June 12, 2001

11:55 PM

Republican athlete politiciansWith trepidation, I post a link to a Slate article (is that akin to posting a Salon article?) Anyway, I've been largely impressed with the "Sports Nut" columns. I think my favourite quote of this one is Brent Jones saying "An athlete is a small business owner whose product is yourself." And Charles Barkely reminding his grandma, unsure of her grandson's political leanings towards the Republicans, "we are rich".
posted by youthbc1 (25 comments total)

"An athlete is a small business owner whose product is yourself."

So is a prostitute.

More on that anon.
posted by Grangousier at 12:48 AM on June 13, 2001

"The Democrats are for big government," explains Carolina Hurricanes goalie Arturs Irbe, who hails from Latvia. "I experienced that, and I didn't like it."

There is a huge difference between the Dems and Commies, if nothing else this article shows that level of intelligence among conservatives are that of meathead that are now in the party.

I hate this phase, mainly because it's an unfair label that unduly criticizes someone for achieving success in a system that so slanted against them, but here goes: The Republicans seem to be window dressing these days with a few “Uncle Toms,” I hope nobody out there is fooled. Today’s Republican party is not the party of Lincoln. One need only look at Republicans “get tough on crime” stances. They’re not talking about locking up WASPs; putting poor blacks behind bars wins them a lot of political capital, and then the parading around of former black pro and college athletes is just the icing on the cake that lets them get away with it so easily. Or one could take a look at Republican policies that fight “big government” (i.e. well-fair and entitlement programs) to pay for all those tax cuts. I wonder how Sir Charles or Venus Williams feel about all of “inner-city youths” or “at risk kids” (euphemisms usually used for poor black kids) that have lost hot lunches at their schools, are at a serous academic disadvantage because even the basic text books can't be provided at school, who can’t eat because their family’s food stamps/VIC vouchers have been cutoff, or have had to live in awful public housing (not to mention kids of all races that must also endure such circumstances) so they could save some chump change form a multimillion dollar contract/US Open winnings check to buy a new BMW or yacht?
posted by Bag Man at 1:31 AM on June 13, 2001

"Why are all jock politicians Republicans?"

• Us against them?
• Simplified, black-and-white rules?
• Someone has to win?
• Winners are good? Winning makes you good?
• Losers are bad?
• The weak are useless?
• Education and intelligence undervalued?
• Regular-guyness and team spirit overvalued?
• Guyness overvalued?
• Gung-ho?
• Don Ho?
• Enjoy showering together?

No, of course not. It's because professional athletes tend to have loads of cash or at least to spend a lot of time dreaming of having loads of cash. A professional athlete is judged, and judges himself, by the contract headline he makes. The Republican party loves people like that, and people like that love the Republican party.
posted by pracowity at 2:12 AM on June 13, 2001

"Why are all jock politicians Republicans?"

• They realize that only hard work and lots of personal sacrifices makes their success possible and not government programs or affirmative action
• They know that writing more checks won't solve problems (Washington Redskins) but being accountable for your performance will
• Many have risen from the inner cities to become millionaires and have seen first-hand the poor results of welfare and other entitlement programs.

posted by gyc at 2:42 AM on June 13, 2001

"Why are all jock politicians Republicans?"

Because they're stupid and arrogant.

Compare that with Alex Ferguson, who led an apprentices' strike in Glasgow, or Bill Shankley:

"The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other, everyone having a share of the rewards. It's the way I see football, the way I see life."
posted by holgate at 3:29 AM on June 13, 2001

The Sports Nut columns in Slate are great. Gregg Easterbrook's weekly Tuesday Morning Quarterback column during the NFL season had some of the oddest, most insightful coverage of sports I've ever read. He's the inventor of the theory that if a visiting team's coach comes out for a cold-weather game prepared for a blizzard in a heavy coat, hat and gloves, the game's already lost.
posted by rcade at 5:07 AM on June 13, 2001

FYI, Michael Jordan is a Democrat and was a big supporter of Bradley.
posted by owillis at 6:53 AM on June 13, 2001

One of my favorite quotes:

When Charles Barkley's grandmother asked him why he was joining the "party of the rich," Barkley replied, "Grandma, we are rich."

