Sports of the Times
Ubiquitous
provided us with considerable amusement. A Saturday editorial gently chided
the administration:
As for why Mr. Obama went--especially if he wasn't sure Chicago
would win--here are two possible explanations: One, Mr. Obama,
and his White House chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, another Chicagoan,
love a good competition; the other is that they have a tad too
much confidence in Mr. Obama's hortatory powers.
We like having an articulate, fiercely competitive president,
especially one with such a strong moral compass. But guys, if
you're going to roll the dice, next time make sure the stakes
are worth it.
Twenty bucks says the Times does not come around to opposing a roll of the
dice when the stakes are one-sixth of the nation's economy and all of our
lives.
The same day, the paper published an op-ed piece by John R. Miller of the
conservative Discovery Institute, titled "Nobody Likes Us? Who Cares?"
Although not specifically pegged to the Olympics, the piece made an excellent
point:
Which surveys should President Obama pay attention to--the
ones that suggest approval of his leadership or the more
negative appraisals? The answer is neither. His only concern
should be whether favorable public opinion abroad will help
him achieve America's own goals, and there is little evidence
that that is the case.
Rather, history suggests that there is only one sure way for
President Obama to ensure the popularity of the United States
abroad: reduce the power of the United States or simply don't
exercise it--either militarily, economically or even diplomatically.
The world simply distrusts the big guy on the block, and the
only way to address this is to stop behaving like a superpower.
A much better option, of course, would be to pay less attention
to foreign opinion surveys and more to our own ideals and interests.
It might have been useful to the Times's readers had the paper aired this
excellent argument back when George W. Bush was president.
Today former Enron adviser Paul Krugman weighs in, irate about conservative
schadenfreude over the Olympic slip-up:
"Cheers erupted" at the headquarters of the conservative
Weekly Standard, according to a blog post by a member of
the magazine's staff, with the headline "Obama loses! Obama
loses!" Rush Limbaugh declared himself "gleeful." "World
Rejects Obama," gloated the Drudge Report. And so on. . . .
The episode illustrated an essential truth about the state
of American politics: at this point, the guiding principle
of one of our nation's two great political parties is spite
pure and simple. If Republicans think something might be
good for the president, they're against it--whether or not
it's good for America.
To be sure, while celebrating America's rebuff by the Olympic
Committee was puerile, it didn't do any real harm. But the
same principle of spite has determined Republican positions
on more serious matters, with potentially serious consequences.
So, in case you're keeping score at home:
Rooting for terrorists who wantonly murder women and children to beat America
in a war: the highest form of patriotism.
Rooting for Rio to get the Olympics: treason.
--
It's now time for healing, and for fixing the damage the Democrats did
to America.