Tim Thomas declines White House invitation

This is kind of old news by now, but I was curious what you all would think of it. For those who didn't hear about it, Tim Thomas is the goalie for the Boston Bruins, who won the Stanley Cup last year, and he declined to go when the team was invited to the White House on January 23. The reason he gave was:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.
"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"

Me, I have no problem with what he's saying. In fact, I completely agree that reigning in spending is critical to reducing the deficit. BUT, I have a BIG problem with mixing politics with sports, and I would feel the same way no matter who was the President. To me, if you're a sports figure, and you get invited to the White House, YOU GO. Going is not, in any way, an endorsement of the policies of the current president, or of his politics, nor is that an appropriate time to make a political statement. And I'm sorry Mr. Thomas, you can say "This was not about politics" but it WAS and you KNOW it.

Thoughts?

I mostly agree, Roadtoad, but I can see a difference between the team being invited and one person being invited personally. Snub a personal invitation, you're a hothead trying to score political points.

I'm cool with what he did, its a choice and as JCB mentioned it was a team invite not individual. As far as mixing sports and politics it has been going on for years. GW attending a NASCAR race, Michelle O doing the same thing. Barry O and the NBA. Barry O doing march madness brackets or talking about college football and on and on....Just the appearance of the potus at certain events leans toward campaigning for votes or showing love to his base voters.
To me, they have no place doing any of this. The country is in trouble and the last thing I want to see is the potus yuckin it up with sports figures. Jmo.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;479366]This is kind of old news by now, but I was curious what you all would think of it. For those who didn't hear about it, Tim Thomas is the goalie for the Boston Bruins, who won the Stanley Cup last year, and he declined to go when the team was invited to the White House on January 23. The reason he gave was:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.
"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"

Me, I have no problem with what he's saying. In fact, I completely agree that reigning in spending is critical to reducing the deficit. BUT, I have a BIG problem with mixing politics with sports, and I would feel the same way no matter who was the President. To me, if you're a sports figure, and you get invited to the White House, YOU GO. Going is not, in any way, an endorsement of the policies of the current president, or of his politics, nor is that an appropriate time to make a political statement. And I'm sorry Mr. Thomas, you can say "This was not about politics" but it WAS and you KNOW it.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

Do you have an equal problem with "entertainers" mixing entertainment and politics. They make political statements all the time.

I understand where you're going with this, but be FAIR.

Later,

Geo

I completely respect the decision that Tim Thomas made. Not that the occasion would every occur, but I'd make the same choice. I could not give even tacit approval of the current POTUS.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;479372]Do you have an equal problem with "entertainers" mixing entertainment and politics. They make political statements all the time.

I understand where you're going with this, but be FAIR.

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]
I don't particularly like it when "entertainers" (movie stars, rock stars or whatever) start spouting off about politics, either, but I see it as a different situation. I mean, if it had been just someone asking him what he felt about it, fine, let him make all the political statements he wants. People are going to take it with a rock of salt, anyway, just like they would from an entertainer. I just feel like the event should have been about sports, and sports alone, and that him going would not have meant even tacit approval of Obama's politics. Then again, I guess Obama probably used the occasion to make some kind of political statement, so fair is fair.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;479366]This is kind of old news by now, but I was curious what you all would think of it. For those who didn't hear about it, Tim Thomas is the goalie for the Boston Bruins, who won the Stanley Cup last year, and he declined to go when the team was invited to the White House on January 23. The reason he gave was:

"I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People.
"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"

Me, I have no problem with what he's saying. In fact, I completely agree that reigning in spending is critical to reducing the deficit. BUT, I have a BIG problem with mixing politics with sports, and I would feel the same way no matter who was the President. To me, if you're a sports figure, and you get invited to the White House, YOU GO. Going is not, in any way, an endorsement of the policies of the current president, or of his politics, nor is that an appropriate time to make a political statement. And I'm sorry Mr. Thomas, you can say "This was not about politics" but it WAS and you KNOW it.

Thoughts?[/QUOTE]

I agree with his reasoning, but do not like his decision. This is a team celebration for winning a title and he should be with his teammates at the White House. IMO it is disrespectful to the team, the occasion and to the office.

[QUOTE=RoadToad;479383]I don't particularly like it when "entertainers" (movie stars, rock stars or whatever) start spouting off about politics, either, but I see it as a different situation. I mean, if it had been just someone asking him what he felt about it, fine, let him make all the political statements he wants. People are going to take it with a rock of salt, anyway, just like they would from an entertainer. I just feel like the event should have been about sports, and sports alone, and that him going would not have meant even tacit approval of Obama's politics. Then again, I guess Obama probably used the occasion to make some kind of political statement, so fair is fair.[/QUOTE]

The Oscars should be about the MOVIES and MOVIES alone.
The Grammies should be about MUSIC and MUSIC alone.
The Tonies should be about BROADWAY and BROADWAY alone....
The Peoples Choice Awards should be about ..................

You get my drift.......your stance is very, hypocritical.......at least in this case.........

Later,

Geo

I respect him I think it is time to stand up for what we believe; it is a shame the entire team did not turn down the invite.

[QUOTE=GeoFisher;479385]The Oscars should be about the MOVIES and MOVIES alone.
The Grammies should be about MUSIC and MUSIC alone.
The Tonies should be about BROADWAY and BROADWAY alone....
The Peoples Choice Awards should be about ..................

You get my drift.......your stance is very, hypocritical.......at least in this case.........

Later,

Geo[/QUOTE]
Not sure what you're saying is hypocritical. I'm just saying that, as I originally posted, I really thing this whole thing should have been about sports, and sports only, and I don't like the fact that Thomas made it about politics, BUT (and I'm not even sure if he really did this or not), knowing Obama, he himself may have used the event to make political hay, and if he did, then I'll give Thomas a pass, because the event had already been politicized.

Yes, you're right, the Oscars, Tonies, those things shouldn't be about politics, either. But if entertainers or sports figures are asked about their political views, which they ARE all the time, I don't have a problem with them answering. It shouldn't happen in the setting of one of those awards ceremonies, but if they're just being interviewed, that's fine.