THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I can’t fault him in the slightest, since whenever I read about Bush Junior receiving athletes after championships, I always thought that, we’re I living my boyhood dreams and leading the Orioles to World Series glory (what is more unlikely, me a baseball star or the Orioles winning?), I would have snubbed Bush. He has strongly-held convictions, and he’s living by them.

I don’t have a strong opinion about this, but I do find it a strange tradition that championship sports teams visit the White House.

Before I read Thomas’s quotes, I thought it was a bush league move. Often the snub is due to political differences, and to me shows a lack of respect for the office. But Thomas is clearly libertarian in the extreme, to the extent that he’s not supportive of much of our federal apparatus AT ALL. In that context I can respect his unwillingness to participate in the whole thing. Though I’m a little alarmed that the savior goalie of my favorite hockey team may think the John Birch Society is too liberal.

Thomas has always been someone who seems truly thoughtful when asked questions by reporters, and he comes off as someone who puts a lot of thought into the answers he gives.  So it certainly doesn’t surprise me that he put a lot of thought into his decision.

That being said, I find his rationale to be unjustifiable.  If I held his same beliefs, and I respected the president as an intelligent person who was interested in doing a good job, I would *love* the opportunity to meet the president and give him a little piece of my mind.  10 seconds during a handshake, 5 minutes during a dinner, whatever I could wrangle, I’d love nothing more than to ask the president whether he felt the same way I did, what he thinks should be done, what he thinks about my sentiment and/or ideas, etc.

I don’t begrudge him at all for declining the invite, it’s certainly his right.  Unlike Tango’s linked author, I don’t mind sports figures making political statements.  But for Thomas to suggest that he’s declining the invite because he’s disappointed in what the federal government is doing, when is invite is to meet and chat with the one person on the planet who has the *most* opportunity to remedy that situation, seems either grossly stupid or grossly disingenuous.

I mean… Tango… if the president of the BBWAA invited you to dinner to present you with the Best Blogger award… would you decline the invitation because you dislike what the organization has become, or would you look at it as a wonderful opportunity to chat, get his point of view, give him yours, etc.?

I didn’t know the guy existed until today, but he comes off as a dullard. If you’re willing to make a spectacle of yourself, then you could at least direct the attention in a way that leads to change. Vague comments about the decline in liberty aren’t as effective as calls for the repeal of NDAA or the end of the Fed or the liberation of Mumia Abu Jamal.

That’s not a good analogy.  Your analogy of me to BBWAA is like me refusing an invitation from Putin.  I’m not a Holy Writer and I’m not a Russian.  So, if either want to invite me to something, I don’t have any real reason to go.

Ron Paul I presume would accept an invitation from Obama.  Very conservative anti-Obama journalists have been invited, and have accepted, invitations to dinner from Obama, as off-the-record dinners.

You can disagree.  It’s HOW you disagree.

Tim Thomas made a point of saying why he’s not going.  Basically, “I’m too cool” for this party, or some other similar example.  We get it, you don’t like the party you are invited to.  Don’t paste it on facebook why you are not going.

I don’t see how anyone can ever criticize anyone else for how they choose to express their political beliefs. 

I thought the article was trash for that reason. The author’s thesis was: 1) “I wouldn’t do that.” That is a ridiculous reason for criticizing someone’s else’s actions. 2) “No Canadian would do that.” I am not Canadian, but that seems like a terrible generalization.  Certainly there must be SOME Canadians that might do that. And I can say the same thing about Americans. Has an American ever done that before? The author acts like that is typical of Americans. It is not. 3) “Politics and sports should not be mixed.” Again, that is his opinion.  This guy is not mixing them.  He is merely declining an invitation for personal/political reasons. Is that against team or league policy? Apparently not.  If I were invited to the Bush White House, I might decline as well.

The guy has a right to decline the invitation for his stated reasons.  That IS the American way. I fail to see merit in any other perspective…

Thomas certainly has a right not to go. He gives every impression of being more thoughtful than most athletes--at last in his post-game interviews--and his opinions are his own. Had he been invited as an individual and declined, I wouldn’t have thought twice about it. Had George W. Bush invited me to the White House for diner, I would not have gone.

A also would not have made my refusal a public event. I owe the office some respect regardless of what I think of its current occupant. The fact that Thomas refused to attend a team function also put his teammates on the spot, and may have taken some of the edge off of what I’m sure many thought was a cool experience, regardless of their nationality. He should have gone for them.

I’m with James K. on the whole idea of teams visiting the White House. Why? Even worse, why do they do it seven months after they win? If they’re going to go, send them over the day after the parade, when the bloom is still on the rose. How many guys don’t even play there anymore?

