Hillary Clinton

Sean Hannity, Fox News’ perpetual Donald Trump apologist, took to Twitter earlier this week to beg conservatives to “UNITE” behind the billionaire if he wins the Republican Party’s presidential nomination. His plea came on the very same day that Trump actually answered a hypothetical question by MSNBC’s Chris Matthews that hinged on 1973’s Rov v Wade being overturned and state legislatures then rushing to outlaw abortion.

Trump said there would have to be “some punishment” for women who had abortions under this magical scenario from every Planned Parenthood executive’s worst nightmares.

Writers like yours truly have said for years that principled and articulate conservatives are the key to changing American culture in ways that will reinvigorate the Republican Party. Meanwhile, guys like Sean Hannity now find themselves “uniting” behind a guy with no core principles — a guy who just says whatever pops into his mind at any given moment — who just gave an abortion answer that is worse than former Missouri Rep. Todd Akin in 2012.

For those who don’t remember, Mr. Akin said women’s bodies have a natural defense against rape that prevents them from getting pregnant under such circumstances. Democrats used that to bolster their bizarre “War on Women” campaign — as if all Republicans actually held such an embarrassing opinion and secretly hate their wife, sisters, grandmothers, etc.

Hillary Clinton, who spent a lifetime trying to destroy the reputation of every woman who had an affair with her husband or accused him of rape, is now exploiting Trump’s abortion answer as expected.

She told Business Insider on Friday:

“I think you have to take him at his word. And I think what we heard was a very unvarnished view that he has, and I for one have been very vocal in criticizing him and criticizing the other Republicans who are now embarrassed that he said what they all believe.”

Trump’s response is in many ways worse than Akin’s because he is the Republican front-runner for the 2016 presidential nomination. The media portrayed some random goof congressman from Missouri as the poster boy for the Republican Party in 2012, and now it gets to do the same thing with a man who could legitimately be the presidential nominee.

Who do we have to thank for all of this? There are many people who have brought us to this point, but it cannot be denied that pundits like Sean Hannity — who never saw an indiscretion by Trump that he couldn’t smooth over — shoulder a good chunk of blame.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’ll go back to waiting for someone to ask Hillary Clinton a hypothetical question about the Second Amendment. I was hoping Chris Matthews would ask her how she would react if the Second Amendment was magically repealed tomorrow and states like California outlawed all guns.

Maybe Chris Matthews will ask her if she would support penalties for Californians who purchased guns anyway. Or not, because Democrats are almost never asked stupid questions like that.

Sean Hannity Trump

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.

22 comments

  1. Hannity deserves the lose his conservative audience over his willfully-ignorant service as Trump’s media water-boy.

    1. “Hannity deserves the lose his conservative audience over his willfully-ignorant service as Trump’s media water-boy.”

      I think I would call Sean “The Water-boy” if I had my own radio show.

  2. I’m confused. Are you saying that it doesn’t make sense to punish someone for breaking a hypothetical law? Or are you saying that it was impolitic to say so?

    What Akin said was factually wrong and showed him to be ignorant to the point of being stupid. Trump’s response is an opinion, one which not everyone would share, but which makes perfect sense. If abortion is outlawed, then it makes perfect sense to punish women who get abortions. If you intentionally buy stolen goods, then you’ll be punished as well as the actual thief, right? If a guy tries to hire a prostitute they punish both, right? If you tried to buy an illegal firearm they’d punish you and the seller. You wouldn’t have to structure it that way, but it seems silly not to.

    Why would we not punish women who try to procure abortions? I don’t get this viewpoint.

    Now he should’ve had a prepared response, I agree with that. But I agree with what he said off the cuff more than what he said later when he walked it back.

    Look, Hillary will call anything a Republican does evil. Do you really think that Ted Cruz will be any less Hitler to them than Trump is? These are people who scream and cry about the possibility that Georgia may not punish people for choosing their own customers, i.e. returning things to how they were everywhere in the country something like 3 or 4 years ago. They’re not reasonable. The fact that they attack Trump over something he said doesn’t make it wrong, and Hillary would call any Republican’s position on any issue evil and anti-woman anyway. It makes no difference.

    1. “I’m confused. Are you saying that it doesn’t make sense to punish someone for breaking a hypothetical law? Or are you saying that it was impolitic to say so?”

