# Stanley cup winner snubs President for political reasons **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 24, 2012, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460 "2012-01-24T02:14:26Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![Guinastasia](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guinastasia/32/5751_2.png) [@Guinastasia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Guinastasia)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/161 "2012-01-27T04:50:29Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > Thomas could have issued a statement a day or two before the event, saying he wouldn’t go for whatever reasons, but instead chose to issue a statement afterwards, only once people started asking where the reigning Vezina, Conne Smyth and Stanley Cup winning goalie (complete with statistics records) was. He made it about him, rather than politely and discreetly declining the invitation, congratulating his team and letting them enjoy the event if they chose to. In a way, he took some of their happiness away in the name of his politics. > > So, it’s not _what_ he did that I dislike, it’s _how he did it_. That’s a good point. He could have just said, “I’m not attending for ‘personal reasons’”. That could mean pretty much anything, really. Yeah, people would speculate, but you know, it probably would have done a lot less damage. But I mean, this was the first time the Bruins had won the Cup since 1972. The last time Bobby Orr was playing with them, and Nixon was in office. (I’ll confess though: I still love his commercial for “Discover Card”. Where he gets in the cab and it turns out the driver’s obsessed with him? That’s one of my favorites) ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/162 "2012-01-27T06:00:06Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > I would not be surprised in the slightest to find that part of the employment contract for most sports players includes attendance at promotional and other non-sporting events. It would be interesting to know if this is the case here or not. > [@Muffin](#): > > An NHL Standard Player Contract will have terms setting out that the player will participate in promotion of his club and cooperate in the promotion of the League and professional hockey, and will conduct himself with the highest standards and refrain from conduct detrimental to his club, the League, or profesisonal hockey. That’s a condensation of the relevant clauses from the NHL’s Standard Player Contract. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 6:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/163 "2012-01-27T06:11:39Z")
> [@ch4rl3s](#): > > So, you think it’s okay to fire someone for their political views? Can you be fired for yours as well, then? This strikes me as a very disturbing precedent. I didn’t say anything of the sort. I said I thought his _actions_, not his views, ran against team spirit, and as such were I the coach of his sports team, I would have shown him the door. I’m not much one for sports, especially team sports, precisely because this sort of esprit de corps is expected and enforced. But I understand why it is - that’s how teams work and how they get to play well and in a coordinated fashion. > [@](#): > > I disagree with those who think an invite to the White House isn’t political. It isn’t necessary for the president to congratulate them like this. It’s not necessary, but it is apparently traditional. What kind of political points would you think Obama was scoring or trying to score here ? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/164 "2012-01-27T13:40:03Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > I’m not much one for sports, especially team sports, precisely because this sort of esprit de corps is expected and enforced. But I understand why it is - that’s how teams work and how they get to play well and in a coordinated fashion. On the ice, sure. Off the ice, as long as it doesn’t affect play, I don’t see how it is any of their business. > [@](#): > > It’s not necessary, but it is apparently traditional. What kind of political points would you think Obama was scoring or trying to score here ? By being associated with winning sports figures. It is one of the perks associated with being an incumbent President. It’s the same reason that commercial products hire sports figures as spokesmen. They want to associate their product with someone popular and successful. Thomas chose not to give Obama that opportunity, because (apparently) he disagrees with Obama’s politics. That’s fine - Thomas is a citizen like everyone else, and owes no duty of service to Obama. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 2:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/165 "2012-01-27T14:47:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > By being associated with winning sports figures. It is one of the perks associated with being an incumbent President. Rubbish. The President also fetes the NCAA womens’ volleyball champions. Does anyone really think these absurd ceremonies are vote winners? ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 2:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/166 "2012-01-27T14:56:28Z")
