Republicans.

Now, I'm no fool, and I don't imagine for a second that the Bush Administration did anything but mishandle the delicate diplomacy leading up to the invasion of Iraq, or afterward. However, would you please define for me this term, "citizen of the world?"

To be blunt, the divisions over Iraq reflected hard-nosed calculus. France, Germany, and others looked upon Iraq as a potential market. Their intelligence agencies broadly agreed that he possessed WMD. Europe's determination that it wasn't worth a war had to do, at least in part, with their (probably correct) belief that the costs of any future aggression on Iraq's part would be readily borne by (and were thus the sole concern of) the U.S. and Great Britain.

Republicans are wrong to snub their noses at the rest of the world, which only generates resentment. They are not, however, wrong in the belief that everybody else is out for themselves just as much as we are. Take Russia, for instance. Why does Moscow find Obama more "reasonable" than Bush? Because Obama has put the ax to a program that the Russians worried might spell the end of their last ace.

What allies are these - the Republicans' allies - ie tinpot dictatorships & some similarly right-wing nations, or America's allies that the Bush administration continuously antagonized?

Don't be foolish. Although incorrect to claim that an Olympic bid would outrage American allies, they were referring to just about every nation in Western Europe (and quite a few, too, in the East).

That one could claim to believe that the President could give a last minute speech that could alter the decision already made based on the submissions prepared by the applicants over a long period (plus also internal IOC politics) is naive, or deliberately dishonest.

A problem for Obama's supporters, I think. I don't have any problem with Obama offering the pitch, but I imagine that the committee rather enjoyed snubbing him just because it sent the message: "You can't overawe us."

[Jim Raynor]

Republicans and anti-Obama conservative retards in general are acting like standard message board idiots after losing a debate. Mindlessly opposing whatever the other side says regardless of what it actually is, just to keep up the appearance that they're still resisting defeat. It's embarassing and downright babyish.

[Spyder]

"As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation, I'm glad that the Obama White House's jingoist rhetoric and attempt to pay back Chicago cronies at the expense of undermining our relationships with our allies failed,"

...Is it backwards day up there? This is the kind of stuff that we actually like the US to take an interest in. It's fun and fewer people explode.

[Duckie]

It is in fact opposite day, since just a few months ago Newt Gingrich was railing at Obama for not being unilateralist. One of the key things he said was "I'm not a citizen of the world, I'm a citizen of the united states."

[B5B7]

Republicans have no interest in being citizens of the world, and certainly do not act as world citizens should. Jingoism is a concept typically associated with, you guessed it, the Republicans.

Now, I'm no fool, and I don't imagine for a second that the Bush Administration did anything but mishandle the delicate diplomacy leading up to the invasion of Iraq, or afterward. However, would you please define for me this term, "citizen of the world?"

You should ask John McCormack - he used the term.

To be blunt, the divisions over Iraq reflected hard-nosed calculus. France, Germany, and others looked upon Iraq as a potential market. Their intelligence agencies broadly agreed that he possessed WMD. Europe's determination that it wasn't worth a war had to do, at least in part, with their (probably correct) belief that the costs of any future aggression on Iraq's part would be readily borne by (and were thus the sole concern of) the U.S. and Great Britain.

Republicans are wrong to snub their noses at the rest of the world, which only generates resentment. They are not, however, wrong in the belief that everybody else is out for themselves just as much as we are. Take Russia, for instance. Why does Moscow find Obama more "reasonable" than Bush? Because Obama has put the ax to a program that the Russians worried might spell the end of their last ace.

Were they sure he had WMD? You could be right with what you say about European motivation, with the addition that they preferred a stable Iraq under Saddam Hussein to a strongly religious Islamist state.

What allies are these - the Republicans' allies - ie tinpot dictatorships & some similarly right-wing nations, or America's allies that the Bush administration continuously antagonized?

Don't be foolish. Although incorrect to claim that an Olympic bid would outrage American allies, they were referring to just about every nation in Western Europe (and quite a few, too, in the East).

I was referring to Europe too - American allies that were antagonized by the Bush regime.

That one could claim to believe that the President could give a last minute speech that could alter the decision already made based on the submissions prepared by the applicants over a long period (plus also internal IOC politics) is naive, or deliberately dishonest.

A problem for Obama's supporters, I think. I don't have any problem with Obama offering the pitch, but I imagine that the committee rather enjoyed snubbing him just because it sent the message: "You can't overawe us."

Possibly.

[D.Turtle]

I think its funny that these people keep on harping about Obama making his appearance as if it was something special in comparison to the other countries.

Spain sent their king, Brazil their president, and Japan their newly elected Prime Minister.

It would have been weird if Obama HADN'T gone.

And you can be sure those same people would be harping on about how unpatriotic Obama was not to support the USA in their attempt to get the Olympics and how its all his fault etc if he hadn't gone.

[Axis Kast]

You should ask John McCormack - he used the term.

I'm asking you, if you believe the United States should behave as if it is full of "citizens of the world."

I'm not along for the ride with Gingrich in believing that the United States should never consult with anyone at any time, or give way when diplomatic considerations outweigh whatever gains we might make by playing hard and fast somewhere else in the world, but I don't fool myself into thinking that the "split" between the U.S. and Europe was because of Bush's mismanagement of heart-to-hearts. Europe and the U.S. had hard words and harder feelings over the U.S. agenda.

