http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (CNN) — Pat Robertson, the television evangelist and Christian Coalition leader, endorsed Rudy Giuliani for President at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C. on Wednesday. “The Giuliani campaign hopes this endorsement will help with inroads among evangelical Christians,” says King. It was Robertson’s 1988 presidential campaign that, while unsuccessful, cemented evangelical voters as a dominant force within the Republican Party. Robertson has repeatedly praised Giuliani despite their major differences on social policy, such as abortion and gay marriage. Both men say a friendship developed after a long conversation on a plane during a trip to Israel several years ago. Another thing both men have in common is that they are prostate cancer survivors. Giuliani is the frontrunner in the national polls, but he trails in surveys in many of the early primary and caucus states, among them Iowa and South Carolina, where social conservative voters make up a major part of the Republican voting electorate."

This makes no sense at all.

11/7/2007 10:30:59 AM

$CashMoney$ does wonders in politics.

11/7/2007 10:33:27 AM

Quote :

"Another thing both men have in common is that they are prostate cancer survivors."

If he survived prostate cancer like me, then he can run a country!

11/7/2007 10:42:08 AM

Brownback also endorsed McCain today.

11/7/2007 11:00:05 AM

^^I'm sure that was the decisive factor in Robertson deciding to give his support to Giuliani... either that or just something the article threw in.

I wonder if an endorsement by Pat Robertson would net you more votes for than votes against.

11/7/2007 12:36:48 PM

Quote :

"I wonder if an endorsement by Pat Robertson would net you more votes for than votes against."

He's hoping for a huge jump start with the evangelical base...he doesnt have a strong footing with them and an endorsement from Robertson may give him the boost that he needs to pull ahead of the rest of the GOPers consistently in the polls

11/7/2007 12:54:12 PM

Quote :

"Another thing both men have in common is that they are prostate cancer survivors."

Also, they can both do a leg press of 2000 pounds.

11/7/2007 1:19:17 PM

Quote :

"I wonder if an endorsement by Pat Robertson would net you more votes for than votes against."

Someone with zero knowledge of the strength of the Christian right made this statement.

11/7/2007 2:11:12 PM

Either that or someone that is aware that there are enough people that are anti-Christian right to make the question viable.

Oh, and not all Christian right people support Robertson. Maybe the section of Christians that Robertson preys on... most people I know that self identify as conservative Christians don't think highly of him.

Edit: An endorsement by someone like Billy Graham on the other hand might get a candidate more backing. Robertson is no Graham.

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 2:18 PM. Reason : -]

11/7/2007 2:16:43 PM

The anti christian right people would never vote republican anyway therefore making it a moot point. The one thing the GOP contender HAS TO HAVE is the christian right voting bloc. If they sit home on election day, hillary becomes president.

11/7/2007 2:21:07 PM

Ok, another way of saying it is:

I think you may overestimate how much of the Christian populace Robertson has a sway over... or maybe I underestimate it.

11/7/2007 2:23:20 PM

why do people want old blood in the white house?

11/7/2007 2:23:53 PM

hahahahahaa

so let me get this straight.

Rudy Giuliani goes out of his way to attack Ron Paul for suggesting that American foreign policy might have something to do with 9/11.

But then Rudy Giuliani courts and accepts the endorsement of Pat Robertson, who not only said that domestic policies Giuliani supports caused 9/11, but that America deserved to be attacked.

This makes no sense.

11/7/2007 2:27:00 PM

^i thought that was jerry fallwell that said that

but still, yeah, this doesn't make any sense at all. pat robertson ftl.

and i'm a christian and a conservative. (ron paul ftw)

11/7/2007 2:53:58 PM

ron paul ftw

11/7/2007 3:02:08 PM

^^http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/14/Falwell.apology/

Quote :

"On the broadcast of the Christian television program "The 700 Club," Falwell made the following statement: "I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People For the American Way, all of them who have tried to secularize America. I point the finger in their face and say 'you helped this happen.'" ... Pat Robertson, host of the 700 Club program, seemed to agree with Falwell's earlier statements in a prayer during the program. "

http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/f/falwell-robertson-wtc.htm

According to this, his response after Falwell said that was "I totally concur".

