this post was submitted on
29 points (78% like it)
40 up votes 11 down votes
shortlink:
to anything interesting: news article, blog entry, video, picture...

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

28
29

Tim Thomas skipping the White House trip: unprofessional and hurts the team or simply a man of strong convictions? (self.boston)

submitted ago by nonservitus

His Facebook statement:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People," the message read. "This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

"Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

"This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT"

Different take then the linked article.

With all the talk going on about this today around the office and on the radio I was wondering what the consensus here would be on Tim's decision.

all 64 comments
sorted by:
best
hot
new
controversial
top
old

[–]nonservitus[S] 4 points5 points ago

oops meant to include linked article

[–]Juan_Solo 17 points18 points ago

His right to express himself however he likes. I wish he was less vague.

[–]psychicsword 12 points13 points ago

It probably would hurt the team if he started going into specifics. He isn't running for president he is a goalie and some people would get mad at anything he said.

[–]nonservitus[S] 5 points6 points ago

From what I've heard the arguments focus's around both Juan_ Solo's and Psychicsword's points: individual expression vs. when a professional sports figure should 'take one for the team' and toe the organizations line. In this case it looks like the fans and talking heads are more riled up than the Bruins organization. Cam Neely says it best in MHO "Everybody has their own opinions and political beliefs. He chose not to join us," said Neely. "We certainly would have liked to have him come and join us but that's his choice. All the guys came except for Tim. It's his decision and his choice."

[–]psychicsword 4 points5 points ago

I feel like he would have crossed the line if he truly got political about it. He simply explained why he didn't go in a simple and nonspecific manner which was political but will probably not offend or enrage anyone. Had he gone into specifics he would have been making a true political statement and it wouldn't be an individual choice anymore and I am glad that other people see it that way.

[–]Juan_Solo 1 point2 points ago

I'm left asking, what was the point? Did he do this for himself, or did he want to make a statement? If he wants to make a statement, he shouldn't be vague about it.

[–]psychicsword 0 points1 point ago

If he didn't explain it people would be wondering why he was missing and worry that something was wrong. Him explaining it made it clear that it was an intentional decision on his part and that it was the team's decision or something the White House did.

[–]rafuzo2South End 4 points5 points ago

This. I get the impression he didn't even want to make a statement, but felt compelled to by the media scrutiny. He didn't race to the nearest podium to express his views, and made clear that the short statement he made would be all he says. True, nobody really cares about these guys' political views, but they do have a right to have them and to act in accordance with them, and provide an explanation if questioned.

I hope we can all get back to hockey soon.

[–]NerdyMcNerderson 3 points4 points ago

His right to express himself however he likes.

Agreed. We talked about this yesterday in /r/hockey. Thomas is free to do what he wishes. That's a privilege that Americans have. My only complaint is that Thomas is one of only a few American players on the Bruins (roster) so I personally believe he should have been there for his team but I don't judge him or care that he didn't go.

FTR: Thomas is a Tea Party supporter.

[–]BenacorArea 4 9 points10 points ago

I was upset at first, because he was such a fundamental link to the team's success...

But then I thought about what I would have done if I had ever gotten invited to the White House when Bush was president. If I somehow would have been forced to go, I would have glared at him the entire time, and if he tried to shake my hand, I would have spit in my palm first.

Gotta respect Thomas for being classier than I would have been, especially since he didn't say he didn't like Obama, he didn't like the system (I don't either).

[–]SweetIsland 4 points5 points ago*

Its a disrespect to his team and his country.

You know, I hated Bush. I hated him with a passion. But if I was part of a team of whatever, and our team accomplished something great, and our team was invited to the White House, I would have gone. At the very least out of respect for my teammates.

I was watching Obama's address last night and he mentioned one of his prize possessions was the flag that the Navy Seal's who killed OBL gave him. Each one signed their name it. Imagine one of those Seals refused to sign his name because he didnt like Obama, or because he was a Tea-Partier and didnt like his policies?!? How lame would that be? Is this any different?

edit: from "America and the American People who voted for him.", to just "his country."

[–]MassachoositeNatick 5 points6 points ago

I hated George W. Bush. Hated him.

But if it were me, during that administration, well...

When the President of the United States of America invites you to the White House, you go.

