Conservative (?) televangelist Pat Robertson has endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president. Of all the candidates, he picked Giuliani. He didn’t pick Huckabee the ordained minister or Romney the Mormon — both more conservative than Rudy on such “values” issues as abortion and homosexuality. Those aren’t the two overriding issues anymore, said Robertson:
To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits.
He didn’t pick a third-party candidate that would be more in line with the moral issues he’s championed for decades. No, he picked “America’s Mayor” because of his record in New York, both before and after 9/11/01, and for his fiscal conservatism.
How does one analyze this? Is it a calculating sell-out of religious beliefs for political power? Or was it… um… huh, I can’t think of another reason.
I mean, he could have endorsed a dark-horse candidate, a third party candidate, or even chosen to endorse no one — if no candidate was deemed socially conservative enough. But that would have meant no political capital (real or perceived). This way, if Giuliani wins, Robertson can claim to have helped by bringing the Christian conservative vote with him. Theoretically, that could mean more access to the White House.
But perhaps I’m being too cynical. Despite my earlier joke, there actually is another option. It could be that Robertson has changed his views and now truly believes that fiscal issues are more important than moral ones. But if that’s the case, he should shut down the 700 Club and establish a more traditional political advocacy group. One that pays taxes and doesn’t wrap itself in the Bible.
the “other” explanation is realism. Huckabee is not going to get the nomination and Romney probably couldn’t beat Hillary if he got the nomination. Robertson is bright enough to realize that Giuliani can win, and that he is far better than the alternative (Hillary). Robertson also realizes that you don’t agree 100% with any candidate. Giuliani is honest and up front with his views, and respectful of others. He aspires to do the right thing, whereas the stench of corruption and hypocrisy surrounds the Clintons. The culture war is important, but the fact is, if the appeassers and new world order socialists aren’t stopped soon, there won’t be a country left to argue over its culture. I applaud Robertson and fervertly hope other evangelicals will join him. You might remember that in two terms Ronald Reagan did not abolish abortion, or do some of the other things high on the evangelical agenda, but he set the stage for the disposal of the greater evil of the Soviet Union. Thank God we had him in White House, and not those clowns that ran against him.
I concur with the Mouse. Robertson’s endorsement of Guliani is about realism. I prefer someone else in the White House come 2009 but given a choice between Hillary and Rudy, the latter gets my vote.
How about neither one is good for this country. It amazes me, how many people blindly follow all three of these losers. I am not surprised that people over 60 like Pat Robertson, and people thought that Rudy cleaned up New York..and was a mediocre mayor, and that on the surface..that Hillary might seem like a good candidate. However, with minimal computer skills, and just a basic knowledge of law..one could easily see how bad Rudy and Hillary are for America. I mean..seriously.
“Is it a calculating sell-out of religious beliefs for political power?”
Is the endorsement of a specific candidate by a religious leader ever anything BUT a calculating sell-out of religious beliefs for political power?
I mean frankly, political entanglement of any sort by religious groups typically leads to them being co-opted by the political power structure. Merely allowing them to play their game with you is a sell-out.
Why does Pat (or anyone) need to endorse a ‘winner’? I mean, I understand the greedy/selfish/power-hungry reasons, but lots of people seem to see such behavior as ‘okay’ instead of ‘necessary evil’. I don’t get it.
Pat should endorse any and all candidates that he would be happy to see in the White House. Let’s say he endorses Huckabee, who then gets [predictably] crushed in the primaries. At that point, he could throw his weight behind Guiliani as the best candidate left standing. That’s completely rational. Committing to Rudy now is a sellout move, but I expect no better from a confirmed tool like Mr. Robinson.
the whole political scene/process is a cesspool of slime and greed……
It is definitely not the first time he has endorsed something that seems inconsistent with his religious beliefs. He supported the former president of Liberia, Charles Taylor who is now a war criminal charged with numerous offenses including using child soldiers.
It is difficult enough to believe Mr. Robertson’s credibility because he is a televangelist. He makes it even more difficult to take this endorsement seriously when he has also predicted tsunamis on the west coast in 2006.