log in to manage your profile and account
- Create your account
- Receive up-to-date newsletters
- Set up text alerts
Published: Friday, October 06, 2017 @ 3:40 AM
Updated: Friday, October 06, 2017 @ 3:39 AM
WASHINGTON — Most Americans think refusing to stand for the national anthem is disrespectful to the country, the military and the American flag. But most also disapprove of President Donald Trump's calling for NFL players to be fired for refusing to stand.
The NFL protests began last season with quarterback Colin Kaepernick, who knelt during the national anthem to bring more attention to the killings of black men by police officers. The protests spread this season after the former San Francisco 49er was unable to sign on with another team. Seattle Seahawks defensive end Michael Bennett recently said he was racially profiled by Las Vegas police and then Trump sounded off.
According to a poll by The Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 52 percent of Americans disapprove of professional athletes who have protested by refusing to stand during the national anthem, compared to 31 percent who approve. At the same time, 55 percent of Americans disapprove of Trump's call for firing players who refuse to stand, while 31 percent approve.
In the poll, African-Americans were far more likely to approve of the players' protests.
"I don't see kneeling while the anthem is being played as being disrespectful," said Mary Taylor, 64, a retired law librarian from Olympia, Washington. "Somebody has to stand up. Right now, it's black football players."
Taylor, who is white, said she supports police but understands why players are protesting. And her personal politics also factor in.
"I'm for it because Donald Trump is against it," she said.
The form of the protest seems to matter. According to the poll, Americans are more likely to approve than disapprove of players who, instead of kneeling, link arms in solidarity during the anthem, 45 percent to 29 percent.
"People don't want to be confronted with their racism in any form. If they are confronted with it, they want it in the mildest form possible," said DeRay Mckesson, a Black Lives Matter activist who has protested police actions since the 2014 killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri.
The NFL protests got more attention and morphed into a bigger debate about patriotism after Trump told a crowd at an Alabama rally last month: "Wouldn't you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, 'Get that son of a bitch off the field right now! Out! He's fired. Fired!'"
That prompted dozens of NFL players, and a few team owners, to join in protests. They knelt, raised fists, sat or locked arms in solidarity during pre-game ceremonies when the anthem was played.
Broken down by race, 55 percent of African-Americans approve of players refusing to stand for the anthem, and 19 percent disapprove, the poll found. Among whites, 62 percent disapprove and 25 percent approve.
Seventy-nine percent of blacks disapprove of Trump's call for players to be fired, while just 8 percent approve. Among whites, 48 percent disapprove and 38 percent approve.
Thomas Sleeper of Holden, Massachusetts, said he considers the protests to be freedom of expression protected by the First Amendment — and pre-game protests are likely the best stage for them because "individually protesting is not going to get as much press."
"They want people to know that the country isn't living up to its full standard," said Sleeper, 78, who is white. "This is a way to get noticed, and possibly get some action taken."
Chandler, Arizona, business owner Larry Frank, 67, said the protests are inappropriate and disrespectful to military veterans. Trump's response, he said, was "dead-on."
"We should keep politics out of our sports," said Frank, who served in the Air Force. "We pay them to come out and play games and entertain us. Using this medium is not the right way to do it. Do it off the field. Let's not interfere with the process of a good business and a fun sport."
The poll shows that overall, about 6 in 10 Americans agree with the assessment that refusing to stand for the anthem is disrespectful to the military, and most also think it's disrespectful to the country's values and the American flag. About 6 in 10 blacks said they did not consider it disrespectful.
Just 4 in 10 Americans overall, and about half of African-Americans, think refusing to stand for the flag can be an act of patriotism.
Frank, an avid Arizona Cardinals fan who is white, said he plans to boycott watching football on Veterans' Day to show his disgust with the players' protest, part of a larger campaign being promoted on social media.
Thomas Peoples of New Brunswick, New Jersey, said the protests are a personal decision for each player. He doesn't think their actions are meant to disrespect the country or the military.
Still, he would not participate in such a protest.
"It's not my approach to resolve a problem," said Peoples, 66, who is black. "I'm not a protester. But they're expressing their feelings about how some Americans are treated in this country."
The AP-NORC poll of 1,150 adults was conducted Sept. 28-Oct. 2 using a sample drawn from NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak panel, which is designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The margin of sampling error for all respondents is plus or minus 4.1 percentage points. The poll includes a total of 337 black respondents, who were sampled at a higher rate than their proportion of the population for purposes of analysis. The margin of sampling error among blacks is plus or minus 5.7 percentage points. For results reported among all adults, responses among blacks are weighted to reflect their proportion among all U.S. adults.
Follow Whack and Swanson on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/emarvelous and http://www.twitter.com/EL_Swan
Published: Wednesday, March 21, 2018 @ 4:04 AM
While the calendar may say it is spring, another winter storm threatened the East Coast on Wednesday, prompting the federal government to close down offices in the Washington, D.C. area, and canceling public events for President Donald Trump at the White House.
While there was little snow on the ground as the sun came up on Wednesday, forecasters were warning of big snow totals from the nation’s capital, up the I-95 corridor through Pennsylvania and New Jersey.
