Play Fantasy The Most Award Winning Fantasy game with real time scoring, top expert analysis, custom settings, and more. Play Now
Blog Entry

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

Posted on: January 23, 2012 6:27 pm
Edited on: January 23, 2012 9:28 pm
 
Thomas elected not to visit the White House with teammates (Getty Images)

By Brian Stubits

WASHINGTON -- The Boston Bruins were at the White House on Monday to meet President Barack Obama. Well, almost all of them.

There was one very notable absence as the Bruins were honored in the East Room of the White House. Nobody could seem to find Tim Thomas among the crowd of players in the background. Soon enough, word got out that he elected to skip the event.

"He chose not to come. The reasons behind it I think he'll make the media aware through his Facebook," Bruins general manager Peter Chiarelli said after the ceremony.

Sure enough, the reasons were made clear. Here is the message Thomas posted a little after 6 ET on his Facebook page.

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

This is being done at the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial level. This is in direct opposition to the Constitution and the Founding Fathers vision for the Federal government.

Because I believe this, today I exercised my right as a Free Citizen, and did not visit the White House. This was not about politics or party, as in my opinion both parties are responsible for the situation we are in as a country. This was about a choice I had to make as an INDIVIDUAL.

This is the only public statement I will be making on this topic. TT

There was a lot of anger across the hockey world on Monday because of Thomas' decision not to show up. I don't understand it one bit.

Let me say that I, myself, would never turn down an opportunity to be honored by the President of the United States, no matter how much I dislike him. It's about the office, the individual.

With that said, I have zero problem with Thomas passing on it. None at all. He has his beliefs and convictions and has every right to stand up for them. To the people who are complaining that he is being selfish and taking away from the team's spotlight, I say mission: accomplished. Look how much attention he is getting because of this and thus getting his political views shared with everybody.

"Everybody has their own opinions and political beliefs. He chose not to join us," team president Cam Neely told the media after the ceremony. "We certainly would have liked to have him come and join us but that's his choice. All the guys came except for Tim. It's his decision and his choice."

Neely would later release another statement on the matter, this time a little more officially than his after-ceremony comments to the media.

"As an organization we were honored by President Obama's invitation to the White House. It was a great day and a perfect way to cap our team's achievement from last season. It was a day that none of us will soon forget. We are disappointed that Tim chose not to join us, and his views certainly do not reflect those of the Jacobs family or the Bruins organization. This will be the last public comment from the Bruins organization on this subject."

Nobody should be upset about this, it's just not a big deal. He declined to go, so be it. What's the big deal?

My only issue with it is that it added a more newsy element to an otherwise light-hearted day for the Bruins. Well that and the mixing of hockey and politics. That's never a good idea.

There are so many mixed feelings on all of this, and I'm not talking about the politics themselves. Of course people won't agree on that. But sometimes you have athletes who are chided for not caring enough, not using their positions of power to make an impact. Then when players do just that, they get ripped for sharing their political views; why do we care what a goaltender thinks about big government?

I say anything that leads to discussion can't hurt. And after seeing some of the players and team officials after the ceremony, I don't think it detracted much from their experiences either. Really, this is a case of no harm, no foul for me. The man had a choice to make and he made it.

More from Eye on Hockey

Bruins honored at the White House

For more hockey news, rumors and analysis, follow @EyeOnHockey and @BrianStubitsNHL on Twitter.

Comments

Since: Nov 26, 2011
Posted on: January 24, 2012 5:07 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

Cam Neely just stated on the radio that the Bruin's wished that Thomas would attend the White House ceremony with the rest of his team, and could have in fact made the visit mandatory for the whole team. They allowed him to skip the visit but requested that he release his explanation the following day as to not distract from the rest of the team enjoying their day.

 

Tim could not wait one day to make his feeling known that he had never publically shared before. It looks like he was just exercising his Constitutional right to be a major DB. Another oppressed millionaire playing a child’s game who thinks because he can stop a rubber disk five percent more often than about a thousand other guys, his political view should carry more weight than mine.





Since: Jan 15, 2008
Posted on: January 24, 2012 5:02 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

Where do you think this contry would be if the American Indians had drove off the white eyes. Talk about raping and destroying a country. The only reason this country is not as bad as others is that the politicians did not get a hold of this country a couple thousand years ago. They have only had 300 years to rape it of it's resources give them enough time they will get the job done. Hell Bush Jr. even wanted to take down the redwoods. Give me a break anyone who defends  either of our political parties.



