Bigotry at its very best…
November 7th, 2007 Posted in Bigotry, Evangelicals, Gingrich, Mitt Romney, Pat Robertson
Check out this post at DryFlyPolitics.
There isn’t much more you can say about the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani. What other reason could he have but bigotry?
Here are some Famous Quotes from Mr. Robertson.
November 7th, 2007 at 11:50 am
…”it’s very best” should be “its very best” - sorry, couldn’t resist that (it’s vs. its), which is a very common spelling/grammatical mistake.
Regarding bigotry, simply put, it underlies stupidity.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:06 pm
In my opinion, Pat Robertson has just marginalized himself with the pro-life movement. We can’t take a chance on RG and just keep our fingers crossed and hope he won’t wipe out the modest gains we have made in the SCOTUS. When I say “modest”, I mean the fact that the high court is just barely at a 5 to 4 balance on recent rulings, like the partial birth abortion ban that was re-affirmed this past Spring. I am grateful to have men like Scalia, Roberts, Alito and Thomas on the bench, but obviously a death or retirement of any of the justices could easily swing the court back to a pro-abortion majority.
November 7th, 2007 at 12:55 pm
OMG, what is WRONG with Pat Robertson?
Opportunist at the highest level . . . Yuck.
November 7th, 2007 at 1:07 pm
The editorialists over at Evangelicals for Mitt have been very good at supporing the Governor while at the same time letting fellow evangelicals know, in no uncertain terms, that Governor Romney because of the theologibal disagreements between Mormonism and evangelicalism would not be welcome to teach Sunday School to their respective congregations. Pat Robertsons support of Rudy Giuliani isn’t a new development. When conservatives say they will not support Mitt Romney based on his previously pro-choice position and suggest his conversion is suspect before throwing their support behind pro-choice Guiliani, is it really about life? Or is it possible they haven’t the nerve to stare bigotry in the mirror? In some conservative circles it isn’t bigoted to believe that Mormons are the embodiment of evil. It’s Sunday school.
Popular conservative radio talk-show host Sean Hannity supports, rather publicly, Governor Guiliani. Last week he invited well-liked and well-known conservative writer and former secretary of education, William Bennett, to spend a half hour speaking about the post 9/11 Republican Party and its migration away from a firm position as pro-life. He suggested that the current state of the party has opened a window for a candidate like Guiliani to rise as the primary front-runner. In a private conversation last week Bennett told Guiliani that “now was the moment in American political history which allowed someone like him to win the republican nomination”. I’m assuming that “someone like him” means so-con-lib leading the Republican Party, however oxymoronic that may appear to some. Exactly where Giuliani would lead isn’t in question. But does the conservative political movement and the republican party really want to go there?
Last I heard the Republican party still professes that pro-life positions are moral absolutes. Party members choose to accept or reject them or to covert, but the morality of the issue doesn’t migrate like so many ducks in winter. There are no quid pro quo disclaimers attached to conservative republican morality so instead Hannity invites his guests to bloviate on the subject which always seems to lead to an unstated yet powerful justification for support of Guiliani. I forgive them, but lament the torture of so much twisted rationalization.
Technically Hannity isn’t supporting a pro-choice position. His guests are. Bennett’s position on life hasn’t changed to “undecided”. The flap in the liberal media over his comments on his pro life stance a few weeks back (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/30/politics/30bennett.html) certainly suggest he’s on board with the movement. Hannity is still with the program. And Pat Robertson isn’t checking the box to support federally funded abortions. But you wouldn’t know it to listen to their justifications for supporting Rudy.
Life is full of so many contradictions. Pro-life is not. The real world is a confusing place, but there should be no confusion on this: Guiliani shouldn’t be the one bearing the standard. Conservative morality is a much higher bar.
Wasn’t it moral relativity that got the GOP banished to the wildersness of congressional minority. And now Pat Robertson supports Rudy as the conservative Messiah. I think not. There is only one reason Pat and other social conservatives are not supporting Mitt Romney and it has little to do with conservatism.
Not only would Romney be an excellent mouth piece for the conservative movement to say nothing of his ability to bring conservative change to federal government operations and legislation, compared to Rudy he wouldn’t be such a bad Sunday School teacher after all. It really isn’t about life.
They simply don’t want a Mormon in the white house.
November 7th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Woolley, I strongly agree! I posted part of the following in another blog.
Well it seems that the muddy water is starting to clear up fast in which some candidates (like Brownback supporting McCain) and others (like Pat Robertson with Giuliani) are clearly showing their strong dislike for Romney. Undoubtedly, Mormonism, hence bigotry, is at the root of all their endorsements, albeit clouded in subtlety. I would, however, say that it was good for Romney not to have gotten Robertson’s endorsement which is viewed as embodiment of religious extremism. Even Sean Hannity (in his interview with Dobson), came through bashing Hillary in general, as well as Bill’s promiscuities, but at the same he pushes and supports Rudy, who should be on a par as Bill. The only logical explanation of all this seeming double standard and hypocrisy has to do with Mitt as a Mormon. Sad!