> [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](#): > > Rubbish. The President also fetes the NCAA womens’ volleyball champions. Does anyone really think these absurd ceremonies are vote winners? Frankly, the image of a President “feting” anyone is off-putting. :dubious: But yes, there’s some political advantage seen in participating in these ceremonial events. It’s a calculation built into just about any public Presidential appearance you could name. It’s hard to believe that many people could get bent out of shape over whether one hockey team member shows up for a meaningless White House event. We’re not talking about disrepecting the Emperor of Everything. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 3:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/167 "2012-01-27T15:00:54Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s fine - Thomas is a citizen like everyone else, and owes no duty of service to Obama. Apparently, however, he likely owed a duty of service to the Bruins, and failed to appear. Whether they’ll punish him for it is probably largely dependent on how valuable he is and thus how much non-team-spirit can be tolerated: given he’s a winning goalie, probably at most a wrist-slap. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 3:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/168 "2012-01-27T15:01:18Z")
> [@](#): > > It’s hard to believe that many people could get bent out of shape over whether one hockey team member shows up for a meaningless White House event. We’re not talking about disrepecting the Emperor of Everything. In that case, it also seems odd that anyone would celebrate him for making a bold statement of his right as a free citizen to thumb his nose at the president. You’re right, it is a meaningless event, which is exactly why he should have begged off for personal reasons and not been such a friggin’ diva about it. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/169 "2012-01-27T15:02:51Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > That’s fine - Thomas is a citizen like everyone else, and owes no duty of service to Obama. But he does owe duty of service to the Boston Bruins, at least according to his contract and the players association agreement with the league. Regardless of how he feels about the president he owes the team a reasonable explanation and consideration. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/170 "2012-01-27T15:34:23Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On the ice, sure. Off the ice, as long as it doesn’t affect play, I don’t see how it is any of their business. The problem is, in most sports, of the field issues bleed into stuff on the field. It’s not a certainty, particularly in this case, but I can’t imagine Thomas’s public stance helps team [chemistry](http://www.necn.com/01/24/12/Neely-Invitation-to-White-House-was-an-h/landing_sports.html?blockID=637412&feedID=3352). > [@](#): > > Thomas’ teammates say the incident isn’t going to affect them or their feelings for him, and Neely agrees. > > “No, I don’t believe so,” he said when asked if it would be a locker-room problem. “For the most part, Tim has kept his views to himself . . . being in a locker room for as long as I have, and the age group the guys are, it’s shocking to say there’s not a lot of political talk.” > > \*\*He is, however, slightly worried about the future. > > “I have concerns about how [the incident and its aftermath is] going to affect him,” Neely said. "I certainly hope [it won’t] . . . > \*\* > “But [he’s] a pretty strong-willed individual and he’s had this me-against-the-world mentality through his career.” Again, not a given that things will work out badly, but certainly some indication that people closely involved in the situation feel it’s a possibility. > [@Shodan](#): > > By being associated with winning sports figures. It is one of the perks associated with being an incumbent President. It’s only a perk if the people he meets are liked more than they are disliked, and if people think their winning is a good thing. Who is to say the team who wins the championship is liked by more people than they are disliked by. Do you think Nixon benefited from meeting Muhammad Ali (and vice-versa)? Had the Steelers won the Superbowl last year, do you really think Obama would have benefited from shaking hands with Ben Roethlisberger, who, at the time, was accused of sexual impropriety (rape, etc.) by several women? Or what about the “association” with any number of other athletes who are accused of rape (Kobe Bryant), have tons of illegitimate kids (Santonio Holmes), or do a number of other terrible things. Or what if Tim Thomas decided to go, stating that he would tell Obama how bad a job he is doing while there. Could Obama dis-invite him? I seriously doubt it. That’s why these meet and greets are hardly perks of incumbency. I am sure there are far more pressing matters, and far more politically advantageous things the President could be doing. > [@Shodan](#): > > It’s the same reason that commercial