Be careful what you wish for, Minnesota legislators

Another day, another Vikings stadium story in Minnesota. Only this time, elected officials said they would rather have the team leave than fund a new stadium.

State Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie

During a press conference Thursday at the State Capitol, a bipartisan group of legislators announced their opposition to publicly funding a new Vikings stadium and expanding gambling statewide as a way to pay for the costs. Dubbed "the marriage of two bad ideas", Sen. David Hann, R-Eden Prairie, said there's always been a call for more casinos while solving budget challenges.

"The proponents of gambling describe this as harmless fun, entertainment and, in effect, free money," he said. "None of that is true. In fact, casino gambling is highly destructive to individuals, [and] to families."

Hann added that he was tired of professional sports teams using other states to blackmail the public to pay for stadiums for them to play in. "We don't want them to leave, but if they're going to leave I guess that is going to happen," he said.

Sen. David Thompson, R-Lakeville, also chimed in saying the Legislature didn't need to quickly resolve the stadium issue. In fact, he added that the team and the NFL would be the ones deciding if the Vikings move, not him. "If they make that decision, I personally am going to live with that," he said.

Other legislators joining Hann and Thompson included Sens. Warren Limmer, R-Maple Grove, Scott Dibble, DFL-Minneapolis, and state Rep. Ann Lenczewski, DFL-Bloomington.

State Sen. David Thompson, R-Lakeville

The Vikings are seeking public funding for a new stadium site in Arden Hills, 10 miles north of Minneapolis. Funding for the $1.1 billion stadium would include $407 million from Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, $300 million from the state, and $350 million from Ramsey County.

The Vikings have been looking to move out from the Metrodome since the early 2000s. They claim the stadium is outdated and isn't allowing them to be financially competitive with the other 31 teams around the league. Their lease ends in Feb. 2012 and the Vikings have said they won't renew unless there's a plan in place for a new stadium.

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton, a Democrat, has called a special session for Nov. 21-23 and is pushing to get a stadium bill passed by Thanksgiving. He's gone on record expressing his support for a new stadium and that the team is an important asset to the state.

Truth be told, I once opposed public tax dollars funding sports stadiums. Like any business, I believed team owners could foot the bill for these new venues while the state continued funding more important things like education, health, and transportation. And even today, I don't like the idea of funding new things that everyone won't benefit from.

But I had a change of heart after some game-day experiences inside the Metrodome that included thin concourses to get around in, a lack of bathrooms and concession stands, and obstructed viewing all along the upper deck.

Associated Press aerial photo of deflated Metrodome in 2010.

I also had a change of heart after seeing our state's reputation diminish following the collapses of the I-35W bridge on Aug. 1, 2007 and the Metrodome roof on Dec. 12, 2010. The world and especially the NFL were exposed to the notion that we do a poor job maintaining our facilities and infrastructure while our leaders continued to believe we could get by on the cheap. Although the roof was replaced through insurance money, the bridge, along with numerous lawsuits, cost the state millions.

The world and the NFL have also been exposed to our state's history of allowing teams to move onto other markets and win championships. The Lakers moved to Los Angeles in 1960 and have gone on to win 17 NBA championships. The North Stars moved to Dallas and won numerous divisional titles, along with two conference championships and one Stanley Cup. Even the Twins almost left town through a possible move to Charlotte and even threats of contraction despite winning two World Series titles.

But most importantly, our state was in the news once again in the news for a government shutdown. Unlike previous shutdowns in the state, this one cost taxpayers millions of dollars and was the longest in recent memory in the United States.

However, some legislators don't seem to be concerned about potentially losing millions in revenue and adding another black eye to the state's reputation. It's a dangerous game of political chicken and it's a game our state cannot afford.

This is a view of a crowded concourse during a Vikings game

Vikings fans need to let every legislator know how important the Vikings are to this state. More importantly, they need to know why there's a need for a new stadium.

Some like state Rep. John Kriesel, R-Cottage Grove, understand and support a new stadium. Others, however, either don't get it, or are staying as far away from this issue so they can pass the buck on either Dayton or voters, like Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, R-Buffalo.

