Regular readers of this blog know that I generally have great distain for cable news celebrities because they seem to care more about ratings than intellectual honesty. I also have a thing against blatant hypocrisy, which is why Fox News’ Sean Hannity attacking Florida Sen. Marco Rubio as a “pawn for [the] establishment” needs to be exposed.

Politico’s Marc Caputo was told by a Rubio staffer that it was ridiculous that Hannity passively watched ersatz Republican Donald Trump bash rivals for months, only to now take offense that Rubio was punching back (e.g., Trump would be selling fake watches in New York City if he didn’t inherit $200 million from his dad).

Hotair did everyone a favor by capturing the exchange below:

Sean Hannity Tweet

Sean Hannity, who has blindly echoed RNC talking points for years, now calls Rubio an establishment “pawn.” That would be like Sesame Street’s Cookie Monster admonishing other people for eating cookies.

Let us take a visit in the “way back” machine, shall we?

After Mitt Romney got hammered in the 2012 election — particularly with Hispanic voters — Sean Hannity “evolved” on immigration. The following audio by Hannity was posted to YouTube on Nov. 9, 2012 by FreedomLightHouse:

“We’ve got to get rid of the immigration issue all together. It’s simple for me to fix it. I think you control the border first, you create a pathway for those people who are here, you don’t say you got to go home. And that is a position that I have evolved on because, you know what, it just, it’s got to be resolved. The majority of peopel here, if some people have criminal records you can send them home but if people are here, law abiding, participating, four years, their kids are born here — you know, first secure the border, pathway to citizenship, done. You know, whatever little penalties you want to put in there you want. But then it’s done. But you can’t let the problem continue. It’s got to stop. — Sean Hannity on immigration reform, Nov. 9, 2012.

Hmmm. That sounds strikingly familiar to Marco Rubio’s position on immigration right this very second. Hannity came to this realization after Romney was crushed and America’s changing demographics finally began to sink in. But yet now he casts his “evolution” as a mistake that was predicated on the failed “Gang of 8” immigration reform bill.

Here is what is really happening: Sean Hannity zipped his lips about a “Republican” candidate who donated to the Clintons, supported Obamacare, supports eminent domain, and (ironically) once bashed Romney for harsh rhetoric on immigration. The Fox host is terrified of being seen as “the establishment” with his viewers now that Trump is the Republican front-runner, which is why he desperately tries to slap the label onto Rubio.

I rarely watch Sean Hannity’s television show these days, but if I did then it would only be to see him “evolve” and “devolve” on issues like a butterfly that turns back into a caterpillar.

Side note: Even conservative wave-surfer Ann Coulter is now calling Sean out for his hypocrisy. Classic. These two were made for one another.

Ann Coulter tweet

Advertisements

About the Author Douglas Ernst

I'm a former Army guy who believes success comes through hard work, honesty, optimism, and perseverance. I believe seeing yourself as a victim creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. I believe in God. I'm a USC Trojan with an MA in Political Science from American University.

9 comments

  1. No complaints or comments really on your thoughts on Hannity. I don’t really watch him, but I assume he’ll follow whichever way the wind blows as long as it gets him ratings.

    One thought on Rubio’s attacks on Trump, though: I cringed listening to Rubio. It just wasn’t, imo, delivered well. With Trump, it works. It’s part of his shtick, and he knows how do do it. Truthfully, I’m cracking up most of the time when I’m listening to him.

    I think that Rubio is better off sticking to what he does well than to trying to imitate Trump.

  2. Good rule of a thumb when a candidate attacks someone else: don’t look at how the supporters react to it, look at how his or her critics react. Hannity and many other self-proclaimed conservatives aren’t dismissing Rubio’s insults as a last-ditch play for attention (like they did with Perry and Jindal); they’re freaking out like someone used Reagan’s grave for a bathroom. Yeah, I find it so ironic that the media morons who didn’t bat an eye to Trump comparing Carson’s temperament to a child molester are now filled with outrageous outrage over Rubio calling Trump a con man. Who knows if Rubio can actually stop Trump, but it’s pretty obvious Trump defenders like Hannity are worried he can. They sure weren’t reacting this way when Cruz started criticizing Trump.