Since: Nov 22, 2006
Posted on: January 24, 2012 4:35 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

I hear ya eagle, and I agree that not all regulations are good for all people. For isntance, I'd like to put a solar farm on my 3 bright acres here in the Sunshine State, but the Utility companies paid the public service commission to rule that I can't. Well, I can... I just can't sell the power I grow. Instead I have to pay an extra charge on my electric bill whenever the price of oil goes up.

Sar-Box...yeah, I remember that one. That was about Enron and Tycho and all those people who lost their retirement. I'm not sure it's widely held among those who were screwed that we don't need protection from those kinds of practices.
Your figures about the coal plants may be right, but I question them. There's a whole lot more to shutting a dirty coal plant then health care benefits.
Of course, the coal industry says that they just can't be clean, or safe for us, or even safe for their workers, unless we all go back to candles or suck hind teat to the Arabs.  I don't buy it.

Whenever we hear "job killing regulations" it's almost always followed up with "get rid of the EPA, the Department of Energy, and.... "

...wait, I know there's a third. Smile



Since: Nov 22, 2006
Posted on: January 24, 2012 4:19 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

MarcusBrutus has a happy finger! Cool

Seriously, I think you made my point. First, there were not 'piles' of environmental regulations before Love Canal (1974 ish?)... that kinda started it all. Please note that there hasn't been another one since 1974 (although I hear that Camp LeJeune is hard at it.)

The other incidents were not a result in spite of piles of regulations, but a lack of regulators, or even worse in the case of the Gulf, regulators who were on the payroll of the oil companies. I submit that regulations without regulators are not regulations at all. Ask yourself who took the teeth out of the regulators? That applies not only to companies that pollute the environment but to Wall St as well. Can you say 'Toxic Assets' for sale?

By far, the biggest hue and cry to dismantle 'job-killing" regulations comes from the biggest corporations. If the regulations exist to restrict their competition, why would they be screaming in public and paying in private to get rid of them?

Think about it.









Since: Aug 22, 2008
Posted on: January 24, 2012 4:09 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

And bizona regulationshave apurpose up to a point, but history shows that thereis a tipping point where the government becomes too involved and it brings down the economy. Look at the recent EPA rule that passed that will shut down many coal plants, costing many jobs and billions of dollars for the benefit of about $50 million less in health costs a year nationwide. Not to mention many independent energy analysts say that with the huge loss in power plants there will be a huge strain on electricity availability, causing an increase in electric rates and the chance for rolling blackouts. Please explain how that is a good regulation.



Since: Aug 22, 2008
Posted on: January 24, 2012 4:03 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

macgeo you do realize not all regulation has to do with pollution. For example it is widely agreed that Sarbanes-Oxley, a regulation on accounting, has cost companies billions, which reduces their capital for investment that could fuel job creation. That's just one example, I'll let you look up others. I never said all regulation is bad, clearly we can't have waste getting dumped into rivers and streams, I'mjust saying that there are plenty regulations written without any reason behind them, their just an overreaction to the current situation. If you don't believe overregulation is as an issue, take a look at most European economies. It is widely admitted that the Kyoto Protocol put them at a severe disadvantage when competing with other economies.



Since: Jun 22, 2009
Posted on: January 24, 2012 3:49 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

Did the piles of US regulations stop the Love Canal, Gulf Oil Spill or Exxon Valdez?  No, so than you for making the argument that they are useless.  The purpose of regulations is to restrict competition for the big corporations; regulations harm the little guys and help the big corporations.



Since: Jun 22, 2009
Posted on: January 24, 2012 3:48 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

Did the piles of US regulations stop the Love Canal, Gulf Oil Spill or Exxon Valdez?  No, so than you for making the argument that they are useless.  The purpose of regulations is to restrict competition for the big corporations; regulations harm the little guys and help the big corporations.



Since: Jun 22, 2009
Posted on: January 24, 2012 3:41 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

Umm, the piles of US regulations did not stop the Love Canal, Gulf Oil Spill or Exxon Valdez.  So what's your point?  That regulations are useless?  Regulations are used by insiders to trample on the small guy to keep them from competing with the big guys.



Since: Oct 22, 2007
Posted on: January 24, 2012 3:05 pm
 

Thomas explains decision to not visit White House

macgeo, I like your post on "over-regulation."

Whenever I see people talk about "over-regulation" I wonder to myself which countries which have no or little regulation of their industries and corporate world are better off than the US. I can't think of one. In fact, usually the countries that have the highest overall standard of living have quite a bit of industrial and corporate regulation. At the other end of the spectrum are countries whose populations are dying of starvation, dehydration and curable diseases while those countries can't support themselves because the land and resources have been raped and pillaged by unregulated industry.


The views expressed in this blog are solely those of the author and do not reflect the views of CBS Sports or CBSSports.com