[–]wilkinsk 15 points16 points ago

At first i just thought he was some hardcore republican that can't see anything but his own party (assumingly republican). But his statement really cleared things up. He did it in protest to the american government violating the rights of the people. He claimed that he doesn't care which side is the head man he didn't support what they were doing. just realized you put the whole statement up there. lol. WELL WHAT I'M SAYING IS HE HAD THE BALLS TO STAND UP FOR WHAT HE BELIEVED IN. Big deal if he didn't take a picture with a man in a suit.

[–]nonservitus[S] 2 points3 points ago

I have to admit that my first reaction was "shit Tim's a hardline Repub?" but then his statement made it clear that it isn't a party issue. It's pissed me off that I've seen it framed up as 'dissing Obama' by so many in the news media and radio, as this brings the discussion back to the usual bullshit partisan griping.

[–]arowanNewton 22 points23 points ago

That was a bullshit line intended to somewhat appease the large number of fans he was alienating. Make no mistake, Thomas is a partisan, Tea Party Republican. This is very well documented.

[–]OtterfanSouth End 4 points5 points ago

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People," the message read. "This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

This is pretty standard Republican rhetoric.

[–]ATL_robCharlestown 1 point2 points ago

Unfortunately, they do not practice it.

[–]wilkinsk 1 point2 points ago

That's what i thought too. I didn't see it getting to much heat though.

[–]xieishDorchester 0 points1 point ago

Sorry to break it to you, but most of your athletic idols are conservative rich men. A poll a few years ago found 23 or 24 of the Red Sox 25 man roster were Republicans.

[–]avatarsanshelicopter 0 points1 point ago

For me, it was too vague to make anything clear. Though I am trying not to make assumptions, it sounds just like the language Tea Party candidates use to mystify their right-wing subtext. They're always defending America from tyrants, right?

[–]plytheman 11 points12 points ago

Good on Tim. For starters, he stood by his personal convictions and did what he felt was best, despite what I'm sure was overwhelming pressure from many sides. Regardless of his political stance it takes balls to not meet the President. Second, he's a damn goalie (and a damned good one at that!), not some political figurehead. So long as he keeps stopping everything shot at his net I don't give a fuck what he does publicity wise or in his personal time. Now let's put all this silliness behind us and focus on what matters: crushing the Capitals.

[–]davedavedavedavedaveJamaica Plain 2 points3 points ago

Somehow he managed to make ANOTHER Bruins event ALL ABOUT HIM.

[–]g-rob2 2 points3 points ago

He should have shook Obama's hand and told him to his face that he didn't like what's going on, instead of sitting behind while the rest of his team went to Washington. I'm all for people expressing their opinions but IMHO he could have gone about it a better way.

[–]DastardlyBarnacle 2 points3 points ago

It was a dick move and I lost respect for him.

Like the piece said (paraphrased), it wasn't about politics until he made it so. Guy should have put on his game face and joined his team. It wasn't about him that day.

[–]RumBoxWellington-Harrington 6 points7 points ago

He's surely within his rights, so a big "whatever" from a political standpoint.

From a sporting perspective, on the other hand, it's a pissy, selfish distraction from what ought to have been a really nice moment for the whole team. You're there to be recognized for being a great hockey player, Timmy, not to endorse whatever martian conspiracy crap you think the president's getting up to.

Also, the whole government-out-of-control stance is gonna be pretty funny when he and the rest of the NHL Players Association square off with the league this fall backed by collective bargaining rights he wouldn't have without the bad ol' gummint.

Maybe in the future he could focus his silly-assed polemics on a better target. Or hell, maybe he could just stop doing ads for the corrupt financial giants that got us into our current predicament.

/still loves TT, really hated this whole episode.

[–]zeppelinfromled 1 point2 points ago

If you disagree with something and you're given the stage to make that known, you should do it. Some would say it would be irresponsible not to.

[–]RumBoxWellington-Harrington 0 points1 point ago

He was NOT "given the stage to make that known." He was invited to meet the President of the United States, not make the State of the Union speech for him.

He took the limelight because he behaved like a toddler, it wasn't his to begin with.

[–]zeppelinfromled 2 points3 points ago

The fact that we're discussing it right now means that he had the stage. He had the chance to make his point and for people to hear it. That is the definition of having the stage.

And apparently making a political statement in a public way is now known as "behaving like a toddler." Thanks for the update on that.

