1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYZEGot-xU4

2.http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/19/will-obama-inauguration-end-bush-derangement-syndrome

3.http://sweetness-light.com/archive/taxpayer-supported-america-hating-501c3-charities

the hatred, from both sides, has led us to where we are right now. and where is that?we are citizens of a once great nation that is dying. hope you enjoyed your stay.

Does anyone other than politicians really think so? All other Olympics in recent memory have cost billions of dollars that was never made back while disrupting local industry, displacing residents (see Beijing), and leaving behind monstrous facilities that had no economically viable use afterwards. Montreal 1976 was such a financial disaster that the city *just* finished paying it off, 30 years later.

Sincerely,
The loyal opposition

I think it’s arguable–and in fact, fairly conclusive in the negative–that the Olympics would provide an economic boon to its host city and country. As evidence…

(Wish more blog comments had an ‘edit’ button!)

More directly to your argument, I think you have to characterize Obama’s Olympics pitch as a massive public relations mis-step. It plays directly into the most damning narrative about him: that he’s a guy that injects himself into situations he knows nothing about. And since it’s too early to get a substantive read on whether his other initiatives–the stimulus, auto bailout, or health care efforts–are successes, this works as a pretty good (and damaging) metaphor. Whoever told him Chicago was a front-runner in this Olympics voting is someone he should never listen to again.

Finally, regarding Brooks’ column, I think he’s dead-on: the right-wing nut jobs get a lot of media attention, but speak for a smaller group than they themselves proclaim, provable by the sheer number of election initiatives they champion, yet fail to pass. The GOP’s problem is the lack of reasonable-sounding party members (which do exist) that have been willing to speak up. Whether they decide to before 2012 is anyone’s guess, but it would be a healthy thing for both parties if that happened.

Indeed an interesting piece, but I think Brooks actually proves his theory is incorrect. Just because the masses didn’t go out and get their guy into the primary or Rush’s minions didn’t vote for Hillary, it doesn’t mean they don’t have sway over the GOP. Brook’s last paragraphs are proof that intentional or not, Rush, Beck, Malkin and the rest are driving the direction of the GOP.

When Beck goes on the air and uses his position on FOX News to organize a rally of tens of thousands of people (1.5 million if you believe the right-wing) and when no self-respecting GOP senator is willing to cross Rush in the media without apologizing for it days later, then those figures have influence.

I don’t doubt that they have less sway in the center-right than they do on the fringe, but the problem is that every day that passes with the amount of hate being spewed towards the administration, the fringe grows and grows.

Intersting piece in The Times about how these right wing “media giants” might not be as big and powerful as they would like you to believe.

And, as memory serves, under your guy, your team felt that giving the Prez anything less then fervent, full-throated support was treason. Guess when the shoe’s on the other foot, that rule goes out the window.

I don’t blame Obama for the Olympics, but I also know that if Chicago had won, liberals like you would use that as more evidence that Obama is Jesus Christ.

There is a mirror in your house, I’m sure. Maybe you should look at it sometime and see if you can find your integrity.