MORE: Here. Robertson says:
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. Uppermost in the minds of social conservatives is the selection of future Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will sit in both the federal circuit courts and the district courts....
[Giuliani] proved time and again that he is a true fiscal conservative. Rudy served as a high official in the justice department of Ronald Reagan, and later as a United States attorney, won acclaim as a valiant crime fighter. Justice triumphed as he took down mafia dons, drug traffickers and corrupt politicians. He understands the need for a conservative judiciary and with the help of the distinguished Ted Olson, who is here today, and other members of his team, has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of John Roberts and Antonin Scalia.
Posts
67 comments:
Pro-Israel. Remember when Giuliani kicked Arafat out of a New York Philharmonic performance? (Or something like that, it might have been the opera.)
I'm one of the many conservatives who is a Christian and who ignores Pat Robertson. It is only by chance that we agree on anything.
While it is possible that anti-mormonism is the reason, it may be he sees Rudy as the best candidate to go against HRC. With all due respect to the many fine Mormons (and I know a lot), its a weird religion, even by the "believing in some guy who died on a cross and was raised from the dead" standard.
Robertson wants to be able to ring up the White House for a chat in 2009. He sees Rudy as the only way that's gonna happen.
Sean is right, but you have to extend the analogy beyond Israel to include the USA.
Robertson's bottom line is the defeat of the Muslims in the War against Islamic Fascists.
No DHIMMIcrat has a prayer of making a positive contribution in that fight.
Victory, people. Victory.
So much for the predictions of the Fourth Estate that should Giuliani be nominated, the evangelicals would stay away from the polls. Will this put stop to talk of a "values" 3rd party that would play spoiler for the Republicans?
This doesn't surprise me. Evangelicals are much more understanding of "sin" than their reputations suggest and will not hold Rudy's divorces against him.
I don't see it as anti-Mormonism.
Why is Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani? It seems rather strange.
Not at all. They are both brownshirts of the most disgusting kind. That's why Republicans like you like them so much.
Dave is projecting again. The only neo-nazi on this board is him.
Robertson also said this about Giuliani:
"I thought it was important for me to make it clear that Rudy Giuliani is more than acceptable to people of faith," said Robertson. "Given the fractured nature of the process, I thought it was time to solidify around one candidate."
He insisted that while some on the "fringe" of the social conservative movement may see Giuliani as an unacceptable nominee, the "core know better."
I'm not so sure that this is as much an endorsement of Rudy as it is one dog pissing on another dog's territory (Robertson/Dobson).
dave--
If we are all brownshirts, what word would you use to describe yourself? What's Simels up to?
Despite the folksy demeanor, Robertson is a sophisticated political player and former Presidential candidate himself. I think he knows the limits of what any President (or Congressional majority) can deliver, in terms of the social issues at the top of his list. On the other issues that appeal to Republican voters -- fiscal, economic, military and foreign policy -- Rudy is quite solid. Even on the "controlling the borders" issue that seems to be looming ever larger for 2008, Rudy has come around and emphasizes it as the sine qua non of immigration reform.
What Rudy probably won't do is use the bully pulpit (assuming he gets it) to advance Robertson's social agenda. (Neither Reagan nor the two Bushes did much of that either.) But, truth be told, none of the other Rep contenders (except possibly Huckabee) would do that either. Despite the occasional jeremiad to the contrary, I think social conservatives look forward to getting the feds (it's mostly the federal courts and to a lesser extent some of the agencies' civil rights offices) out of the culture wars, and returning those battles to the state level. They're all federalists now.
Rudy offers candor and, because he is candid about these differences, asks for trust that he will do what he says he will do. Romney offers his conversion on the same issues, and says he will bring skilled management to gov't. Thompson claims to be the true believer.
If the choice is between those three (my guess is that Robertson views it that way), it's not hard to see why he went with Rudy.
Why is Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani?
Because everyone ignored the evangelicals when they threatened to bolt.
Once they realized their scabbard was empty, they realized they had better pick the front runner to make it look like it was their decision.
I don't know anyone from the religious right. Do we have any social conservatives [other than stever] on this board? If so, do ANY of you care what Pat Robertson says?
Frankly, I never thought Robertson was that influential.