Does this mean he, and is grandmother, used to be democrats, because it says he joined up, probably recently.

Is it as soon as someone is rich, they forget about their background and say, "well, I made it... to hell with everyone else I left behind."
posted by benjh at 7:21 AM on June 13, 2001

owliss: Um, and Bradley was a pro jock too, and a rather successful one at that. He's still a politician, last time I checked, and did not leave the Senate in ancient times, exactly. Back when it was in Rome, I guess I mean.
posted by raysmj at 7:28 AM on June 13, 2001

Why are many pro jocks conservative? I think it has a lot to do with the money, but not the way benjh thinks...it's the fact that government takes about half of what they earn.

That's why it always amazed me that entertainers (Babs Streisand, Rosie O'Donnell) are mostly liberal. Some of them actually think that the govt knows best how to spend their money.

Well, in some cases they may be right.

Stars: bigger mansions, new yacht, car collections.
Big Business: new technology, job creation.
posted by catscape at 7:55 AM on June 13, 2001

Catscape -- Note for the record that Babs and Rosie et al. give a boatload of straight out cash donations to charity. (The one niggling thing I will give them begrudging credit for.) Pro athletes aren't as likely to give the kinds of large direct contributions to charities as entertainment celebrities, instead donating time, items for auctions, sponsorships and other things that don't have such a high impact on their financial bottom line, but also don't carry the same tax benefits as writing a $500,000 check to (insert charity name here).
posted by Dreama at 8:20 AM on June 13, 2001

Gregg Easterbrook's weekly Tuesday Morning Quarterback column during the NFL season had some of the oddest, most insightful coverage of sports I've ever read.

Oh, hear, hear. I'm looking forward to TMQ's return almost as much as I am the football season. Talk about laugh-out-loud commentary. He was unable to type "Arizona Cardinals" without the ancillary phrase "CAUTION: CONTAINS FOOTBALL-LIKE SUBSTANCE," and refused to call the Washington Redskins by name, opting instead for "Chesapeake Watershed Region Indigenous Persons."
posted by Skot at 8:29 AM on June 13, 2001

Dreama, true they give huge amounts of cash away.

I singled those two out because their political views are so off the wall, imho. Remember when Bab's stated that if GWB was elected, she was leaving the country? I'm still waiting.
posted by catscape at 9:01 AM on June 13, 2001

I love that column too. Hail to the Chesapeake Watershed Region Indigenous Persons, Hail Victory!
posted by owillis at 9:36 AM on June 13, 2001

Braves on the warpath, fight for old D.C. *sniff, sniff*
posted by allaboutgeorge at 9:44 AM on June 13, 2001

They realize that only hard work and lots of personal sacrifices makes their success possible and not government programs or affirmative action

They know that writing more checks won't solve problems (Washington Redskins) but being accountable for your performance will

Many have risen from the inner cities to become millionaires and have seen first-hand the poor results of welfare and other entitlement programs.

And don't forget all these teams benefitting from socialistic public subsidies to build big, modern, redundant stadia. Not too conservative one would think. Oh, that's right though, a conservative will take an edge any way he can get it. Just as long as the profits keep coming in.
posted by crasspastor at 9:56 AM on June 13, 2001

And don't forget all these teams benefitting from socialistic public subsidies to build big, modern, redundant stadia. Not too conservative one would think. Oh, that's right though, a conservative will take an edge any way he can get it. Just as long as the profits keep coming in.

