You might not know about USA Today columnist Nancy Armour, but I’ll give you a brief overview. She’s a flaming liberal who often inserts insufferable progressive talking points into her sports coverage. Basically, she’s your average sports journalist in today’s media world.
Recently, she published a column in which she talked about how athletes need to be more vocal in endorsing presidential candidates. She specifically highlighted how Indiana Fever guard Caitlin Clark and Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes were hesitant to endorse a specific presidential candidate, but instead encouraged people to register to vote.
To the average person, this would be a non-issue. Two superstar athletes in their respective sports choosing to not be overtly political? More of that please!
But to Armour, that was a huge problem.
Read: Pro-Kamala Harris X Account Exposes Stupidity With NCAAF Post
She kicked off her article bemoaning the fact that not all athletes are as politically active as LeBron James or Megan Rapinoe (two real whack jobs if you ask me). Armour then went on this long-winded monologue where she suggested that Clark’s and Mahomes’ unwillingness to make a more direct stance was somehow an indictment on their character.
Her piece concluded by stating that these two athletes are somehow less courageous than others because they wouldn’t endorse a candidate.
“Elite athletes are born with unique physical gifts and singular dedication. Moral courage is something they have to find for themselves, and this week was a reminder that not many do,” Armour said.
Wow, could you be any more pompous?
When she tweeted her story out on X, she also said that Clark and Mahomes chose self-interest over being politically involved.
Not everyone can have the courage of LeBron James.
— Nancy Armour (@nrarmour) September 13, 2024
Patrick Mahomes and Caitlin Clark this week joined a long list of high-profile athletes who chose self-interest over political activism. https://t.co/ww5RCrPtO6
Again, I don’t see a problem with that. Clark and Mahomes both play for leagues (the WNBA and NFL, respectively) that do all they can to push progressives values down our throats, so there choices to say anything might not affect much.
Furthermore, endorsing a candidate is always a losing battle. No matter who you pick, you always alienate some of your or your team’s fanbase. Stepping away from that saves you from experiencing a lot of unnecessary flack. Plus, no one is entitled to know who you are voting for anyway.
But you want to know the most hypocritical and arrogant part of all this? Of course you do, so here goes.
Armour published another column in 2021 titled: “Tom Brady has gotten an undeserved pass for his past support of Donald Trump.” This doesn’t add up, because Armour criticized Brady for doing something she now wants Clark and Mahomes to do: endorse a candidate.
But when Brady chose to show support for Trump, she wrote a lengthy column explaining why this was a bad thing. So in reality, what Armour meant to say at the end of her more recent article was this:
“Athletes are obligated to endorse politicians, but only liberal ones. If you don’t do both of those things, I will do everything in my power to shame you and assault your character.”
Armour does not control what Clark and Mahomes do or don’t do with their political beliefs, even though she thinks she does. Unbeknownst to her, the world would be better off if more people followed the example of these two athletes.
Follow MRCTV on X!
The IRS agents union officially endorsed Kamala Harris for President. https://t.co/CvUudXQzLf
— MRCTV (@mrctv) September 23, 2024