THE HILL
 

Cheers not very patriotic

By Markos Moulitsas - 10/06/09 03:30 PM ET

Who would’ve thought that rooting for America to host the Olympic Games could ever be controversial? Not only is hosting the Olympics a source of national pride, allowing the nation to showcase the best of America (as we’ve done recently with Salt Lake City and Atlanta), but it’s also a powerful economic driver and catalyst for redevelopment.

On Jan. 7, 2008, President George W. Bush met with the Chicago 2016 bid committee. “They say that the Olympics will come to Chicago if we’re fortunate enough to be selected, but really it’s coming to America, and I can’t think of a better city to represent the United States than Chicago,” he said. “And so I — this country supports your bid, strongly.”

It was natural for Bush to assume national unity behind the Olympic bid, but he was unfortunately wrong (again). Bush’s fellow conservatives opposed the bid because, quite simply, Chicago is President Barack Obama’s hometown. When news broke that Chicago had lost out to Rio de Janeiro, conservatives celebrated on Twitter and on blogs, at conferences and in conservative newsrooms.

At the conservative “Defending the American Dream Summit” in Arlington, Va., the hotel ballroom erupted in wild applause. A writer at the conservative Weekly Standard blogged, “Chicago loses! Chicago loses! Cheers erupt at WEEKLY STANDARD world headquarters.” Quickly realizing how ugly the sentiment was, the post was quickly replaced.

Not all conservatives were ecstatic. Commentator Joe Scarborough said that swing voters must look at Rush Limbaugh bouncing with joy at the Windy City’s loss and think, “My God, the Republicans have gone off the deep end.” Former Bush deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel tweeted almost immediately, “Note to GOP officials/consultants — resist temptation to pile on about Chicago losing just becuz Obama made the pitch.” Mitt Romney spokesman Kevin Madden told Politico, “[Obama] has a lot of really wrong ideas. But does that mean his effort to bring the Olympic Games to Chicago and a chance to put America on the world’s stage should also automatically be subjected to scorn? I don’t believe it should. That’s just criticism for criticism’s sake. Reactionary criticism could even dilute any valid and legitimate criticism of his bad policies.”

“Reactionary” is the only way to describe right-wing applause for the loss of the $13-22 billion in economic development and 315,000 “job years” — the equivalent of one full year of work for 315,000 people — that Chicagoland would have  gained from the Games.

Liberals didn’t cheer four years ago when New York lost out to London for the 2012 Summer Olympics. We saw it as a disappointing loss for New York and our nation, not as a loss for then-President Bush or Republican Mayor Michael Bloomberg. Even though rampant Bush-inspired anti-Americanism around the world likely harmed the Big Apple’s bid, liberals supported NYC 2012 out of patriotism and a desire to see job creation.

Early next year, world athletes will gather in Vancouver for the 2010 Winter Olympics, and much of the U.S. will root for Americans competing in the Games. But for conservatives, chants of “U-S-A, U-S-A” have been replaced by open disdain for our country — proof that their flag-waving was never anything more than cover for rank partisanship.

Viewed through this lens, right-wing celebration of Chicago’s loss makes perverse sense. After all, conservatives used to equate criticism of Bush to criticism of our nation. In their minds, Bush and the U.S. were one and the same. Today, they appear to equate Obama and the U.S., which places them in opposition to generally unobjectionable American interests.

That’s just twisted — and it exposes the lie of conservative patriotism.

Moulitsas is founder and publisher of Daily Kos.

Source:
http://thehill.com/opinion/columnists/markos-moulitas/61855-cheers-not-very-patriotic

Comments (21)

