Curt Schilling earned my respect during the World Series. He played gutsy and literally left everything he had on the field. He played injured out of his dedication to his teammates and fans and, in the process, became one of the greatest postseason stories in sports history. Red Sox fans will forever remember his heroics. A day after the World Series win, I lost the respect I had for Schilling when he told the nation on "Good Morning America" that he was endorsing President George W. Bush in today's election.
Schilling didn't lose my respect because he's voting for George Bush -- that isn't important. What is important is his belief that he is an expert political analyst who knows who the country should vote for. Schilling recorded a phone message for voters in three key swing states encouraging voters to cast ballots for his guy.
In his phone message to voters, Schilling said, "These past couple of weeks, Sox fans trusted me when it was my turn on the mound. Now you can trust me on this: President Bush is the right leader for our country," according to a transcript from the Bush campaign.
Schilling is trivializing one of the greatest comebacks in sports by asking voters to vote for his candidate. Make no mistake, the fans owe Schilling big-time. He won them the World Series, so what have they done for him lately (well, besides treating him like a god and giving him millions of dollars)? Curt has cleared up a difficult election for the nation. Voters no longer have to think for themselves, Curt Schilling has told them what to think. When voters go to the polls, they should forget what is best for them and their families, and instead, vote for Schilling -- er, Bush!
The fact of the matter is that Curt Schilling should be ashamed of himself. While he apologized for his comments on "Good Morning America," he didn't say anything about his phone message. Schilling needs to realize that he isn't a political analyst; he is simply lucky people like to watch baseball.
Grant Hill was lauded by a writer for the Orlando Sentinel when he spoke out for Kerry at a rally earlier in October. While this isn't as controversial as Schilling trying to capitalize on a World Series win, this is still wrong. The writer praised Grant Hill for having the courage to take a stand and being one of the only athletes to care more about social, rather than commercial, impact.
"Like any other citizen, athletes are entitled to keep their views private. It's just sad when the silence is based on the wallet, not the heart. The overriding concern these days is not to hurt your marketability ... It's not that there are no conscientious athletes out there. But given the choice of having a commercial impact or a social impact, most will take the sneaker contract and run." - David Whitley, Orlando Sentinel, October 17.
This is a blatant generalization of athletes, and a poor one at that. David Whitley dismisses the billions of dollars athletes have given to charities and have invested in communities. He dismisses the social impact of having players speak at schools about the importance of education and reading. Apparently, the only way to take a stand is to proclaim your allegiance to one side or the other.
I am all for athletes taking stands on issues. If it is something they really believe in and something they are knowledgeable about, I am fine with it. I think it's terrific that so many athletes have stepped up this election by encouraging and educating people on the importance of voting. When athletes encourage people to vote, they are truly embracing their status as role models to fans. They overstep their bounds, however, when they abuse a platform given to them by fans by pushing their own agenda on the people that have given them so much.
Whitley accuses athletes of staying quiet on presidential issues as a way of making more money. He doesn't acknowledge the ramifications of statements similar to those made by Bears linebacker Hunter Hillenmeyer.
"And I tell everybody in the locker room; it makes no sense for anybody making the money an NFL player does to vote for a Democrat," he said. "The first thing Kerry is going to do is hike the tax rate up on the highest tax bracket and cost everybody in here a large chunk of change."
These aren't exactly the words a role model, yet Hillenmeyer can hardly be blamed. Elections are always going to be a case of people voting for what's best for their families and friends, which is precisely why it's a decision that needs to be thought about by everyone, instead of merely "trusting" Curt Schilling.
If an athlete is asked who he is voting for, I don't have a problem with him answering. It should be a situation of "don't ask, don't tell." I have a problem once athletes abuse their position to start promoting their candidate. This is a dangerous trend, and it will quickly turn into a slippery slope if it continues.
How long will it be before athletes are paid for their endorsements of presidential candidates? To some athletes, it would be just like endorsing a pair of shoes or endorsing McDonald's. While such instances would be the same to athletes, the situation is far more complex.
Some of the blame lies with people that would be influenced by this, but more of the blame lies with the athlete abusing his status as a role model. The fact of the matter, however, is that people have a lot more at stake when choosing a president than when they are choosing Gatorade over Powerade. People need to look at the issues and decide what is best for them, not what is best for some athlete-turned-political shill.
Besides, many people turn to sports to get away from the outside world. For people inundated with election coverage and propaganda in the news, they know they can turn to sports to get away from it. Sports can bring together so many people, even during the most divisive times in our country. At games, fans are, and should be, divided by teams, not political affiliation.
People should vote based on what is best for them and their families, not on who they cheer for.
Mark Chalifoux is also a weekly columnist for SportsFan Magazine. His columns appear every Tuesday on Sports Central. You can e-mail Mark at [email protected].
November 2, 2004
Marc James:
Good column, but I disagree. This is America, and anyone should be able to loudly voice their opinion on politics, or any other issue, if they feel strongly enough about it. Schilling shouldn’t be allowed to campaign because he’s a star athlete? If he really likes Bush, then power to him!
November 2, 2004
Mark Chalifoux:
If he wants to donate money or support Bush, that’s fine. But don’t try to turn the World Series win into a plea for votes.
