So every event a president attends in an election year is a political event?
Because human psychology works that way, and not another.
It’s like saying you don’t see why people couldn’t only be patriots on Tuesdays, and not give two shits about their country the rest of the week. Either you consider the team to be more important than yourself, or you don’t. I don’t really see what’s so gosh durn difficult to understand here.
Sorry, this doesn’t make sense to me. If he’d made a statement ahead of time, it would have been portrayed as calling attention to himself and detracting from the upcoming event. There would have been undue attention focused on Thomas by the press corps and the ceremony would have been subordinated (by the media at least) into a squabble between Obama and Thomas.
I don’t think Thomas is some kind of hero. He does have the right (unless it says otherwise in his contract) not to glad-hand the President because of political differences. If he’d shown up at the ceremony and unfurled a banner reading “Down With Big Government - Obama Sucks” that would have been jerkish.
Oh, certainly not–but there’s a likely middle ground (and borne out by the examples posted upthread) in which he is required to treat scheduled PR events as he would any other work day and show up barring illness or other acceptable excuse.
I couldn’t agree more.
Not just during an election year. The Presidency is a political office. To some extent, everything he does in public, and a good deal of the rest, is political.
No, I don’t think you are correct.
We are not talking about different times of the week, we are talking about different circumstances.
It’s not difficult to understand; it’s just wrong.
“Team spirit” does not mean that Thomas has to subsume his every opinion and belief and do exactly as he is told every second of his life. He is still a citizen, with every right in the world to protest Obama and his policies if he chooses. And that includes not showing up for a photo op, if he is willing to pay the (admittedly minimal) costs of doing so.
He isn’t obligated to sign every autograph he is asked for, either.
That’s all your post was worth. And FTR I will note you ignored all my longer posts in favor of the short one.
:shrugs:
I can take reasonable posters like xtisme and furt and so on seriously when they have something to say. Others? Not so much.
Regards,
Shodan
While the Presidency may be a political office, it’s fairly easy to separate the actions that the President takes into those that are political vs. those that are related to his position as head of state.
Entertaining visiting athletic champions is clearly the latter. Any visitors not specifically and expressly selected, for that matter–whether it’s the Boy Scout troop with perfect attendance or what. In any of these cases, the President is ceremonially functioning as the personification of the United States, not as himself as an individual nor as himself as the holder of a specific limited office in our governmental system.
One can believe, as I do, that one of the few mistakes the Founding Fathers made was to have the “Head of State” powers be vested in the presidency rather than in an appointed ambassador-like bureaucratic position–but that doesn’t change the fact of the matter.
As mentioned, I don’t think you can draw a bright line like that. He is still the President while he is being the head of state, and whatever political advantage accrues with it.
Like I said, it’s one of the advantages of incumbency. You get your name in the paper and your picture on TV without spending a dime in campaign contributions, and in a positive light to boot.
Regards,
Shodan
Perhaps - but doing so a day or two ahead of time allows the media shitstorm to pass and it becomes old news by the time the event rolls around. His absence would be noted at the time, for sure, but rather than players having to come up with on-the-spot answers to “what the hell, where’s the goalie, why isn’t he here?”, they get to say a canned “he’s stated his reasons. I’m glad to be here, yay us for winning”.
It’s kind of like this All-Star weekend. Ovechkin backed out a couple of days ago - and it was hashed out all over the news at the time but now no one much cares.
It would still be a political discussion - Obama vs Thomas - but I think it would be less about how much of a jackass he was to his team mates and more about how/whether justified or retarded his reasons are. At least, it would be for me.
As I said, it’s not what he did, it’s how he did it that rubs me the wrong way.
You can do a lot of things in this world that will upset people and you can’t really avoid that - but you can choose to be a dick while doing it, or not. Thomas is a dick.
People can agree or disagree with this. Personally, I think this is the most fundamental way one can legitimately “respect the office of the Presidency” as we’ve heard so often in the last decade from all sides: treat the ceremonial head of state duties as just that.
Wha? That’s absurd. No one in their right mind would associate the president with a winning sports team. It’s a PR move for the team. You win a championship, you visit the president, you get a parade, blah blah blah. It’s just a standard thing – the president meets with celebrities all the time, and no won would associate Obama with the Bruins.
And notice you said it’s a perk of being the PRESIDENT. The office itself. It’s not about Obama. They’d go there no matter who was in office.
The organization has stated that their employees ARE required to participate in any and all promotional events, if their employers insist.
No, the point is that he would have done it anyways.
And if you don’t think think someone’s behavior off the ice doesn’t effect team chemistry on it, I’ve got two words for you: Sean Avery.
Gettin’ tired of repeating this.
As I said, it is the same reason companies hire sports figures as their commercial spokesmen. And also why Victoria’s Secret models tend not to be ugly.
There is an anecdote I read some years back when Reagan was President. Some TV network was running a piece on how Reagan’s policies were hurting the elderly and so forth and so on. And part of the piece was stock footage of Reagan visiting an old folk’s home.