As you may or may not have heard, Koch attended the Vikings most recent home game against the Green Bay Packers. Instead of talking about her game-day experience and conversation with Zygi Wilf and Vikings President Mark Wilf, she sent her spokesman, Michael Brodkorb, to pose for picture in Vikings gear and say it was her first home game and that she paid full price for her ticket. It should also be noted Koch has never supported funding for any stadiums in Minnesota - including stadiums for the Twins and Gophers football team.

I don't expect this debate to get easier, and I am sure the Vikings, Dayton, and other stadium supporters feel the same way. But I am hopeful that cooler heads will prevail and that a stadium deal can be reached.

Send Cook packing

When Leslie Frazier officially took over as the new head coach of the Minnesota Vikings, one of the things he made clear is that he wouldn't tolerate players who would bring bad chemistry to the organization.

Vikings cornerback Chris Cook. Photo courtesy of AP

He proved that at the beginning of training camp when he sent left tackle Bryant McKinnie packing after he showed up to camp at nearly 400 lbs. He did so again Tuesday by finally sending wide receiver Bernard Berrian out the door after little production and years of poor production and a bad attitude towards his quarterbacks and coaches.

And now Frazier is being asked to do it again - this time to second-year cornerback Chris Cook. Cook was charged Tuesday with felony domestic violence by strangulation following an altercation with his girlfriend early Saturday. If found guilty, he faces up to three years in prison and a fine of $5,000. He was released from custody Tuesday after posting $40,000 bail and is not allowed to have contact with the victim, nor is he allowed to leave the state of Minnesota.

According to the complaint, Cook was upset his girlfriend contacted her ex-boyfriend. The victim told Eden Prairie police he pushed her on the bed at his townhome, got on top of her, and then grabbed her neck, constricting her to breath.

The victim told police she broke free by grabbing a hold of his dreadlocked hair. Cook then struck her in the ear, sending her crashing into the wall. After the victim fled into the living room, Cook grabbed her neck and squeezed it.

Someone called 911 to report yelling and screaming and police arrived to find the victim with a bloody nose and upper lip. According to Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman, she had marks on her neck and hemorrhaging in her eye.

As a result, Cook spent the weekend in jail and missed the Vikings home game against the Green Bay Packers. The Packers beat the Vikings 33-27.

After posting bail, Cook wouldn't address reporters. But he took to Twitter apologizing to the Vikings organization, fans, and his family. Before that, he wrote, "There's always two sides to every story!!"

Keep in mind, this isn't Cook's first brush with the law. Earlier this year, he was found not guilty of brandishing a firearm in the state of Virginia after he allegedly pulled a gun on a neighbor where his family lives. At the time, Cook said he learned from this experience and Frazier even told him to watch is off-field behavior.

As sad as it is for me to say this, it is time for the Vikings to release him from the team. Yes, releasing him now may not seem like a fair shake. But given the seriousness of the charge and the conditions of his bail, it hinders the team's ability to win games on the road.

And fair or not, this shines a negative light on the Vikings organization, which has made strides in ridding itself of the infamous Love Boat scandal on Lake Minnetonka in 2005. You also have to believe that it is negatively affecting pubic opinion on a new Vikings stadium.

Many stadium supporters like myself consider the Vikings a state asset and would love to see them have a presence here. But looking at some comments on Facebook, ESPN, and other media outlets, people don't want to consider the team an asset when it garners negative attention like Cook's arrest and subsequent charge.

That's why I am asking Frazier to sit down with Cook as soon as possible to explain what this organization is trying to accomplish and why he needs to focus on his personal issues instead of being a Viking.

At age 24, I believe Cook has enough talent to eventually become an impact player in the league. And as is any case, there is always "the other side of the story", which may ultimately exonerate him in the courts (but not the NFL).

For now, Cook has to focus on getting through this by allowing the legal process to take its course and be prepared to face the consequences that go along with it. Keeping Cook on the roster only sets the organization back while they continue rebuilding and seek more public support for a new stadium.

UPDATE: According to KARE 11 News, Cook has been suspended from the team. The Vikings released a statement late Tuesday regarding Cook:

"Today's allegations against Chris Cook are very disturbing and disappointing. At this time, he is suspended without pay from the team while we continue to gather information regarding the situation. We will have no further comment until the appropriate time."

Take moving threats seriously from NFL

Well, the moving threats didn't take long.

Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton

Following a meeting with Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton Tuesday, a top NFL executive told a group of reporters at the State Capitol that the Minnesota Vikings may have to move if the stadium issue isn't resolved.