Were they sure he had WMD? You could be right with what you say about European motivation, with the addition that they preferred a stable Iraq under Saddam Hussein to a strongly religious Islamist state.

As much as they could be, yes.

You could be correct, too. The Europeans, though, weren't looking to do us any favors. They were seeing after their own interests, even if we should have been smarter about our own. And Iraq was always an "Anglo-American" issue. Nobody else considered it important to spend blood or treasure on containment, but even Democrats acknowledged containment as the "default" alternative to war.

I was referring to Europe too - American allies that were antagonized by the Bush regime.

I think that the focus is far too much on the quality rather than the content of Bush's diplomacy. As I said above, the Europeans were very upset over what we did; how we said it was probably a very minor point. Europeans aren't stupid or thin-skinned.

Possibly.

One of Obama's big problems, generally, is that he suffers from an unhealthy and widespread expectation that he will continue to perform as he did on the campaign trail, when his enemy was a lame duck George W. Bush.

Look at health care. It's been a disaster. Obama's "media over-exposure" isn't a clever strategy to bring the weight of the president's station or sound logic to the debate on health care; it's an emergency response to the fact that the Republicans pushed him (and the Democrats) all over the board with a full-court press. This is damage-control, and it reflects the fact that Obama's oratory hasn't convinced folks of much of anything; the partisans were lined up on other side well before. Republicans need to change how they play this game of politics. Some Republicans need to wake up to reality. Others have to stop lying. But Obama's responsibility is still to be an effective leader and conveyor of his policies, irrespective of the opposition. The Democrats can't get new Republicans. They'll need to get a better strategy for their Great Solver.

[Vympel]

"As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation

That anyone associated with the Weekly Standard uttered this comment is just criminal. Really, no shame at all.

[bobalot]

"As a citizen of the world who believes that No one nation can or should try to dominate another nation

That anyone associated with the Weekly Standard uttered this comment is just criminal. Really, no shame at all.

Conservatives in America have long passed the point of mere shameless hypocrisy.

[open_sketchbook]

One of Obama's big problems, generally, is that he suffers from an unhealthy and widespread expectation that he will continue to perform as he did on the campaign trail, when his enemy was a lame duck George W. Bush.

Look at health care. It's been a disaster. Obama's "media over-exposure" isn't a clever strategy to bring the weight of the president's station or sound logic to the debate on health care; it's an emergency response to the fact that the Republicans pushed him (and the Democrats) all over the board with a full-court press. This is damage-control, and it reflects the fact that Obama's oratory hasn't convinced folks of much of anything; the partisans were lined up on other side well before. Republicans need to change how they play this game of politics. Some Republicans need to wake up to reality. Others have to stop lying. But Obama's responsibility is still to be an effective leader and conveyor of his policies, irrespective of the opposition. The Democrats can't get new Republicans. They'll need to get a better strategy for their Great Solver.

You can't blame healthcare's failing entirely on Obama. If the last little while has shown anything, it's the insane bias against the Democrats that exists in the United States. Stratagies and language that the Republicans use as a matter of course are dirty, cheating tactics when used by Democrats. No amount of oratory can best straight-up lying and fear-mongering. The constant stream of conservative politicians and media personalities hammer their supporters with bullshit before the government ever gets the chance. If you have sympathy for conservative viewpoints then you'[ve watched the media jump on literately everything Obama has done and seen it painted in a negative light, so doubt is inevitable. If you're just retarded... well, Sarah Palin fucking said out loud that Obama would try to use health care to kill her child. Idiotic right-leaning types jump on that because they've been conditioned to believe this sort of shit and they holler it over and over until even some of the more intelligent parts of the population break down and begin doubting things. You can't fight that; it's a sort of incomprehensible combination of stupid and hate that there is no counter to short of educating the populace, which isn't exactly a solution that can be applied in the short term.

[Axis Kast]

I agree that Obama's row is a very hard one. Lying, or the appeal of vague suspicion kept aloft by complete misinformation, is difficult to beat. However, I still don't think he's chosen very effective tactics in response. The American people want somebody to give them more than platitudes. The media has taught us that folks are essentially receptive to short, simple messages. I think they can stand for a bit more detail. Ross Perot made a pretty inspiring presidential bid - no matter what you think of his politics - on the basis of infomercials that were anything but short on detail.

Obama now needs to jump through the ins and outs of the healthcare debate. He needs to spell out why a universal system is morally appropriate. He needs to explain why this is an economical option. He's got to spell out whatever protections there are going to be from political tampering, which is at the root of the death panel fears (inasmuch as people seem to think they are credible, which they aren't).

Rhetoric like...

"The idea of death panels presumes that the government is going to put somebody between you and your doctor. That's ridiculous. Nobody stands between you and your doctor. That's a private relationship, governed by the patient, that is going to remain sacred. The government is only going to put somebody between you and your insurance company. This is a question of how much you should have to pay to get decent care, not what kind of care you are entitled to get."

Obama needs to make clear that the "death panel" myth is based on complete misinterpretation of a quality-control measure designed to ensure that doctors are complying with the instructions that patients set out. It has nothing to do with a bureaucracy or rationing.

[Twoyboy]

"The worst day of Obama's presidency, folks. The ego has landed. The world has rejected Obama," echoed Rush Limbaugh.

Double hilarity considering this.

I wonder if the Republicans will be ignoring this result, or trying to spin in in some way.

[Alyeska]

Stewart made the perfect comment regarding the Olympics stuff. "Apparently conservatives hate Obama more then they love America".