products hire sports figures as spokesmen. They want to associate their product with someone popular and successful. Advertisers pick their spokespeople. They do it carefully because they know the spokesperson should reflect their brand well, help them sell more products, and will not bring any negative associations to the brand. The president cannot do any of that. Nobody will vote for him because he met the championship team in a non-political event. > [@Shodan](#): > > Thomas chose not to give Obama that opportunity, because (apparently) he disagrees with Obama’s politics. That’s fine - Thomas is a citizen like everyone else, and owes no duty of service to Obama. > > Regards, > Shodan He’s well within his right to do that, but attending would not be a duty of service to Obama, it would be to his TEAM. Let’s just say Obama resigned the day before they were to meet, and somehow John Boehner, became the president. Then Boehner would have met with them. The fact that it’s Obama is incidental. The important point is that it’s the President of the United States. I don’t know anyone who agrees with everything any President does while in office, but you should still have respect enough for the office that you can accompany your team for a celebration. All the above indicates to me that this is just a perfunctory thing for both sides. These things are hardly covered in the media in the absence of some controversy, and it rarely serves to uplift the President because the President has no say on who he meets. ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 3:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/171 "2012-01-27T15:49:22Z")
More [dissension](http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/01/25/anonymous-member-of-boston-bruins-organization-says-tim-thomas-is-a-expletive-selfish-expletive-for-snubbing-obama/) on the Boston Bruins: > [@](#): > > According to Fluto Shinzawa of the Boston Globe, a source within the Boston Bruins organization called Tim Thomas a “[expletive] selfish [expletive]” for skipping the White House ceremony honoring the team on Monday. Also wanted to link to some [commentary](http://offthebench.nbcsports.com/2012/01/26/ricks-cafe-an-athletes-guide-to-snubbing-the-president-of-the-united-states/) that I think is stated well: > [@](#): > > Look, I’m not saying that Thomas doesn’t have the right to skip the White House Dog & Pony Show if he so desires. This isn’t North Korea, and no one’s getting thrown in jail for failing to cry at The Leader’s funeral. But Thomas went about this all wrong. By explaining why he skipped the event (“the federal government is too big and out of control,” he said in part), he made it a political statement; thus declaring open season on his political views. This is the verbal equivalent of releasing your tax returns — all of your crackpot notions are now open to scrutiny. But the main thing is that no one really cares what your political convictions are; they only care that you’ve declared them. Face it, Tim: who’s basing their vote on the say-so of a Northeast Division goalie? > > Example: So, Tim, you think the government is too big? Then why didn’t you boycott the Bruins’ victory parade, which was subsidized by the taxpayers? That was a terrific use of public money at the direction of big government, wasn’t it? > > And how about your precious Tea Party? That’s the group that wants to amend state laws governing school curriculum in Tennessee to eliminate all references to the Founding Fathers owning slaves. Yes, the Tea Party wants the government to step in and change our textbooks. Seems pretty out of control to me. > > In addition, Thomas’ snub has alienated some of his teammates, fans, and at least one member of the Bruins’ front office, who called Thomas an “[Expletive] selfish [expletive].” It was only by injecting his political beliefs into the even that he made it political, and outed himself as a hypocrite and a liar. That’s in addition to the lack of decorum is mostly what people are responding to. Not just because some had the temerity to turn down meeting Barack Obama. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/172 "2012-01-27T16:23:58Z")
> [@Zeriel](#): > > Apparently, however, he likely owed a duty of service to the Bruins, and failed to appear. Whether they’ll punish him for it is probably largely dependent on how valuable he is and thus how much non-team-spirit can be tolerated: given he’s a winning goalie, probably at most a wrist-slap. I haven’t seen his contract, but I doubt it is as clear as saying he is obligated to do everything the team owners tell him, off the ice. Even if it does, in a small way it is like other forms of civil disobedience. You make a statement by your actions, and accept the consequence. You are correct he isn’t giving up much, since they aren’t going to do much to a winner, but it wasn’t that influential a gesture. > [@Really Not All That Bright](#): > > Rubbish. The President also fetes the NCAA womens’ volleyball champions. So you cannot see any reason why a politician might want to be photographed and associated with a large number of