He shouldn’t be campaigning as an athlete. What is his goal? Isn’t it to sway people to vote for his candidate? That is just wrong, the people need to think on their own and vote based on what is best for them, not based on where their favorite pitcher stands.
Also, how long will itbe before athletes are speaking out not based on how strongly they feel about a candidate, but based on how much they are being paid by the candidate?
November 2, 2004
Marc James:
People of all walks of life campaign, and they often use their star power to their advantage. Look at celebrities like Ben Afflect and Leonardo DiCaprio who have used their celebrity status to campaign for Kerry. Same thing for Clinton, Guliani, and the Governator. I don’t see how this is any different. Besides, no matter what Schilling says, people still have the option to vote for whomever they’d like.
November 2, 2004
Mark Chalifoux:
Clinton, Guiliani, and the Governator can campaign for candidates because they are all politicians. I would have no problem with athletes who are now politicians campaigning either.
Celebrities like Affleck and DiCaprio do campaign and use their celebrity status, but its not right for them either. Just because they do it, does not make it right for athletes.
November 16, 2004
Tyler Danen:
Mark Chalifoux
Sports Central columnist
https://www.sports-central.org
Dear Mr. Mark Chalifoux,
I am writing this in response to the article you wrote concerning Curt Schilling and his political messages. Curt Schilling is arguably the toughest, most talented and intimidating players in the game. Schilling is a powerful man. He has made many accomplishments in his life time, including breaking the Curse of the Bambino and winning this years World Series. Even though Schilling is on a high pedestal, he is still a citizen. You said you lost respect for Schilling when he told the nation on “Good Morning America” the he was endorsing President Bush in the election. I gained more respect for Schilling because he stood up for what he believed in. Schilling doesn’t have to be a expert political analyst in order to voice his opinions. He is just a normal man voicing his opinions, and is protected under the First Amendment, which is freedom of speech. So how could you ridicule someone for their political beliefs? Schilling recorded a phone message for voters in three key swing states encouraging voters to cast ballots for his guy. In his phone message to voters, Schilling said, “These past couple of weeks, Sox fans trusted me when it was my turn on the mound. Now you can trust me on this: President Bush is the right leader for our country,” Let me ask you this Mr. Charlifoux, if Schilling was telling the American people that jumping off cliffs was the right thing to do, would people all over think to themselves, “maybe he is right, lets go do that”? No. This doesn’t have anything to do with the fans owing Schilling because he gave them a World Series win. Voters, as people, can think for themselves. If people are voting for the candidate they are told to vote for, then they shouldn’t be voting. When the people went to the polls on November 2nd, they were not influenced by what the sport superstar told them. They were more concerned about what was good for them and their families, and they picked the right person to represent their wants.
In your article you put a statement said by David Whitley that is absolutely uncalled for. He stated, “Like any other citizen, athletes are entitled to keep their views private.” When did our society decide that it would be a good idea to keep our political views to ourselves? If you say that we should keep our political views to ourselves then why is it that you wrote this article? It is clear that you are a supporter of John Kerry, and in my opinion I think it is very hypocritical of you to say that people should keep their political views to themselves when you stated your political views in this article.
How is it different, to where an athlete is supporting his shoe endorsements, or even if his views on the war. For example last year the Dixie Chicks made there political view very clear about the US in the war. Like I said before, it is freedom of speech. There have been many other powerful and influential people who have preached about their desired candidate or even opinion about something. Why is it so controversial when Schilling voices his opinions? I am glad that Schilling told America where he stands. I think it is good for the people to know that. It is a good thing when people talk about what they believe in, it is the beauty of America.
Sincerely,
Tyler Danen
28 Dover Road Durham NH, 03824
November 16, 2004
Mark Chalifoux:
Tyler- You make a lot of good points in your response. In my column I note that I fully support athletes standing up for what they believe in. However, I think they shouldn’t endorse political candidates because its such a sensitive issue.
It’s true that if voters vote because of how celebrities or athletes feel then they are ignorant. However, what is the point of Schilling publicy stating his support of Bush and helping to campaign for him? Isn’t it to sway voters to his side?
Schilling is flat out wrong to try capitalize on the World Series win like he did, that is taking it too far. While legally they can do it, they shouldn’t try to use their influence to sway voters to their side. Its a personal issue. If Schilling wants to support Bush with his vote and checkbook, that is one thing. TO abuse the platform given to him by the fans is just wrong.
And as for me making it clear I am a Kerry Voter, that part is just wrong. I have long been a bush supporter and even voted for W. Still doesn’t sit well with me what Schilling did
November 16, 2004
Tyler Danen:
Mark-Thanks for getting back to me on that. As for me thinking that you were a Kerry Voter, I appoligize. I must have read your article in a different notion.
As to Schilling using his “power” to sway voters; I don’t think that was the case at all. He was just making his opinions clear. People can choose by themselves. I don’t think some sports jock is going to persuade the voters any differently. If someone told you that jumping off a building was “cool” would you go ahead and do it? Anyway, its all over with now. I respect your opinions, I don’t necessarily agree with you on them, but I do understand where you are coming from.