Why is Pat Robertson endorsing Rudy Giuliani?
Because Robertson is a unscrupulous opportunist who's only desire is money and power who would fire walk over anything he claims to hold sacred if he thought it'd make him a buck. Just like Ghouliani. Duh.
It's quite obvious why Robertson would endorse Rudy: that whole morals/values/principles thing that these Religious Right folks like to preach about takes a backseat when it comes to Power. Keeping it. Holding it. Using it.
And Republicans and social conservatives will fall in line.
So when Robertson endorses a thrice-divorced, pro-choice, pro-gay rights ex-mayor of Blue NYC, well, it all makes perfect sense.
"that whole morals/values/principles thing that these Religious Right folks like to preach about takes a backseat when it comes to Power. Keeping it. Holding it. Using it."
Change "Religious Right" to "Lefties" and you're perfectly describing Hillary Clinton.
Like most endorsements, Robertson's is pretty much meaningless. (It may even be negative. I'm sure there are some people giving Romney a second look on the theory that anyone Robertson is against must have something going for them.)
I wasn't aware that Hillary Clinton was holding power to keep. Or preaching about morals/values/principles.
So when Robertson endorses a thrice-divorced, pro-choice, pro-gay rights ex-mayor of Blue NYC, well, it all makes perfect sense.
I think someone's going to cry.
I think someone's going to cry.
In other words, I am right and you have no argument. That's what I thought!
Clinton is a US Senator, wife and "co-president" of an ex-President, and is running for the office herself. She's more powerful than Giuliani at this point.
"Or preaching about morals/values/principles."
Well what do you think a liberal would call their philosophical beliefs? Don't let the religious right continue to hold the politically-neutral words "morals" and "values" hostage. What every politico preaches is their version of correct morality and correct values, religious or otherwise.
All I'm saying is that every political actor is guilty of it, not just the ones who do it in the name of God.
I am talking specifically about the things that Republicans refer to when they say the code words "morals," "values," etc., which are of course gay rights (marriage, equality) and women's rights (abortion). And since the GOP has taken the side of the Religious Right in recent history, they have many mouthpieces spouting about these "values."
So, back the original point, it is quite funny to have one of these mouthpieces endorse Guiliani, because he has historically been on the other side of those values.
But, for power, we hold our nose, right?
From a May 2006 Associated Press report:
VIRGINIA BEACH, Va. - Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says he has leg-pressed 2,000 pounds, but some say he'd be in a pretty tough spot if he tried.
The "700 Club" host's feat of strength is recounted on the Web site of his Christian Broadcasting Network, in a posting headlined "How Pat Robertson Leg Pressed 2,000 Pounds."
According to the CBN Web site, Robertson worked his way up to lifting a ton with the help of his physician, who is not named. The posting does not say when the lift occurred, but a CBN spokeswoman released photos to The Associated Press that she said showed Robertson lifting 2,000 pounds in 2003, when Robertson was 73. He is now 76.
The Web posting said two men loaded the leg-press machine with 2,000 pounds "and then let it down on Mr. Robertson, who pushed it up one rep and let it go back down again." The Web site said several people witnessed the event, and shows video of Robertson leg-pressing what appears to be 1,000 pounds.
Clay Travis of CBS SportsLine.com called the 2,000-pound assertion impossible in a column this week, writing that the leg-press record for football players at Florida State University is 665 pounds less.
"Where in the world did Robertson even find a machine that could hold 2,000 pounds at one time?" Travis asked.
Andy Zucker, a strength-training coach at Old Dominion University in Norfolk, said leg presses of more than 1,000 pounds represent "a Herculean effort, and 2,000 pounds is a whole other story."
"If he was able to lift that much weight, I take my hat off to him, but the numbers suggest that people who lift that much weight are few and far between," Zucker said. "One would have to see what type of leg press it was on and under what parameters it was done."
CBN spokeswoman Angell Vasko said Friday that Robertson was not available for comment because he was "out of pocket" for the long holiday weekend.
Vasko said she has not seen Robertson leg-press 2,000 pounds but that it's not "a huge shocker" that he could.
"Pat is so healthy," she said. "This is something he trained for over an extended period of time. He lives a very healthy, regimented life."