11/7/2007 3:56:06 PM

Quote :

"This makes no sense at all."

makes perfect sense. must unite forces in order to redefeat communism in '08!

11/7/2007 4:14:56 PM

An evangelical backing a social liberal. That's hypocrisy with a capital

11/7/2007 6:08:48 PM

Quote :

"this doesn't make any sense at all."

it makes sense in that guiliani is the lesser of two evils (the other being another clinton presidency) in their mind. robertson is doing what he can to get another R in the white house.

11/7/2007 6:11:49 PM

^

11/7/2007 6:30:39 PM

well, as if I needed another reason not to vote for Rudy

11/7/2007 7:11:57 PM

Quote :

"it makes sense in that guiliani is the lesser of two evils (the other being another clinton presidency) in their mind. robertson is doing what he can to get another R in the white house."

Honest question: how is Giuliani better than Hillary Clinton?

Take away national security. Remember Hillary is a member of the DLC (Joe Lieberman's wing of the Democratic Party when he was in it, and supposedly every Republican's "favorite Democrat".) In my opinion, Hillary Clinton, a Third Way politician that will lead by triangulation, will do everything in her power to avoid being portrayed as weak on national security. She'll do that if elected solely so it cannot be used against her by Republicans in the 2012 election. Also remove personality, this is purely an issues-based question.

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 8:49 PM. Reason : /]

11/7/2007 8:31:12 PM

Who ever wants to support Israel over the USA the most will always get the crazy evangelical vote.

11/7/2007 9:00:42 PM

the evangelical christian right is afraid that they are being narrowed down to one of two choices:

(1) get on board with Guiliani now, in order to squelch a serious attempt of a third party candidate splitting the GOP....

(2) or brace themselves for 4 years of Hillary.


now this may not actually be true (Guiliani and/or Hillary can lose their primary), but this is increasingly their perception.

11/7/2007 9:28:02 PM

Quote :

"Flyin Ryan : how is Giuliani better than Hillary Clinton? ... In my opinion, Hillary Clinton [if we] remove [her] personality, [it becomes] purely an issues-based question"

but you CAN'T remove personality. You fail to appreciate the deep, deep hatred the evangelical christian right has for Hillary.

it's pathological. she is effectively their Anti-Christ.

it all goes back to the "baking cookies" comment in the 1992 presidential campaign. she threatened every traditional republican christian male, and insulted every traditional christian republican housewife.

they've been holding on to it ever since. everything shes done has been framed in that lens. taking an office in the wing of the white house, convening a task force to "socialize" health care...

she is the bugbear of conservative republican nightmares.




[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 9:40 PM. Reason : ]

11/7/2007 9:36:13 PM

I have a theory regarding the third-party right-wing bid if it happens. Here it is:

Quote :

"And from the perspective of right-wingers, a Giuliani presidency would be little different than a Hillary presidency. Trust me on this, Hillary if president will do everything she can to ensure she's not portrayed as weak on national security. That's why she won't go as far as her Democratic opponents on the war. Take away national security, and Giuliani's a Democrat on most issues. So it would be more advantageous in the long-term to ensure Giuliani loses so that the Republican Party will go back right for 2012 to run against Hillary. Just part of the Machiavellian wonder of politics."

[Edited on November 7, 2007 at 9:42 PM. Reason : /]

11/7/2007 9:42:07 PM

Maybe 5% (from my own anecdotal right wing conspiracy connections ) of the religious right would be swayed by Robertson's view. I don't care what Pat Robertson says. The media is making more of this than reality allows, but why should the election be different than any other issue.

Anyway, there are good reasons to doubt Guiliani's chances through the primaries. He speaks too glowingly about the virtues of how gun control reduced crime in NYC. This message is not going to resonate in many red states (the west I suppose). Then down here in the south he is 1.) a Yankee and 2.) has a very convoluted and unreliable stance on abortion. Of course he may well get the nomination, but not with my blessing.

Of course if it comes down to HRC verses just about anyone I'll vote for the other option. It really has little to do with her cookie baking comment. It has to do with her relentless non-election time promotion of socialist policies and her addiction to political posturing at the cost of any sort of verity.

