Fox Bans Trump Adviser Who Called Harris an 'Insufferable Lying B****'
Even if she’s a politician, there are just some things you don’t say about a woman.
Political consultant Harlan Hill found that out when he was banned from returning as a guest on Fox News for his tweet about Democratic vice presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris.
Harris sparred with Republican incumbent Vice President Mike Pence in a debate Wednesday night at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City, and Hill let everyone on social media know exactly what he thought of her performance.
“Kamala Harris comes off as such an insufferable lying b—-. Sorry, it’s just true,” he tweeted.
WARNING: Some of the following tweets contain language that some viewers will find offensive.
Kamala Harris comes off as such an insufferable lying bitch. Sorry, it’s just true.
— HARLAN Z. HILL ?? (@Harlan) October 8, 2020
According to Business Insider, Fox made it clear that Hill — a member of the advisory board to President Donald Trump’s re-election campaign, according to his bio — would not be welcome back on the air because of his remark.
[firefly_poll]
“We have no intention of booking him as a guest on any of our platforms,” the company said in a statement to the news outlet, also pointing out that Hill had not appeared on Fox News this year and was not paid for past bookings.
By the time Fox responded, Hill already had been chastised by a Twitter mob, many of whom accused him of being intimidated by a strong woman or other such nonsense.
Don’t apologize to us. Apologize to the women in your life.
— Joe Lockhart (@joelockhart) October 8, 2020
Here’s another small man who is intimidated by strong women. #KamalaWonTheDebate
— Colleen Wharff (@ColleenWharff) October 8, 2020
Such a disgusting, little man. Pathetic.
— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) October 8, 2020
Where’s your mom??
— Patricia Arquette (@PattyArquette) October 8, 2020
BREAKING: Area white man uncomfortable around strong Black women.
— Jedi, Interrupted ?️? (@JediCounselor) October 8, 2020
Hill certainly didn’t have second thoughts about what he said as he reshared his message just a few minutes after the first tweet, adding, “I didn’t think it was possible for someone to be less likable than @HillaryClinton, but here we are…”
I didn’t think it was possible for someone to be less likable than @HillaryClinton, but here we are… https://t.co/QdxZnh5LyL
— HARLAN Z. HILL ?? (@Harlan) October 8, 2020
Hill was right that Harris was shrill, sophomoric, deceitful and manipulative and that her debate performance was just abysmal — and few could dispute the Clinton comparison.
Many viewers indeed found Harris abrasive, condescending and unlikable, so the spirit of the tweet was spot on — but his message would have resonated more had he walked back his use of the B-word and stuck to the issues.
Still, instead of rethinking his incendiary language toward former Vice President Joe Biden’s running mate, Hill doubled down the very next day.
“Good morning! Kamala Harris still sucks and comes off as a b—-,” Hill tweeted Thursday morning.
Good morning! Kamala Harris still sucks and comes off as a bitch.
— HARLAN Z. HILL ?? (@Harlan) October 8, 2020
Asked by Mediaite if the tweet went too far, he responded, “I said what everyone is thinking… wow this is a miracle, someone less likable than Hillary Clinton!”
Hill also appeared on “The National Pulse” Thursday to discuss the controversy that had him trending on Twitter.
Although he claimed to have been on Fox “hundreds of times” in the past five years, he said he was cut loose by the network and attacked on social media for something those on the left routinely get away with saying.
“You could literally throw a stone at the MSNBC bureau over on Capitol Hill and you’ll hit someone that has called Trump ‘Hitler,’ a ‘Nazi,’ all kinds of nasty names on Twitter, and there’s zero consequence for them,” Hill told host and editor-in-chief Raheem Kassam, comparing the row over his single Harris tweet to the way the media habitually attack President Donald Trump.
Hill maintained that his tweet was “hyperbole” but said he found Harris “abrasive and nasty, and rude to the vice president, and she did lie repeatedly, repeatedly, to the American people and to the moderator.”
Although the merits of Hill’s arguments are certainly valid, there is no excuse to use that particular profanity against a female candidate to make the point — even one like Harris.
Just because the left does it all the time — who can forget what Samantha Bee called Trump’s daughter and adviser, Ivanka? — doesn’t mean the right has to stoop just as low.
There are plenty of other things to call the senator that don’t have a sexist connotation or even a single profanity: radical, unhinged, dishonest, opportunistic, dangerous and insufferable, just to name a few.
Instead, Hill chose to land a low blow and continue to run with it, even as it has hurt his reputation and credibility.
As a woman who writes right-leaning political commentary, I’m not suggesting that females are too fragile to compete with men in the political arena (if they can’t hack it, they should choose another profession).
On the contrary, it makes me cringe when leftist women fan themselves and call for their smelling salts like Aunt Pittypat in “Gone with the Wind” whenever one of their political opponents hurls a well-deserved barb at them.
What I am saying is that sticking to factual criticism is preferable to ad hominem attacks, especially when they’re lazily constructed and merely employ schoolyard profanity.
Sure, the left does it all the time, but we’re so much better than that.
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
