[LOCKED] Harbaugh invites Obama honorary team captain

Submitted by Rodriguesqe on

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/sports/college/university-michigan/201…

No politics is a good rule to keep in mind here.

From a football perspective - Obama is likely very popular amongst most of the kids we recruit and building some ties to a President re-inforces what we are as an accademic institution. 

From recruiting, I view this is a big score.

MOD EDIT - This one is starting to go in all sorts of directions that it shouldn't. It was a nice bit of news, not political in the least really by itself, but alas....the search for nice things begins again. - LSA

enlightenedbum

June 17th, 2017 at 4:52 PM ^

OK, one, that's irrelevant to my point which is that Obama is not the most racist President because of all the nonsense I mentioned.  And I ignored a bunch of stuff like the Indian Wars.

Two, let's talk about history, Lincoln's Republicans dramatically expanded federal intervention into the economy. Notably the Pacific Railways Acts giving federal support to the transcontinental railroad and the Morill Act, creating the land grant colleges.  Also signed the bill creating the first income tax in US history, a strong national bank (precursor to the Fed).

From their founding until sometime between 1876 and 1912 (depending on your metric), the Republicans were the liberal party in this country.  Hell, the second great Republican President literally ran for his third term as a member of the Progressive Party (aka Bull Moose).  So yeah, Lincoln was a Republican and a great President.  He was not particularly conservative though.

Cali's Goin' Blue

June 17th, 2017 at 6:59 PM ^

Because it really seems you like to stick your head in the sand. It is very much common knowledge that Lincoln was a very liberal president and that the Republican party back when he helped start it was the more liberal party in the country at the time. Also, calling Barack Obama more racist than Nixon, Hayes, or any of the other president an earlier commenter mentioned is absolute lunacy. 

xtramelanin

June 17th, 2017 at 6:37 PM ^

democrats are the party of the KKK.
democrats are the party of jim crow laws.
democrats are of course the slavery party.
democrats are the party of segregationists - al gore's dad, j. william fulbright, robert byrd to name a few who were elected to the senate.
democrat president woodrow wilson instituted segregation in washington d.c., bringing jim crow laws to he fed work force and summarily dismissing black workers from their federal jobs in the south and in d.c. - wilson opined 'segregation is not humiliation but a benefit, and out to be so regarded by you [black] gentlemen'.
democrats opposed and/or filibustered every civil rights legislation from the time of the civil war until at least 1964, and only then started to vote for that legislation because they realized they would never win elections in some parts of the country by appealing to racist mobs.

democrats lionize margaret sanger, the mother of abortion who was a vicious racist- abortion which murders black babies such that in some cities and entire states, more black babies are murdered by their mother than are allowed to be born.

so please, all of you in particular that are melanin challenged, tell me about racism.  

enlightenedbum

June 17th, 2017 at 7:37 PM ^

And then the party's ideology changed, not least because of the influx of black people into the party.  This whole Republicans are the party of civil rights malarkey ignores the last 50 years and ironically treats black people like they're utter morons who can't be trusted to figure out who is actually best for them.  When a group goes 90-10 against a party for generations, there's probably something to it and it's time for some self-reflection instead of "but Robert Byrd (who renounced his previous views in the 70s, FWIW)!"

enlightenedbum

June 17th, 2017 at 8:01 PM ^

I've never understood how the latter would work, even in theory.  The black family is solely destroyed by... ungenerous government subsidies for the very poor?  Wait, what?

Doesn't it make more sense that the ridiculous disparity in the criminal justice system is a better explanation for the breakdown in the black family?  What's the number, 1 in 3 black men can expect to end up in prison at some point?  1 in 20 black men in this country is currently behind bars.  That's absurd.

Also disparities in hiring practices (resumes with "black" sounding names get far more interviews than ones with "white" sounding names), housing (that one was the government itself, oops), etc etc etc.  It's not an easy answer like "Oh, if we just eliminated these meagers subsidies, America's race problem would go away."

evenyoubrutus

June 17th, 2017 at 8:33 PM ^

What percentage of single mothers do you think are strong, independent, middle or upper class feminists just trying to prove that they can do it on their own? I honestly don't know the answer but it seems unreasonable to think that feminism is why single motherhood has tripled since that period.

enlightenedbum

June 17th, 2017 at 8:39 PM ^

I think wider changes in the culture influenced by feminism would be a reason.  Things are complicated and rarely monocausal.  For example, more women in the work force means that more women feel like they could take the risk and get a divorce for one potential secondary effect.  That seems more plausible to me than somehow it being because of the war on poverty.

LS And Play

June 17th, 2017 at 4:24 PM ^

That's interesting. Romney was regularly accused by the Left and the media of being a racist, sexist, homophobic bigot. Oh, and he was responsible for a woman dying from cancer, too. All Republicans are evil until they lose an election, and then they become saints.

LS And Play

June 17th, 2017 at 4:28 PM ^

Oh, I don't disagree with your point. It's the revisionist history that is frustrating to me. I'm saying that plenty of people would not have been okay with Romney doing something like this had he not lost an election.

In reply to by somewittyname

Bigscotto68

June 17th, 2017 at 6:24 PM ^

Endangering​ police by feeding false stories, endangering our troops by providing operating capital to our enemies, endangering all of us by opening our borders to our sworn enemies, freeing terrorists from Guantanamo to rejoin the fight against our soldiers, providing weapons and sanctuary to Mexican drug cartels, providing financial support to Communist dictators on Cuba and Venezuela .... I can continue but this is the part where you say Trump said grab them by the Pu**y, which is much more relevant

Mr. Yost

June 17th, 2017 at 3:57 PM ^

We get all prideful about Ford being a football player and President. Politics are everywhere. You can't ignore it.

You trying to keep things separate is fucking insane. If you feel so passionate about it...don't go to that particular game. That's your right.

If you were a player, don't play that game...that's also your right. Just like it's the Warriors right not to go to DC. Crying about shit like this on MGoBlog is what's "unreal."

"Keep politics out of football Jim." Who the fuck are you?

Let's stop singing the Anthem before the game. Take the flag off helmets! In fact, let's stop having players and coaches with opinions. Robots! That's what we need....ROBOTS!

And why stop at politics? Athletes shouldn't talk about civil rights, gay rights, or equality either! I mean Jim Brown, Jackie Robinson, Ali?! Stick to sports, dammit!

Derek

June 17th, 2017 at 4:32 PM ^

The notion ignores the fact that the NCAA and the professional sports leagues are cartels with federal anti-trust exemptions, not to mention their history of, uh, strong stances on racial and gender politics. Like it or not, politics are all wrapped up in this thing.

stephenrjking

June 17th, 2017 at 2:33 PM ^

I'm not a fan of the politics of this and Harbaugh doesn't want to be needlessly polarizing to recruits. Or to fans, for that matter, though he's got a lot of "neutral" credibility with guys like me. But I will say that if Mr. Obama accepts, the Saturday it occurs will be big news and a lot of recruits are going to see footage and photo ops that no one else comes close to producing. Wildly popular with players and many recruits. A good move overall.

UMichWolverines

June 17th, 2017 at 2:37 PM ^

I'm not so sure that this is a good idea, we have to remember that half of the country doesn't support Obama. It splits the fan base and some recruits might be turned off, there's really no reason to introduce politics into Michigan football.