1.) Athletes and team owners are two different things (with one exception) - this article is about athletes.
2.) It is not a certainty that a team owner is a conservative.
3.) Liberal or conservative, a team owner who would turn down a multimillion dollar gift like a publicly financed stadium would not be much of a businessman.
4.) Any city mayor or state governor who claims to be a conservative and offers a pro sports team a publicly financed stadium is, in fact, no conservative.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:24 AM on June 13, 2001

5.) Cities and the people in them (particularly media people who have an open platform to hammer on particular points repeatedly until our collective resolve breaks) have bought into the idea that if a team ups and leaves for a city that's willing to part with big bux for new digs, the city will fall apart in a wretched heap. Consequently, acting in fear that as the sports teams goes, so goes the local economy, the citizenry will start clamoring for capitulation whether they are sports fans or not.

So then cities do really stupid things like demolishing perfectly good stadiums that aren't even fully paid for yet, in order to build two more in the exact same location.

All hail logic!
posted by Dreama at 11:47 AM on June 13, 2001

As a final note, I just found this story on ESPN.com. However, if his past is any indictor, I think Magic would run as a Dem.
posted by Bag Man at 9:04 PM on June 14, 2001

(I forgot to post this the other day)

1.) Athletes and team owners are two different things (with one exception) - this article is about athletes.

Yes it is about athletes LJR. And it's about athletes who run for office after their sporting careers are over. Therefore, let me rephrase:

Oh, that's right though, a conservative will take an edge any way he can get it.

A conservative ex-athlete will take an edge any way he can get it. Since ex-athletes are presumably largely conservative, we can count on them being in any and all favor imaginable to profit margins for their old grid iron mates.

2.) It is not a certainty that a team owner is a conservative.

Nor is it a certainty that any would be progressive either. Obviously as team owners they are in the business for one thing and one thing only. Profit. They succeed by profiting and to do so requires attaining any edge possible.

3.) Liberal or conservative, a team owner who would turn down a multimillion dollar gift like a publicly financed stadium would not be much of a businessman.

Yep. Good going LJ. This hypothetical owner obviously isn't a progressive concerned with raising all boats, only increasing ticket, advert and merchandising sales, filling his pockets yet more.

4.) Any city mayor or state governor who claims to be a conservative and offers a pro sports team a publicly financed stadium is, in fact, no conservative.

Yep again LJ. Nor is that politician a progressive.

Question is. . .who's profiting from the tax payers hard earned $12.50 an hour? And is that money they throw into the pool benefitting them or is it paying the spiraling upward athlete salaries, the sponsorships from international and local businesses of teams and individual athletes, which all help to make it all the more cyclic and absurd? And then they start writing the rules by using their heroic popularity to gain office.
posted by crasspastor at 9:32 PM on June 14, 2001

Here in LA, Magic Johnson endorsed Rocky Delgadillo for City Attorney and Jim Hahn for Mayor. Both candidates win, and I would say Magic definitely had a hand in their victory. The guy is several watts short of a full bulb, but I really do think he could win a mayoral race out here.
posted by owillis at 9:52 PM on June 14, 2001

A conservative ex-athlete will take an edge any way he can get it. Since ex-athletes are presumably largely conservative, we can count on them being in any and all favor imaginable to profit margins for their old grid iron mates.

Your first comment above is just a ridiculous, unprovable generalization. As to your second comment, so what? Why would one be opposed to profit? Do you even know what the word means?

2.) It is not a certainty that a team owner is a conservative.

Nor is it a certainty that any would be progressive either.

No, but that's not the point. If you're going to criticize team owners for not being consistent with conservative principles then one would have to first prove than most or all team owners are conservative, which you haven't done.

3.) Liberal or conservative, a team owner who would turn down a multimillion dollar gift like a publicly financed stadium would not be much of a businessman.

Yep. Good going LJ. This hypothetical owner obviously isn't a progressive concerned with raising all boats, only increasing ticket, advert and merchandising sales, filling his pockets yet more.