Eric Grubman, vice president of the NFL's business operations, said the NFL is worried about a stalemate. A stalemate, he said, would lead to an expired lease, no plan for a new stadium, and eventually "an alternative plan in another city."


“That’s a stalemate, and the alternative wouldn’t include Minnesota,” he said. “That’s the way we look at it, [it’s] a crisis.”

It's not surprising Grubman wanted to deflect questions about the Vikings possibly moving to Los Angeles, the largest market without a professional football team. But he did add that if he were a Minnesotan, "any alternative other than Minnesota would be equally as bad."


Grant it, it's an arrogant thing to say and not the best way to sell a new stadium. I was also annoyed when he said the NFL would be open to chipping in as long as it reduced the Vikings overall contribution of $407 million while leaving a public tax burden of $650 million for taxpayers. However, Grubman makes a valid point about viable alternatives to Minnesota.

We've already lost two sports teams that have gone on to win national championships. We have also been exposed for the way we take care of our sports facilities and bridges.

Eric Grubman, vice president of the NFL's business operations

As I said Monday, it's put up or shut up time in Minnesota. It's time for leaders to decide if they truly want the Vikings to stay here or if they want them to go. Officials in Los Angeles haven't been shy about the desire to attract a team - any team - and the NFL has taken notice.

Dayton, a Democrat, is meeting with NFL and other government leaders this week to put together a stadium bill that will keep the Vikings in Minnesota. Since my last blog post, Dayton has called for a special session to to take place Nov. 21-23. He hopes to have a stadium bill signed by Thanksgiving and has acknowledged the possibility the team could move to another city.


The problem is it lacks support in the Legislature right now. At least that's the case in the Republican Senate, according to their spokesman Monday. Also complicating matters is Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch of Buffalo, who has insisted there be a voter referendum if local sales taxes are used to fund a new stadium. She added she was still in favor of a referendum after Ramsey County's charter commission voted last week against putting a referendum on the ballot.

Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch and House Speaker Kurt Zellers

But perhaps the biggest kicker - something that has not been pointed out by anyone in the media - is that Koch and House Speaker Kurt Zellers have voted no on numerous stadium proposals dating back to 2006. They have also declined to pursue funding ideas for the state such as a racino.

Meanwhile, the Vikings were "encouraged" by the progress, according to a Minnesota Public Radio broadcast segment Tuesday. But judging from the tone of the report, the Vikings are putting more pressure on Dayton and the Legislature to come up with a viable plan to keep the team in Minnesota and aren't putting in much work to get involved.

The only input they have offered is that their preferred site is in Arden Hills. Yet there are a few sites in Minneapolis that could be in the mix and Dayton hasn't ruled out - further complicating things.

Hence, you can see why this is going to be a long and contentious debate. My only hope is that the Vikings - whether they're winning or losing - remain in Minnesota.

For better or worse, they give this state an identity and put us on the map. Without them, we would be the small state former Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty referred to us as when he bowed out of the Republican nomination for President of the United States in August.

It's 'put up or shut up time' for Vikings, Minnesota leaders

An aerial view of the deflated Metrodome in 2010.

I have to admit, it's frustrating being a Vikings fan right now.

Our offensive line can't protect our quarterback. Our quarterback can't throw accurate passes. Our defensive backs can't cover open receivers. And our coaches can't make the right decisions prior to and during the games. It's no wonder why we got beat down by the Chicago Bears 39-10 and we're now sitting 1-5 and fair-weatherdom is running its usual course with this team (and any team with a losing record in Minnesota).

To top it off, we have the worst stadium in the country with thin concourses, obstructed viewing in the nosebleeds throughout the upper deck, and a lack of bathrooms and concession stands.  We were even the laughing stock of the nation in 2010 when the roof of the Metrodome collapsed following a blizzard. It was as sad and embarrassing as the Interstate 35W bridge collapse in 2007, which killed 13 people and injured numerous others. I'm just thankful no one was in the stands or on the field at the time of the collapse.

Despite their record and facility they use, I still love the Vikings and will continue to stick with them even though their ship is sinking. It's a bitter pill to swallow, but at least the team can spend the rest of the year rebuilding and hopefully have a successful season next year.  At least that's what I would like to believe.

