robertson, christian coalition announce support for adulterer giuliani

[hondo]

You were expecting them to endorse the Mormon?

I expect some sense, but that's nowhere to be found with the fundies.

Rudy gave money to Ralph Reed's campaign for Lt. Gov. Robertson for his part wants, and probably can expect, Rudy to tow the line on ultra right-winged judicial appointments should Rudy be elected. It's a match made 'round and 'round the mulberry tree.

I have no love at all for Pat Robertson, but if I had generalized about, oh, let's say, Muslims like you did about religious people in the U.S. ("I expect some sense, but that's nowhere to be found with the fundies."), you people would screaming bloody murder.
For example, if I read a typical day's headlines and noted more suicide bombings, terrorist acts, whippings of women who appear in public because their faces are exposed and beheadings and say "I expect some sense, but that's nowhere to be found with the Muslims," I'd be pilloried all over the board.

Believe it or not, people with sense, intelligence, but more importantly, convictions and faith, make the decision to belong to what you might call a "fundie" religion.

 

[andyouare?]

So what if he doesn't agree with him on some key issues?

The problem with that argument is that these just aren't some key issues.

Abortion? To Robertson it's murder of an innocent child. To Giuliani it's something that government shouldn't get involved in.

Gay marriage? Robertson said homosexuality is an abomination, and that it's a sin. Giuliani dressed in drag, lived with a gay couple inbetween divorces, and doesn't support (as far as I know) a gay marriage amendment.

Those just aren't some issues, such as some economic or domestic policy issues. Whether right or wrong, those are deeply held personal beliefs. And Robertson just decided to look past all of that because of...what?

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

So what if he doesn't agree with him on some key issues?

The problem with that argument is that these just aren't some key issues.

Abortion? To Robertson it's murder of an innocent child. To Giuliani it's something that government shouldn't get involved in.

Gay marriage? Robertson said homosexuality is an abomination, and that it's a sin. Giuliani dressed in drag, lived with a gay couple inbetween divorces, and doesn't support (as far as I know) a gay marriage amendment.

Those just aren't some issues, such as some economic or domestic policy issues. Whether right or wrong, those are deeply held personal beliefs. And Robertson just decided to look past all of that because of...what?

On both sides, politics ain't beanbag.

It didn't bother me that some groups who were diametrically opposed to Clinton endorsed him because it looked like he could win. It shouldn't bother you in this case, either.

What, you're telling me you feel betrayed by Pat Roberston? Please.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Mr. Google sez,

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11188273/

Didn't Marion-Pat want to whack Chavez a while back/
Politics can be very confusing.

And, of course, Rudy is very down on some people who believe that the US "deserved" the attacks of 9/11.
http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/11/flashback_rudy_attacked_ron_paul_for_blaming_america_for_911.php

Very confusing.

 

[Pastor]

And if Robertson endorsed Huckabee, I'm sure he'd get slogged, too.

I don't care much for Robertson, but I guess he's taking the same approach a lot of liberals did when they endorsed Clinton I: I don't agree with him on some key things, but he's better than the other party.

Robertson brandishes himself as a religious man first and foremost. Since the primaries aren't over yet, he didn't have to endorse anyone. So, by endorsing Rudy right now, he is basically calling the race over and not even will to help back and push forward a Republican that shares his values.

Because, evidently, he thinks Rudy is the only Republican who can win in November.

I'm sure the usual suspects would be hailing Robertson if he had endorsed Huckabee. Right?

Pat Robertson believes that God placed Bush in the White House. So, why wouldn't God put a God-blowing man in the White House again? Or is it that Robertson doesn't actually believe that God has fork all to do with it?

See, this is why you don't go jumping on the balls of the guy in the lead right now. With elections 1-year away, why make the selection now?

Come to think of it, maybe I'm looking at it the wrong way. Maybe Robertson's hotline to God rang and told Robertson that St. Rudy of the Rubble will be elected. In that case, I take it that God is just fine with Rudy endorsing gay marriage, forking around on his wife and, in general, just acting like a bully with those he doesn't like.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

hondo, does that term bother you?

I come from a conservative Catholic background that might on some levels be called the same. I don't have a problem with it.

The difference between you and I is that I rejected it in high school. It shapes the way you vote and perceive other people.

Get over it, my man.

 

[jgmacg]

And don't forget he roomed with a couple of gay guys while he was waiting out his (2nd?) divorce. It's like a sitcom! Only with no laughs and lots of hypocrisy! Co-starring Pat Robertson as Mr. Furley!

 

[Frank_Ridgeway]

And if Robertson endorsed Huckabee, I'm sure he'd get slogged, too.

I don't care much for Robertson, but I guess he's taking the same approach a lot of liberals did when they endorsed Clinton I: I don't agree with him on some key things, but he's better than the other party.

Another assumption without facts. Nice job Lyman. Start a different thread if you want to gauge the hypothetical responses of people based on whom Robertson endorses. Otherwise, let's focus on what really happened.

Fundie freak (Robertson is a freak, make so mistake about it) endorses a man who is far from the family values standards he should be to get the nod, and people call it hypocrisy. What's a legit argument for that?