My girlfriend knew Tim Thomas in college (her roommate dated his roommate). Thomas and all of his teammates were super-conservative and none of the women wanted to date them as a result.  Now I guess he has enough money that it doesn’t matter.

Here’s a question ... at what point is it OK to refuse to go for political reasons? You should certainly refuse to attend a Hitler ceremony, right? What about, say, Mugabe, or Castro, or Hugo Chavez, or Rick Santorum, or P.W. Botha?

No, seriously. At what point should respect for the office outweighed by disgust at the actions or policies of the person who occupies it?

Serious question.  I asked it on Facebook; I’ll ask it here too.

The line is drawn way lower than the guy who ordered the hit on Osama, even though the whole thing could have blown up in his face.

The line is drawn lower than Nixon.  I can’t imagine any US president being below the line.  Or Canadian PM.

I can imagine Italians refusing Berlusconi’s invitation, and Russians refusing Putin (if they didn’t fear him).

So, somewhere between Italians refusing Berlusconi, and Americans refusing Nixon.

The problem with the example of the Canadiens from the 70s is that they *were* taking a position - if you’re not explicitly opposing the status quo, then you’re supporting it by default. (Like Rush said, ‘if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice’.)

Showing up to meet the president would represent a tacit endorsement of the office, if not the person holding it. And since Thomas appears to reject the system on the whole, absenting himself seems to make a lot of sense. (He could also show up and confront Obama, but that would send a mixed-message, I think: it would make it appear that his objection is largely with Obama, rather than the government on the whole.)

On the one hand, expressing ones political opinions often ends up being impolite, and that’s just the way it is, too bad so sad.

On the other hand, I lament the fact that social life has been dramatically politicized the past 20 years - part of The Big Sort.

So, in the context of contemporary America, where everything you do is political, from the car you drive (hummer or prius), to the bank you use (B of A or credit union), to the big box store you shop at (walmart or costco), to the type of lettuce you buy (organic locally grown arugula or walmart iceberg) I think what he did is totally appropriate, and I defend his right to do so, though I vehemently disagree with his views.

However, I think it’s unfortunate that politicians and political operatives have so infiltrated the notion of identity, with identity politics, that it has, and will continue to come to this.

Re #11: I don’t think respect for the office obligates pro athletes to show up for such ceremonies at all. Giving out sports kudos / receiving said kudos is not a political duty of the President or U.S. citizens. No different than turning down an invite to go bowling with the Prez. So basically, there is no bar to pass before one can appropriately decline such an invite.

I don’t think it shows disrespect for the office of President to decline to go to such a ceremony because it prevents you from watching The Bachelor. That would be a stupid reason (and the political reasons might be stupid too), but I find tieng it to the respect for the office a little strange (except insofar as folks may think they are making a statement because they falsely believe that turning down the invite is a sign of disrespect).

Somewhat beside the point, but re: 8/MGL:

I don’t see how anyone can ever criticize anyone else for how they choose to express their political beliefs…

I doubt you actually believe this. For starters, it’s probably self-defeating (the critic of Thomas is expressing a sort of political belief, and you are criticizing him for it.) And I’m guessing there are varieties of political expression that you have no problem criticizing (e.g., the Jonesboro Baptists at funerals).

So I would put 11 / Mr. Birnbaum’s question slightly differently: at what point is the politician so bad does the normally non-political activity of going to his house political on friendly terms unacceptable?

I doubt Thomas has--even by his own lights--reached that level with Obama (i.e., would he refuse to shake hands with the man in public if they crossed paths?) So what he’s doing is a bit silly. But again, I don’t think it disrespects the office of Prez any more than declining a bowling invite from the fellow.

Sorry, what I meant to type, to recast #11:

At what point is the politician so bad that the completely a political activity of going to the President’s house on friendly terms become unacceptable?

Maybe I’m in the minority here, but I would love to visit the White House and meet the President.  To me that would be a tremendous honor (unless the President is a dictator or something awful). 

I disagree with 13, but I think the converse is true.  Declining the invitation IS a political statement because the default position is overwhelmingly to accept.  An athlete standing during the national anthem doesn’t mean he supports all government activities.

"Somewhat beside the point, but re: 8/MGL:

I don’t see how anyone can ever criticize anyone else for how they choose to express their political beliefs…

I doubt you actually believe this.”

That was a bad choice of words on my part. There is a fine line between disagreeing or criticizing the message and criticizing or disagreeing with the right or manor with which it is expressed.

As far as Phil’s question (Phil - always the pragmatist), I don’t think there is or should be a line. A person who gets invited to the White House has a perfectly reasonable right to decline on any political (or other) grounds whatsoever…

It was seven months later because the Bruins are playing the Capitals in Washington Tuesday. .