An artist rendering of a proposed stadium site in Los Angeles.

The truth of the matter, though, is that the Vikings' ship may be sailing out of Minnesota and elsewhere, like Los Angeles. At least that's what Minnesota Gov. Mark Dayton alluded to in the run-up to key meetings this week with Vikings owner Zygi Wilf, NFL leaders, and legislative leaders. The meetings are slated to begin today and continue through Wednesday. The hope from Dayton and the Vikings is that a special session can be called and the ball can get rolling for a new Vikings stadium at a former Army ammunition plant in Arden Hills - about 10 miles north of the Metrodome.

The price tag, as of now, is $1.1 billion and is expected to rise. The Vikings have offered to pitch in $407 million. The remaining $650 million would come from public money that includes $300 million from the state and $350 million in user fees and a half-cent sales tax in Ramsey County. The Vikings lease at the Metrdome, where they have been playing since 1982, expires Feb. 1, 2012. Wilf has said the team will not play there beyond that date.

Currently, the Vikings are the only tenants who use the Metrodome. The Minnesota Twins play at Target Field and the University of Minnesota Gophers' football team plays at TCF Bank Stadium.

But as is the case for public financing of any new building, there are some hurdles. Specifically, there is still no specific state funding plan in place, not enough votes at the State Capitol, and questions about the Arden Hills site. Specifically, a study called the Vikings plan "aggressive" and "unrealistic." House Speaker Kurt Zellers and Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch, Republicans who have opposed any form of public financing for public stadiums, have also said they want a referendum on the stadium in Ramsey County.

There also has not been the greatest relationship between the Vikings and state leaders in their pursuit of a new stadium. Back in 2006, the Minnesota House voted in favor of a new Twins stadium. Less than two weeks later, the Minnesota Senate voted in favor a bill funding new stadiums for the Gophers, Twins, and Vikings. The Legislature, at the time, was controlled by Democrats. Republicans and then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty objected to the Senate's package. As a result, the Vikings stadium project was phased out.

Since then, Target Field and TCF Bank Stadium have opened. The Vikings, however, have continued to play at the Metrodome while pursuing a new stadium. In 2006, the plan was to have the new stadium built in Anoka County under a similar proposal. However, Wilf backed out of the deal after Anoka County officials expressed concern about rising construction costs and more battles with funding at the State Capitol.

An artist rendering of a proposed stadium Minneapolis site in 2010.

It was then believed that Wilf would build on the existing Metrodome site and even shared a couple of artist renderings. A bill was introduced toward the end of the 2010 Legislative session by then-Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, a Democrat from Cook. But the bill was not only too little too late. There were too many questions about the costs, funding, and whether or not it was indoor or outdoor. It was also clear that then-Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, was going to be running for President of the United States and was not interested in associating himself with a bill that had lots of government spending.

In 2010, the Vikings went 6-10 and there was a coaching change. That year also featured a bitter election season that resulted with a Democratic governor and a Republican majority legislature.

During the 2011 Legislative session, Dayton said he wanted "a people's stadium" and hoped to boost it as a jobs bill. He also chose Ted Mondale, the son of former Vice President Walter Mondale, to head the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission. Mondale, for his part, not only worked on fixing the roof of the Metrodome. He had numerous meetings with Wilf and Vikings officials about funding and location.

In April, the Vikings announced they would pursue the Arden Hills site and that it would cost $1.1 billion. Minneapolis officials, however, announced a plan of their own that would build the stadium downtown and include renovation work at the Target Center. Dayton also liked the Minneapolis plan because of the existence of light-rail and other public transportation.

The latest artist rendering of the Arden Hills site.

The Vikings ultimately chose the Arden Hills site and tried making some noise at the State Capitol during the last week of the 2011 legislative session. At the time, Dayton and Republican leaders couldn't agree on a budget that would erase a $5.1 billion deficit. It also didn't help that Republican leaders spent about three weeks debating a gay marriage amendment, which will be included on the ballot in 2012, instead of fixing the budget.

That led to a government shutdown that lasted about two weeks and cost the state millions in lost revenue. During negotiations, the Vikings had hoped their stadium bill would be included as part of a special session. Dayton said it would be difficult to do, but that a fall special session was possible.

It's now Oct. 17, 2011 and there's no stadium bill and questions for both sides.

