A fanatic cannot be objective. A fanatic cannot be rational where his or her passion is concerned.
I am a fan—an aficionado. I can see the forest for the trees.
Once again, I am going to cross over from sports to politics. I can't help myself. There is a correlation between two groups of people that have irreconcilable conflicts and have lost sight of all they started to fight for.
Anti-Aaron Rodgers so-called "Packers" fans and anti-Barack Obama so-called "Democrats."
Let me make something clear: I do not begrudge anyone not supporting Obama. I do not begrudge anyone feeling Brett Favre should be the quarterback. And I am not talking to those of you who do not do these things, so save your chastising.
In fact, in the latter case, I agree—we should have kept Brett on the team. In the former case, I would not have voted for Hillary in the general election had she won (explained later), so I cannot tell someone to vote for Barack.
But there are Hillary Clinton supporters saying they will vote for McCain. There are Packers fans saying they want Rodgers to fail. Both are so mad with envy they cannot see the truth.
There are supporters who are saying the primary was "stolen." Why? Because they would not give her full delegates for Michigan, in which she was the only person on the ballot and voters were told it would not count? You realize she did get the majority of delegates for that state, right?
- B/R Ticket Guide
The fact that she even made that claim (or the similar one in Florida) is one of the reasons I would not vote for her. She (and her backers) showed no respect for the rules of her own party, and going back on her word when she publicly backed those rules because that stance no longer suited her.
Would these same Packers fans have not backed Rodgers had Favre stayed retired? Rodgers was no more the cause of the Packers trading of Favre than he was Favre's original decision to retire. Do you really think he has so much influence that he can demand the franchise move its legend out so he could play?
Think about it. Hillary herself asked the question: Were you behind me because of what I stood for or because of me? If you were behind Hillary because of her stances, Barack agrees with her about 95 percent of the time, while McCain agrees with her about 10 percent of the time. Backing McCain makes no sense.
I ask the same question of Packers fans: Were you behind Favre because he was great for the Packers or because of him? Favre left behind about four-dozen teammates you supposedly backed. Only a couple left. You are going to back the 5 percent over the 95 percent?
In both cases, there were harsh words exchanged. I can understand how that may leave one with a bad taste in their mouth. But Barack and Rodgers did not start the war of words, the ones competing with them for their jobs did.
One major difference is that Brett never said anything negative about Rodgers, or vice versa. That is why I still would have preferred him under center. I am appalled that Clinton took personal shots at someone on her team, and in my view those who hold the mudslinging against Obama are hypocrites.
To both I ask, why would you want your side to fail? Are you so bitter that you would defile the cause you originally got on board for?
If you are a Clinton-backer, and you do not want to vote for Barack, absolutely write your candidate in. Write in Hillary in big enough numbers and it will make a statement.
If you are a Favre-backer, absolutely show up with signs saying "We Miss You, Brett." Buy a "Jet Favre" jersey and make the Jets your second-favorite team. But stop heaping vitriolic spew on Rodgers and rooting for Brett's teammates to suffer.
comments (12) write a comment »
write a new comment
2 months ago
Dicey to be mixing sports and politics at the best of times... but that being said, 'well said'
I've been a Packers fan since the great teams of the 60s. I didn't stop being a Packers fan because things changed. It's the team I cheer for. Am I sorry to see Favre leave? Sure absolutely, I was sorry to see him announce his retirement so quickly after the season, too. I'm convinced he still has 'gas in the tank' and will do an admirable job on a poor Jets team. But the fact of the matter is... he's gone and like any good business, you move people into new positions to take up the slack. Frequently, people are surprised at how well a new person is in a position, when the reality is... the so called new person had a reservoir of untapped talent. They just needed the opportunity.
Will that be the case for Aaron Rogers? Who knows? Not me, I'm just a fan with a love for the Packers. Brett's gone. I've moved on, but the Packers are still my team.
2 months ago
I have to agree with Tod to the extend that it is dicey to mix these two potentially divisive topics. Personally, I don't like to mix my sports with politics: I don't like to taint sports. But I do like this insightful, well-written piece. For me, it confirms what I've thought of late: the voting age should be lowered to ten since it seems that a lot of political supporters are acting like spoiled children who wish to take their candidate home and not play anymore. And speaking of playing, maybe the "ten year old" Favre fans should pack it up (no pun intended) and head East. That's the way they seem to be dealing with the situation.
