Saturday, October 3, 2009

Why Chicago Lost the 2016 Olympics

We received the news yesterday that the 2016 Olympics has been awarded to Rio de Janeiro. First of all, congratulations to the first South American city to host the games and we hope it will be a big success. As most of us know, US President Obama made many personal appeals for the city of Chicago to host the Games. When they were eliminated in the first round, most of the worldwide media portrayed the rejection as a slap in the face to Mr Obama. It of course, took our major media outlets only minutes after the announcement to begin spinning Katie Couric’s “Dream Team” loss as a big win for “team captain” Obama. Others blamed the radical “right-wing talkers” for the loss. I’ve not heard the charge that the decision was based on racism yet, but it’s still early. It might be a bit difficult now that liberal critics filed a civil rights complaint for racial discrimination against the Chicago 2016 committee last Thursday.

A Newsweek blog called it a big win for Mr Obama since the Olympics typically run massively over budget. This touches on the truth since it took Montreal 30 years to pay off a billion dollar debt from the 1976 Games and the projected budget for London 2012 has ballooned from 3.9 to over 15 billion (and still climbing). Hosting the Olympics is more about civic pride than municipal profits. Since massive budgets and debts have never bothered Mr Obama, this loss is actually a win for the Chicago and Illinois taxpayers (and the rest of us who would pay for another federal bailout). It would have however, greatly benefited many of Mr Obama’s cronies.

So, how did Rio beat out Chicago for the 2016 Olympics? On the positive side, it allowed the IOC (International Olympic Committee) to make history by awarding the Games to a South American city. The Chicago bid however, did not come without negatives, such as the gang violence videos which surfaced at an inopportune time.

We believe the biggest negative against Chicago was the representation by Mr Obama himself. Before taking office, he flew to Europe to proclaim himself a “citizen of the world” and promised a new global agenda, a new world order. Since taking office, he’s made several tours of Europe and the Middle East apologizing that America has been the source of all that's wrong with the world. It is no wonder that, while he’s routinely praised by rogue dictators and Muslin leaders, many in Europe echo the sentiments of Gerald Warner’s article in the UK Telegraph entitled “Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?” which begins:

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran. Instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

Now, after being embarrassed to be an American and spending months throwing the country under a bus to promote his own popularity, in order to benefit his insider buddies in Chicago, Mr Obama found himself in the unfamiliar role of having to promote America instead. In a speech on September 16, he said "Americans, like Chicagoans, -- we don't like to make small plans. We want to dream big and reach high. We hope deeply. We want these games. And if you choose Chicago, I promise you this: Chicago will make America proud, and America will make the world proud." So, after making globalist statements about why Americans should not enjoy her luxuries while the rest of the world was not as blessed, and how no nation should be more important than another, he had to argue that Chicago warrants the Olympics.

Ms Obama also made the trip to help with the pitch. She stated that she didn’t want to go, but that she was willing to “sacrifice for the kids”. In a Hillary Clinton moment, she told the story of how she cheered on Carl Lewis and others while sitting on her daddy’s knee, until it was pointed out that she was 20 years old when Mr Lewis first competed in the Olympics in 1984. She did stop short of saying that, if Chicago was selected, that she would be proud of being an American for the “second time” in her life. In light of the Obama’s previous statements and actions, the IOC must have wondered why they were now arguing in favor of America deserving the Games.

So, we say congratulations to the city of Rio for their selection as host of the 2016 Olympics, and to all Americans for avoiding the huge monetary debts. We can now look forward to cheering on our athletes in the 2012 Games in London.


  1. Here's my why did Chicago lose the 2016 bid?

    1. First they did not put together a good bid package. That promo video was amateur at best.

    2. Obama believed in the power of his own hype. he though his charisma points were so high that he could just show up smile and give a speech and it would be in the bag. The IOC was tripping all over themselves to greet him when he arrived.

    Tony Blair spent 4 days wining and dining the IOC to get the London games. Obama only spent 4 hours tops in Copenhagen with the IOC and have one of the most self centered "do it for my daughters" speech it what really turned the IOC off.

    3. Chicago just did not have enough allure as Rio or even a good plan for the games. The city of Chicago is going broke, Mayor Daley is scraping money just to pay for basic services and they want to build billion dollar venues for the games.

    The IOC saw this and thought "this will be another Athens". We have a city that wants to use the Olympics as a free money grab.

    Rio has it problems, such as poverty and crime as well. Rio was just sexier city, Ipanema beach or Lake Michigan? you decide.

    4. Anti-Americanism,

    This is not because of Bush, Iraq or even Afghanistan it is due to how we handled Atlanta and Salt Lake. Atlanta was a mismanaged mess and SLC was mired in a bribery scandal that was pulled out of the fire by Mitt Romney.

  2. I see where Jesse Jackson is now blaming Bush for the loss. I think it was also Bush's fault that it rained here last week.

  3. To Gary.

    Thanks very much for your insightful comments. I agree that your points were all primary reasons for Chicago's loss. I was actually attempting to address the actions that led to the anti-American (and anti-Chicago by extension) mindset of the committee, but realize that these were not the only factors involved. Thanks again for adding to the discussion.


We welcome your insightful opinions, but please keep them suitable for family viewing. If you are not logged in, you may post with just your name or nickname by selecting "Name/URL" and leaving the URL field blank. Thank you for your input.