Initially, I wasn’t sure if shock or utter frustration was the dominant emotion evoked by the news of Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. The more I have had time to think about it, the more I’m convinced it’s the latter rather than the former.
On the merits, Robertson’s stated reasons for supporting Giuliani do not measure up to what pro-life voters expect from leaders in the pro-life movement. In announcing his endorsement, Robertson said that he believes “the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists” (source). The “overriding issue”? Does he really think that one has to make a choice at this point between protecting the unborn and protecting the nation from terrorists? Isn’t he aware that there are several other candidates who are just as strong on national defense as Giuliani but who are also pro-life? Anyone who cares about protecting the unborn would choose one of the many candidates who is both pro-life and strong on national defense. To back a pro-choice candidate at this point makes no senses at all. This is primary season, after all, not the general election.
But should we really be all that shocked anymore at the gaffes of Pat Robertson? In August of 2005, Robertson recommended that the U.S. government should stage a covert action to assassinate Venezuelan president Hugo ChÃ¡vez, (source). In November of 2005, he suggested that God might afflict Dover, PA with a natural disaster because some citizens there opposed the idea of intelligent design (source). In January of 2006, he said that God had struck Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon with a debilitating disease because of Sharon’s attempt to divide the land of Israel with the Palestinians (source). I’m really not shocked anymore by the things that Pat Robertson says and does. He’s been off the reservation for quite some time.
If anything, Robertson’s endorsement just confirms that fact that he is becoming increasingly irrelevant to conservative evangelical voters. Younger evangelicals are simply embarrassed by him. Older evangelical political leaders do their planning and strategizing without him. As the New York Times notes, “he no longer attends the big strategy meetings of the new leaders” of the religious conservative movement. He wasn’t a part of the group from the Council on National Policy that threatened to run a third party candidate if Giuliani is the nominee, and he wasn’t a player in the “Values Voter Summit” that Tony Perkins and the FRC hosted last month.
All Robertson has done with this endorsement is to show that he is willing to step over the corpses of 40+ million unborn babies to achieve some lesser end. Not only is his political calculation way off, but so is his judgment. Pat Robertson has never been more irrelevant than he is now.
As bad as I hate to say it (even though I love Huckabee) former southern baptists such as Carter and Clinton have been major disaapointments. I wish the U.S. could stand behind Huckabee. With the record the other guys have, Huckabee needs to prove himself.
I agree… The “Christian Right” powers that be are terrified at the prospect of Huckabee being the nominated because their power brokering will no longer be needed when the nominee can speak directly to the values voters without a mediator.
They would rather keep their power and forsake their principles. Power corrupts. There is no other explanation. Guliani is pretty much the antithesis of what we should look for in a leader on every issue that has a clear biblical mandate.
Psalms 127:1 (ESV) Unless the Lord builds the house, those who build it labor in vain. Unless the Lord watches over the city (USA), the watchman (Giuliani) stays awake in vain.
Proverbs 29:2 (KJV) When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.
“Proverbs 29:2 (KJV) When the righteous are in authority, the people rejoice: but when the wicked beareth rule, the people mourn.”
the wicked part can and DOES apply to anyone who is running in this electoral cycle. This is the most depraved bunch on both sides of the aisle that I’ve seen yet.
Another good post that I’m sure reflects a lot of people’s thoughts. These were the kind of feelings I’ve had for a few weeks. Not only with Robertson, but some of the alternative conservative media that seem to be proping up Guiliani. They make all kinds of excuses for his abortion stance, his lifestyle, ect. The same can be said for Mitt Romney, who has flip-flopped on major issues. These are not consistent conservative candidates. I would rather go down in a blaze of glory with a reliable conservative than back some of these guys because certain people think they are the only ones that can “win.”
Huckabee is the real deal. See the recent endorsement from Randy Alcorn. He has a very strong pro-life record, and a tremendous history of lowering taxes and creating surpluses. We have every reason to believe he will be strong on terror.
He is conservative, but not mad about it. He is humble and pastoral. He is warm and engaging. I truly believe he could beat Hillary Clinton, and I cannot say that about the others.
In the end, if it isn’t Giuliani vs. Hillary, I will be shocked. So, which Conservative public figure do we mindlessly follow? Dobson or Robertson? Decisions, decisions.
Hey, look on the bright side. Grudem’s endorsement of Mitt Romney doesn’t seem nearly so out-of-whack when you put it up against this! Man, what is Pat thinking?!
I believe Robertson decided to back Giuliani when he heard about the MSNBC poll which indicates that evangelical voters (not leaders) are leaning toward Romney. This was his move to short circuit that support.
Dorsey: I hope you’re not advocating that the possible reason you cited somehow makes this move on Robertson’s part any more palatable. Why wouldn’t you throw your hat in the ring for somebody with some morals, rather than lead people astray by supporting someone with no morals whatsoever?
Pat continues to marginalize himself. He is so irrelevant, that a good gauge of what to do is to look at what Pat does and wants, then do the opposite.
I am still shocked–for someone who has built a career on being pro-life. I am and will remain puzzled by this. But, I am not going for Rudy.
Why was my comment deleted?