[–]xieishDorchester 1 point2 points ago

The fact that we're discussing it right now means that he had the stage. He had the chance to make his point and for people to hear it. That is the definition of having the stage.

Sort of. You can make your own stage. Horrible example, but did Osama bin Laden have the stage on 9/11? No. He made his own. We weren't paying attention to him.

I know what you mean - it wouldn't be a news story if you or I declined to go to the White House, but there is a political (and tactful) difference between "having the stage" and making a political statement and simply being in the limelight.

He put himself ahead of the team. Nobody was honoring Tim Thomas, they were honoring the Boston Bruins. He bailed on his team and made the event about him.

[–]Avant-Gardien 8 points9 points ago

He took a non-political event, being honored by the President (e.g. the Office of the President, not President Obama), and turned it into a political one. While he has every right to, it remains an unprofessional move in making himself the center of attention and detracting from his team's big day.

[–]zeppelinfromled 2 points3 points ago

Being honored by the President (the individual or the office) is inherently a political event, and using that stage to make a statement about politics is completely appropriate, especially considering that he's the only American who's a significant player on the team.

[–]xieishDorchester 2 points3 points ago

Being honored by the President (the individual or the office) is inherently a political event,

This is untrue. The Office of the President has honored sports teams and players who win championships for years, regardless of who is in office, regardless of their leanings, or their personal interest in the sport.

This is the highest individual in the land honoring the best of the best athletes in the land. It is not a political event.

[–]zeppelinfromled 0 points1 point ago

Perhaps Thomas doesn't think that the President should be the highest individual in the land, and is using this as an opportunity to say so.

[–]xieishDorchester 0 points1 point ago

That is not up for debate. That is not an issue that anyone has ever raised before. The President is the Head of State and Head of Government, unlike other countries where the office is only Head of Government.

[–]zeppelinfromled 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that certain things are off limits in this discussion. Are you the grand arbiter who decides what is and isn't up for debate?

The president is the head of the federal government. There are many people who believe that the states should have more power than the federal government. That is why the president may or may not be the "highest individual in the land."

[–]xieishDorchester 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry but I get the idea you don't understand what we are actually talking about. You are arguing against Article II of the US Constitution, which nobody has (to my knowledge) ever tried to argue before - that the President should not be Head of State.

The President is Head of State, that is not and never will be up for discussion. Would you propose having the 50 state legislatures meet and select one? That's actually how we used to choose the President, so welp.

There are many people who believe that the states should have more power than the federal government.

Having "more power" or "less power" are not up for debate. Constitutionally, the Federal Government supersedes the State Government in areas where it has chosen to act. It doesn't matter if the states had all of the power and we had a very limited Federal Government - the President would still be Head of State. It's not a power, it's a diplomatic position and a title. In England the Queen is Head of State, the Prime Minister Head of Government. It is not a political position.

[–]zeppelinfromled 0 points1 point ago

I'm not saying that the president isn't or shouldn't be head of state, but that head of state shouldn't be as powerful of a position as it is, because the federal government shouldn't be as powerful as it is (I'm not actually saying that, but there are people who believe it). Are you familiar with the concept of states' rights? There are certain powers that are reserved for the states. There are many who would say that the federal government has too much power and that more issues should be left up to the states. And since these people believe that the states should have more power and the federal government less, that means that the president isn't the most important person in the country ("highest individual in the land" in your words) to them. Perhaps that person is the governor of their state.

Perhaps we are arguing different points, but I don't need your condescension with "you don't understand what we're talking about."

[–]xieishDorchester 1 point2 points ago*

Perhaps we are arguing different points, but I don't need your condescension with "you don't understand what we're talking about."

I'm sorry you don't need it, but you still do not grasp what I am saying. Head of State is a title that has very little power. It means that you represent your nation on the global stage, that's mostly it.

The Queen has no power, she is head of state. The Presidential power is not derived from serving as head of state, and no extra powers are given to the President over the 50 United States because of it. This is not an American issue. Every single country that is globally ercognized has a head of state, regardless of their system of government. A monarchy has a head of state, a dictatorship has a head of state, a military rule has a head of state. A strong US Federal government needs a head of state.

I'm sorry, I'm an adult, and you are incorrect. It doesn't matter who you feel is the "most powerful" person. It doesn't matter how you feel about States Rights. If you are a member of a nation state, you have a head of state. They do not need to be head of government, which is where the power lies. You're upset or arguing about a powerless title, and I believe continue to misunderstand the issues at hand.