One of the photos Vasko released had a digital date stamp of 1994, although she said Robertson performed the leg press in 2003. Vasko said that perhaps the date was not set properly on the camera.
The CBN Web site attributes Robertson's energy in part to "his age-defying protein shake." The site offers a recipe for the shake, which contains ingredients such as soy protein isolate, whey protein isolate, flaxseed oil and apple cider vinegar.
But danny, that's the smart thing to do. That's the nature of a two-party system; you have to cast your lot in with the candidate who is somewhat closer to your beliefs than the other candidate. This almost always entails accepting disagreements. Robertson (for once in his detestable life) is doing the smart thing: compromising in the hope of getting a somewhat friendlier Republican administration as opposed to a wholly hostile Democratic one.
If the stupid "idealists" who threw their votes away on Nader in 2000 had not been, well, stupid, we wouldn't have had a George W. Bush administration in the first place, at least not in 2000.
I agree with what you say, which is why I said it makes perfect sense. The Republicans will vote for keeping power despite their disagreements, and there will be the "stupid idealists" who will vote for what they believe in.
I was just pointing out which side is more willing to forgo principle for power. So there you have it.
My read on Robertson is that Christians think he is a TV commentor in his dotage, prone to making bizarre statements. His endorsement will have little effect.
I also think the military people and religious folks recognize that America is pretty well tapped out by Iraq and Afghanistan and we best not start a 3rd War until we get a grip on at least one of the other two.
Rudy can toss out red meat talking about the need to toss our troops at a nation 4X more populous than Iraq for war to serve Rudy's "special friend" Israel,his talk of "Islamofascism, tired Munich analogies, and other stuff the surviving neocons spoon-feed him," and now starting talking about a possible need for action against Pakistan - but I don't think the population is looking for a Neocon Resurrection and a saber-rattling Bush-Plus out for more killing with no allies, not even us Republicans.
We want a President that can manage all the great messes we have found ourselves in recently - domestic and international - not start another major unilateral pre-emptive war or who behaves like Bush in his early 2002 peak of arrogance and faith in the JDAM.
Romney might be the best, but he needs to start talking more about what he will do to fix up the country's many broken areas in need of urgent attention - than stay locked in a panderfest on what his "values" are, and talk more like a human being. Before he got into the pander-schtick of the last 4 months, Romney was supposed to be the bright candidate who spent his life fixing things as an executive and who showed he was a visionary.
Unfortunately for Republicans, their best Governor is barred from running because his last name is Bush, their most popular one is an ineligable foreigner married to a Kennedy.
danny said...
I think someone's going to cry.
In other words, I am right and you have no argument. That's what I thought!
11:25 AM
Oh, lighten up.
You gotta admit, it's funny.
For a year, the left has been reassuring itself that Guiliani can't get elected, saying that as soon as the yahoo cracker foot-washing baptist Sunday-go-to-meeting community found out the awful truth that headed-to-hell-for-sure Rudy Guiliani was not only divorced but from New York, they'd abandon him. They were just so sure of it. Either the GOP would reject Rudy, and put up an unelectable guy like Romney or Thompson, or they'd nominate Rudy and there'd be a Holy Roller wingnut third party to siphon away votes.
What made me laugh is how the left felt they just knew what these moral-majority folks would do, even though they don't actually know any of them. Their view of the religious right is based on what they see on TV and in movies written by other people who know nothing about them. But there you guys were, thinking you were soooo perceptive, you knew just what these alien monsters from Jesusland would do.
And then Pat Robertson comes along and the whole strategy blows up in your face. Like they say in the cartoons, back to the drawing board!
Look, I'm as secular humanist as you can get. I wouldn't dare to presume I understood what the Religious Right thinks or will do in the future. But I have enough respect for them as human beings to recognize that they probably don't fit the stereotypes of them created by their sworn enemies.
My theory is this. First, take most of what Robertson said on face value. To him, the Supreme Court is #1. Rudy will give him the nominees he wants as surely as Romney or Thompson would. Secondly, the Democrats are plagued by their demanding, uncompromising and unteachable base of leftists. The left has made it perfectly clear that they don't support any element of a tough foreign policy to deal with the jihad. They are anti-Israel. They are unworried about Iran. They don't believe anything good has come from the engagement in Iraq. They want to weaken our ability to gather intel against terrorist plotters. They want us to lose in Iraq because America needs to learn the lessons of Vietnam again.
