OT: Charles Woodson, Public Statesman?

Submitted by 08mms on February 22nd, 2011 at 10:35 AM

One of our alumni wading into the political fracas in Wiscy:


[Ed-M: Comments disabled (apologies to the 99% who kept them in bounds). The last time this got published it was deleted because it came with an endorsement. I'm leaving it on the board this time because it involves an important former Wolverine and makes no judgement. Comments are just asking for trouble.]



February 22nd, 2011 at 11:04 AM ^

If someone can answer this without getting into the for/against or the pros/cons, has Charles Woodson been politically active throughout his life, or is this just one issue he really feels strongly about?


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:12 AM ^

We at mgoblog have been politically silenced for far too long, living under fear of exhile and the banhammer.  We are not allowed to freely discuss politics or things of a political nature.  I think it is time to cast off these shackles! 

We will return to the good old days when the M in Mgoblog stood for Michigan instead of Mubarak!

I will now proceed to start a facebook group and send out lots of tweets.


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:17 AM ^

with Chuck's statement is that he does not say whether he supports a mandate that ALL working people of Wisconsin get the same benefits of public employees. Its not a pro/con issue for me.

Its an us/them issue. Michigan has its own problems to deal with, but Chuck's statement is incomplete. Does he support legislation mandating public and private employees get the same benefits? Why should public employees get much better benefits than private employees?

I am proud that a Michigan Man has "star power" to influence public policy.  I really dont care what they do in Wiscy but UM is well represented.  Maybe Chuck could come back to M and run for congress.  I would vote for him regardless of party affiliation.


February 22nd, 2011 at 12:45 PM ^

I am supporting a Michigan Man regardless of political affiliation. I really dont care what they do in Wiscy. Is it against MgoBlog policy to support a Michigan Man if he/she runs for office? If so, my bad. I did not know that. I dont know why I got negged for supporting Chuck and his "star power". It is not an endorsement of anything he stands for or against.


EDIT: I have read the posts to date.  I understand that political discussion of any type is not allowed.  So I withdraw my statement.  I just thought that I was supporting Woodson and not necessarily his view.  It was an error in judgement.


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:18 AM ^

It is just pure strategy.NFL players are in a dog fight themselves with their management. It is just an attempt to put themselves in a good light. Now the owners will think 10 times before they "leak" any derogatory info about the negotiations since now people will subconsciously think:

millionaire NFL players == teachers who get paid a tad above minimum wage

El Jeffe

February 22nd, 2011 at 11:19 AM ^

Nothing Chuck-related is ever OT. I feel much more strongly about this than I do about my incredibly strong feelings in favor of or against the goings on in WI.


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:24 AM ^

First of all, I love that the posters here keep it light-hearted on this topic.  You guys have me laughing.

As a member of a teacher's union for 7 of the last ten years - with the other 3 in a right to work state, let me say teachers in unions have it made.  And I am a hypocrite when it comes to union issues.  I can't stand the things unions represent and do with our money (supporting political candidates that are ALWAYS liberal/progressive).  But I like that the union gets us more money (much more) and better benefits & retirement packages (much better) than states without unions.

I am staunchly against what is going on in Wisconsin because I know how good they have it.  I also know that, after teaching in Title I schools my entire career, most teachers I worked with care about the kids, but not nearly as much as they care about the money. 

When I'd attend kids' sporting events, there might be one or two other teachers there.  Same for their theater productions, etc.  Clock in, teach, clock out.  Nothing wrong with that UNTIL they start talking about how much they love the kids they teach.  Really?  Then, take the extra time for the kids that the very few other teachers do.  Show up at a kid's house in the hood when he/she isn't doing well or isn't showing up to class.  Track down former students who are doing well or who are making bad decisions and getting into trouble.  Very few do that.  So, stop with the "We care about kids!" routine.  If the teachers in Wisconsin really cared about their students, they would have been in the classroom and not protesting.

My guess is Charles Woodson knows almost nothing about what the governor of Wisconsin wants teachers to do.  They can still collectively bargain their wages.  He just wants more from them for medical (and we pay a TINY amount out of our checks and in co-pays) and retirement (and we don't pay into that nearly what we get out of it - thus the financial crisis).

But rather than find out, he - like the vast majority of union workers - blindly falls in lock step with other union workers.  Lemmings.

And by the way, why is it that only SOME people are called "working class" or "working families."  I know many people who work their tails off (many of you do, I am sure) through college and at their jobs.  They sacrifice a lot to be good at what they do, work long hours and do the things others aren't willing to do.  Yet, because their paychecks are a bit bigger, they are not "working class" or "working families."

Anyway, I should have kept it light, too, but I am (and I mean this with all sincerity) an a-hole.  I truly, truly am.  I am as opiniated as it gets.  I don't mean to rub people the wrong way, but I just can't help myself because I am just a flat-out a-hole.

I need help.


