No need for you to select your team in the 2018 Super Bowl match-up between Philadelphia and New England. USA Today sports writer Martin Rogers has already assigned your team for you based on your politics. If you're a Republican, the Patriots are your team. If you're a Democrat, you're cheering for an Eagles' win. Done deal.
"If you're a Trump supporter, your team – with all the certainty that Tom Brady brushes his teeth thoroughly – is the Patriots," Rogers declares. This is based on one player, quarterback Tom Brady, Head Coach Bill Belichick and team owner Bob Kraft being friends of President Trump's. And on Kraft's recent phone call to the president in support of the tax law. A law which, by the way, Rogers wrote was "heavily criticized for being soft on mega-earning tycoons of business." Criticized by whom, besides Democrats and their left-stream media parrots?
The political leanings of the other 52 Patriots' players don't even factor in as to why Republicans should lean New England's way. They could all be registered Democrats and it wouldn't change the way Rogers stereotypes the Patriots politically. It probably hasn't occurred to Rogers that many Republicans will cheer for the Eagles because they are sick and tired of a New England team with a history of cheating that wins a lot.
On the flip side, if you're a fan of any of the Eagles' NFC rivals and have no affection for this team, you're still joined at the hip politically with Philly. Here's why, according to Rogers:
"On the other hand, those pesky Eagles have been somewhat naughty, according to Trump fans. Safety Malcolm Jenkins was one of the leading figures in the Players Coalition who lobbied Capitol Hill influencers for criminal justice reform, and also regularly took a knee during the anthem. Many of his teammates joined him, before the protests lost steam league-wide toward the end of the season.
"Chris Long was part of the Patriots last year but skipped the White House visit. Long then signed with the Eagles, spoke out about inequality in America, donated his entire base salary to charitable causes and now winds up going head to head against his old team. Owner Jeffrey Lurie was not one of the seven NFL owners to donate $1 million or more to Trump’s inaugural committee."
Aren't you glad Rogers is doing your thinking for you? Without consulting you on how you're choosing between these teams and what you actually base it on? These are serious and strange times, he says:
"Think of all the things we are used to now – petty squabbling, disputes over the veracity of media coverage, rumors of behind-closed-doors discontent, partisan taunting, social media trash-talking and the whole thing building up to a huge TV ratings bonanza.
"You know which I’m talking about here, right – football or politics? Thought so."
It's appropriate that Rogers raised the issue of media veracity. He and his leftist friends at USA Today know a thing or two about media bias because they're reported a biased thing or two. They've been trashing President Trump and Vice-president Pence for the past year-plus, sometimes in petty ways. Last spring, Rogers wrote, "Mike Pence could get rough reception at Indianapolis 500." Three days later Rogers was eating crow: "Mike Pence returns home, gets mostly positive response at Indianapolis 500." Rogers also wrote about anti-Trump sentiments at a USA-Mexico soccer match.
Here's a choice we can make for Martin Rogers: if people understand how politically biased the USA Today is ... then it's not their media of choice. Done deal.