These positions, and the left's insistence that its candidates embrace these positions fully, makes the idea of putting a Democrat in the WH in 2008 seem unacceptable to a lot of people, religious rightists included, but also many moderate Democrats.
I support Hillary (if you're asking me today) because, frankly, I think she's just enough of a liar to screw over her left-wing supporters and manage foreign policy responsibly -- while addressing the domestic policy issues in a traditional Democratic way, instead of neglecting them as Bush has.
But I expect there are many who share my beliefs who are hoping the Reeps nominate Guiliani so they can vote for a tough guy on foreign policy who won't be simultaneously taking crazy right wing positions on things like stem cells and gay marriage.
Deep down, you know that, and you were counting on the religious right to save your ass. It's ironic! It's funny! Smile!
It's all about the Supremes, baby!
It's merely a nod to whatever base Robertson has that it's OK for social conservative Christians to vote for Rudy.
It relieves Guliani from the usual heavy necking with that crowd, leaving maybe some light petting, over the blouse.
It got him back into the news.
Likely no other Evangelical leader will support Giuliani in the primaries. Robertson stands out. Gets in Giuliani's favor early.
He is trying for one last chance at influence in a movement that's undergoing major transitions, much of which is generational. Robertson does have a voice with his supporters, mostly 70+ women who send him checks because he was such a good boy 30 years ago. But such voters are going to not follow the lead into voting for pro-choice pro-gay rights candidate. Making Robertson likely even more irrelevant.
I was visiting one of the top Evangelical colleges earlier last month. Ron Paul bumper stickers and signs were the only political statements I saw. Robertson likely would not even be considered a Christian by a good many younger Evangelicals. He's considered an opportunist, not a real minister.
Richard Dolan's response appeals to my reason, Jennifer's response to my cynicism, Palladian's to both but John Stodder hits it out of the park for me, first with his inspired humorous response, "I think someone's going to cry," and then with his insightful follow-up.
You're giving yourself a lot of credit John, but as a person of the "left," I have always assumed that Rudy would be the nominee. It's not like it is that hard to figure out.
And, once again, the point is that this was hardly surprising, to see the religious conservative endorse the socially liberal in the GOP race, because, as I already said, power comes first, principle second.
So I don't know who you are talking to, but, deep down, I never have or will count on the religious anything to save my ass.
danny,
Do you support gay marriage? Hillary Clinton doesn't.
Do you favor pulling our troops out of Iraq? Hillary Clinton doesn't.
Do you support impeaching George Bush for the many crimes you've accused him of? Hillary Clinton doesn't.
Do you think the Patriot Act should be repealed? Hillary Clinton doesn't.
Do you think the fence we're building along the Mexican border is a bad idea? Hillary Clinton doesn't.
Will you be voting for Hillary anyway? Yes.
So let's have none of this silliness about how Republicans are especially willing to compromise principles for power. Heck, the entire Bill Clinton administration was a compromise of principle for power -- he spent 8 years doing things that outraged gays, unions, free speech activists, you name it. They voted for him anyway.
Who are you people to assume what I think and what I will do? None of you know who I am or what I believe in.
Do you think that, given a choice, I would vote for a Republican over a Democrat if I believed in a woman's right to choose?
How about gay rights? Republican or Democrat?
Is a Democrat or a Republican more likely to get us out of Iraq?
How about a man who has Norman Poderetz on his team or a woman who has Bill Clinton?
These are all easy questions.
FWIW, I intend to vote in the primaries, and it will not be for Clinton.
FWIW, I intend to vote in the primaries, and it will not be for Clinton.
And yet, in the end, I suspect we will both vote for Hillary a year from now--holding our noses and crossing our fingers while we do so.
America. What a country!
Danny, I haven't a clue who you are (and I hope you didn't feel my earlier comment in some way implied I did). I appreciate your frustration in that regard - a couple of days ago, one of the regulars here (who should have known better) pigeonholed me as a leftist and making excuses for those who put power before principle when all I was doing was asking a question. Oh well, it was funny to me, but I guess not to you.
