If you’ve ever watched Fox News for any length of time (and for whatever sad reason), you’ve most likely seen Andrea Tantaros featured on the network in some capacity. Either on the show she co-hosts, Outnumbered, or as a featured “analyst” of sorts on any number of the network’s other shows.
I’m really not sure why anyone would ever consider her an “expert” on much of anything. While Fox News personalities like Bill O’Reilly, Sean Hannity and Megyn Kelly make most of the headlines, Tantaros spews some of the most asinine garbage I’ve ever heard.
Such as that time she insisted healthy school lunches were causing “mental problems,” when she claimed school snow days were an attack on Christianity, or when she basically said it was alright for the United States to commit torture because “we are awesome.”
Like I said, I’m not sure why anyone would ever take her seriously.
Well, seemingly in an effort to add to her long list of embarrassing statements, Tantaros has once again made a fool out of herself while trying to defend Donald Trump from possibly losing the nomination through a brokered convention.
“Who is correct on this?” Tantaros asked Fox News judicial guru Andrew Napolitano. “I’m not sure the Founding Fathers would love what’s happening on the Republican side. I’m not sure that’s how they set up the framework for the United States of America.”
“But constitutionally, can you weigh in on what the party is doing?” she continued. “Do they have a right to do it?”
“I disagree with you on the Founding Fathers,” Napolitano explained. “Because I think politics was as rough and tumble in that era even as it is today. There just wasn’t cable television around to record all of it. The Republican Party has a history of these things. It’s not unprecedented.”
And he’s absolutely right.
In fact, it wasn’t until the last few decades that state-by-state primaries were used to pick a party’s nominee. In 1976, the nomination process went all the way to the convention where Republicans chose Gerald Ford over Ronald Reagan – so it just happened 40 years ago. That makes Tantaros’ comments even more idiotic; she’s on a news network as a “political analyst” of some kind and she doesn’t even seem to understand the history of presidential nominations. Did she really believe they held state-by-state primaries since the founding of this nation?
Not only that, as Napolitano pointed out, there’s nothing written in any official law book that says any political party has to adhere to what voters want. Sure, it makes sense for them to select the nominee who was most popular in the primaries – but they don’t have to. These parties could quite literally bypass these primaries and caucuses entirely and simply nominate whoever the heck they wanted to. I know that sounds very “un-Democratic,” but it’s the truth the way the system is currently set up.
Watch the segment below via Fox News: