We get it, Republicans are mad about their looming defeat in the presidential election, but that still doesn't seem like a good reason to try and put Rep. Louie Gohmert in a leadership position in Congress.
As the fiasco otherwise known as Donald Trump's presidential campaign begins to lurch toward its likely conclusion — a Hillary Clinton victory, and a large one at that — some members of the Republican Party have been casting around for somebody to blame for their impending failure.
Sean Hannity and many other Republican-types have locked onto the idea of chalking up the looming GOP failure to take back the White House to Speaker of the House Paul Ryan, according to Talking Points Memo.
Sure, the conservative pundit and other Republican party members didn't stop Trump from taking the nomination in the first place, but that hasn't stopped Hannity and others from trying to blame Ryan. After all, Ryan is the one who came out in the wake of Trump's Access Hollywood scandal and told his fellow Republicans they no longer had any obligation to even pay lip service to the anointed party candidate.
But what's really shocking is who Hannity thinks should replace the "saboteur," as Hannity has dubbed Ryan, according to the Washington Post.
Hannity and others have been annoyed by Ryan's decision, but leave it to Hannity to come up with a solution that is arguably on the same level of terrible ideas as, well, nominating Trump for president.
Not only does Hannity want to oust Ryan, he's come up with a real Cracker Jack-prize of a congressman to replace him: Rep. Louie Gohmert.
Those who know the East Texas congressman's previous works have already realized how patently ridiculous this idea is. But for the uninitiated, it seems worthwhile to note a few of the things Gohmert has said in the past month alone that make the thought of him wielding the power that comes with being the top dog in the House of Representatives equal parts laughable and alarming.
Gohmert has made some really, let's say, interesting claims over the years he's been in office. One time he claimed that African Americans fought for Civil Rights in order to have the right to discriminate against gay people. Another time, he stated he was against same-sex marriage because of "plumbing problems." (In fact, a lot of his strange-sounding claims are centered around gay people for reasons passing understanding.)
While those comments were made a couple of years ago, in the past month alone Gohmert has said equally troubling things. For starters, when he guest hosted the radio program "Point of View" a couple of weeks ago, Gohmert said he thinks that boys who have been sexually abused "universally" end up thinking they're gay. In another segment on the radio program he claimed Noah's flood was caused by homosexuality as well.
If you like this story, consider signing up for our email newsletters.
SHOW ME HOW
You have successfully signed up for your selected newsletter(s) - please keep an eye on your mailbox, we're movin' in!
And shortly after that, he was asked about Trump's comment that — with the mass defection of Republican politicians — the presidential nominee finally had the "shackles" off. Gohmert responded by going off on a diatribe/tangent that would make Trump proud.
During an appearance on "Dana", a conservative talk show hosted by Dana Loesch, the logic of Gohmert's reasoning is hard to follow. First, Gohmert claims he believes hate crime legislation will ultimately lead to the mass incarceration of Christians. He ping-pongs from James Byrd's murder in 1998 to Matthew Shepard's murder that same year as he talks about hate crime laws.
"Nine years ago, when we started having the push for hate crime legislation, totally based on lies because they were saying, you know, they kept bringing up that incident in Jasper," Gohmert says, referencing Byrd's murder, before veering into the idea that Christians are going to be locked up in large numbers next, claiming Christians will literally end up in "shackles." What this conviction has to do with Trump's own "shackles" being off is never explained.
So yeah, this is guy that Hannity thinks should take over for Ryan. And now is the time to be devoutly thankful that Hannity isn't actually in charge of deciding who runs the House, otherwise we'd have a Texan with very strange views holding one of the most powerful offices in the United States.