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

Calm your hyperindignation. You are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. I refered only to tolerance and common cause.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

I'm having a hard time following this. Is Pat Robertson's apparent endorsement of Guliani an indicator of tolerance on his part or of an even deeper conspiracy?

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?

Does anyone here suppose their respective motives in doing so are materially different? Is compromise and toleration in any way a threat to democratic values?

There's a NAMBLA 'wing' to the democratic party?
Don't be a jerk, george.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

There's a NAMBLA 'wing' to the democratic party?
Don't be a jerk, george.

Well Bernie, permit me just a little of the rhetorical tonic you use so liberally. (I'm still wrestling with the challenge to prove that we never had evil thoughts about Venezuela.)

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Calm your hyperindignation. You are putting words in my mouth I didn't say. I refered only to tolerance and common cause.

This is "hyperindignation"?:

[color=darkred]"If you cant think of any recent example, that might mean your attempt at suggesting an equivalence doesnt stick."[/color]Come now.

Meanwhile, the point is pretty simple. The equivalence in "tolerance and common cause" you suggest between that shown by Giuliani for the Robertson wing and that shown by Democrats for a "PETA and NAMBLA wing" is imaginary. Giuliani appeared with Robertson at a press conference to tout and celebrate his endorsement. No Democratic Senator, let alone a presidential candidate, would ever do the same with the champions of Man/Boy Love. The whole suggestion that there is a "Protect the Pets and Respect Man/Boy Love" wing in the Democratic Party that is indulged in the way that Robertson's type is indulged by Giuliani is just, well, out there.

In fact, since I agree that NAMBLA and Robertson are comparable in terms of insanity, the difference here should be instructive.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

In fact, since I agree that NAMBLA and Robertson are comparable in terms of insanity, the difference here should be instructive.

Interesting to observe that you took the bait.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

nimh wrote:

In fact, since I agree that NAMBLA and Robertson are comparable in terms of insanity, the difference here should be instructive.

Interesting to observe that you took the bait.

What, you dont think they are comparably insane?

I mean, we're talking someone who agreed that God allowed 9/11 to happen as punishment for the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, and gays.. we're talking wingbat insane.

Or are you making some other point?

0 Replies

To me, an endorsment from Robertson is a significant negative for a candidate. How anyone could view it as a positive is beyond me.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Perhaps Guilani has written off the Berkeley vote.

0 Replies

georgeob1 wrote:

Perhaps Guilani has written off the Berkeley vote.

Do you honestly view this as a positive endorsement?

Not from a political strategizing angle, either, as in 'it will bring him votes.' Do you honestly believe that Robertsons' approval is a good thing?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Perhaps Guilani has written off the Berkeley vote.

Do you honestly view this as a positive endorsement?

Not from a political strategizing angle, either, as in 'it will bring him votes.' Do you honestly believe that Robertsons' approval is a good thing?

Cycloptichorn

To me this endorsement is no better than AFSCME endorsing Hillery.

Only sheep follow these endorsements.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

georgeob1 wrote:
Perhaps Guilani has written off the Berkeley vote.

Do you honestly view this as a positive endorsement?

Not from a political strategizing angle, either, as in 'it will bring him votes.' Do you honestly believe that Robertsons' approval is a good thing?

Cycloptichorn

I agree with woyio about the significance of these things.

Robertson is a human being and a voter. His opinion and his vote counts for as much as yours or mine. Others may follow or oppose his lead as they may wish. As to the question of whether this will be a net benefit of hindrance to Guliani - I really don't know.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Not from a political strategizing angle, either, as in 'it will bring him votes.' Do you honestly believe that Robertsons' approval is a good thing?

I do, considering the timing. In the short run, it mitigates the greatest risk to Giuliani's nomination, which is rejection by religious conservatives. Yet in the long run, when Giuliani needs to swing independents for the general election, voter attention will have moved on to other news. Then the endorsement will make no difference anymore either way.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Not from a political strategizing angle, either, as in 'it will bring him votes.' Do you honestly believe that Robertsons' approval is a good thing?

I do, considering the timing. In the short run, it mitigates the greatest risk to Giuliani's nomination, which is rejection by religious conservatives. Yet in the long run, when Giuliani needs to swing independents for the general election, voter attention will have moved on to other news. Then the endorsement will make no difference anymore either way.

That's the 'political strategizing' angle, not the 'Robertson is someone who I respect' angle.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

That's the 'political strategizing' angle, not the 'Robertson is someone who I respect' angle.

That's correct. But so what? This is politics, which isn't about respect and friendship; it's about interests and alliances. As an alliance based on interest, Robertson's endorsement of Giulliani is business as usual -- nothing objectionable about it.

0 Replies

thomas looks right to me here. Giuliani clearly went out to get some senior religious right figures in his camp because he needs to counter a bunch of negatives (negative to this important constituency in the primaries). Robertson's support will surely help him for this step.

In the general, if Rudy gets there, Robertson's support looks more mixed. The religious right has been very important to republican electoral strategies because they've been active and successful at all the groundwork for elections. To the degree that this activist contingent is divided or unenthusiastic, to that degree the party's chances will diminish. And it seems predictable that once the republican candidate is agreed upon, then support will solidify behind that person.

But robertson is probably insane. Or merely a liar in the Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter mode. Either way, he's seriously extreme and most Americans are not. Rudy may well use Robertson only for his utility in the primaries then push him out of sight.

Probably the most important aspect of all of this is the clearly evident disunity that we see in the religious right community. Dobson is more important now than Robertson and it will be interesting to see what he will do as he has made numerous public pronouncements that he will not support Rudy under any condition. He may, of course, change his mind and insist those earlier statements have been taken "out of context". george is probably correct to suspect this contingent won't follow through and put their own third party candidate forward but the real threat (to republican electoral standing) looks likely to be the loss of a previously dependable and enthusiastic pool of activists in the ground game.

0 Replies

blatham wrote:

But robertson is probably insane. Or merely a liar in the Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter mode. Either way, he's seriously extreme and most Americans are not.

Blatham, the LORD informed me He'll strike you with lightening for saying that. Just passing on the information.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
That's the 'political strategizing' angle, not the 'Robertson is someone who I respect' angle.

That's correct. But so what?

Well, he did specifically ask whether George believed it to be a good thing "not from a political strategizing angle", but otherwise. So when you start your own answer to that question with "I do", one expects it to, you know, not be from a political strategizing angle.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Yet in the long run, when Giuliani needs to swing independents for the general election, voter attention will have moved on to other news. Then the endorsement will make no difference anymore either way.

This I agree with - except, of course, if some progressive group neatly recycles the images from Giuliani's press conference with Robertson in some attack ad.

0 Replies

I notice the Peter Boyer article on Giuliani in the New Yorker back in the August 20th issue wasn't linked on this thread. Or - I didn't run across it in a fast reread. I caught up with the article this morning and found it illuminating in some ways.
Full Article HERE

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

blatham wrote:
But robertson is probably insane. Or merely a liar in the Hannity/O'Reilly/Coulter mode. Either way, he's seriously extreme and most Americans are not.

Blatham, the LORD informed me He'll strike you with lightening for saying that. Just passing on the information.

"Bring it on"

0 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know