Are the Vikings dead set on Arden Hills or are they entertaining the idea of another Minneapolis site? The only reason I ask is because they still have an artist rendering of the Minneapolis site on its website. And along with the Metrodome being "outdated", what are other reasons why a new stadium is needed? Could you show the public what is wrong with the Metrodome, because I know I could and would love to.

Vikings fans and even Dayton want the team to stay in Minnesota. Do our legislators want them here? Do legislators believe that the Metrodome is still a long-term viable option for events if the Vikings were to leave? Why or why not? But most importantly, what would it take for them to support any public financing for a new stadium?

And...... we're off!

OccupyMN = Tea Party?

Photo by Jess Root

I read a story on MinnPost this morning which drew some comparisons between the OccupyMN group, which is based off the OccupyWallStreet, and the Tea Party movement. The article's author, Jeff Severns Guntzel, included a graph from James Sinclair correlating the two. It's an interesting comparison.

On one side, Occupy Wall Street protesters are upset that large corporations have too much power. On the other side, Tea Party members are upset that government has too much power. But here's where they both intertwine. Large corporations lobby for the government to have more power, and in return the government enacts laws and regulations favorable to large corporations.

Personally, I don't think the comparison is an accurate one, at least not yet. And it all boils down to each side's vision for the country - both of them on the extreme sides of the political spectrum. It would be like watching Ralph Nader and Pat Buchanan trying to work together, but being unable to do so.

What are your thoughts?

Is Herman Cain for real?

Republican Presidential candidate Herman Ca

If the latest Wall Street Journal/NBC poll shows anything, a new challenger has emerged for former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney.

The new poll released Thursday shows Herman Cain leading with 27 percent to Romney's 23 percent. It's four-point boost following a recent debate in New Hampshire with most of the Republican presidential candidates. Keep in mind Cain, a former CEO of Godfather's Pizza and a Baptist minister from Georgia, was only polling at 5 percent as recent as August.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry was briefly atop of the polls, but he hasn't performed well in the debates and has struggled to get his message across in an intelligent manner. Perry also doesn't have Cain's "9, 9, 9" plan that would impose a 9 percent personal income tax, a 9 percent corporate tax, and a 9 percent national sales tax.

In a nutshell, Cain's plan would re-write the entire tax code would include the elimination of the capital gains taxes, estate taxes, and corporate taxes on dividends. He would also eliminate the payroll tax that funds Social Security and Medicare. Cain boasts that this plan is "fair, neutral, transparent, and efficient."

But as he continues to surge in the polls, Cain now has the burden of proving his plan is actually going to work. It's already facing scrutiny from a number of media outlets, including Bloomberg, which recently analyzed that his plan would cost the government $200 billion in lost revenue. The analysis also said the plan is unrealistic because it assumes voters and lawmakers would be willing to phase out popular deductions and exemptions. So yes, under this plan you would have to pay a 9 percent sales tax on food and housing.

The plan is also facing scrutiny from the other Republican candidates saying it's unrealistic to think this plan would actually work. Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann took it a step further saying once a new revenue stream is opened, it will be difficult to scrap it.

For the record, I have my own doubts that this program would work and would truly create class warfare among rich and poor people - something Republicans and tea party activists have decried recently.

I get the argument about a fair tax system conservatives make by having everyone contribute to the system. But when you have people only making $25,000 or less a year and you hit them with a tax, it diminishes any extra leverage they have at saving for a rainy day and sets them up for economic failure.

It also opens a huge flood gate of people relying on food and clothing shelters and churches. While it's a nice gesture for Cain to say it's a hand-up, it's unrealistic when their budgets have been slashed so much that they have to turn people away.
Meanwhile, this is a tax cut for those in the upper tax brackets who will have more than enough to get by and carry on with their lavish lifestyles, as evidenced by Louisiana Congressman John Fleming. And as history has shown, "rich people" can't and won't carry this economy on their own.

Cain will continue to make this race interesting and I see him continuing at least through Super Tuesday (March 6, 2012 as of now). But with criticisms from other presidential contenders, along with the fact he hasn't raised a lot of money in this race, it's unrealistic to believe he'll make it all the way to Tampa, Fla., and accept the party's nomination for President of the United States.

ESPN do themselves a favor by cutting Williams loose

Hank Williams, Jr. had been a fixture of Monday Night Football since 1991.