You've completely created an issue that I have never encountered in all of my years studying law and politics and somehow decided that Tim Thomas is protesting Barack Obama holding the title of "Head of State," which honestly should have been dismissed with a hand wave. I've tried to articulate why it is a non-issue as best I can, and have no time to further explain it.

If you personally want to argue politics and drastically amend the Constitution (Article II, specifically) to reduce the power of the president, that's fine. He would still be head of state. Even if he wasn't somehow, someone still would be, and they would invite the Bruins to the White House, or whatever their residence is (Buckingham Palace for example).

[–]zeppelinfromled 0 points1 point ago

I'm sorry, I'm an adult, and you are incorrect

First, what the fuck kind of a statement is that? Don't be a douche.

Now, you clearly don't understand what I'm saying. You seem to have seized onto my use of the phase "head of state" and refuse to let go, even though that's essentially irrelevant to my point.

Let me be as clear as possible. Earlier in this conversation, you described Barack Obama (and indeed anyone who holds the presidency) as "the highest individual in the land." Unless the president is vacationing at the peak of Mt. Whitney, I'm assuming you mean that he's the most powerful person in the country. If I misunderstood you due to your poor phrasing, please let me know now.

Now, if I understood you correctly, you're saying that the president is the most powerful person in the country. Tim Thomas does not believe that the federal government should have so much political power, and that the president shouldn't have so much political power. He is therefore protesting the power that is held by both the federal government and the president by declining his invitation.

That is as clear as I can make my point.

[–]jaredbBrighton 0 points1 point ago

Shut up TD

[–]WunderSader 12 points13 points ago

Really unprofessional and childish (and I know I will get downvoted for this)

I don't have any problems with his views and he has every right to do this. However, you should respect the office and the country it represents. If you really have a problem with how the country is being run then get involved and try to actually change something. It seems like he's pouting.

[–]zeppelinfromled 10 points11 points ago

It seems to me that he is getting involved and making a statement about his beliefs, and that you don't actually support his doing so.

[–]WunderSader -2 points-1 points ago

You can have an honest discussion about your concerns and still respect the wishes of the commander in chief.

I really didn't like Bush, I didn't vote for him, and I would have been happy to talk to anyone in government or the media as to why I felt that way. However, if he was honoring me on behalf of the american people and invited me to the white house, I would go. Not because I agree with him but because I would still respect him, because I love this country and because he was still my president. I guess for me it comes down to a respect thing, you can disagree with Obama but not going seems disrespectful.

[–]zeppelinfromled 4 points5 points ago

But as he said, it's not about who the person is, but about the role of the federal government.

I would still respect him, because I love this country and because he was still my president.

I think that statement sums up the difference in your views. I can't speak for Thomas, but the kind of people I know who would make that kind of statement don't feel that they owe the president anything. The president's job is to serve the people, not the other way around.

[–]WunderSader 1 point2 points ago

I don't feel as though I owe the president anything.

I think it has more to do with how you view the government. I believe Tim Thomas would go to the White House if he agreed with the president's political views. I think you can separate an incumbent's political views with the office itself. It's analogous to how I may not agree with going to war, but I will always support those who choose to serve in the military.

[–]zeppelinfromled 2 points3 points ago

I don't disagree with anything that you said, necessarily. But if there were a president who believed something with which I disagreed very strongly, and I were in Thomas' position, I would make a statement about that by not going. Would it be disrespectful? Sure, maybe. But standing up for what I believe and making that statement would be more important to me.

[–]WunderSader 0 points1 point ago

Makes sense. I guess I just see it differently - thanks for the perspective.

[–]r0b0d0c -1 points0 points ago*

I can't speak for Thomas, the kind of people I know who would make that kind of statement don't feel that they owe the president anything.

No, he owes his team and his fans (you know, the people who pay his salary). It's not all about you, Tim.

[–]zeppelinfromled 0 points1 point ago

He owes them what, exactly? He owes them doing his best to stop every puck from going in the goal. How does meeting the president play into that? Perhaps he feels that he owes his country, so he's doing what he can to make a statement about something that he thinks will improve the country.

