Wednesday, November 7, 2007

This Is NOT What I Meant [Bob]

Beside his penchant for blaming natural disasters, both past and future (like an America-directed-tsunami or what residents of Dover, PA should expect after the defeat of ID there) on the immorality and misdeeds of humanity, Pat Robertson has also made some pretty outrageous public gaffs -- like musing about the assassination of Hugo Chavez -- that, even when "clarified," have succeeded in rendering him irrelevant in the mainstream political debate.

Today however, I can only say that I hope he is as irrelevant to most of America's "values voters" as he is to me. That's because today Robertson endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president.

We here at the LTI blog have engaged in legitimate (and cordial) debate about our differences concerning a Giuliani presidency and what it would mean for the pro-life agenda. Our "disagreements" have always been about long-term strategy. But, as one who believes a vote for Giuliani in the general election is better than any alternative from the other party, I have tried to make it clear that I would in no way support Giuliani during the nomination process. For that reason, I see Robertson's endorsement as being detestable.

For all his bluster about immorality invoking the wrath of God, it is beyond me how Robertson can look past Giuliani's positions on abortion and homosexual rights to only see his fiscal conservatism and stance on the War on Terror. This is a move that flies in the face of the morality Robertson claims to hold in such high regard. He should be ashamed. I just hope that Robertson's past actions have rendered his endorsement a whispered call to a crowd that isn't listening.


  1. Amen, Bob. I cannot believe that someone like Pat Robertson would imply that limiting government spending is more important than stopping abortion. I wonder if RG promised him a seat of influence to get the endorsement...?

  2. I have never been a Pat Robertson guy, but the day he characterized China's abortion policy as them doing the best they can with a problem was the day I was convinced he was either not the brightest bulb or that he was a fraud. For the record, he was also in the process of securing internet contracts and access from the Chinese at the time. So Orlanda will be consumed for Disney's gay day but China is just working a problem by killing million of innocent unborn lives? That is no leader of mine.

  3. What Pat Robertson has done is a moral crime. However, I wonder if the fact that we have been debating, albeit cordially, about a Guiliani presidency has somehow played a part in his decision to endorse him.

    He said in his statement that talk of third party's etc. is wrong-headed,and that makes me think that he has been listening to the debate and has drawn the wrong conclusions.

    I hope, Bob, that you are right and that he has made himself irrelevant over the years. We all know, though, that the MSM is going to run away with this.

  4. Josh -- I find it hard to imagine RG promising someone like Robertson ANY influence in a Giuliani administration. I can see him welcoming the endorsement as an attempt to appease those to the right of him (which includes almost the entire base) but I doubt it goes further than that.

    Jay -- Though I have never given Robertson much credibility (and therefore never paid any attention to what he said), now that you mention it, I do remember his comments re: China's abortion policy. But I had no clue about the connection you mention. That is sickening to learn. This endorsement is just more of the same.

    Dr. Lyn -- While I still agree that a third party movement would be a disaster, I doubt that the discussion here played a part in Robertson's decision. I think he knows he has become irrelevant and that this is just his way of groping to make himself relevant again.

  5. I'm afraid after a bit of thought, I'd have to agree that Pat is just looking to go where he thinks the power lies.(or will lie) I think he's tired of being irrelevant, and is dying to secure a bit of "face time" with those in power. It was a bad move any way you look at it. I am not sure I agree fully with Dobson's comments on Thompson not "being Christian" and therefore he can't endorse him. But PR's endorsement of RG is way over the other edge. I can't be positive of course, but I think the only group that Pat's endorsment will influence is the undereducated, TV preacher fan base. The same ones who fall for that "send- us- your -money- today -or- by -next- week,- we'll- be -off -the- air" hype. Lori

  6. av8 I disagree with the idea that a third party movement would be a disaster.

    What is the point of voting for a party if they don't vote the way you want them to. Why would things improve by having a Republican voting to support abortion rather than a Democrat? Some might argue that a Democrat would push it more, but Rudy has already said that the country should pay for it. How much more extreme can you get?

    The other thing you have to remember is that it was a third party movement that got rid of the worthless Wig party and brought in the Republican party and ended slavery. Yes a third party would slit the Republican vote, but whose to say it won't slit the Democrats as well.


All comments are moderated. We reject all comments containing obscenity. We reserve the right to reject any and all comments that are considered inappropriate or off-topic without explanation.