Instead of boycotting ESPN, I am applauding them today. And quite loudly!

It was announced Thursday that ESPN will no longer be carrying Hank Williams Jr., and a version of his song "All My Rowdy Friends Are Coming Over Tonight" in the opening of Monday Night Football. They said they appreciated his contributions over the past several years and went on to say that the program's success has been about the games, and that will continue.

Williams, however, countered on his website that he was the one who made the decision. He accused ESPN of stepping on the toes of the First Amendment and freedom of speech. As a result, he said he was taking his song and his "rowdy friends" and leaving.

Williams and the song had been a fixture of Monday Night Football since 1991. But that changed following an interview on "Fox and Friends" Monday after he used an analogy linking linking President Barack Obama and House Speaker John Boehner to Adolph Hitler and  Benjamin Netanyehu.

To put this in some context, here's what led up to this controversy.

Williams was brought on to the show to discuss politics and football. Sounds simple, right? Fox News anchor Gretchen Carlson asked him if there were any candidates in the current GOP field who he liked, and he replied, "Nobody."

Instead of staying on the topic, Williams changed the subject and began ranting about a golf game where Obama and Boehner had teamed up against Vice President Joe Biden and Ohio Gov. John Kasich. Williams said the match was "one of the biggest political mistakes ever" because it "turned a lot of people off." When Carlson asked why he was disgusted, Williams replied, "Come on. That'd be like Hitler playing golf with Netanyahu." ... In the country this shape is in... I mean, in the shape this country is in?"

Confused, Fox News anchor Brian Kilmeade said he didn't understand the analogy, to which Williams answered, "Well I am glad you don't, brother, because a lot of people do." Williams then went on and said, "They're the enemy." Kilmeade asked who the enemy was and Williams shouted, "Obama and Biden... Are you kidding, the three stooges." He eventually said that former Godfather's CEO Herman Cain made the most sense to be the party's nominee in 2012.

Williams made those comments in jest because of how polarized the country is. Furthermore, he didn't believe that Obama and Boehner, who will probably never see eye to eye on anything in politics, shouldn't be teammates in a friendly round of golf. Carlson pounced on that remark and reminded Williams he had just used the most hated name in all the world to describe what she thought was his reference to Obama. "That is true," Williams said. "But I am telling you like it is."

Right after that, the show's anchors began talking about Monday Night Football with a caption linking him to the program and the NFL. It was after the interview that ESPN announced that they dropped Williams opening musical number from its Monday Night Football broadcast of the Indianapolis Colts verses the Tampa Bay Buccaneers and replaced it with the National Anthem.

Following the announcement came thousands of comments on the story calling for a boycott of ESPN and questioning whether ESPN supported the First Amendment and freedom of speech. And unfairly, many users commenting on the story insinuated that Obama and the White House had something to do with the decision.

On Tuesday, Williams seemed defiant by acknowledging his analogy was extreme. But he said he was misunderstood and trying to explain how ludicrous the golf pairing of Obama and Boehner was when they're polar opposites. He then went on to bash the press for painting tea party activists as a bunch of racists and extremists.

Williams went on to say that he respected the office of the President, and continued that the press paints the tea party as racist and extremist without any backlash to those comparisons. "Working-class people are hurting - and it doesn't seem like anybody care. When both sides are high-fiving it on the ninth hole when everybody else is without a job - it makes a lot of us angry. Something has to change. The policies have to change."

Later that day, he posted an apology on his website. The full context of the apology stated: "I have always been very passionate about Politics and Sports and this time it got the Best or Worst of me. The thought of the Leaders of both Parties Jukin and High Fiven on a Golf course, while so many Families are Struggling to get by simply made me Boil over and make a Dumb statement and I am very Sorry if it Offended anyone. I would like to Thank all my supporters. This was Not written by some Publicist.”

I can only assume Williams made that apology to save face and continue earning royalties from the company. But when ESPN announced Thursday the relationship was terminated, Williams pouted, claimed free speech violations, and took his song home.

I am sure there will be a lot of calls for boycotting ESPN and Disney (who owns ESPN) from country music fans and conservative activists claiming the company violated Williams' First Amendment rights. After all, he made the comments on the Fox News Channel and not ESPN.