      I’m saying it’s incredibly stupid to start answering hypothetical questions about issues that were settled by the Supreme Court decades ago — particularly an issue like abortion, which can easily be exploited. If Trump were an articulate and principled conservative, then he could have answered that question in a way where guys like you would be happy while simultaneously denying Hillary Clinton the chance to slime the entire Republican Party as anti-women.

      I promise you that if Ted Cruz or Florida Sen. Marco Rubio were asked that same question they would have knocked it out of the ballpark while making Chris Matthews look like a fool for asking it.

      Yes, Democrats will obviously attack Ted Cruz — but he isn’t handing them political nukes to drop on his head like Trump.

      That is exactly what Trump did.

    2. Should we hide our views for fear that left-wingers will disagree? Have you noticed that the left says whatever insanity it wants and it doesn’t seem to hurt them much, while we’re supposed to keep quiet on even utterly sensible proposals and attack anyone who puts a toe out of line? Is that policy working for us? Have we been winning on a lot of major issues?

      Here’s Cruz’s response:

      Once again Donald Trump has demonstrated that he hasn’t seriously thought through the issues, and he’ll say anything just to get attention. On the important issue of the sanctity of life, what’s far too often neglected is that being pro-life is not simply about the unborn child; it’s also about the mother — and creating a culture that respects her and embraces life. Of course we shouldn’t be talking about punishing women; we should affirm their dignity and the incredible gift they have to bring life into the world.

      We should “affirm [the] dignity” and “incredible gift[s]” of women who choose to hire other people to kill their unborn children. Diagnosis: 98% feminist.

      So here’s the question. With “right-wing” candidates like this (and I’m sure Rubio’s paean to the poor womenfolk would have been far more groveling had he still been around to deliver it), what does it matter who we vote for?

      President Cruz won’t do anything I want. He may as well be a feminist, his wife works for Goldman-Sachs, and when push comes to shove, he’ll back down on the major issues like every other Republican president, candidate, and Congressional leader I’ve seen (plus I don’t think he has a chance against Hillary anyway). Trump may do what I want, if he feels like it. That’s the best deal I can get.

      What you want to have happen is far more likely with Trump than with Cruz, and it would’ve been impossible with Jeb or Rubio or Ryan.

    3. “Should we hide our views for fear that left-wingers will disagree?”

      No. When have I ever said or implied that? What I’m saying — again — is that words matter. If an issue has millions of people who are guided more by emotion than logic on a particular issue, then it makes no sense to go full-Spock on them. In fact, that is stupid.

      “We should ‘affirm [the] dignity’ and ‘incredible gift[s]’ of women who choose to hire other people to kill their unborn children. Diagnosis: 98% feminist.”

      Fact: The American cultural landscape is not where you would like it to be. You can either try and find a way to convince people that you offer a better future in a way that respects their dignity (yes, all humans have dignity, even if they make horrible decisions at times) or you can come across like a jerk.

      “What you want to have happen is far more likely with Trump than with Cruz, and it would’ve been impossible with Jeb or Rubio or Ryan.”

      What I “want” to happen requires a cultural change — not executive orders from someone who thinks he is a king. I do not “want” my way if it requires someone to push the country towards tyranny. Thanks, but no thanks on the Republican Obama.

    4. Unfortunately, the ship has sailed on following the Constitution. Nobody on either side is going to do that.

      But even if that was an option, it’s like mustard gas. We don’t want to use it; we don’t want anyone to use it. But it’s being used by the enemy. Our principled stand not to use it while the enemy is already using it with abandon means we lose. If we lose, our country is damaged by what they’re doing. If we win thoroughly enough, we can go back to Constitutionalism. If we lose for our principles every time, then the Constitution is done anyway.

      There’s nothing to be gained by taking that stand. It’s the “if we use their tactics we’re no better than they are” argument — but it’s not true. We’re still better because our objectives are different. Once the side that started using mustard gas was thoroughly defeated, in part using mustard gas, then it was retired and not used again, because the victors were better than the defeated despite using that same tactic. That’s the best we can hope for here.

      Principled losses will mean that, in short order, there will be so many South American, Muslim, Asian and black people with the vote that principled conservatives literally cannot ever win at the national level. Once that happens (and we’re probably talking 20 years from now at the latest) then conservatism will never be viable again.

      Is a “Republican Obama” worse than the whole nation becoming California? Utterly insane policies until we finally create the massive economic and demographic collapse we’ve been working on for many years? Is the principled stand worth creating conditions where losses become inevitable and can’t be reversed?

    5. “Unfortunately, the ship has sailed on following the Constitution. Nobody on either side is going to do that.”

      We’ve already had this discussion before. If that is the case, then it’s time to either go crawling back to our British friends and ask mom for forgiveness, or it’s time for another Civil War. I don’t think either one is needed at the moment.

      “Once the side that started using mustard gas was thoroughly defeated, in part using mustard gas, then it was retired and not used again, because the victors were better than the defeated despite using that same tactic.”

      Actually, Germany was defeated in World War I and then came back with even more terrifying weapons in World War II — and gas chambers. And they were working on attaining nukes. Luckily, we got there first.

      Since I have some experience in terms of training for chemical or biological attacks, my guess is they aren’t used often because, truthfully, they’re really just not as efficient in terms of killing the enemy. It’s always funny when you’re “gassed” during training and the wind blows the gas in the opposite direction. “Sorry, suckers! I still hate this MOPP gear, though. I bet I’ll lose 10 pounds of water weight before the day is over…”

      Sorry, but history has shown that when political groups go down the “ends justify the means” route that they don’t relinquish the mentality upon gaining power.

      If you want a good book on World War I, then I suggest reading Niall Ferguson’s “The Pity of War: Explaining World War I”

      “Those much-derided pre-war generals who believed that the war would be decided not by matériel but by morale — ‘the human factor’, or ‘grit’ as Sir John Robertson called it — were right.” That takes us to the heart of the matter. What made men keep fighting? And what, besides being killed or wounded, made them stop?” — Niall Ferguson.

      Want to know more? Buy the book to find out…or wait until I get around to a blog post. 😉

    6. Historically, the pro-life movement has always opposed punishing the mother. But the Left keeps lying about it, or citing outliers, because it raises funds.

    7. “Historically, the pro-life movement has always opposed punishing the mother. But the Left keeps lying about it, or citing outliers, because it raises funds.”

      Say there is a teenage girl who grew up in an abusive household. Her parents aren’t Christian and she’s been told her whole life that getting pregnant just means you have an extra “clump of cells” in your body. She’s typically a good kid, but like many high school teenagers she’s naive and kind of stupid. She gets pregnant. In her mind she is not a murderer because she doesn’t know any better. She’s lost and confused and she’s looking for answers. She comes to this blog and then sees Eidolon railing against girls like her, mocking those who say she has dignity, etc. How will she respond?

      Do I believe lift begins at conception? Yes. I also believe that there is a way to teach a distressed soul right from wrong without being insensitive or flippant about the circumstances that got them in trouble to begin with.

      That’s somewhat astray in terms of a reply to your comment, but I wanted to get that off my chest. 🙂

    8. Yeah, I’m thinkin’ this. Trump and Akin are kind of apples and oranges here; Akin said something flat out wrong while Trump made the mistake of answering a question to which there was no right answer. Saying that someone breaking a law would be punished for breaking said law is not ridiculous – at least not outside of this circus side-show of a subject; of course, the punishment would be proscribed by the law – not Donald Trump, certainly – regardless. He could’ve said “You’d have to ask the lawmakers, the President is not a lawmaker.”

    9. “Yeah, I’m thinkin’ this. Trump and Akin are kind of apples and oranges here; Akin said something flat out wrong while Trump made the mistake of answering a question to which there was no right answer.”

      Perhaps, but it doesn’t matter what the fruit is if its poisonous. The video now exists and will be cut into countless television and online ads if he is the nominee. Stupid “War on Women”-like articles are already all over the place. Trump gave the interview that will keep on giving for months to come…and it’s going to damage Republican lawmakers across the board.

      This happened because Trump is not a principled conservative and he has no discipline. His supporters might like it, but he is causing massive headaches with Republicans who have to deal with the political fallout. If he is the nominee, Republicans will be crushed in November. Hold me accountable if I am wrong. Mark this page and come back to it. There’s still time to change course, so perhaps this whole conversation will be moot by July.

    10. I guess the real question will be “How many of the people who’d buy into the War on Women would have voted Trump or Republican anyway?” It may rally portions of the Dem base, but Trump’s support is probably solid enough that this won’t affect him directly any more than the NeverTrump movement within the GOP already has. I’m hoping that “Trump says stupid shit” < "Hillary is a Criminal", but who knows? If we do end up with president Trump, I probably won't have much satisfaction in coming back here to say you were wrong.

    11. There are millions of legitimate Independent voters out there, and the Republican Party needs every single one of them. Hillary is a horrible candidate and she should be in jail right now…but if the DOJ protects her then it’s probably won’t matter. It should matter, but it won’t. We’ll see what the FBI recommends.

      Conservatives have to be twice as sharp as most liberals because the mainstream media is already stacked against them and the cultural is much more liberal on social issues. When a candidate just spouts off and says whatever the heck he wants, it’s a recipe for disaster. It is possible to resist political correctness without being a jerk. Trump seems to equate being tactful with being politically correct. That’s not true.

    1. “Trump is a blathering narcissist who believes he can wing it through everything.”

      I think that is a fairly accurate assessment of the situation. 😉

  3. Trump is a putz, which might actually give him an advantage in what promises to be a very dirty and nasty campaign.

    He is running on a variation of Hope & Change. (So is Sanders, who hopes you don’t notice that he is, in effect, running against his own party.) But, unlike Obama Zombies, Trump’s supporters probably don’t have a lot of romantic illusions. I haven’t heard any Trump fans claiming that he is the smartest guy on the planet, that he is a god or a messiah, or that he is just too smart and too cool to do an ordinary mortal’s job. It’s more an attitude of, “Yeah, I know, he’s an SOB, but maybe that’s what we need: no more Mr. Nice Guy.”

    The Republicans usually nominate the moderate candidate with “broad-based appeal.” And usually lose. they have lost four out of the last seven presidential elections. Five, really. Bush won on electoral votes, but Gore won the popular vote, in 2000.

    In the 1970’s, a lot of Republicans feared that Reagan was an extremist who could not win a general election. But he ended up winning decisively. Twice.

    Also, GOP candidates run on character and integrity, and/or on conservative principles. The former approach makes it easy for the Democratic Party and its propaganda arm (aka the mainstream media) to burst the bubble by digging up even the most ludicrously trivial peccadilloes (Rubio got four traffic tickets in eighteen years, and the media coverage made him look like an ax murderer). The latter approach lacks appeal to anyone except the Tea Party.

    Everyone already knows Trump is a scumbag, so the MSM can’t shock you by reporting his gaffes, or by digging up “revelations” about his divorce, his shady deals, or whatever. They can’t disillusion you if you don’t have illusions in the first place.

    It probably breaks down something like this:

    “I’m voting for Bernie. He will give me lots of Free Stuff.”

    “I’m voting for Hillary. It’s time for a token woman president. Besides, she will give me lots of Free Stuff.”

    “I’m voting for Cruz. It’s time for an honest, principled president.”

    “I’m voting for Trump. Cruz can’t win. He’s too nice, and Hillary would mop the floor with him. Trump is mean enough to win. And, even if his administration is a disaster, it’s still the lesser evil. Anything would be better than Clinton or Sanders.”

    1. Also, GOP candidates run on character and integrity, and/or on conservative principles. The former approach makes it easy for the Democratic Party and its propaganda arm (aka the mainstream media) to burst the bubble by digging up even the most ludicrously trivial peccadilloes (Rubio got four traffic tickets in eighteen years, and the media coverage made him look like an ax murderer). The latter approach lacks appeal to anyone except the Tea Party.

      I would agree with this, although it saddens me that a smaller and smaller percentage of the population cares about principles. When I read comments on this blog saying, in essence, “Republicans should temporarily ignore the Constitution because the others guys do it,” it is stunning. When the people cry out for a king…you might as well throw in the towel. I don’t want to, but on some days the temptation is strong.

      “Everyone already knows Trump is a scumbag, so the MSM can’t shock you by reporting his gaffes, or by digging up ‘revelations’ about his divorce, his shady deals, or whatever. They can’t disillusion you if you don’t have illusions in the first place.”

      Again, I love your analysis but I don’t know whether I want to laugh or cry.

      Side note: Your breakdown of the different voters is amazing. 🙂

  4. I listened to Hannity in 2003. At the time I considered myself a full on Conservative. I listened to Hannity and Rush back to back everyday. At the time I loved guys like Hannity, I thought they were the beginning of a movement that would finally end a lot of what was wrong with country. He pushes the ideals of principled conservatism very hard…still does.

    However, 2003 was the year of the California recall election. You may remember some of the details Doug, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ariana Huffington, Peter Camejo and Tom McClintock. The election was heavily contested, and ran pretty hot. However, that was a pretty prescient election. There was a televised debate, where Arnold and Ariana basically showed the world they were children. Tom and Peter (despite peter being basically a communist) showed poise, decorum and a stable list of ideas and solutions that supported their position and ideology…they even behaved like gentlemen toward each other. We know what went down after that.

    The most disturbing thing about that election was the behaviour of Hannity and various California Conservative movement people. They savagely attacked McClintock personally and ridiculed his passion for his policy ideas. Hannity led this attack, being friendly to him during interviews and then ruthlessly insulting him on his show. Arnold’s childish behaviour and personality did little to deter Sean’s support. Sean used to say “…I just have this feeling about him” Of course that feeling is rather clear now, no republican will ever win the governorship of California for a very, very long time.

    The thing that was very obvious at the time, was Sean’s almost pathetic need to suck up to Arnold, there’s no ‘criticism’ of many of Arnold’s shortcomings and unfitness for the job, in fact Sean made excuses for this. For McClintock, a longtime policy wonk and idea man, Sean seemed to have a list of criticisms ready for that short time, the standard “your the right guy! but we’ll lose because your too stupid to see that your conservative ideas can’t win!” ….before telling his audience…once again…that they can.

    pretty familiar huh.

    One day I just turned the radio off and let that voice be silenced to me. Hannity isn’t a man of principle, he’s a showman and a bootlicker. Though I haven’t listened to his show until very recently, I know he’s been the same in every major election, he doesn’t support anyone or any principle until theres a clear frontrunner, than he’s all in. This guy will vote for Hitler to beat a democrat. Hell…if the Democrat was a free market, social conservative named Ronald Reagan, he would go against him.

    I’m no longer a ‘Conservative’, I now recognize it for what it is…the wrecked carcass of fine, intelligent men…chewed up and regurgitated into some kind of disgusting paste that is either completely unpalatable, or the only thing capable of sustaining life, like baby birds in a nest. Buckley and Reagan are gone, and they treat guys like George Will with disdain or as a giant depending on how the winds blow today.

    They tell their followers about the need for smaller government, for the importance of freedom, but anyone who actually follows this is thrown out. And there’s always a ‘good’ reason. McCain’s RINO bonafides, should hurt him as much as Ron Paul’s inability to wrap the Isreali flag around his body…but that’s not how it works…obviously liberty isn’t as important as making sure we have the right defense contracts. When do we get to call the guys that snicker about smaller government and decreased regulation “kooks”? Let me know…maybe I’ll come back. Gary Johnson? what’s his crime…actually governing like a conservative in New Mexico?…he’s out, not enough war mode, not enough military…and most importantly…too much freedom/liberty/small government no room in the republican party for a guy like that. They want to cry about the establishment? tell me they even have one rebel that can stand on his principles. Even Cruz got up to the podium after a pastor called for the execution of gays. I remember what Reagan did when Californians were ready to make it illegal for gays to work in public education…he did the right thing and opposed it.

    Here we go again.

    1. “Hannity isn’t a man of principle, he’s a showman and a bootlicker. Though I haven’t listened to his show until very recently, I know he’s been the same in every major election, he doesn’t support anyone or any principle until theres a clear frontrunner, then he’s all in.

      Agreed. He doesn’t want to be seen as someone who backs a “loser” — even if that person was a good man who lost on principle. I obviously like winning more than losing just like the next guy, but where do you draw the line in terms of what you’ll support to win? There has to be a point where a man says, “No, I will not support [insert candidate here] or [insert tactic here] because in both cases it would be a total betrayal of the principles that guide me.”

      Just because Trump woke up and decided to call himself a Republican after holding every Democrat position under the sun (and donating to Clinton as of 2008), it doesn’t mean he’s actually a Republican. If the Republican Party can stand for whatever we want it to stand for on a daily basis, then it stands for nothing.

      I’m no longer a ‘Conservative’, I now recognize it for what it is…the wrecked carcass of fine, intelligent men…chewed up and regurgitated into some kind of disgusting paste that is either completely unpalatable, or the only thing capable of sustaining life, like baby birds in a nest.

      Tell us how you really feel, buddy. 🙂 Haha. Seriously though, I understand where you’re coming from. I just got Spring 2016 “Members News” mailing from The Heritage Foundation and inside it has a picture of Hannity giving the keynote address at its 2015 President’s Club Meeting. The headline: “Standing for Conservative Values.” Hmmm…I wonder how those Heritage members feel about Hannity playing clean-up man for Trump. My guess is that they’re pretty annoyed. On one hand Heritage preaches about principles, and then it tries to tell us that “Unite behind Trump”-man Hannity “stands strong” for conservative values.

      Note to Heritage: Don’t be expecting a President’s Club donation anytime soon. I’ll spend $1,000 on this blog talking to people who care about conservative principles before I’ll pay for Sean Hannity’s next speaking fee.

    2. Sean won’t even criticize the guy, I caught a few show during my lunch hour out of curiosity, and just parsing what I heard was a flashback to 2003…

      Really not even a ‘I support this guy from where I stand, but I’m troubled by….” no…just “I understand what people are saying…but” (which he won’t repeat, or will cast aside if a caller brings it up). He spent an entire hour repeating the same thing…honestly, I’m a little embarrassed i listened to this guy for so long with such attention. The pope saying the wrong things sure got Sean excited…Donald saying the wrong things…geez…almost nothing if not a good excuse for it. paraphrasing: “THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS CHILD MOLESTERS, THE POPE DIDN’T STOP CHILD MOLESTERS! ” vs. “Trump…YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE REASON THAT TRUMP SAYS AND BELIEVES BAD THINGS…IT’S NOT WHO HE REALLY IS!!!”

      Not every person’s principles and motivations are the same. As an individual, the honorable thing to do in relation to what we chose to support is to compare who we are to what we want. If we spend years telling people who we are…than throw that away for what we want…we likely lose both. In the republican party’s case…everyone involved save possibly Cruz is like that. The electorate doesn’t believe in the party anymore and is willing to throw it’s support behind someone else who’s thrown that all aside, because he’s outside of the party and can WIN! see…there’s no who we are…the only thing that matters is what we want. This election is your thought process made manifest. The party stands for nothing, conservatism lost it’s ideological battles with the party long ago (being strung along to keep voters), and the media representation of conservative values (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc…) are uncommitted at best, and often dishonorable and hypocritical at worst.

    3. “Donald saying the wrong things…geez…almost nothing if not a good excuse for it. paraphrasing: ‘THE CATHOLIC CHURCH HAS CHILD MOLESTERS, THE POPE DIDN’T STOP CHILD MOLESTERS!’ vs. ‘Trump…YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND HOW THE ESTABLISHMENT IS THE REASON THAT TRUMP SAYS AND BELIEVES BAD THINGS…IT’S NOT WHO HE REALLY IS!!!'”

      Haha. My brother recently sent me a text message about Hannity having some priest on to talk about Trump, only to then turn the segment into an opportunity to bash the Catholic Church. There are something like 1.2 billion Catholics in the world. Shocker — a man-made institution that large is going to have its share of scandals. Regardless, I’m glad that Sean is willing to show the world that he isn’t afraid to use giant red herrings when he doesn’t know how to respond to criticism. Viewers need to know what kind of guy they’re dealing with each night.

      “This election is your thought process made manifest. The party stands for nothing, conservatism lost it’s ideological battles with the party long ago (being strung along to keep voters), and the media representation of conservative values (Rush, Hannity, Coulter, etc…) are uncommitted at best, and often dishonorable and hypocritical at worst.”

      That is why I generally stick to national defense stories, college campus stuff, comic books and superhero movies these days. For every Greg Gutfeld out there — who isn’t afraid to call out hypocrites on his own network — there are about 10 Eric Bollings. The people who have the largest microphones care more about their ability to attend the right parties after the election than telling people the truth — now — when it matters.

      I suppose I should start working on my plan to build myself a bigger microphone, huh? I’ve been meaning to branch out into videos for awhile. It may be about time to really get serious. I love my blog, but incorporating a YouTube channel into the mix might be the way to go. If I do it I’m going to have to do it right… We’ll see. I wanted to hold off for about two years for financial reasons, but that may be too long to wait.

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