Of course Thomas is entitled to do what he wants, but I think the point one commenter made that it was the team that was invited is one I’d certainly take into account if I found myself in the same situation.  And ultimately, it was the office, the head of state, duly elected, that invited the Bruins, not the current holder.  If prior Presidents had invited American teams that won the Stanley Cup in the past, President Obama is going to continue the tradition.  If he hadn’t, I sincerely wonder if Tim Thomas wouldn’t have criticized him for that.

No interest in the politics of athletes and entertainers.  Tim should shut up and go to the White House.  It’s not like he’s some deep thinker- this is a guy who was at UVM back in the elephant walking days.

Dirk Hayhurst gets it:

http://www.dirkhayhurst.com/2012/01/tim-thomas-and-other-wasted-opportunities/

It’s not about his right to do what he wants, but HOW he handles the situation.

It’s really annoying to read “he has a right to do it.” Nobody is suggesting otherwise. Where in Tango’s OP did he say “should the government arrest Thomas for not attending?” He didn’t. It’s not about his rights.

The freedom of speech (or expression - this is both, really) does not mean “opinions and actions are beyond reproach.”

I don’t understand the people here who say they wouldn’t have attended a White House gathering while President Bush was in office. I share your politics here, at least enough to understand your dislike of the person holding the office, but I really can’t fathom the level of disrespect for the office required to refuse that invitation.

To Thomas’ credit, he’s open about his lack of respect for the office. Of course, if he hates the entire American system, I really question why he wants to be here at all (except to make millions of dollars, I suppose). It seems his idea of what a country should be really doesn’t jive with the entire history of America.

What’s also interesting is that the Bruins have, I believe, just two Americans on the whole team.

At least the non-Americans were gracious enough to accept, or at least not use the opportunity of a team celebration to make a political statement.

Hey, how about after Tim Thomas wins his next Vezina, he talks about politics too. 

Really Tim?  Just because Obama is involved, it’s time to crap?

Reminds me of when HOF pre-emptively removed Robbins and Sarandon from the guest list to celebrate Bull Durham, because they couldn’t confirm exactly what they will or will not say about Bush’s wars.  (Indeed, they weren’t even asked what they would say.  The HOF president just decided like that.)

As White House events go this was on the non-political side.  Fewer than usual of the invitees were there because they support the President’s politics.

I have a close friend who recently retired after a lengthy career with the federal government.  He was born in another country and came to the US for graduate school.  He long since became a US citizen.  He received an invite to a state dinner at the White House when the leader of his birth country visited.  Strongly not liking either the US president at the time, or the visiting PM, he declined the invitation.  His girlfriend, who was at least as far from the political center as he was, (in the same direction), was pissed.

Tango/12 agrees that at some level of disagreement with the president, it becomes OK to refuse the ceremony.  I think others would agree, even though the other commenters here didn’t bring it up (except MGL, who thinks even a minimal level of disagreement is enough).

My impression is that people who criticize Thomas are saying, “Hey, Obama isn’t *that bad*, that you should be dishonoring the office of the president by refusing to go.” They’re not saying that explicitly, but ... well, some left-wingers are saying that even if it were George W. Bush, the players should go.  Neither Bush nor Obama is *that bad*.

I have lots of sympathy for that view.  I’m not a big fan of Obama, but I’d still go.  There are lots of ways to make a political stand, and this one seems kind of petty, if, like me, you think Obama’s policies aren’t bad enough that you want to demonize him completely.

Having said that ... I absolutely HATE the idea that the President is the guy who honors the team.  Presidents have a large, active role in policy, and policy is divisive.  Yes, you have to have a president, and, yes, you have to have some respect for the person who won the office in a fair election.  But if you hate his policies, and you think they’re wrong for the country, you should NOT, under any circumstances, have to stand there and smile for him.  And, more importantly, you certainly shouldn’t have to give him a team jersey with his name on it.  He should be honoring you, not you him.

I prefer the idea that you should be honored by an apolitical head of state, not an elected policymaker.  I’m no monarchist, but that’s one of the most important things the Queen is for: honoring British subjects without politics involved.  The US and Canada need someone like that.  The Bruins should be honored by someone who represents America itself, not someone who represents America’s executive branch.

Canada has the Governor-General, which doesn’t get much respect because it’s usually some insider politician or journalist.  It should be someone who represents all of Canada without any ties to politics.  Terry Fox would have been perfect, if still alive.  The Canadiens win the Cup, and they’re honored by Terry Fox on behalf of her Majesty the Queen.  Perfect!