young, attractive, athletic women who have won a national championship? Take a look at their legs, and get back to me. > [@brickbacon](#): > > Again, not a given that things will work out badly, but certainly some indication that people closely involved in the situation feel it’s a possibility. Read your cite again. His teammates said specifically that the incident would not affect his relations with them, his teammates. They were only concerned with its effects on **him**. > [@](#): > > Do you think Nixon benefited from meeting Muhammad Ali (and vice-versa)? Heavens, yes, Nixon benefitted. Who do you think was more popular at the time - Nixon or Ali? > [@](#): > > Had the Steelers won the Superbowl last year, do you really think Obama would have benefited from shaking hands with Ben Roethlisberger, who, at the time, was accused of sexual impropriety (rape, etc.) by several women? You are sort of making my point for me. Obama would certainly not have wanted to shake hands with an alleged rapist, because that implies that on some level they are associated, and that he approves of him and supports him. Politicians do want to meet and shake hands (in public) with sports figures (and other entertainers as well) who are not accused of crimes for the same reason - because of the implication that they approve of each other on some level. That is what Thomas was trying to avoid - the implication that he associated himself with Obama, or endorsed or supported him in any way. Just the opposite - he wanted to make clear that he doesn’t support, endorse, or want to be associated with Obama. Being President is a political office. It is nearly impossible to avoid political implications of every public act the President takes, and many of the private ones as well. It’s like the President flying to a disaster. What the heck difference does it make whether he sees it with his own eyes, or not? But if he just sat in the Oval Office and read the reports, people would think he was making a statement - that he doesn’t care very much. Perception is reality, to a large extent, especially in politics. Obama wanted to manage perceptions in one way; Thomas in another. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/173 "2012-01-27T16:47:34Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > On the ice, sure. Off the ice, as long as it doesn’t affect play, I don’t see how it is any of their business. Team spirit is not something you turn on and off. Besides, drama off the pitch usually finds its way onto the pitch. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/174 "2012-01-27T16:50:35Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > So you cannot see any reason why a politician might want to be photographed and associated with a large number of young, attractive, athletic women who have won a national championship? Take a look at their legs, and get back to me. Well, I know why _I’d_ want to be :D, but I don’t think hot chicks will win him any votes. ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/175 "2012-01-27T17:05:44Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Team spirit is not something you turn on and off. I don’t see why not. The team owner tells you to take out your earrings and get a haircut, because he wants the team to present a certain image. Some do it. The rest don’t have team spirit. The owner sets up a meet-and-greet with a politician. Should everyone on the team feel obligated to go? Even if it is Sarah Palin? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![brickbacon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/898d66/32.png) [@brickbacon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/brickbacon)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/176 "2012-01-27T17:07:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Read your cite again. His teammates said specifically that the incident would not affect his relations with them, his teammates. They were only concerned with its effects on **him**. I read it. The point is that the effect may be felt on the ice. > [@Shodan](#): > > Heavens, yes, Nixon benefitted. Who do you think was more popular at the time - Nixon or Ali? Different constituencies, which probably had minimal overlap. You are forgetting Ali was HATED back then for being a loud-mouth and a “draft dodger”. Yes, he was popular, but that didn’t make the meeting advantageous for either of them (politically speaking). > [@Shodan](#): > > You are sort of making my point for me. Obama would certainly not have wanted to shake hands with an alleged rapist, because that implies that on some level they are associated, and that he approves of him and supports him. No, you are missing the point. My argument was wrt to your contention that meeting these athletes is a positive thing because he would be associated with winning. If that were true (it’s not) he would also be associated with rape, child neglect, murder, etc. etc. That said, there would be a passing association in that he is photographed with someone undesirable, but nobody thinks he approves and supports any of the athletes he meets in that sort of setting. He gains nothing