More mature thinking among both Packers fans and Clinton fans might be advised here. I'm glad the author addressed them both.
from 2 months ago
Funny, I woulda said they need to RAISE the voting age. But sadly chronological age does not translate to maturity.
2 months ago
Good read MJK
2 months ago
That was GREAT!
from 2 months ago
Glad you liked it. Still waiting for a right-winger to trash me...
2 months ago
Well, wait no more...he has arrived...
Though you do have some legitimate parallels about back-stabbers and the fickle faithless who would attack one of their own (Aaron Rodgers), not surprisingly, it is this immature and character-less element of Packer fans that have something in common with their back-stabbing fellows, the Democraps. Otherwise, why would you have had to write this article? If Dems were people of integrity and character, there would not have been the need for a story, right? This story is not an article about positive actions, it is a commentary on the divisiveness which is the only thing the Dems have contributed to the country since 1992 when Bill the Master Manipulator Clinton and his husband, Hillary took over. Their standards of right and wrong were not determined by truth, but by the polls. If the polls indicated one thing, they went with it. If the polls opposed it, they went the other way. No moral fiber, no moral character, no faithfulness, just whatever was beneficial to them at the time.
So it is little wonder that Hillary's bitter fans are hating Barak, for that is what they all do best. They have no future policy to win a war, or lead us anywhere, they can just complain and divide. They aren't leaders, they are the ones following the leaders around and stabbing them in the back.
Yes, you tried to tie politics and football together, and indeed you did. Unfortunately, you did such a nice job that it has exposed the Democraps for being the fickle, destructive, petty pretenders that they are.
So I'm not slamming you, the author; but I sure do slam the scummy practices of he faithless football fan and the faithless Democrap. Both are detrimental to unity.
from 2 months ago
Finally, someone from the right rears up to give me a smack-down. Unfortunately, it is someone who is off-base and totally missed the point of this. It was not about whether the left or right is right, but how we can see how something in the political arena mirrors something in the soprts arena.
Packsmack, you call me immature then proceed to label those with my beliefs in derisive ways, making you a hypocrite to boot. Then you tell me you are not slamming me? No, you're only calling me and anyone with my beliefs names.
Why is it the right always has to resort to name-calling? Why are we the Democraps? People cannot disagree and remain respectful? And how does my writing of this story mean the Dems have no integrity? There aren't Reps (notice how I didn't come up with a derisive label there?) who have no integrity for whom an article could speak to a SEGMENT of the whole as this does to a SEGMENT of the Dems?
And of course you would have to resort to deriding Hilary as a man because she had a voice. It was Bush who had no policy to win a war.
from 2 months ago
This author's comments remind me of what I already said about the Hillary supporters: that they are acting like ten-year-old spoiled sports. Unfortunately I'm reminded of her supporters by this comment. It has all the mature reason, civility and good-sportsmanship of Ozzie Guillen on a good day. Why must we resort to name-calling, personal attacks and slamming people who don't share our beliefs? Frankly, I expect better from the Bleacher Reporters. I liked this article simply because it raised the interesting comparison between Packer fans and Hillary backers. I didn't expect it to elicit such reaction.
2 months ago
Waiting...waiting for the comeback.
2 months ago
MJ, I did not call you immature. Don't go jumping in front of a comment to make it a personal insult. I identified Democrats as being fickle...which is exactly what you, yourself did in your story. I agree with your story, that attacking your own is inconsistent and unhealthy, and is immature.
As for your mysticifaction at Dems having no integrity...well, how about their support of killing babies (abortion) and homosexuality? Do a people of integrity kill babies? How can anyone say that Dems are people of integrity when they promote things that are evil and wrong? Can't wait to hear your answer on this one...
from 2 months ago
We are back to the fundamental problem: you see another feeling differently from you on an issue as a lack of integrity. I could say the same thing for the Republicans support of tax breaks for the rich, refusing to get a health care system in place to protect what He refers to as "the least of us" (the poor), destruction of the environment, support for an immoral war, etc.
The difference is that I recognize that terms such as immoral are subjective, and that by MY values those things show a lack of integrity, but not everyone will agree with me. And you may cite the bible for these things, but I can for EVERY one of mine I mentioned, too. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they do not have integrity. I obviously agree with you on very little politically, but I have more integrity than most people you will ever meet, and I do not appreciate the implication otherwise.
Perhaps that is why you felt blind-sided (or so your post on my board would indicate)--it never even occurred to you that by labeling liberals as immature and having no integrity you were including me.
write a new comment