Other candidates?  Most of the ones I can think of are sports—Ron Maclean, Jean Beliveau, Wayne Gretzky, Paul Henderson—people everyone at least like, and associate with Canadian pride.  Since someone mentioned Rush ... Geddy Lee would be a candidate if he were more popular.  Johnny Wayne, of Wayne and Shuster.  Mike Myers, if he had a bit more dignified reputation (because of his humor, not anything personally).  Celine Dion, if people didn’t make fun of her so much.  (William Shatner was suggested for G-G, but he’s not Canadian enough.)

Don Cherry is too political now (and some people hate him).  Journalists should be off-limits too, for the most part. 

Anyway, my point is: America needs someone like that too.  Someone who represents the country, but not a political party or policy position, at least not too much.  Martin Luther King, before he went all socialist. 

Seriously ... if you won the Stanley Cup, wouldn’t you love to be invited to a reception by Martin Luther King representing the United States of America?  Can you imagine how awesome that would be?

(Who could it be now?  Maybe some of the 9/11 FDNY guys?  Geez, I’m drawing a blank.  Who should represent the USA?  There must be hundreds of candidates ... MLK and Kate Smith are the only ones that come to mind right now, and they’re both dead.)

That’s what countries need.  When you’re honored, it shouldn’t be by someone you have ANY decent reason to disagree with politically.  It should be a respected “captain” of the country, not the elected guy with the most power. 

And that’s why I’m on Tim Thomas’s side (and MGL’s side).  It’s not him that’s being rude.  It’s *AMERICA* that’s being rude: insisting that the people *without* power have a social obligation to a legislator *with* power—a president they might not like, and whose policies they might very much disagree with. 

Most of us can put aside our dislike for any given president, and consider that we’re being honored by the ceremonial part of the office, not the executive part.  But, we shouldn’t have to, and Tim Thomas shouldn’t have to.

After all, it’s the TEAM that should be being honored, not the president, right?

I thought these sorts of events were there to make the president into that sort of figure - somehow above it all. Obama’s people don’t go through the team members and not invite those that might not agree with them, or those that might be from countries that disagree with them.

The presidential office is supposed to be above all of that, and these sorts of events are one way they try to be. It’s an attempt to be non-political. There’s certainly no other US office better suited to do it. And with the current US climate, I can’t even imagine a “neutral” position somehow being created - whoever it was, no matter how meaningless and strictly ceremonial the position, a politcal fight would erupt over any nominee. Moon landing astronaut, that pilot who landed in the Hudson, current national decathlon champion, humanitarian of the year, etc. Whoever it was, they would be ripped to shreds.

The Canadian Governor General is somewhat like this, and recent behaviours by the last appointee make it clear they will bend to any and all politcal will from the elected government (technically, the GG has a lot of power in some situations, but it’s clear they aren’t going to ever use it, rightly or wrongly). Who is the divisive GG? They’ve been pretty harmless in my lifetime, and I loathe the current gov’t.

aweb/27:

Right, the president is *supposed* to be that sort of figure ... but if he does “evil” things in his day job, how can anyone be expected to put that aside?  That’s the problem. 

It’s nice if you CAN put that aside—For Obama, I certainly could—but if Tim Thomas can’t, we have to accept that, 100%.  Respecting the country is absolutely NOT the same as respecting the president.

#23, I’m not sure if this is a recent phenomenon, but in the US these days respect for the office of the president isn’t particularly high.

I think it goes back to the earliest days of the US where the president was viewed in contradistinction with the king.
It certainly continues into the present day where things like, ‘do i want to have a beer with this person’ counts as acceptable criteria for casting a vote.

I definitely think things got worse (better?) in this regard in the 90s where presidents’ sexual behavior was fair game for discussion, and it’s certainly very true today where one of the hallmarks of the tea party is to show persistent disrespect for the president and to challenge his legitimacy - I’ll leave the question of why to your imaginations. But, in this sort of climate, where a hack reality TV star feels he can make demands of our president, this snub seems quite minor.

We have a rowdy Democracy here in the US and this sort of stuff is obviously legally acceptable, but has also become quite socially acceptable, too. For every nasty message Tim Thomas got for his actions, you can be sure there were 2 praising him for doing the best thing ever for sticking it to our kenyan socialist fascist non-american president.

Phil I like your post very much.

However, no one is saying anything about Thomas’s right of refusal.

This issue is HOW he does his refusal.  HE is the one who politicized this, not Obama.  HE made it about him, not about the team.  If he wanted to act more like a prima donna, it wouldn’t have been possible.  He stomped his feet, declared he was too cool for the party, and put incogent (*) thoughts on facebook.

(*) Is that a word?  It is now!

When you are invited to a party, whose host you don’t respect, do you make a big posting on facebook about it, drawing attention to yourself?  No, you just decline it.