Are you saying that this hypothetical progressive team owner would turn down a publicly financed stadium? Unlikely.

4.) Any city mayor or state governor who claims to be a conservative and offers a pro sports team a publicly financed stadium is, in fact, no conservative.

Yep again LJ. Nor is that politician a progressive.

Again, irrelevant. You can't criticize for conservatives for inconsistentcy when the people in question are by no means certainly conservative. Whatever non-conservative philosophy they hold is beside the point.
posted by ljromanoff at 11:10 PM on June 14, 2001

FYI, unlike a lot of the other sports owners out there departed Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke built Fedex Field with his own money, and not holding Washington "hostage" with a "build a stadium or I'll move" threat that's so in vogue nowadays. The only deal he brokered was getting a road built and some zone clearances, way different than making the people foot the bill for a $200 million + stadium.
posted by owillis at 11:33 PM on June 14, 2001

Your first comment above is just a ridiculous, unprovable generalization. As to your second comment, so what? Why would one be opposed to profit? Do you even know what the word means?

Oh. I thought the link was about athletes-turn-conservative-politician. Perhaps in an unrelated thread my comment would have made no sense. Care to respond to the Slate article LJR? Profit? Did I write that? Actually no, I don't think I know what the word means. Can't believe I used it.

No, but that's not the point. If you're going to criticize team owners for not being consistent with conservative principles then one would have to first prove than most or all team owners are conservative, which you haven't done.

They're not being "consistent with conservative principles", because frankly, there are no conservative principals which benefit the middle and lower classes, which was the point of the comment. Conservatives by definition would be into maximization of profit. Whereas progressives would be most interested in allowing the will of the sheer numbers of they who labor in the blue collar sector be heard before the very few conservatives and future conservatives who are able to profit from blue collar subsidized stay-team-stay incentives. Indeed in Seattle, like owillis points out, what's the point in voting for anything at all when big Paul Allen or some other big business interest's going to win out anyway? A majority of Americans have no voice as they live paycheck to paycheck and haven't the time nor resources for involvement in community upgrade, no matter how much they wish for it. As far as the burden of proof that all "team owners" are conservative, the onus is not on me, but rather you. You show me the team owner who's not interested in success not only in the standings but in what he/she got into it in the first place. Profit is the motive. Economic conservativism would serve them best in such a market, and as much as I enjoy certain big league sports I cannot fault them on wanting to build a winning team. However, my line must be drawn at threatening cities with abject "world-class lonliness" by moving the team to Omaha or some shit.

Are you saying that this hypothetical progressive team owner would turn down a publicly financed stadium? Unlikely.

No true progressive would ever own anything as big as an NFL team as she would be an abject failure at that. Being a progressive is volunteerism, activism, teaching and general stewardship. Holding progressivism to the same standards of conservatism is like creationists accusing those who do science of being emotionally swayed as they espouse such "untruths" as evolution and thermodynamics when it doesn't agree with creationism's own scientifically provable untruths.

So, you're right, I can't accuse conservatives of inconsistancies. But I definitely can strongly disagree with the subterfuge and debateless rhetoric of the right. As to the right, personal-profit and bombastic admonitions of anti-query exist as it's basic tenets, that which it's stadium is built upon.
posted by crasspastor at 12:37 AM on June 15, 2001

They're not being "consistent with conservative principles", because frankly, there are no conservative principals which benefit the middle and lower classes

Yeah, right. I guess all those middle and lower class people who are employed due to the success of corporations who have maximized their profit have received no benefits from being employed.


As far as the burden of proof that all "team owners" are conservative, the onus is not on me, but rather you.

Again, if you are going to lambaste team owners for not being consistent with a particular philosophy then the onus is on you to prove that said team owners espouse that philosophy to begin with.

Being a progressive is volunteerism, activism, teaching and general stewardship

And being nice to cute little animals, too? Good grief.
posted by ljromanoff at 7:05 AM on June 15, 2001