Note to self: if you’re going to show-up the president and your team, and polarize America in the process, make a bigger statement than a Facebook message.
Yes folks, I get Timmy was trying to make a point—and he did, kinda—but he could have really went the distance.
I have two major critiques:
1) Tim could have made public his plans not to attend before the day of— getting it out there in the news so his team wasn’t overshadowed by his right to exercise individual freedoms. I’m all about individual freedoms and enjoying them, but Tim, who knew about this event well before it happened, could have given the media a heads up so that his team didn’t get stuck with explaining “well, uh, the thing is Mr. Obama… Tim hates you” while at the president’s house. If you’re going to do something like this, which is totally all about you, do it in a way that doesn’t screw up the attention earned by your teammates who may not agree with your stance on things.
2) Get your money’s worth. I can respect you for wanting to be radical with your freedom, but this wasn’t radical. After reading Tim’s Facebook message (really? A fucking Facebook message is how we tell off the president these days?) I couldn’t help but notice his beefs sounded a more like the generalized rumblings so often found on the lips of those who like to complain but don’t exactly know what they’re complaining about. Was there any real item Tim was mad about in particular? His message sounded like Tea Party regurgitation, which is rather sad. I mean, if you’re going to no-show a team party from president and piss off at least half of the country, say why, be specific, draw attention to exactly what you want people to know. Don’t just say that the government is out of control, it’s both parties fault, and you’re mad. The only statement something like, “this government is broken and I’m not going to participate in a party because of it” makes is the one declaring you to be a jack-ass. That’s so general it’s almost elitist. Tim, you just got to do something so many other people would love to do (engage President Obama personally about his policies) and the best you could come up with is a Facebook message? Talk about getting zero bang for your buck.
Can’t say I agree. First, he told his team well beforehand that he did not plan to attend, so they would not be surprised – they’re the only ones he owes that courtesy to; I sense he had no idea what publicity this would generate.
Also: I think he made it clear that this was about a PERSONAL viewpoint. His statement was simple enough; he believes the federal government has gotten too big for its britches. I think if he wrote a lenghty manifesto, he would have come off as an extreme or easier to criticize. He is, after all, just an athlete, content to let others have the intellectual battle – he just tried to follow his convictions.
I don’t get the criticism that he wasn’t radical enough. What does that mean, and why does it matter?
I agree completely. Especially with His message sounded like Tea Party regurgitation. It was like “Hey, I have Something Important to say,” and then he just vomited up vague, generic Tea Party rhetoric.
I understand wanting to make a point and standing up for your beliefs, but there are ways to do it without coming off like a selfish tool.
Am I allowed to say tool here? I guess I’ll find out.
Interesting perspective. I’d add that the president serves both a political and a ceremonial function. In other countries, those duties are split (for example, the U.K. has the Queen as ceremonial head of state, but the prime minister as political head of government).
An invitation to the White House for a championship team is essentially a ceremonial, not political, function, so even if I had significant disagreements with the sitting president, I’d likely politely attend and smile anyhow, as the event is a ceremonial honor for the team, and not the team in any way endorsing the politics of the president.
Thomas is of course free to attend or not, and respond however he sees fit (or not at all, if he so chooses). The first amendment guarantees him that right. But we’re able to listen to him, ignore him, and judge him by whatever individual standards we choose, also.
I agree with Dirk: if you’re going to protest, it would be much better to raise a more specific, concrete complaint. That would at least make it clearer why you object.
My issue is, I don’t completely believe Tim Thomas. Let’s assume the sitting president were Republican and spending were out of control – which was increasingly the case under Obama’s predecessor and will likely still be the case should we have a new president in 2013. Do we honestly believe Tim Thomas would have boycotted the visit in those circumstances? I don’t.
old news here but I still want to chime in….
T-E-A-M… no “I” in team. Thomas (my fav player btw) garnered the Stanley Cup and all of his individual awards (Vezina Trophy, All Star Team, Conn Smythe) thru a total team effort. He would have achieved none of these – zero – na da, if he had played those games by himself – one goalie against 5 skaters and a goalie. So you “suck it up” attend the ceremony and stand in the background if you disagree. And the stats don’t lie: pre-White House visit team W/L stats: 31-14 .689 win %; post-White House W/L stats: 9-15 .375 Win %… and Thomas’s personal stats: pre-White House GAA: 2.12; post-White House GAA: 3.07. … along with a lot of rumblings about sour club house chemistry.. only Garfoose knows for sure
Coincidence?