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^

I know it must be fun to get a bunch of anonymous UM fans riled up, but there has to be somewhere else on the internet where you can post.  I'm sure you'll have a pithy response, but maybe you need to update your bookmarks.


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:39 AM ^

yesterday i posted this article that inspired about 30 comments before it was deleted. it was my intention to point out that one of our greatest ambassadors was out there, being articulate, intelligent and demonstrating social awareness and involvement. i was not trying to express my own political bent (which is not relevant). i was just proud of charles as he demonstrates that we here at michgan help boys become men, on and off the field. i am proud of pres. gerald ford, not because i am a republican (which is not relevant), but because of his accomplishments. I am proud of rimersrma, not because i agree with his right wing stance but because he wants to serve his country in public office. etc.

now those of you that think that sports are completely divorced from politics, i ask you to take a closer look. first, sports=money and money=politics. e.g. why does the bcs continue instead of a playoff? why were tosu players allowed to participate in the bowel game? why can the schools in the sec break all the recuiting rules without consequence? why don't college athletes get better compensated? there are political powers out there that are calling the shots. don't kid yourselves.

i fully agree that this great blog of ours is better if we don't argue politics or religion. but there is inevitable overlap that is appropriate. the real disappointment was the vile reactions of some of the respondents. demonstrating an immaturity, intolerance and ignorance that i was surprised to see from this michigan group.

go blue!


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:48 AM ^

(This is a response to cazzie's post not yours OMG.  My bad.)

Your premise that a topic that bridges the gap between politics and sports is appropriate is ridiculous.  The first rule of MGoBlog is no politics.  In other words, there is no bridge between the gap.  There's no gray area.  Yet you feel like you have found a bridge.  As a man trained in arguing, I can likely find a way to link ever political argument to sports.  The whole point of banning political talk is to quiet people like you and me.  Just respect the damn rule!  If you want to talk politics, call in to your local sh-tty radio station or whatever.



February 22nd, 2011 at 12:40 PM ^

I would say that probably strays toward more sports talk and gets tolerence.  The substantive issue of Mr. Woodson's comment clearly has little to do with sports (although the timing with upcoming player/owner bargaining is interesting) so no one here wants to waste time/space getting off the topic they come here to read about.  Its not that hard.


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:57 AM ^

A) Bringing anything expressly political to MGoBlog.

B) Making a long-winded statement ending in Go Blue! when it has no relevence to your comment.

Look, I'm a Public Policy student with a political internship. I'm as political of a person as you'll ever meet, but I don't want politics mixed with the rest of the MGoBlog discussion. If I want to talk politics, there are other internet forums and there are friends/family/whatever.

Can't we talk about Charles Woodson's significant sporting related accomplishments? Or talk about our bubble chances? That way we can have a sports blog where people can feel free to talk about sports, without politics in the way.


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:44 AM ^

I get what you are saying, but the internet is big enough that you can have this debate somewhere else.  Most sports blogs I read have a pretty strong aversion to politics and for good reason - it leads to nothing more than angry comments, flame wars, etc.  So while I feel bad that you were attacked a bit yesterday, it isn't the end of the world.  I've been negged for inapporpriate stuff as well, and you just let it go and learn from it.

And for the record, while sports=money and money=politicis, that equation pretty much works for everything, and shouldn't be used to justify bringing them into a sports blog.  Everyone has to evacuate their bowels a couple of times a day, even politicians and businessmen, so poop=money and poop=politics.  By and large, though, you don't see people talking about bowel movements on this site either.  


February 22nd, 2011 at 12:54 PM ^

for your kind support. really. but i'm sixty-bolivian-years old and dont give a rats about negs. in fact i kinda like them. when i was in a2 we broke rules. we burned draft cards and ended the war (or we thought so). we fought the rules of institutional racism and changed things, maybe. we smoked on the diag and defied the law.  this discussion is for the most part good for us. besides, we obviously have nothing better or more relevant to discuss here in feb. speech will not be stifled.

on the other had, i love this site, and brian and the rest and will try my best to conform. but it ain't easy.

power to the people

go blue!


February 22nd, 2011 at 11:50 AM ^

"now those of you that think that sports are completely divorced from politics, i ask you to take a closer look."

They aren't but it becomes a matter of relevance. Politics is an absolute no-no on this blog. I suppose in a rare circumstance that directly involved Michigan sports it would be allowed as long as the flaming was minimal.

But how is this relevant other then it involves Woodson? Sorry but I don't care what his opinions are on unions in Wisconsin, and don't come here to read the opinions of others. If people want to discuss it, there are plenty of other sites/forums to do that.


February 22nd, 2011 at 12:42 PM ^

Becuase a high-profile alumn and former athlete is all over the national news, and I think a lot of of M fans would be interested to take note of that.  Perhaps it could spur a discussion of how being a part of the M community and playing on our teams prepares you to take a role outside of just athletics.  Perhaps it shows the opposite. Either way, I thought it was interesting  that it happened and would be surprised if I was the only one reading who felt the same.