Although the old adage 'with power comes responsibility' is one by which Woods has conducted himself in most all areas of his life, one chink in his armour (not just as a golfer, but as a moral being) lies in his political reticence. Indeed, if Tiger takes public stances, a consequence might be that, for example, some Republicans (yes, Tiger is a Democrat) will buy less Nike gear. That fact alone, however, doesn't exculpate Tiger. If it did, it would only be by tacit commitment to the false principle that it is always permissible to fail to do some action when doing that action will not be financially advantageous. Such reasoning, though, permits all sorts of intuitively immoral conduct, such as watching an entire city starve when you could save the whole city by donating one of your billion pennies. Woods, obviously, shouldn't be likened to one who latches to this sort of egoistic ethic. However, it is nonetheless true that defending his political reticence by appealing to some principle allowing that one can't be blamed for avoiding financial loss will commit one to also excuplating the man who lets the city starve.

Tiger Woods is a private individual, he is not a democratically elected figure and has no obligation to make any statements on his political views. Nor is he a commentator knowledgable in political affairs, so his opinions wouldn't be paticularly insightful or useful. He is a role model, and people would listen to him, but if his opinion isn't any more learned than the average person, why should he bother speaking out? It's best to leave it to those who have a genuine reason for doing so.