But as the morning commute continued, there was little evidence in some spots of that storm.
“Total accumulation so far 1” of Salt,” tweeted Rep. Billy Long (R-MO), as he documented empty streets on his commute to the U.S. Capitol, as lawmakers from the heartland subtly mocked the snow scare.
The biggest snowfall totals seemed to be to north of the Washington area, up near the Mason-Dixon line along the Maryland and Pennsylvania border, where as much as two feet of snow could fall.
But federal officials did not take any chances, as they closed government offices on Wednesday.
Despite the weather threat, Congress was in session today, though some committees had scrapped hearings set for Wednesday morning, worried about the snow.
Both the House and Senate were still going to be in session, as lawmakers were trying to finish a giant funding bill, facing a Friday night shutdown deadline.
At the White House, it was a snow day as well – even without any snow on the ground in the morning – as the President erred on the side of caution, and canceled two events, including a Cabinet meeting.
Published: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 @ 7:33 PM
Sen. Rob Portman, R-Ohio, said today that it “would be a big mistake” for President Donald Trump to fire Independent Counsel Robert Mueller, who is investigating Russian officials trying to influence the 2016 election and whether the Trump campaign had any ties to those officials.
“I’ve said all along it would be a mistake to do so,” Portman told reporters on a conference call. “I think you have to let Mueller do his work. The American people deserve an answer.”
Portman’s comments follow those of Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., who was quoted Tuesday as saying firing Mueller would “probably” be an impeachable offense. Graham had earlier said a Mueller firing would be “the beginning of the end” of the Trump presidency.
Portman said the intelligence community “has determined there was meddling in our election and we need to know more about it.”
Published: Tuesday, March 20, 2018 @ 9:22 AM
Issuing the first report in the review of Russian interference in the 2016 elections, members of the Senate Intelligence Committee said Tuesday that a range of stepped up election security measures must be taken by local, state, and federal officials to address a series of gaps, which lawmakers in both parties say Moscow was obviously trying to exploit.
“It is clear the Russian government was looking for the vulnerabilities in our election system,” said Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC), the chairman of the Intelligence panel, which has been working for over a year to uncoil what cyber attacks Moscow was engaging in during the 2016 campaign for President.
“Russia attempted to penetrate 21 states; we know they were successful in penetrating at least one voter database,” Burr added at a bipartisan news conference on Capitol Hill.
The panel issued a two page summary of what Senators say should be changed, ranging from giving grants to states to help secure their election systems, and pushing states to replaced outdated voting machines, and ensure that such vote counting equipment is not connected to the internet .
While Burr again stressed that there was “no evidence that any vote was changed,” he made clear that the bottom line of the investigation shows Russia was a bad actor in 2016.
“Russia was trying to undermine the confidence in our election system,” Burr added.
“The Russians were relentless in trying to meddle in the 2016 elections,” said Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), as she said Senators in both parties agree that Moscow is trying to do the same thing in 2018 in the United States, and in other Western democracies as well.
“We may never know the full extent of the Russian malicious attacks,” Collins added.
One idea suggested by committee members is for states to go back to paper ballots in the future, to insure that overseas actors can’t hack their way into the voting process.
The panel will hold a hearing on Wednesday to go over these findings and recommendations related to election security, as Burr and other Senators stressed that their overall review of Russia’s 2016 election meddling continues.
The news conference demonstrated the difference between the investigations into Russian interference in the House and Senate, as Senators of both parties joined together, while over in the House, the two sides have been issuing dueling memos and reports.
Published: Monday, March 19, 2018 @ 8:44 PM
A week after the feds announced the largest budget deficit in February in six years, the national debt edged over $21 trillion for the first time ever on Monday, as budget experts argue the U.S. is on a track that will likely again feature yearly deficits of $1 trillion, a level reached only during the Obama Administration.
“This is unsustainable,” said Rep. Justin Amash (R-MI).
The $21 trillion debt milestone was hit as lawmakers in Congress were trying to place the finishing touches on a giant Omnibus funding bill which will increase deficits by well over $100 billion in 2018, because of extra spending approved for both domestic and defense accounts.
Even before that, budget watchdogs were warning of a new tide of red ink in the Trump Administration.
“Thanks to the recent budget-busting tax cuts and spending deal, the national debt is skyrocketing and on an unsustainable course,” said Maya MacGuineas, head of the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.
The February budget numbers had two main reasons why the monthly deficit jumped to $215 billion – up from $192 billion in 2017 – less revenue coming in to Uncle Sam, and more spending.
Tax revenues were $155 billion in February, down from $171 billion a year ago.
While deficits are heading back up, there’s no hint of action in the Congress on any plan to restrain spending, though only a handful GOP lawmakers publicly grumbled about the situation, as they waited to see what exactly was in the Omnibus.
But the Omnibus has become almost a normal spending tool for Congress, unable to get through the dozen yearly spending bills on time.
For the current 2018 Fiscal Year, lawmakers were supposed to have finished 12 funding measures by October 1 of last year – but that spending work has only been completed on time in four of the last 43 years – one reason there are calls to overhaul the system.