Again, let’s stop talking about his rights to do whatever he wants.  This is America.  This is why America is America, that you can act like an a$$hole, and not have the government getting into your face about it.

Just because you can act like an a$$hole doesn’t mean you should act like one.

At the Winter Olympics (I guess it was 2002), Bush was sitting next to Sarah Cohen (cutey figure skater).  She gave him a phone, and he talked to her parents.

That was wonderful.  Who cares about his policy at that very moment.  That’s quite an honor for Cohen to be sitting next to him, and for him to talk to her parents like he did.

It was wonderful.

DavidS/18 wrote: “An athlete standing during the national anthem doesn’t mean he supports all government activities.”

But if that’s what you think I was saying, you misunderstood my point. (Or I wasn’t clear enough.) When I said that failing to state an opinion is implicit support of the status quo, that doesn’t mean “supports all government activities”. The statement that’s being made, when one chooses to participate or not in an act that’s not overtly political, isn’t easily generalized and always need to be put in context. Sometime it will speak to a particular issue (ex. remaining silent on gay marriage in a debate on the topic is reasonably construed as opposition) and sometimes it’ll speak much more broadly (ex. accepting a free miniature flag outside the mall expresses a general, if weak, support of what that flag represents). So we need to differentiate, here.

In your example of the anthem, it has almost nothing to do with the particular government that’s in power - because the anthem has never been partisan. But it does have a lot to do with the legitimacy and moral authority of a country and its institutions in a much broader sense - so standing for the anthem is a (very quiet) statement to that effect.

Phil/26 and aweb/27: The Governor-General isn’t an ideal figure-head, though. Given that he or she is literally the representative of a monarch, I can see why it would seem perfectly reasonable to protest a ceremony with the GG for reasons having to do with democracy, accountability, sovereignty, and taxation.

(As a teenager, I was once invited to a ceremony hosted by the Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario, which was attached to a provincial championship tournament that I was participating in. In protest of her inclusion, I stood at the back of the room with a few other guys - not that anyone noticed, because there were a few hundred people - and left immediately upon the completion of her speech. Not explicitly rude, I don’t think, but I was going to put in the absolute minimum effort required to “participate”.)

I have a hard time respecting Thomas’ stand because I’m skeptical about his stated reasons.  He says “I believe the Federal government has grown out of control, threatening the Rights, Liberties, and Property of the People....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 [emphasis added], as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country.” It seems to me that expressions of this kind of extreme libertarianism have become about 100x more common over the past 3 years, which suggests much of it is indeed partisan.  What I want to know is, did Thomas express this kind of concern about government power during the Bush administration?  When Bush was expanding executive power, did Thomas object in any way?  If so, then—although I don’t agree with his libertarian philosophy—I can respect what he’s doing.  But if he’s one of those who have only “discovered” in the past three years that our liberties are nearly extinguished, then I call bullsh!t.

Agree with #33....lots of people discovering this now that the president is not ‘one of us’.  The uproar over Obama’s birth certificate, with none over McCain’s truthfully odd (though explainable) situation, is another example.

He did not need to go, but it is bad form for him to stomp his feet about it.  While we do not have an officially non-political figurehead for such matters, the president stands in for all of us at many such events and all sides have accepted this role for the president (concerts, Medal of Honor awards, parades, etc.).

FWIW

“Everyone remembers that Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein was conspicuously missing from both White House visits in 2004 and 2007 when Republican President George W. Bush was in office.”

http://www.csnne.com/blog/bruins-talk/post/Haggerty-Thomas-on-his-own-as-White-Hous?blockID=636986&feedID=3352

Guy/33: some of us who were lifelong Republicans re-registered as Libertarian or other during “W“‘s presidency. I’ll bet Thomas would give you an earful about the massive expansion of the Federal government under Bush. I have no doubt about his stated reasons, but I’m pretty much with Tango here—decline, but don’t make an issue of it.

Re: #35: Is it true that “Everyone remembers that Red Sox general manager Theo Epstein was conspicuously missing” from White House visits?

Was it remarked upon at the time?  I’m curious.

I’ll bet Thomas would give you an earful about the massive expansion of the Federal government under Bush.

Perhaps he would.  But my question was different:  did he express concern about this AT THE TIME?  (i.e. before 2009)

And I’m curious:  what “massive expansion” do you have in mind?  It appears to me the size of the federal government hasn’t changed much over the past 10-20 years.

Massive expansion
= government stepping in when the unregulated markets collapsed, then presumingly over-regulating said markets

The idea from one side seems to be that we should not only have unregulated markets, but if those unregulated markets collapse, let the chips fall where they may, and from the ashes, will rise a new United States of the Phoenix.