However, I am not as sympathetic. You see, any time people make comments out for public consumption, the free market has a way of helping or hurting them. It's happened to numerous politicians, artists, and other celebrities.

In 2003, the Dixie Chicks experienced a huge backlash in the U.S. after the group's singer Natalie Maines said they were ashamed to be from the same state as then-President George W. Bush. They didn't support the war in Iraq and made it known in London 10 days before the war officially began. They didn't even come close to comparing Bush to Hitler. Yet the very statement of them saying they were ashamed of the President led to accusations of the Dixie Chicks being "un-American", and also led to hate mail, death threats, and public destruction of their albums from country radio stations around the country.

Controversial comments may lead to suspensions or even dismissals from one's employer (just ask Keith Olbermann). Williams was never an employee of ESPN. But they used his services during the opening of Monday Night Football the last 20 years.

Had he been a bit more diplomatic in the beginning and not used the Obama/Hitler analogy, this wouldn't be a story. In fact, I can't say that I blame Williams for being upset about Obama and Boehner playing golf together instead of trying to fix the economy and helping people get back to work.

But now Williams comes off as some belligerent guy finding any way to make Obama look like a bad person. Williams used his celebrity from ESPN and the NFL to make this point on Fox News. As a result, ESPN decided to cut off his gravy train and make him earn his living another way.

After reading his statement saying he pulled his music, the only question I am asking now is why Williams has to be such a crybaby about this? The same goes for his supporters on this issue.

He made ESPN and the NFL look bad. Image matters in business, politics, and sports.

Furthermore, Williams is not going to look like a good candidate for the Republican Party's nomination for the U.S. Senate in Tennessee in 2012 if he decides to run. You can only play the "victim card" for so long before the public wises up and the opponent - in this case U.S. Sen. Bob Corker - coasts to an easy primary victory.

But most importantly, Williams' music is awful and not suited for football. It's better suited for NASCAR and I am positive he could think of some creative ways to work in "gentlemen, start your engines" into one of his songs.

Step on up, centrists

Yesterday I came across an interesting article (http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daniel-gross/tom-friedman-time-third-political-party-201823240.html), and in it was New York Times columnist Tom Friedman arguing now could be the time for a viable third party candidate for the White House in 2016. Friedman argued there's a hole in the middle of American politics and all it would take is a credible independent candidate to make a run. He argued that the right candidate could take 30 to 40 percent of the country.  Not quite majority, but enough plurality for an election to the White House.

I don't think he's too far off. If voters are generally dissatisfied with the candidates both major parties offer, a good chunk of voters could call the bluff of Democratic and Republican candidates and elect a different option. Minnesota did just that in 1998 when then-Reform Party candidate Jesse Ventura "shocked the world" by defeating Republican Norm Coleman and Democrat Skip Humphrey. Ventura could be described as someone who, at the time, was described as fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

But at the same time, many issues remain for a viable third party candidate to become elected - as pointed out by the article's author Daniel Gross. First, it is hard for centrists to lay equal blame on the both major parties without taking a clear stance of their own. I doubt you'd find a centrist today taking the path Ventura took by advocating taxing churches for extra income and legalizing prostitution. They're definitely not mainstream, but at least he was honest.

A bigger issue is organization and money. Elections are expensive and tough to win, and it takes a strong national party to help build a foundation for candidates to run with. Democrats and Republicans, believe it or not, have that because they're able to gain support from groups like MoveOn on the left and the Tea Party on the right. The same can't be said about the National Independence Party. I mean, can you think of any centrist extremists out there?

There's also the issue that they take away votes away from the two major parties. And while I'll concede there is some truth to that, both parties are equally capable of taking away votes from each other based on their actions and own words. Just ask then-Democratic candidate Mike Hatch why he lost to then-Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty in 2006 - a year where Democrats swept a number of elections around the country?

So unless you're Ralph Nader, you don't run for the White House just to get your name in the press and eventually sell some books. You run to win. And don't forget that whoever wins the election will typically win with a plurality vote (the highest percentage under 50 percent) and still face the same issues in one term before they run for reelection.

Sadly, the only way an independent candidate could make it possible for victory is if he or she self-finances their campaign - especially in 2012. Other than New York City Michael Bloomberg, I don't know any centrist-minded billionaires who enjoy politics and would be willing to step in and go to bat for their country.