In answer to your questions:
Do you think that, given a choice, I would vote for a Republican over a Democrat if I believed in a woman's right to choose?
As you say, we don't know you, so we have no way of knowing for sure. Most people who find that issue important vote D, and probably most who just believe in it do too. Me? I believe in it. I think it is extremely unlikely to ever be taken away, or it would have been already. But scaring people one way or the other on the issue makes millions for some and gives them a lot of political power.
How about gay rights? Republican or Democrat? Supporters of gay rights are overwhelmingly Democratic voters. Don't know anything about what you believe, however, or how important it is to you.
Is a Democrat or a Republican more likely to get us out of Iraq?
IMO, neither.
How about a man who has Norman Poderetz on his team or a woman who has Bill Clinton?
The first is frightening, the second is not.
FWIW, I intend to vote in the primaries, and it will not be for Clinton.
Good for you!
Supporters of gay rights are overwhelmingly Democratic voters
Unless its radical Islam muerdering homosexuals, then your BDS trumps your "princinples": The religous right = very bad, radical Islam = not even on my radar. But I "care" so much about gays. No really...
[snicker]
- a couple of days ago, one of the regulars here (who should have known better) pigeonholed me as a leftist and making excuses for those who put power before principle when all I was doing was asking a question.
Yah, that was me. All I did was ask why you couldn't spend a bit more energy denouncing radical Islam burying homosexuals alive. My bad, I forgot, you are SO oppressed...
Re: abortion, Randy says: I think it is extremely unlikely to ever be taken away, or it would have been already. But scaring people one way or the other on the issue makes millions for some and gives them a lot of political power.
This is very true. The other side of the coin is the incidence of abortion has dropped significantly. I think the social right has lost a lot of its mojo because, from their perspective, abortion isn't such a crisis anymore. They've lost de jure but have won de facto, at least half a loaf. There are lots of places in America, red states primarily, where effectively abortion is banned because you can't find where to get one.
Given that, and given the demonstrable impossibility of a constitutional amendment banning abortion, the issue has faded. Gay marriage was supposed to be the next bugaboo, but I think that's failed to catch on in the same way, largely because the number of gay people who want to be married isn't large, and they're mostly concentrated blue states. As a result, he social right is:
a) less organized and weaker as a special interest group; and
b) freer to examine candidates based on other issues.
What we might all be surprised to find is that some of the religious right isn't so far to the right on economic and foreign policy issues. Just a hypothesis...we'll see. But I bet whoever the Dems nominate, he or she will be campaigning in those areas.
Talking about "[snicker]"!
Randy Rogers, a leftist?!?!? Someone who's meek about the transgressions of radical Islam, including but not limited to its treatment of homosexuals and women?
Are you kidding??
(To be fair, Randy, perhaps Fen's forgotten under what name you used to post, though you made the transition quite openly, in which case he may NOT know better.)
LOL! Thanks, Reader! I guess that must be it - hadn't even occurred to me.
And Fen - What was it you were arguing the other day? That the Religious Right Republicans were putting principle before power and proposing to stay home on election day if Giuliani were the nominee? Would you like to revise or extend those remarks in light of new evidence to the contrary?
Fen, you have a habit of making wild assumptions about other people's beliefs. If I did the same thing to you, I would run around Althouse saying that you advocated the forcible military overthrow of the United States government in the event Hillary Clinton is elected just because, a few weeks back, you predicted the same would happen.
IIRC, Pogo virtually begged you to retract that libel of our military men and women and to my knowledge you never deigned to respond. Now, I don't seriously believe you advocate such an unconstitutional act just because you mentioned it. I do agree with Pogo, though: you should retract your slur upon the integrity of our armed forces.
While I have your attention, perhaps you could explain exactly how my single question of you, about whether or not you thought Republicans were possibly placing power before principle in voting, has anything to do with all these other issues you keep bringing up after the fact, as if we had discussed them, which we had in fact never discussed?
How are your six blogs going, Fen? My favorite is Fentest 3!
John Stodder writes: What we might all be surprised to find is that some of the religious right isn't so far to the right on economic and foreign policy issues.