It's not an assumption without facts. Clinton I got support from a lot of left-wing Democratic constituencies that might not have supported him otherwise (because of NAFTA, the Sister Souljah incident, etc.). Because he was better than the alternative, and they thought he could win. That's not a criticism of Clinton.

Robertson is doing the same thing with Rudy. Evidently, Robertson thinks Rudy can win. So what if he doesn't agree with him on some key issues? He's better than anyone on the Democratic side, at least as far as Robertson is concerned.

If he's a hypocrite, then a lot of Dems were hypocrites for endorsing Clinton. That's not necessarily bad, that's just politics.

I have to agree with Lyman on that. Look at how McCain made kissy-face with Falwell before Falwell died. I was disappointed to see it, but the reality was that McCain didn't do it because he wanted to but because he thought he had to do it. It's politics.

It's also no longer a matter of what's true. If a legitimate war hero runs, you can always be loud enough to convince morons that he wasn't one. If someone was a philandering slob, well, you can convince people that he wasn't.

I find Giuliani distasteful on so many levels, but primarily for his willingness to be 9/11 poster boy. Geez, are we to believe that David Dinkins or Michael Bloomberg would have run off and hid in the Adirondacks when the towers came down if they had been mayor in 2001?

I find Hil distasteful on many levels, too, but I'm going to enjoy watching her kick some ass. Saying she'll be a good president would be highly subjective because conservatives won't like what she'll do, but I don't see how anyone can argue that she wouldn't be an effective president as far as accomplishing her goals.

 

[Dangerous_K]

It didn't bother me that some groups who were diametrically opposed to Clinton endorsed him because it looked like he could win. It shouldn't bother you in this case, either.

Examples? And sorry the economic strength of the 1990s is apparently lost on you. Enjoy that $3 a gallon gas! Maybe that hefty $150 in tax cuts will cover a month's worth of driving to work.

hondo, RE: Muslims/"fundies," I can't directly speak for LJB (sorry if I am), but there's a difference between nutjob suicide bombing Muslims and your average Muslim, just like there's a difference between a nutjob vitriol spewer and an average Christian. BIG DIFFERENCE.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Maybe terrorism is a more important issue than abortion is right now.

And maybe that's why Robertson is for Rudy.

I think a lot of you are either naive about how politics work or are so blinded by your partisanship that you can't see it cuts both ways.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

The point that gets me is that Giukiani, who's been flogging his entire public career with 3000 bodies -- and at one point, tried to use them to put Bernie Kerik, a complete thug, in charge of homeland security -- is now accepting the endorsement of someone who believes that all of those people died because of God's righteous vengeance.
If Rudy had a conscience, that might bother him.
And what Rudy knows about terrorism you can put in a thimble and have room for a change of clothes. Does he know the difference between Sunni and Shia yet?

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

And if Robertson endorsed Huckabee, I'm sure he'd get slogged, too.

I don't care much for Robertson, but I guess he's taking the same approach a lot of liberals did when they endorsed Clinton I: I don't agree with him on some key things, but he's better than the other party.

Another assumption without facts. Nice job Lyman. Start a different thread if you want to gauge the hypothetical responses of people based on whom Robertson endorses. Otherwise, let's focus on what really happened.

Fundie freak (Robertson is a freak, make so mistake about it) endorses a man who is far from the family values standards he should be to get the nod, and people call it hypocrisy. What's a legit argument for that?

It's not an assumption without facts. Clinton I got support from a lot of left-wing Democratic constituencies that might not have supported him otherwise (because of NAFTA, the Sister Souljah incident, etc.). Because he was better than the alternative, and they thought he could win. That's not a criticism of Clinton.

Robertson is doing the same thing with Rudy. Evidently, Robertson thinks Rudy can win. So what if he doesn't agree with him on some key issues? He's better than anyone on the Democratic side, at least as far as Robertson is concerned.

If he's a hypocrite, then a lot of Dems were hypocrites for endorsing Clinton. That's not necessarily bad, that's just politics.

I have to agree with Lyman on that. Look at how McCain made kissy-face with Falwell before Falwell died. I was disappointed to see it, but the reality was that McCain didn't do it because he wanted to but because he thought he had to do it. It's politics.

It's also no longer a matter of what's true. If a legitimate war hero runs, you can always be loud enough to convince morons that he wasn't one. If someone was a philandering slob, well, you can convince people that he wasn't.

I find Giuliani distasteful on so many levels, but primarily for his willingness to be 9/11 poster boy. Geez, are we to believe that David Dinkins or Michael Bloomberg would have run off and hid in the Adirondacks when the towers came down if they had been mayor in 2001?

I find Hil distasteful on many levels, too, but I'm going to enjoy watching her kick some ass. Saying she'll be a good president would be highly subjective because conservatives won't like what she'll do, but I don't see how anyone can argue that she wouldn'y be an effective president as far as accomplishing her goals.

Frank, Hil hasn't been elected yet. And I don't think she will be. Think Bush is a polarizing figure? Hil is the mother of all polarizing figures.

The Dems would be better off with Obama or Richardson. But feel free not to take my advice. In fact, I hope you don't.