Or something like that.

Hey, everyone, I don’t think this should be about the content or sincerity of Thomas’s beliefs. 

If it helps, imagine Ken Dryden not wanting to visit President Santorum, on the grounds that not enough is being done to support gay rights.

Would anybody ask, “is this really about gay rights, or is it just that Dryden really doesn’t like republicans?” Would anyone ask, “if Dryden is so concerned about gay rights, why didn’t he mention it publicly years ago?” Would anyone ask, “why didn’t he just shut up and do what’s best for the Montreal Canadiens and visit Santorum?” Would anyone ask, “Does Dryden really just want the publicity?” Would anyone say, “This is just proof that Dryden is just out for himself, and look how he doesn’t fraternize much with his teammates and just sits around writing his book”?

Or, try this: switch it around to make Thomas a moderate liberal, and the president a libertarian.  Suppose Thomas had said:

“I believe the Federal government has shrunk too far and taxes and welfare and social security cut too deep, threatening the well-being of people who are unable to care for themselves.  This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to what’s good and right and compassionate.  I don’t mean to criticize President Ron Paul in particular, because all parties have been allowing the rich to get richer while abandoning the poor and marginalized.”

Does that change your thinking?  If it does, I’d argue that you have to rethink your arguments, because the issue should have nothing to do with the content of Thomas’s particular political views.

No, I don’t care WHY.  All I care about is HOW.  And the HOW is that he was a d-ck about it.

Even Monica Belucci refusing a dinner invitation from Berlusconi wouldn’t require the Belucci to post on Facebook about how crappy Berlusconi treats women.

(Please take the opportunity to google Monica Belucci.  You’re welcome.)

Phil, it depends entirely on what question you’re trying to answer.  The question I was asking is “should we respect/admire what Thomas has done here?” To answer that question, I think the issue of whether he is sincere and honest in describing his motives, and what idea he is trying to express, are entirely germane. 

(If the question is “does he have a right to do this, well, as MGL and others have argued, the only possible answer is “yes.")

One thing to weigh against staying home is how you become the story. There needs to be a good reason to call attention to not going, and almost any American domestic issue is pretty petty. Or Canadian, for that matter. Lives need to be at stake, and there needs to be a chance not going will draw attention to it that it wouldn’t otherwise get.

Thus, my earlier, “I’m not going to see Bush at the White House due to his bombing Afghanistan and Iraq and funding of the Israelis” is actually lame, since we all know this stuff. Calling attention to, say, American support for the coup of the far-worse-than-Chávez coup plotters in Venezuela in 2002 would have been appropriate, since the issue didn’t get much play here. And it would only work in 2002. I would have been perceived as a baby for a good reason.

Saying, “I’m not going to see Obama at the White House to oppose Obamacare” is likewise silly. Again, we know this unless we’re living in a hole and not going to notice the protest. Doing it to protest bombing Libya a year ago would make sense, since that managed to fall off the radar. Doing it for that reason now would be stupid. Killing Anwar al-Awlaki would be another reason to timely protest; folks don’t realize this could happen to them.

So, while I don’t have an issue with his protest, it called attention to nothing but Thomas, and thus was silly for that reason.

1.  Guy/42: Fair enough.  If Thomas is being dishonest about his motives, and is really doing this to get an endorsement deal or something instead of actually being motivated by his political beliefs, then I agree with you that that’s fair game.  I suspect that’s a red herring, though.

2.  If it were an Alabama native refusing to meet with George Wallace in 1963, on “Segregation Forever” grounds, he’d be a hero.  And we all know it.  This has everything to do with Obama being seen as a moderate, and Thomas as a weirdo. 

It shouldn’t.  Even if Obama *is* a moderate, and even if Thomas *is* a weirdo.

3.  I’m not necessarily arguing for “admire”.  I’m arguing for “accept” or “not criticize”.  Basically, I’m saying if it’s OK for Thomas to not vote for Obama, it’s OK for him not to want to pose with him. 

Not that he has the *legal right* to not to want to pose—we all accept that—but, that he also has the right to *not be expected* to pose.

4.  I disagree that the idea he’s trying to express is germane.  It shouldn’t matter if he’s a Republican criticizing a Democratic president, or a Democrat criticizing a Republican president.  It shouldn’t matter if he’s pro-gay criticizing President Santorum, or anti-gay criticizing President Dan Savage. 

In any of those cases, the President has no right to demand the citizen’s presence, and the citizen has no obligation to be polite about refusing.

Because that’s what we’re arguing about, the privilege to be impolite.  And that privilege has to be the same, no matter what side of the issue you’re on.

4.  Tango/41: I don’t see how Thomas was being a d*ck.  He politely explained his policy disagreements, and didn’t insult Obama personally in any way. 

And, Obama’s invitation was public, and for a photo-op (that, by the way, probably benefits Obama politically).  Thomas is well within the bounds of etiquette to decline, and publicly explain *why* he’s declining, which he did in a very reasonable way. 

The bottom line is that if it’s OK for Obama to tell the world that Thomas was invited, then it’s OK for Thomas to (politely and respectfully) tell the world why he’s not attending.

Maybe I’m just cynical, but it seems to me that these meetings are purely to the political gain of the sitting president, being associated with famous public figures who people love by means of clips traditionally broadcast on the local news and now through the internet. Thomas just flipped the script to push his own agenda.

As to his method, maybe i’m missing it, but it seems like the AP reporter noticed his absence, pursued it, and was directed to the short facebook post. It’s not like he went out of his way to speak out on a national platform. His biggest fans could find out why if they wanted to. /shrug/

Politically, I feel the same way Tim Thomas does.

But, our Founding fathers view of government is impossible to sustain given the nature of humans and the development of a nation. It only works when people seek freedom and self-reliance. In other words, it works when everyone is a farmer taking care of themselves.

All that aside, I’m glad he just did not attend rather than make some political statement in front of everyone at the White House.

1)I don’t really understand OP. What is the point being made about Angelina Jolie? And why is the fact of being democratically elected a line in the sand? Hitler was democratically elected, but everyone here agrees shunning him would be more than appropriate.

2)I’d be curious hear Tango expand on thoughts in #12 (you don’t have to meet with Berlusconi but you should meet with Nixon). Nixon secretly and unnecessarily killed thousands of innocent people in Vietnam and Cambodia, and needlessly sent American soldiers to their deaths. If you were platoon-mates with a soldier who died, would it then be okay to snub Dick? What if it were a friend of a friend? What if you just felt human solidarity with that soldier and the children who were napalmed. That strikes me as a totally legitimate feeling which easily overcomes the petty impertinence one causes.

He also abused the power of the state to spy on and intimidate those he felt were politically rivalrous or dangerous. Isn’t that enough to say “I don’t want to have anything to do with this man” and proudly proclaim it from the heights of social media? How about his virulent anti-semitic diatribes? I say it’s appropriate to give that guy the finger, no matter that he’s political savvy enough to maneuver his way into office.

I don’t even see way getting elected to any office automatically earns you default respect. I think seeking power over other’s lives and achieving that ought to earn you default suspicion until you demonstrate through your actions that you put the interests of your constituents ahead of your personal political ambitions.

3)The part I most vehemently disagree with from Thomas’ detractors here, is that it just couldn’t be legitimate to consider Obama snub-worthy. The implication is that Obama’s policies and actions- unlike a Berlusconi- could only be so offensive to someone with very extreme and bizarre politics.

This is a terrible failure of moral imagination.

Thomas’ post (and you’ll have to point out the part that strikes you as not cogent, because I fail to see that at all) is fundamental expression of Classical liberalism. I don’t think it’s controversial to say that for Millian liberals (or libertarian conservatives) the Obama administration has been disastrous- a continuation of Bush policy with expanded war and a worse record on secrecy, executive power, and civil liberties. At the risk of being impertinent myself, I’d suggest that the progressives (I presume) here who can’t imagine finding Obama snub worthy simply don’t know his record. I’m sorry if this is unfair, and I’ll retract the accusation if you assert otherwise. But Progressives such as Glenn Greenwald and the ACLU have spent the past four years categorizing Obama’s betrayal of their principals- breaking his promise on military trials and closing Guantanamo, reckless drone strikes that have wantonly killed civilians, vocally opposing gay marriage (and taking years to reverse DADT when he could have done it on day one), inserting into NDAA the right of the executive branch to detain US citizens without trial, assassinating foreigners and American citizens without due process, the brutal treatment of Bradley Manning to intimidate would-be whistle blowers, using federal troops to raid and arrest medical marijuana patients where it is legal under state law, increasing the surveillance state, assassinating Iranian scientists (or at least giving Israel the green light to do so) and provoking war with Iran (even after standing idly and quietly by while the mullahs beat and killed those in the green movement), repugnant corporatism and the list goes on.

Many progressives have already called Obama shameful for these policies. Now imagine you are a tea partying type of conservative libertarian, as I assume Thomas is. Not only do resent the above policies, but you also have TARP, an enormous spending package under the guise of stimulus, the govt takeover of GM, the Fed heavily manipulating interest rates, relentless pushes for greater spending and regulation, the Solyndra scandal, and perhaps Obama’s friendly position towards abortion rights.