At one time, John, IIRC, you had close enough to front row-center seats in the political arena as to make no difference, and I was wondering what you may have observed on the economic subject. Historically, there is a strong populist tradition in what has been generally termed the "Bible Belt."
Wow, I get to speak about my spirituality twice in one week on Althouse! How weird is that.
I am an evangelical Christian, but that affects my private behavior a lot more than it does my politics I think. Yeah, I am a conservative, but I do not want an official state religion and the only "moral" issue that I am uncompromising on is abortion.
Marijuana? Legalize it, tax it, pay for healthcare.
Gay marriage? Well, marriage is a sacrament to me, but civil unions are none of my business.
Abortion, there are innocents involved so I am willing to make it illegal in most cases.
Robertson has never been important to me, nor Falwell nor Dobson. I think conservatism is consistent with human nature and liberalism is based on a wonderful, kind, good hearted, naive and fatally flawed view of humanity.
But I think God cares more about how I treat people than how I vote. A lot more.
Trey
Do you think that, given a choice, I would vote for a Republican over a Democrat if I believed in a woman's right to choose? How about gay rights? Republican or Democrat? Is a Democrat or a Republican more likely to get us out of Iraq? How about a man who has Norman Poderetz on his team or a woman who has Bill Clinton? These are all easy questions.
They're easy questions whether you're a typical Democrat OR a typical Republican. You just arrive at opposite answers.
That's what makes your claim that Republicans are more willing to sacrifice principles for power than Democrats are so silly. A social conservative who backs Rudy against Hillary isn't sacrificing principle for power -- he's backing the candidate who is best on the issues he cares about. Sure, they COULD back Huckabee or McCain, but that's no better than backing, hell, Pat Robertson himself. None of those men is going to be President, with or without social conservatives' support. It is obvious that the only Republican candidate with a a chance of beating Hillary Clinton is Rudy Giuliani. So should social conservatives push to get Giuliani elected... or should they settle for President Hillary Clinton? That is, as you'd say, an easy question to answer.
Oh, and as for your "I don't know who you are" complaint -- your posts here have made your political leanings pretty clear. But if you want to come out and say that, in a field consisting of Rudy and Hillary, you'd pick Rudy, then I quite apologize.
I'm in complete agreemnet with tmink above.
So, fen, you now know 2 social conservatives.
But if you want to come out and say that, in a field consisting of Rudy and Hillary, you'd pick Rudy, then I quite apologize.
Of course I wouldn't vote for Rudy. But that doesn't mean that I am automatically a Hillary supporter. You don't think there's a big difference between Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, and Clinton?
Your post assumed I was voting for Clinton, and therefore everything that (you say) she stands for, and that is wrong. My "values" and "principles" will allow me to vote for the candidate that most follows what I believe, not the one who I think will win. Which is how it should be.
Until we have it down to two candidates from either party (as much as I wish there was a viable third party), then I don't see why it should be any other way than to vote with principle.
At one time, John, IIRC, you had close enough to front row-center seats in the political arena as to make no difference, and I was wondering what you may have observed on the economic subject.
Well, my political life was all in Los Angeles, which was almost all the way through its transition to being a very Democratic place. There were born-again Christians living there, of course, but they had no political influence and didn't bother to organize as such. The strongest religious forces in LA are the Catholic Church, the big synagogues and the various major black churches. All of them lean heavily to the left on issues of economic justice and they're mostly anti-war, although not uniformly. Most of them are conservative on the social issues, but rarely address them in a political context.
There are mega-churches throughout Southern California -- new fangled evangelical churches that have services almost every day, big video screens, lots of charitable outreach projects, and some of the services are more like rock concerts. I guess some of those folks are apolitical and some are politically active, and the ones who are politically active help pull the California GOP far to the right of where the voters are. As I've said before, Arnold would have had no chance of being elected governor were it not for the unusual circumstances of the recall election in 2003 allowed him to run without the hassle of a primary, where the right would have run a candidate and probably denied him the nomination.
California voters are moderate to conservative, with a few liberal preferences in the mix (environment, health care, abortion). The two parties are, however, wingnut-dominated, so the voters' preferences are rarely reflected.
Until we have it down to two candidates from either party (as much as I wish there was a viable third party), then I don't see why it should be any other way than to vote with principle.