Didn't it take Montreal like 12 years to pay off the cost of hosting the games? Maybe I have the wrong city but it is a pattern found when researching the end cost of hosting. The US cannot afford to take on the extra debt. If this makes me unpatriotic, Markie, so be it.BY Jen06 on 10/07/2009 at 03:52
I watched too, as far right wingers celebrated the Chicago Loss, as a conservative I was not pleased to have lost the games, but do question the supposed financial boons to cities which host the games, Ask Athens how they are doing? The far righters were celebrating an Obama loss, this much is true, perhaps if he were not busy (with the able assistance of the Main Stream Media) portraying himself as some sort of savior people would actually react to circumstance as opposed to personna.BY Bob on 10/07/2009 at 12:23
LA, Japan, and Australia all made profits. The SLC winter games made massive profits. There are a few countries that blew it but most make millions off of it. That's not to mention the massive infrastructural improvements that are left behind. No Jen, there are no good economic arguments against hosting. It really is just you being unpatriotic.BY Ryan on 10/08/2009 at 03:07
You missed the point Kos. With 45% of Chicagoans against the games, it certainly doesn't look welcoming. Besides, with so many BHO cronies lined up to make billions as Chicago would still be rife with crime, it was loss-loss to the locals while a big win for FOB's. I didn't cheer when Chicago lost the games - I thought 'a loss is a loss' and now look towards 2018/2020. As for the president, he laid the groundwork for defeat by apologizing to everyone who would listen. The world, perhaps, has answered by picking a developing country in a developing continent.BY Michael on 10/08/2009 at 07:06
Yeah, and holding shoe toss contests to celebrate a fanatic's attack on Bush was sooooooooo patriotic. Please, spare us the sanctimoneous hypocrisy.http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/19/686200/-Public-Shoe-Toss-at-Bush!BY Peter on 10/08/2009 at 10:04
You know Kos, it's so refreshing to find you here, outside of your little lefty echo chamber. You spout the normal silliness, but in RL there's a little push back. I know it'll come as a shock, but most people don't share your faith in The Dear Leader, D'ohBama. He's increasingly looking like he's in way over his head. The net effect of Chicago getting the Olympics would have been to enrich a handful of D'ohBama's cronies who own the slums that would be redeveloped into Olympic sites. For the city in general it would have just been another economic blow.The fact that D'ohBama squandered another slice of American prestige on this last ditch effort is yet another example of bad judgment.He's got a lot in common with you Kos, all flashly rhetoric preaching to a mob of star struck sycophants. It doesn't play on Main Street. As you'll find out in 2010, your 15 minutes are about up pal.BY GrouchyOldMan on 10/08/2009 at 11:53
If you don't understand Chicago politics (and you don't) you shouldn't trot it around outside the playpen. That narrowly avoided fiscal catastrophe would have taken down the entire state just to make a few mega wealthy even more mega wealthy.You probably still think Dad Daley's goal was to elect Kennedy in 1960.BY Sideline Observer on 10/08/2009 at 15:50
Yes, there are/were economic cases to be made for Chicago to not host the Olympics. However, I doubt those cheering the negative outcome were doing so based on their beliefs in some deeply held economic principles. Bringing up the Chicago/Olympics economic issues as a response to Markos' opinion (that conservative patriotism is shallow and partisan) makes no sense at all.Let's just say that the true colors of conservatism are becoming apparent, and they ain't red white and blue. Better to embrace the color yellow which at least matches the magnet ribbons on the back of their SUV's.BY ICANREAD on 10/08/2009 at 15:55
Ah, "Peter" goes "nutpicking"… picking out a random user diary on the open Daily Kos site with many thousands of users to point at and go "Ah ha!" What, Pete, couldn't you find a sufficiently anti-Bush screed at DK written by Markos himself, or at least one of the front pagers? It's pretty trivial to dredge up all kinds of hateful, violent, racist sludge by digging through the comments on FreeRepublic or the Fox News website, but what does that show? Next time, if you want to attack Markos, I'd suggest a bit less laziness on your part.BY Rheinhard on 10/08/2009 at 16:05
Kos posits that the right viewed hatred of Bush as a proxy for hatred of America, and with their wires all crossed, now express hatred of America as a proxy for hatred of Obama. Then Peter, above, pushes back by citing to a purportedly "unpatriotic" post on Kos's site — that was anti-Bush! — and accuses Kos of hypocrisy. Does he know that he's helping prove Kos's point? Does he get the point? Does the right ever?BY Cam on 10/08/2009 at 16:08

Add Comment

Name (required)

E-Mail (will not be published) (required)

Your Comments

You need Flash Player 8 (or higher) and JavaScript enabled to view this content

Get latest news from The Hill direct to your inbox, RSS reader and mobile devices.