Who’s Afraid of 2016?
From the kind-of-creepy official White House Twitter:
Reality Check on the Olympics: Fox News Trying to Turn a Point of Pride into a Moment of Shame http://bit.ly/RsRXJ
Once you click on the link, you’ll find a familiar looking “Rhetoric vs. Reality” format that the White House bloggers seem so content with using, even when they try to make hilariously hair-splitting points.
RHETORIC: BECK SAID VANCOUVER LOST $1 BILLION WHEN IT “HAD THE OLYMPICS.”
REALITY: VANCOUVER’S OLYMPICS WILL NOT TAKE PLACE UNTIL 2010.
RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT “WAS LAST SEEN WITH THE NEA.”
REALITY: VALERIE JARRETT WAS NOT ON THE NEA CONFERENCE CALL.
RHETORIC: CHICAGO IS CLOSING THE GOVERNMENT SEVERAL DAYS A WEEK BECAUSE THEY CANNOT AFFORD TO BE OPEN.
REALITY: CHICAGO HAS HAD ONE REDUCED-SERVICE DAY IN 2009, AND WILL HAVE TWO MORE ON THE FRIDAY AFTER THANKSGIVING AND ON CHRISTMAS EVE.
RHETORIC: VALERIE JARRETT WILL BENEFIT FINANCIALLY.
REALITY: UPON ENTERING GOVERNMENT, VALERIE JARRETT DIVESTED ALL HER REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT HOLDINGS EXCEPT FOR A SINGLE INVESTMENT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE OLYMPIC BID.
What is the White House so scared of?
Why do they see it necessary to go out of their way to “debunk” staggeringly trivial (and essentially truthful) claims made on one episode of Glenn Beck by Democrat strategist Pat Caddell?
And why do they go out of their way to insist upon the innocence of Valerie Jarrett?
I think most reasonable observers would conclude that the White House is simply afraid of another Van Jones situation here, especially with Obama leaving for Copenhagen so soon. There are so many problems with hosting the Olympics in Chicago, and to get a peek at the Daley Machine in action for 2016, check out Michelle Malkin’s brilliant column from this week.
It’s absolutely embarrassing that a move towards hosting the Summer Olympics in the US for the first time since Atlanta in 1996 could be so fraught with corruption at its genesis. As far as the other contenders go, you have Madrid (undesirable, especially in light of the fact that their government was overthrown in 2004 by Islamic terrorists and is now controlled by Socialist Zapatero), Rio (also undesirable, especially since Brazil is led by Chavez buddy and professional racist Lula de la Silva), and Tokyo (probably the most solid choice, except now less-US-friendly Hatoyama is PM). As far as the positives go, Brazil has the most to gain as far as proving themselves on the world stage. And hey, the government in charge can’t be much worse than Beijing in 2008 (and as far as corruption goes, London in 2012.)
As much as I would enjoy seeing the Olympics stay in the US, and see Chi-Town undergo a revitalization (which has been spearheaded by the revamped Sears “Willis” Tower), I’m afraid that the people in charge simply can’t make it happen. And if Daley (or Obama for that matter) want the 2016 Olympics to be just another jewel in their crowns, then the Games will turn out to be more of an embarrassment than a “point of pride”.
Sadly, it seems like every year (or, rather, four years) the Olympics turn into a political spectacle.
I remain hopeful that having the Olympics in the US will allow for the smallest margin of corruption. And if President Obama (if he’s still President by then) really wants to “improve our standing in the world”, he ought to be personally responsible for making these games as transparent as possible.