[–]nonservitus[S] 2 points3 points ago

I agreed with your statement initially since 'respect the office and the country it represents' resonated on an emotional level. After some reflection though couldn't this be his way of trying to 'get involved and try to actually change something' by making a pretty professional statement about his beliefs and taking an adult stance based on the fact he 'really has a problem with how the country is being run.' Tim doesn't strike me as naive and had to know full well that his actions would cause spirited discussion in the news and amongst fans. It's not often that as professional athletes you have a chance to make a nationwide statement outside of the field/ court/ rink you play on, and it looks like he took the opportunity to me.

[–]I_Am_Not_Legend 1 point2 points ago

I support his expression, however what I find interesting is this story compared to The Dixie Chicks. Remember the shit storm they set off? Boycotts, protests and CD smashings? With pro sports being monopolies (for all intents and purposes) is it really fair to use that platform to promote one's ideas? Instead of 'shut up & sing' maybe 'shut up & and keep getting 30 plus saves per game'. I ultimately think there's interesting message about the current political climate.

[–]GyantSpyder 0 points1 point ago

The people who hated the Dixie Chicks weren't really trying to defend political neutrality in music - it's just that country music fans tend to lean Republican. So it was a tactical argument against their criticism of Bush.

That and they didn't want to be lectured by women, because of gender norms - especially women they viewed as professional sex objects.

You didn't see them saying any of the same things about Toby Keith, despite a far larger portion of his work being politically aligned, because he was right-wing and because he was a dude.

[–]I_Am_Not_Legend 0 points1 point ago

You're right and make a good point. I see a reflection of attitudes towards dissent being part of the issue. As much as I admire Mr. Thomas as a goalie, I think the next few games I'll be wondering what sort of man airs his grievances on FB instead of addressing the President in person.

I'm thrilled that I can chose to never buy Toby Keith records, however because of federal laws I can neither root for Boston's (my city) other hockey team nor can I start the 'Cambridge Chomsky's' to compete in the NHL.

[–]lucide 1 point2 points ago

Man of strong convictions, which is very admirable. Helps he's absolutely right though. ;-)

[–]blahblahblah1532 1 point2 points ago

This is why the political opinions of athletes, musicians, and actors should be given absolutely zero attention. You can be an amazing actor or a great hockey player, and still be a political moron.

[–]campbellsehSullivan Square 1 point2 points ago

I support any man who believes in his right as an individual. Even more for a man who rejects a visit to a head of states office.

[–]toasterbCentral 1 point2 points ago

I think it would have shown stronger convictions, and commitment to the honor being bestowed upon your team, to go and actually say something to him. Not rudely, but just make a point politely and quietly. Not respecting those with different views and not being willing to have a conversation with them is how we have ended up with such a divisive political system in the first place, and he's just feeding into it.

It's not a political event. This is a traditional event held for champions of all of the major sports (and a lot of college teams). A quick, and by no means thorough, google search seems to show that there has been an uptick of no-shows at the meetings with the President since Obama took office. Notable conservatives Tony LaRussa, Albert Pujols, and Dan Hampton (1985 Chicago Bears anniversary) have all been absent. All this in spite of the fact that Obama hasn't done anything really controversial like going to war unprovoked. (James Harrison of the Steelers no-showed, but he did so for Bush as well, and I don't think it's going out on a limb to say he's a bit out there)

Also, he's a big Tea Party guy, and as much as he says that he blames both parties for the state of the nation, I think we all know who Tea Partiers end up voting for.

Edit: missed a word

[–][deleted] 3 points4 points ago

I'm a Lib who voted for Obama and I probably wouldn't go given the chance. The federal government can "disappear" me at any time but Obama promises he won't. I'm so glad he's going to be President forever.

[–]deadkennedyUnion Square 0 points1 point ago

TT should stick to being a good goalie and keep his politics to himself. That's what the right wing always says when a famous liberal speaks out, right?

[–]UserNumber42 -5 points-4 points ago

A man of convictions, why shake the hand of a guy who murders civilians in your name? I would do the same thing, regardless of party these days.

[–]ATL_robCharlestown -2 points-1 points ago

So he is a Ron Paul supporter? Has he publicly endorsed him yet? As a border line Socialist, I hate Paul's stance on a lot of things, but am less fearful of him due to his stance on civil liberties and human rights.

Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our User Agreement and Privacy Policy. © 2012 reddit inc. All rights reserved.

REDDIT and the ALIEN Logo are registered trademarks of reddit inc.

π Rendered by PID 21553 on app-188 running 86c9e1d.