from the meeting. If it were political, or even if it were viewed as political, then the President would pick and choose who to associate with since he knows there would be a political risk involved. He doesn’t, because nobody thinks of this as a political event. To further bolster my point, when Obama had a birthday party, it was referred to by Fox News as a “[hip-hop bbq](http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/cutline/fox-news-website-calls-obama-birthday-party-hip-214154301.html)” because of his guest list; people who chose to associate with. Clearly the charge is ridiculous, but he opened himself up to it in part because he chose the guests. Did anyone accuse him of being chummy with an accused rapist and violent thug when Kobe and Metta World Peace visited the White House? No, because everyone understands this is just a photo op. > [@Shodan](#): > > Politicians do want to meet and shake hands (in public) with sports figures (and other entertainers as well) who are not accused of crimes for the same reason - because of the implication that they approve of each other on some level. That’s true when it is a mutually agreed to arrangement, not a perfunctory visit to the White House because one’s team won a championship. Who the president is, and who the champions are is just a matter of chance. It’s not a planned event like a political endorsement is. These guys are approving of [Obama](http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/68699.html), [Coach](http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/19/duke-coach-obama-worry-economy-ncaa-picks/) [K](http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2009/03/19/4429050-coach-k-vs-obama) was not when he visited the [White House](http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/president-obama-welcome-ncaa-mens-basketball-champion-duke-university-blue-devils-w). > [@Shodan](#): > > That is what Thomas was trying to avoid - the implication that he associated himself with Obama, or endorsed or supported him in any way. Just the opposite - he wanted to make clear that he doesn’t support, endorse, or want to be associated with Obama. Nobody would have assumed that. In fact, until he made it an issue, nobody would have even mentioned it at all. Do you assume Derek Jeter, who (I think) has visited the White House when Clinton, Bush, and Obama were in the White House is associated with any of the men? Do you assume he supports all 3 of them politically? Of course not. ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/177 "2012-01-27T17:10:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > ]Even if it is Sarah Palin? > Regards, > Shodan You’re so cute when you think you’re being clever. Yes, if Sarah Palin happens to be the president, or mayor, or governor, or actual office-holder, representing the office, which would make it a ceremonial event. No, if she’s a candidate, which would in fact make it a political event. I promise you this isn’t complicated. ---
**Author:** ![mnemosyne](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c4cdca/32.png) [@mnemosyne](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mnemosyne)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/178 "2012-01-27T17:10:59Z")
**Shodan** - do you think it would have been better if Thomas had issued a statement a day or two ahead of time, explaining why he wasn’t going (even more or less the same statement?). I think the star of the team during the Cup run shouldn’t have waited for his absence to be noticed before making his statement. He should have had the class\* to step back at a time when it _could_ be about him (a day or two before), so that the rest of the team could enjoy the moment themselves if they so wanted. It wasn’t a dick move towards Obama. It was a dick move towards his _team_ who earned this and wanted to celebrate one last time. [expletive] selfish [expletive] is right… and I hope someone holds up a sign in the stands saying so at the next Bruins game. [BiasedHabsfan] \*class…from a Bruin…BWAHAHAHA I crack myself up. People like Thomas are why they’ve earned the Ruin nickname [/BiasedHabsfan] ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/179 "2012-01-27T17:18:53Z")
> [@mnemosyne](#): > > **Shodan** - do you think it would have been better if Thomas had issued a statement a day or two ahead of time, explaining why he wasn’t going (even more or less the same statement?). Yes. > [@DianaG](#): > > No, if she’s a candidate, which would in fact make it a political event. Obama is a candidate for President in 2012. Therefore it is a political event. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![DianaG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/7ab992/32.png) [@DianaG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DianaG)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2012, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460/180 "2012-01-27T17:24:02Z")
So you decided not to take that Pit advice to heart after all, huh? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/stanley-cup-winner-snubs-president-for-political-reasons/610460.md?page=10)