After the piece aired, a Reagan staffer called the network to thank them for running the piece. And whoever took the call expressed surprise, given the negative tone of the piece.
The staffer said that people cared more about what they saw, than what they heard. They saw Reagan in the old folk’s home, interacting with the residents and smiling and being charming like he always was, and (this is the key) they remembered that association better than the voice over that was slagging on Reagan.
Yes - like I said, it is a perk of incumbency.
So Thomas refuses, and pays a fine or something similar.
I am not a hockey fan, so I don’t know from Sean Avery, but Thomas’ teammates don’t seem too concerned about it.
Regards,
Shodan
Sorry if this was provided, but what are the terms? I’m not saying you’re wrong, but certainly this can’t mean that anything at all that is requested must be complied with. Is there something that unambiguously covers this type of circumstance? That would answer the question, “Was Thomas contractually obligated?”
The answer to the question, “Should he have gone?” is entirely subjective otherwise. There is no right or wrong answer. IMO, he should have gone, because such events are supposed to be above politics. Same reason I disagree with Olympic boycotts. Going doesn’t mean you’re supportive of the host country. This could, of course, change, if circumstances are egregiously offensive enough. But under normal circumstances, just show up. Of course, that doesn’t mean at all that he had to (unless, of course, he is obligated contractually).
If you’re not a hockey fan, then perhaps you shouldn’t be commenting on how contracts work in the NHL. Leave it to those of us who are more informed.
Sean Avery Basically, his behavior when he played for the Dallas Stars made him persona non grata among his teammates. Marty Turco and Mike Modano were said to have absolutely loathed him. He was eventually traded after making nasty comments about his ex-girlfriends. Even though it was off the ice, it still reflected poorly on the organization.
No, I’m not comparing Thomas’s actions to making crude remarks about an ex-girlfriend. However, it’s a classic example of how a player’s behavior off the ice can have an effect on his chemistry with the rest of his team.
Look, people are just pointing out that this visit is a tradition. You win the Super Bowl or the Stanley Cup, you visit the White House. I don’t know how long it’s been going on, but that’s just how it is. Pretending it’s a political endorsement is insane.
(BTW, do they do the same for the World Series or the NBA championship?)
Let’s forget about the Bruins a second. For the sake of argument, suppose an ordinary child’s kindergarten class was invited to the annual White House Easter Egg Hunt.
The kid (who probably knows little or nothing about politics) is all excited! “I’m gonna meet the President! Yippee!”
Now, I have absolutely no use for Barack Obama, but what kind of Dad would refuse to let his kid attend, because of disagreements with the President’s policies?
No matter who the President is, it’s an honor to be invited to ceremonies like this, silly as they may be. If you REALLLY can’t smile, shake a few hands, and pose for a few pictures for an hour, fine… decline politely and say you have a previous family commitment or something. But why ruin a cool occasion for everybody else?
Actually, it sounds very much like you are.
Thomas’ teammates don’t seem to feel that it will. I assume they know more about the situation than either you or I.
Like I have said a couple of times, it is one of the perks of being an incumbent President - you get free, positive publicity.
I am not saying this kind of thing constitutes a political endorsement. I am saying it is an opportunity to be photographed with a collection of popular celebrities, at the moment of their greatest triumph of their season. Thomas chose to deny that opportunity to Obama because he disagrees with Obama’s actions as President.
It’s an invitation, not a Command Performance. Thomas may accept or refuse at his will, with or without a reason. If Thomas’ team chooses to sanction him for it, apparently Thomas is ready to accept that. His teammates apparently accept it without rancor.
I don’t see the issue.
Regards,
Shodan
That is a fair point- ask John Lindsay, an extremely unpopular New York City mayor who rode the Miracle Mets’ 1969 World Series triumph to re-election.
What I posted is from the relevant terms in the actual NHL Standard Player Contract. I paraphrased it by taking out extraneous crap, such a paragraph numbers. How one intreprets these terms makes for a good discussion.
All NHL players sign the NHL Standard Player Contract. Anything beyond the standard contract is dealth with via addendums.
Thomas said nothing about Obama himself.
Again, this isn’t about OBAMA’s getting any perks or whatever. We’re not discussing that. We’re discussing the actions of TIM THOMAS. Do try and keep up. (Besides, if Obama gets “perks” from being seen with the winners of sports championships, how does that differ from every other president? Jesus.)
And despite what you think, I’m not saying that Thomas’s actions are equal to Avery’s. Just that if a team doesn’t have a sense of comradery, or feel that another player is letting them down, that’s going to affect performance. Let me ask you this, Shodan, just curious – are you a sports fan at all? Because otherwise, I can’t understand how you don’t see how that wouldn’t have an effect on performance.
People aren’t complaining that Thomas didn’t attend so much as how he acted about it.
From the AP story: