Editor's Note: This is an opinion piece. Sean Hannity's official position is that he gives access to all candidates on his radio and television shows and that he will support the GOP nominee, whomever that may be. Hannity has not endorsed Donald Trump as the Republican nominee for president.
You've long been one of my heroes. You’ve fought long and hard for the conservative movement in this country, hitting progressives wherever they surfaced and exposing the dangers of liberalism wherever you could. You’ve been a source of encouragement, of education, and of inspiration to millions of conservatives. You were among several whose work inspired me to get into this whole crazy business in the first place.
Which is why it pains me to write this piece. But if we have no courage to question even those we admire, we are nothing.
It bothers me that while it's incredibly obvious to me and many others, you won't just come out and say that you endorse Donald Trump. It bothers me that you're willing to look past so much you say you believe in in order to support this candidate. It bothers me that you'll give Trump a pass while criticizing others for things he's done ad nauseam.
At a Sean Hannity book signing, 2010 (Mary Ramirez)
Truly, this has as much to do with your personal preference in presidential candidates as it does about your willingness to talk straight to us. In fact—while I’d still be disappointed in what I perceive to be a lack of judgement— if you’d just come out and say you endorse Donald Trump, I'd respect you, and I’d still be listening to your show despite our difference in opinion.
But it’s that lack of openness while STILL trying to operate under the banner of “Fair and Balanced," and within an “objective” premise (a word you used in Wednesday night’s scorched earth broadcast against all things anti-Trump) that bothers me.
So here goes.
1. What would you say if Ted Cruz or Marco Rubio didn’t instantly denounce David Duke and the Ku Klux Klan if asked to do so on national television? That’s not something one needs to do “research” on. That’s a kneejerk reaction. And besides, Donald Trump ABSOLUTELY knew who David Duke was, and has for decades (see here) and yet told Jack Tapper he “didn’t know anything about him.” To paraphrase Glenn Beck, if someone wakes you up in the dead of night and asks you if white supremacy and the KKK are bad, your answer should be instant and resounding. There’s nothing to think about. And like it or not, Trump thought.
2. Why are Marco Rubio’s attacks childish, and Donald Trump throwing water all over the stage, isn’t? And let me be clear: mocking the size of someone’s, ehem, “hands” is ridiculous and hardly substantive. But so is pouring water all over a stage and calling it Rubio’s sweat. So why does Trump get a pass, and Rubio’s excoriated?
3. You said Rubio’s rhetoric has been “‘beyond the pale’ of acceptance in a presidential primary.” Sure, if we’re talking about the schoolyard silliness Rubio engaged in this week, I happen to agree. So, where were you when Donald Trump made fun of a disabled reporter, or when he compared Ben Carson to pedophile, or when he relentlessly calls Ted Cruz a “nasty guy”?
4. Why is it ok for Trump to make THREATS against those who don’t agree with him or work with him (i.e. Paul Ryan and the Chicago Cubs owners) and it’s “beyond the pale” for anyone else to voice concerns about Trump’s character and loyalties?
5. We all bristled when President Barack Obama mocked voters, describing them as “clinging to their guns and religion.” How low for him to mock our beliefs, right? Yet on your February 29 radio show, you claimed that those who wouldn’t vote for Trump as a matter of principle would be effectively behaving like children— “taking their ball and going home.” Are you not doing the exact same thing in mocking those of us who cling to our principles?
6. Speaking of principle: Who exactly would the GOP have to nominate before you would decide that you have to vote for your principles over your party—or as you’ve called it, “taking your ball and going home”?
7. Which of Trump’s “conservative principles” would you be voting for in November? His intent to fund Planned Parenthood? His support for government-run healthcare? His disgusting treatment of women? His refusal to rip up the Iran deal? His support of Obama-like policies towards Israel? His support for tariffs to punish ex-pat companies back into submission? His support for an amnesty-like touchback immigration program that allows immigrants to leave and come back in an “expedited” fashion?
8. Which one of Donald Trump’s copious personal insults are you willing to look past before you admit he is not presidential: From Megyn Kelly’s “bleeding,” to Carly Fiorina’s “ugly” face; from “stupid” Iowan voters to mocking John McCain for getting captured in Vietnam; from calling Jonah Goldberg “dumb as a rock” to insulting Rand Paul’s looks.
9. And if it’s none of the above, what exactly would you be voting for?
But above and beyond anything else I’ve mentioned here, answer me this:
10. Have we not all agreed that big, bloated government is the problem? Good. When have you ever heard Donald Trump consistently and seriously talk about making government SMALLER?
That’s what I thought.
Far from making America great again, Donald Trump has brought us to the lowest common denominator. And worse than that, we’re spending so much time talking about his maniac-like behavior that we’re missing the real point—and that’s the answer to #10.
Here’s the deal: Donald Trump doesn’t have the moral or ideological record of the views he claims to have now. And he’s asking us all to trust him purely on the basis of his word … after he’s done everything I just listed above.
Call us crazy for taking our ball and going home.
Mary Ramirez is a full-time writer, creator of www.afuturefree.com(a political commentary blog), and contributor to The Chris Salcedo Show (TheBlaze Radio Network, Saturday, from noon to 3 p.m. ET). She can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org; or on Twitter: @AFutureFree
TheBlaze contributor channel supports an open discourse on a range of views. The opinions expressed in this channel are solely those of each individual author.
Matt Walsh offers to respond to Rolling Stone's comment request on one condition: 'I will provide a comment for your hit piece if you can define the word 'woman''