November 7th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
This really upsets me and angers me. If Robertson endorsed Giuliani over Romney because of bigotry then, as an evangelical, I want to apologize to all Latter-day Saints. I’m very sorry.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:32 pm
Justin, people like you give me hope for the future of America. My anti-Mormon father didn’t let me go to the LDS Church and growing up I was kicked out of a number of protestant churches when they learned I was a Mormon. Even if I kept my mouth shut all the time I wasn’t welcome. I have many friends and relatives who are protestants and I love and respect them and their religion but I have to say, you are a breath of fresh air.
November 7th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Robertson is either very bigoted or somehow believes Rudy will be that much more effective in the war on terror and otherwise.
I don’t know how anyone can make any claims that anyone could be more effective at about anything than Mitt Romney. The guy is a well-oiled efficiency machine.
Robertson likely is (too) deeply opposed to Mitt’s LDS faith to recognize what he’s really doing. Who knows! Maybe it is a calculated move on his part to dump on Mitt and his faith, and support someone clearly worse on all social issues and at least marginally worse (to me clearly inferior) than Mitt on all the other ones.
I also couldn’t figure out how Brownback pulls off supporting McCain. The guy’s campaign is hopeless.
November 7th, 2007 at 4:56 pm
Please post this.
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/07/audio-laura-ingraham-on-the-robertson-endorsement/
November 7th, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I think it’s unfair to immediately think the worst with regard to Pat Robertson’s endorsement.
November 7th, 2007 at 8:22 pm
I leave Pat a little room for benefit of the doubt.
You have to admit, however, that it doesn’t look great for him. Consider what Dobson says about Rudy. He’s right on: Rudy is a moral distaster. He will destroy so much of what conservatives–especially religious ones–have so long fought for. Why can’t Robertson see this?
As I said above, why does Robertson support Rudy? He rallied us after 9/11? That’s not fighting terror. That’s rallying us after a major catastrophe. Quite different from leading us day to day with families, economics, and terror on our minds.
Nobody in this field–Republican or Democrat–has achieved success like Mitt. It’s a result of his systematic, hard-working approach. Rudy has no such track record. It’s hard for Robertson to make the case that Rudy would be more effective than Mitt in anything.
That’s why I wonder why others, especially religious leaders such as Robertson, back a morally bankrupt man such as Rudy (when they have a guy such as Romney). If Romney were not Mormon, wouldn’t it be a no-brainer to pick him or adulterous Rudy?
By the way, this site isn’t the only one thinking “the worst with regard to Pat Robertson’s endorsement.” The web is filled with people blasting Pat for this move.
http://nyformitt.blogspot.com/
P.S. I enjoyed this analysis by Steve Benen:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/13508.html
At first blush, this may appear ridiculous. Giuliani, as mayor, supported abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and lax immigration laws, all issues on which Robertson takes the opposite position. Perhaps more importantly, Giuliani is a thrice-married serial adulterer, who is largely estranged from his own children, a lifestyle choice Robertson would likely find offensive.
Some of the media reports this morning have suggested this undermines the for Giuliani’s campaign among leading evangelicals. These reporters don’t appreciate the fact that the religious-right movement has serious schisms — and Robertson hasn’t been in the mainstream for years. His principles are malleable, his ideas are embarrassing, and his goal is to have a seat at the table. Robertson goes where the political winds take him.
Dobson, Wildmon, Weyrich, Land, and others are ideologues, not partisans. Robertson is the opposite.
As for Giuliani, today’s endorsement could prove to be more of a curse than a blessing.
Chris Cillizza argues that Robertson is “one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement,” which necessarily means that Giuliani will get an important boost out of today’s announcement. Don’t count on it.
With that in mind, Giuliani shouldn’t expect a sudden rush of support from Christian fundamentalists. Indeed, as far as the threats about a third-party move go, today changes nothing — Robertson wasn’t part of these talks before, and his endorsement won’t mean anything now.
Indeed, I think the more meaningful trend to watch here is whether Robertson’s support actually becomes a hindrance for Giuliani. The former NYC mayor is cozying up to someone most reasonable people find to be stark raving mad.
A few statements by Pat:
For example, on Sept. 13, 2001, 48 hours after the Twin Towers fell, Robertson said Americans “deserved” to be attacked. Does Giuliani agree with this? If not, why is he trumpeting Robertson’s endorsement as a major development?
For that matter, Robertson believes the U.S. federal judiciary is more dangerous than “a few bearded-terrorists who fly into buildings.” Does Giuliani have any problem with that?
Robertson told a national television audience a couple of years ago that he’d like to see terrorists hit the State Department headquarters in DC. Does Giuliani find that to be an acceptable comment in our public discourse?
Robertson has said mainline Protestant denominations are “the spirit of the Anti-Christ,” and insisted that he has the ability to move hurricanes with his mind. Is Giuliani comfortable with all of this?
November 19th, 2007 at 12:48 am
The religious right has a unique opportunity to demonstrate what it’s made of. If Mitt is defeated because of his religion, then the republicans deserve what they’ll get… four years of Hillary