I actually agree with this. I think a lot of Republicans are going to vote for Rudy because he's obviously the best candidate on the GOP side, not just because he can win, but because he represents where Republican voters are now. It's a partial repudiation of Bushism and especially the GOP Congress.
Same with Hillary. I was for Obama originally, but he's lost a lot of ground, while Hillary has actually run, for a Clinton, a fairly straightforward campaign. She hasn't shied away from embracing more moderate views on the war and foreign policy generally. I like making fun of her, but when it comes down to it, she'll probably get my vote. I have hopes that she will actually be the kind of president I hoped Bill would be back in '92.
Of course I wouldn't vote for Rudy. But that doesn't mean that I am automatically a Hillary supporter. You don't think there's a big difference between Edwards, Kucinich, Obama, and Clinton?
I should have been clearer, I guess. When I asked "will you be voting for Hillary anyway" I was talking about the general election, not the primaries. The "big difference" between her and the other three is that she's going to be the Democratic nominee and they aren't. :)
Your post assumed I was voting for Clinton, and therefore everything that (you say) she stands for, and that is wrong.
But you just admitted you'll be voting for Clinton if she's the nominee. So how am I wrong? Despite the fact that she's bad on gay rights, the Patriot Act, and the war, you're still going to hold your nose and vote for her.
My "values" and "principles" will allow me to vote for the candidate that most follows what I believe, not the one who I think will win. Which is how it should be.
Results are important, too. If you have a choice between supporting a bad candidate who stands a good chance of defeating a far worse candidate, and supporting a GOOD candidate who stands no chance of defeating that far-worse candidate, it is by no means obvious that voting for the hopeless cause is the principled choice. That would be true only if your principles tell you that it is ok to let the world around you go to hell so long as YOU stay ideologically pure.
Let's say you think abortion is murder. You have a choice between someone who will expand abortion (Clinton), someone who will slightly restrict it (Giuliani), and someone who will try to abolish it (Huckabee). If all three have a good chance of winning, supporting Huckabee is obviously the right thing to do. But if -- as in reality -- Huckabee hasn't got a prayer in hell of winning the general election and Giuliani does, then supporting Huckabee has the probable effect of allowing Clinton to win. Good for your ideological purity? Perhaps. But bad for the murdered babies you ostensibly care about. Supporting Rudy would have allowed more children to live than supporting Huckabee did.
Voting's not a game. It has consequences.
Meanwhile, Pat Robertson has less than two months left for there to be 'mass killings' in the form of a terrorist attack in the U.S.
That's after the tsunami he predicted would hit the U.S. in 2006 didn't happen.
Something tells me his direct line to God is clogged with all the dirt he's picked up from dabbling in politics.
That's after the tsunami he predicted would hit the U.S. in 2006 didn't happen.
During the Republican primary debates for the '88 race, Pat Robertson (then a candidate) declared that he had personally diverted hurricanes through prayer. The other candidates on the stage just sort of stared at him like "... did he just say that?".
He's one crazy son of a bitch, that's for sure.
Robertson is one player in the christian right's team. Dobson is another and has says he will not vote for Rudy. Maybe this means there will be a split in the christian right.
Also, Rudy went off on Ron Paul during the debate because he asked the question about why they attacked us-he was referring to foreign countries. Robertson actually made comments about why they attacked us (gay, ACLU, etc). I guess that type of attack is ok.
Also, after many of the other more outlandish comments Robertson made many conservatives have said he isn't relevant anymore.
This will likely not play well with independents.
The only good news is that many of these Christian Right Leaders (Dobson, Robertson) are well into their 70's and will be dead soon. A new generation will override the views of these charletans.
Oh, why is Robertson endorsing Rudy?
Easy, he sees him as a winner and he is willing to screw his own principles in order to hopefully have a place at the table.
If it was all about his social conservative principles he could of easily endorsed Brownback or Huckabee. He didn't see a winner in them.
He likes the power.
Sorry I met "foreign terrorists" not foreign countries.
Fen said this about liberals supporting gay rights:
"All I did was ask why you couldn't spend a bit more energy denouncing radical Islam burying homosexuals alive."
There he goes again...using his brand new and over used term: DENOUNCE.
But Fen, how could you possibly not "know anyone from the religious right"??
It's not like they're hiding out or don't have something to say...whether you agree or not.
I have friends who are very, conservative politically, and in terms of their religious beliefs...and we discuss and argue about all kinds of things relating to politics and life in general.
I understand where they're coming from, and they certainly know where I stand, especially regarding religion, but there's much we do agree on, and we still socialize, on a regular basis.
I think you need to get out more.
I personally don't know anyone from the "social conservative right". I guess that makes me Pauline Kael.
BTW, I was walking to lunch today and got growled at by two bears (gay bears not bear bears). I said to them, "you are bad bears".
Aren't the Republicans going to basically going to vote AGAINST Hillary?
Just look at the Republican's line-up and what the candidates bring to the table:
You've got "it's too bad I'm a Mormon" Romney, "I was prisoner of war" McCain, "the people who live in the city I managed don't particularly care for me" Guliani, Freddie "I'll be acting again sooner than you think" Thompson, and of course, Hucka "I don't believe in evolution" Bee.
All I can say is this: YOU better hope and pray Hillary is the nominee...because the others poll very well against everybody on the right.
and will not hold Rudy's divorces against him
That's a surprise? Religious conservatives don't care about other conservatives divorcing, or using prostitutes, or having a wide stance in public bathrooms. Rudy's promised to appoint anti-abortion judges and he's willing to support an anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendment. He's swung to the right on all his so-called socially moderate positions, and the religious right is happy about that.
Results are important, too. If you have a choice between supporting a bad candidate who stands a good chance of defeating a far worse candidate, and supporting a GOOD candidate who stands no chance of defeating that far-worse candidate, it is by no means obvious that voting for the hopeless cause is the principled choice.
Revenant, where were you when I needed you, back in 2000, trying to keep good friends from voting for Nader?
Rudy's promised to appoint anti-abortion judges and he's willing to support an anti-same-sex marriage constitutional amendment.
That's not quite true on either count.
Rudy has said that if courts continue to grant recognition to gay marriages by judicial fiat, he would support "an amendment". Whether he supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage under those circumstances, or simply a constitutional amendment limiting the power of courts to force gay marriage on an unwilling citizenry (as Fred Thompson has proposed), is unclear. I suspect the latter, since Rudy himself is personally pro-gay.
As for appointing "anti-abortion judges", you could argue that he's promised to appoint "anti-Roe judges" inasmuch as he's promised to appoint people like Scalia. But you can recognize that the Court's abortion jurisprudence is unconstitutional crap without being anti-abortion. I'm very much in favor of legal abortion, but the notion that the Constitution bans the states from making it illegal is still ridiculous.
I suspect the latter, since Rudy himself is personally pro-gay.
I suspect he's very happy to keep that unclear for the moment.
"I suspect he's very happy to keep that unclear for the moment."
Indeed, and he is not too happy about his gifts to Planned Parenthood on his tax returns either.
I heard Fred's new commercial on the radio yesterday. It gave me goosebumps. Bona fide goosebumps.
Pretty amazing marketing, and I certainly hope he means it, but I worry that I will only get to vote for him in the primary.
I am still unsure if I would vote for Giuliani, I think he would be a smidgen closer to my politics than Clinton, but not enough to keep me from holding my nose if I do vote for him. I might just sleep in that day if it comes.
Trey
I suspect he's very happy to keep that unclear for the moment.
Oh, I entirely agree. But the fact that he's keeping it "unclear" is, to me anyway, pretty strong evidence that his position isn't what the social conservatives want. After all, if it was, he'd have every reason to say so.
Kirik's about to be indicted.
I bet Rudy's sphincter muscle tightened up when he heard about that.
Roll over...
Revenant,
How long do you think he can remain "unclear" on anything?
Just wait until the real debates, when he has to answer questions directly from his democratic counterpart and moderators who actually do want to answers.
Seeing Pat Robertson suddenly support Rudy should tell you just how desperate the right wing is right now.
Do you REALLY think Rudy and Pat REALLY agree on damn near anything...??
Lucky asked "Do you REALLY think Rudy and Pat REALLY agree on damn near anything...??"
Israel?
Which takes us full circle to the first comment.
Trey
Post a Comment