A first(?) thread on 2008: McCain,Giuliani & the Republicans

Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy.

by Frank James

Today's announcement by television evangelist Pat Robertson that he has endorsed Rudy Giuliani is bound to strike a lot of people as straight out weird.

After all, Robertson, founder of the Christian Coalition and Regent University, is one of the most doctrinaire fundamentalist Christian leaders in the nation. Unlike Giuliani, he's definitely opposed to abortion and gay marriage.

So why has he thrown his support behind the former New York City mayor? Is this a modern version of a miracle?

At a press conference this morning with Giuliani standing by his side, Robertson said:

"Today, it is my pleasure to announce my support for America's Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans."

Okay as far as it goes. But that still doesn't explain why Robertson would cast his lot with a man who is on the wrong side of two of the issues that Robertson has taken a clear stand on for years.

Maybe this is Robertson's way of heeding Jesus's admonition against a house divided.



---- responses -----
So much for principles.

Posted by: bill r. | November 7, 2007 1:03 PM

Robertson believes that Giuliani will usher in armageddon and the righteous will prevail. Somewhere along the campaign, the goofball is going to reveal this reasoning.

Posted by: Tom | November 7, 2007 1:07 PM

My guess is it has to do with money. Robertson has money and wants to keep it. He uses the issues of abortion and gay marriage to bring money into his pockets but knows the issues aren't going anywhere. Robertson understands how the "What's the Matter With Kansas?" routine plays out.

Posted by: ann | November 7, 2007 1:09 PM

Just so everyone is clear, Giuliani's sexual indiscretions are no better then Clinon's.

Let's see how Guliani proposes to strenghten family values.

Posted by: RomanB | November 7, 2007 1:10 PM

"Maybe this is Robertson's way of heeding Jesus's admonition against a house divided."

Nice try Frank. We can read the wink associated with that one. My guess is the spin is something like "Leadershp in defeating the terrorists trumps all". But what this really says is "Winning the election trumps all". Why not Mike Huckabee, Mr. Robertson?

Posted by: kb | November 7, 2007 1:12 PM

I never would have guessed it, but maybe they are more afraid of terrorists than they are even of homosexuals ...

Posted by: Angel | November 7, 2007 1:15 PM

Sheer political expediency. The evangelicals know the candidates who share their views are highly unlikely to win the nomination, and they want to be on the winning side. So they'll overlook Giuliani's positions and throw their support to him merely because he's a Republican.

So, are the evangelicals motivated by what they think is right or by an attraction to power? Hmm, looks like power wins.

Posted by: Orange | November 7, 2007 1:16 PM

Mr. Robertson is hedging his bets. Guliani is probably the best chance the GOP has of beating Clinton or Obama or Edwards. My guess is that Robertson would rather have any Republican in the White House than chance a Democrat winning.more

I'm not sure what my take on Robertson's endorsement means to whether or not I would reconsider a vote for Giuliani.

I've made this argument in the past, but this old campaign poster for William McKinley's 1900 re-election campaign makes the point better than anything I could say. What you see here -- "the American flag has not been planted in foreign soil to acquire more territory but for HUMANITY'S SAKE" -- would be perfectly recognizable as a neoconservative slogan. And yet, it comes from the period we now think of as involving precisely the effort to plant the American flag to acquire more territory, specifically colonies in Puerto Rico and the Philippines plus informal empire elsewhere.

And there's the rub; the much-vaunted "idealism" of the neocons is nothing new. And, indeed, I don't even think we should view it -- or the rhetoric of a William McKlinley -- as necessarily insincere. Rather, it's an example of the boundless human capacity for self-justification and self-deception. If you decide that military domination is the policy you want, you'll swiftly find a way to convince yourself that military domination is best for the world. Kipling called it the white man's burden, the French called it la mission civilitrice, and it's all equally meaningless however you want to phrase it.

... except that one could make a reasonably decent case that the people of the Phillipines were better off for their country being an American territory -- and that the Puerto Ricans still are.

There are quite a few from both countries who would disagree with that.

Nevertheless, it isn't as if we were in either country for humanitarian reasons, even if there was a humanitarian side-effect.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

There are quite a few from both countries who would disagree with that.

Nevertheless, it isn't as if we were in either country for humanitarian reasons, even if there was a humanitarian side-effect.

Cycloptichorn

What is "quite a few"??? I believe that "quite a few" people believe that Nostradomus knew the future. So what?

Apparently you are certain that there was no humanitarian motive whatever in our actions in these places (even though such was contemporaneously asserted by the government), and that any benefit to the people there was necessarily accidental. What is your basis for these assertions? We derived no economic benefit from our stewardship of either Puerto Rico or the Phillipines. One could argue that the latter gave us a valuable foothold in south Asia, but the fact is we did very little with it. We also found ourselves in possession of Cuba after the war with Spain, but very readily gave way to the independence movement there.

I'm not suggesting that our motives were entirely of benefitting others, but rather that your evident prejudices do not stand up to even a cursory examination of the facts.

I'm not excited at all. Further, I'm not trying to make any assertion about the character of this country's past or present actions. Instead I am attempting to point out that your evident prejudices are merely the cant of a fairly narrow-minded group of largely self-appointed "sages", and that they have little real evidence to back up their sophomoric assertions.

Thomas wrote:

... except that one could make a reasonably decent case that the people of the Phillipines were better off for their country being an American territory -- and that the Puerto Ricans still are.

There are quite a few from both countries who would disagree with that.

By contrast, one couldn't make a reasonable case that the American occupation of Iraq is making the people there better off.

Of course, there are many who believe there's a reasonable case here and george may well be one of them.

blatham wrote:

Of course, there are many who believe there's a reasonable case here and george may well be one of them.

How is that relevant when I'm stating what I believe?

By contrast, one couldn't make a reasonable case

Pat Robertson's Priorities
In the dozens of stories I've read in the last 24 hours about Pat Robertson endorsing Giuliani, Walter Shapiro at Salon was the only person I saw who pointed out who introduced Robertson at yesterday's press conference:

The Washington press conference announcing the Robertson endorsement was carefully constructed to make it all look like an alliance of strict-constructionist legal philosophers. Introducing the televangelist was not the campaign's director of evangelical outreach, or a political figure known for sharing Robertson's literal reading of the Book of Revelation. Instead the task fell to Ted Olson, the former solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department, a leading conservative legal thinker. The message was clear: This melding of minds was about putting more Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court, not about Giuliani's personal life and beliefs.
For as much as he inveighs against secularism, Pat Robertson has always managed to give to Caesar what is Caeser's, going so far as to mount a serious run for the Presidency in 1988. Whatever his religious beliefs, Robertson also has a deep personal commitment to Republican electoral success. Southern Baptist leader Richard Land, who says he couldn't possibly vote for the pro-choice, pro-gay rights Giuliani, puts it plainly, telling the Post, "Pat Robertson may have decided that Rudy Giuliani is the best way to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House."

Instead the task fell to Ted Olson, the former solicitor general in the Bush Justice Department, a leading conservative legal thinker. The message was clear: This melding of minds was about putting more Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court, not about Giuliani's personal life and beliefs.

If Senators Schumer, Kennedy, and Leahy can make common cause with the PETA & NAMBLA wings of the Democrat party, why can't the evangelical groups within the Republican party do the same with Guliani?