    As for Hannity himself, he is so full of s***. That’s the only way to put it. He’s like an angrier, whinier version of Eric Bolling. This is a guy who built his career on questioning other people’s conservatism, but when people question Trump’s (or Hannity’s for supporting Trump), Hannity freaks the hell out and tries to shame critics. Look no further than Wednesday’s example. Trump gave some weird definition of what conservatism is, Rubio criticized it, and Hannity condemned Rubio. Man, I saw people on Twitter who don’t even like Rubio being critical of Hannity for that one.

    The running theory that I heard was that Hannity’s ratings have been taking a hit since Rubio started criticizing Trump. It might not be true, but it would explain a lot. After all, Hannity staked his reputation on saying Trump passed the smell test and then you have someone repeatedly calling attention to Trump’s assorted problems (Trump U, screwing over workers, liberal positions). It would be quite deserved if true since Hannity and others pimped themselves out to Trump for ratings and clicks.

    1. “He’s like an angrier, whinier version of Eric Bolling. This is a guy who built his career on questioning other people’s conservatism, but when people question Trump’s (or Hannity’s for supporting Trump), Hannity freaks the hell out and tries to shame critics. Look no further than Wednesday’s example.”

      Haha. That’s a good way of stating it.

      Did you watch the debate last night. Trump is now changing his immigration stance. Classic!

      Ted Cruz asked Donald how it was possible he is conservative now when he was donating to Hillary Clinton as late as 2008 and Trump’s response was to just kind of shrug and say he wasn’t a politician then. That is what Hannity is now defending.

    2. Yeah, I heard about that flip-flop. I’m tempted to go on Twitter and mock Jeff Sessions (since his endorsement was predicated solely on immigration), as well as Hannity and Coulter.

      Y’know, I can remember when the talk radio crew insisted that Trump running would expose the frauds on the Right. They were right; it’s just that they happened to be the frauds.

    3. “Y’know, I can remember when the talk radio crew insisted that Trump running would expose the frauds on the Right. They were right; it’s just that they happened to be the frauds.”

      Sean Hannity is having conniption fits at the thought of people not backing Trump (on principle, no less!), which to me is the definition of an “establishment” response. He’s essentially saying, “Yeah, I know this guy has no political core and he may be the first Republican nominee ever to donate large sums of money to his rival, but you need to fall in line.”

      No. Sorry, clown. I’m not going to sell out my principles. The Republican Party is officially dead if it will accept anyone who runs under the mantle with their own cult of personality.

    4. I hear Bolling also praised Trump today for flip-flopping at the debate. “It’s refreshing,” he said. What a hack. What’s truly refreshing, though, is all the people joining #NeverTrump. I’d rather suffer through four years of Hillary or Bernie than cast a vote for a racist con man with fascist leanings. And if the party lets someone like that be the nominee, then it deserves to die.

      And y’know, I saw someone on Twitter make a point that you just did. What is it that the establishment does? Back anyone without question and prop them up. Hannity might very well meltdown if someone calls him an establishment shill at CPAC.

    5. Eric Bolling has been been making a fool out of himself for awhile now.

      “I’d rather suffer through four years of Hillary or Bernie than cast a vote for a racist con man with fascist leanings. And if the party lets someone like that be the nominee, then it deserves to die.”

      This is a stance I totally respect. The Republican Party can’t say that it actually has standards and then throw them all out the window as soon as it becomes convenient. The ends to not justify the means. If Sean Hannity wants to go down that road, then that is a trip I will not be joining him on. Not happening.

  3. I just posted this on Facebook. For context, I’m a conservative, a Protestant evangelical, and a F/T pastor in an American denomination.

    “Listening to Limbaugh on the drive up to GCHS. The man is so consumed by godless hatred of the GOP “establishment” that he has abandoned what little integrity he had. Listening to him make excuses for Trump, a man who, if Trump were running as a Democrat, Limbaugh would mercilessly savage. 40 minutes of Limbaugh misrepresenting, misdirecting, and swimming in the conspiracy theorizing that he used to reject. Rush’s pique, populism, and partisanship has made him a blind leader of the blind.”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s