These are not small things. I am not personally opposed to Obama’s position on all of them, but I don’t have nearly such a hard time imagining someone having legitimate values which each of these might seriously offend.

I don’t recall Theo’s absences, Phil, but Haggerty seems convinced.

A quick donor search shows that Theo gave $500 to Senate candidate Martha Coakley but that’s it.

In contrast, John Henry is a major Dem fundraiser but had good relations with the former owner of the Rangers.

Guy/38: here’s a link to view federal outlays, adjusted for inflation (trillions of 2010 dollars.) While the trend is forever upward, it’s easy to see the steeper slope starting in 2000. Of course, in 2007, it skyrocketed, but 2000-2006 qualifies as “massive increase”, and it wasn’t all wartime spending. What did Thomas do before 2009? Was he invited to the Bush White House? You seem determined to believe he’s a hypocrite. This is typical in my experience and observation of one particular world-view—since that view must, by it’s own definition, be correct, anyone who disagrees does so for selfish, hypocritical reasons. It couldn’t possibly be that they really believe what they say. That’s exactly what you’re sounding like here.

This is an intriguing article (the headline is really misleading, though).
http://espn.go.com/boston/nhl/story/_/id/7506935/massachusetts-governor-says-boston-bruins-tim-thomas-snub-lack-grace
Patrick, not running for reelection, used very careful words to ensure he didn’t tick off any fans of Tim Thomas.  Brown, probably the Democrats’ number one target for the Senate this year, used very careful words to ensure he didn’t tick off any fans of Barack Obama.  He’s going to have to run ten or more points ahead of the GOP presidential nominee to have any hope of reelection (Mitt Romney couldn’t be elected dog catcher in Massachusetts right now). 

To me this gives the lie to the idea that Obama did this as a photo opportunity; he won’t take Massachusetts for granted but if he visits it in the fall it will be to help Elizabeth Warren against Brown or to get on Boston stations to be visible in New Hampshire (which is likely to be closer).  If he hadn’t invited the Bruins, the Boston sports media would have been all over him for not doing what any other president had done for other cities.  So it was entirely defensive.  Since Richard Nixon started calling teams that won championships, no president can stop, not because the politicians couldn’t declare a truce but because if you (or your predecessor) did it for the last champions, the fans of the new champions demand the same or better treatment.

Point of clarification on Neil S/13: the quote was from Rush the rock band, not Rush Limbaugh.

These White House visits have become a ritual now, which I think strips them of most of their political meaning. Sure, the President is happy to share the stage for a photo-op with the championship team, and vice-versa: we don’t do royal honours like the British, so being invited to the White House is, I suppose, the next best thing.

Unlike the U.K., where the there is a head of state for ceremonial/patriotic purposes (the monarch) and a head of government for political purposes (the prime minister), the U.S. combines both roles into one job, the President.

An invitation to the White House of this sort is essentially a state-given honor, independent of the politics of the current president. When viewed in that light, it’s easy to view Thomas’s behavior as rude, perhaps even unpatriotic, and I’m sympathetic to the view that it would have been more mature of Thomas simply to go along and smile with everyone else.

Now some people simply can’t, or won’t make this distinction, and don’t separate out the ceremonial role of the president from the political role. Thomas has the right to attend, or not, on whatever basis he chooses, and he also has the right to say whatever he wants about that choice in whatever forum he chooses.

We can likewise listen, ignore, or judge him as we, collectively, and separately, see fit.

Now there are indeed political reasons why many people might dislike Obama and his actions in office (Wexler/45 does a nice job listing some from both the left and right of the political spectrum). But to me, this invitation is essentially a state honor, and so even if I shared Thomas’s stance on the political issues he cites, I’d still have attended.

When first saw this article, I was a bit confused because I thought it referred to the former NBA player Tim Thomas!

here’s a link to view federal outlays, adjusted for inflation (trillions of 2010 dollars.) While the trend is forever upward, it’s easy to see the steeper slope starting in 2000.

There’s no link, but I don’t doubt that federal spending increases.  Population growth basically ensures that.  But as a share of the economy, federal spending has not changed much over the past 2 decades, and remains low by international standards.  And of course spending spiked up in 2009-2010 (both absolutely and proportional to GDP), that’s what happens in recessions—spending on food stamps, UI, etc. increases.  Much of that will go away as the economy recovers (some already has).  But this notion of a massive increase in the size of the federal government is just a fantasy. 

What did Thomas do before 2009? Was he invited to the Bush White House? You seem determined to believe he’s a hypocrite.

My point is simply that the large majority of today’s libertarians are ridiculous hypocrites. If you and/or Thomas are exceptions, more power to you.