11/7/2007 11:55:25 PM

Quote :

"it makes sense in that guiliani is the lesser of two evils (the other being another clinton presidency) in their mind. robertson is doing what he can to get another R in the white house. "

Yep. They have one thing in common, and that's that they don't want to see President Hillary Clinton.



for the record, I'm pretty confident that Hillary would be the least of the potential evils from the Democratic Party...but that's not saying a lot. She is certainly overly maligned (or at least, she doesn't deserve the hatred as much as 95% of the rest of her party. Her husband is an even greater example of that, too.)

11/8/2007 2:39:30 AM

Giuliani has a great slogan now with this endorsement. "True Americans fear terrorists and God!"

11/8/2007 8:36:16 AM

SO who has more influence ... Pat Robertson or Bob Jones III

11/8/2007 10:23:14 AM

I don't know. What you guys may fail to recognize is that the religious right is made of stubborn generally independent groups. It is true all these groups agree on certain central moral subjects, but it's not like the Catholic Church or something, we do not have a Pope. Pretty much we all agree that we hould be free to pray in school and stuff like that, and we all agree that abortion is the biggest and most objectionable pox on our nation. Sure besides that we like lower taxes but there are big government charity folks mixed in certain evangelical circles so that is not nearly as universal. The "family values" are the centralizing force. If Rudy does not himself truly stand up for them, as the pictures of him in drag and his ambivalence about abortion indicate, then it is doubtful that he will be solidly supported by the so-called "religious right".

Oh and if I had to guess,

Opra > Rush > Ellen > Pat Robertson > ... > Bob Jones III

I could be wrong, perhaps Rush > Opra.

[Edited on November 8, 2007 at 11:26 PM. Reason : rankings.]

11/8/2007 11:23:36 PM

hell no. Oprah's little finger has WAY more influence than Rush's entire drug-riddled, formerly-obese body.

Quote :

"Winfrey was called "arguably the World's most powerful woman" by CNN and Time.com, "arguably the most influential woman in the World" by the American Spectator, "one of the 100 people who most influenced the 20th Century" and "one of the most influential people" of 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 by Time. Winfrey is the only person in the World to have made all five lists. It should be noted that when these publications use the phrase "the World's most influential person" they mean "no single other person on the planet has more clout", not "this person affects the whole World". It should also be noted that Time's list has been criticized for reflecting "a heavily U.S.-centric perspective". -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oprah_Winfrey "

Quote :

"The Oprah Winfrey Show has remained the number one talk show for 21 consecutive seasons. the show is seen by an estimated 46 million viewers a week in the United States and is broadcast internationally in 134 countries. The Oprah Winfrey Show [is] the highest-rated talk show in television history. -- http://www.kingworld.com/release/oprah_winfrey.html "

as for Rush, well 14 million radio listeners per week on the AM radio is nothing to sneeze at i guess, and he really did do his part to both reinvent talk radio and polarize the nation.

so i should take it back:

theres more influence in his drug-riddled and formerly-obese body than i gave him credit for in my opening statement. he's probably about 25% of the way to becoming as great as Oprah.

11/9/2007 12:19:00 AM

Quote :

"we all agree that we hould be free to pray in school"

who argues otherwise?

11/9/2007 2:00:08 AM

Quote :

"we all agree that we should be free to pray in school"

just do it quietly. nobody wants to be see or hear that goofy stuff. go hold hands and look piously heavenward while you petition your Lord and Savior somewhere else, mmkay?

11/9/2007 2:55:37 AM

Ron Paul voted to approve a bill ensuring the right to individual prayer in school, as well as the right to abstain from prayer.

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 3:00 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 2:59:51 AM

^ what? .. talk about wasteful and intrusive government legislation.

so are we going to have every possible activity delineated such that we have the right to engage in it and the right to decline?

how will we be able to make a decision on how to act in the face of non-existent regulations defining how we are simultaneously allowed yet not required to do something?

what a bizarre twist on the Orwellian society.



[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 3:08 AM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 3:07:13 AM

^^i'm curious why the states shouldn't be able to govern their schools as they see fit. (of course under paul's own logic)

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 3:36 AM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 3:35:53 AM

1st Amendment.

11/9/2007 10:41:31 AM

+14th

11/9/2007 10:56:13 AM

Quote :

"Ron Paul voted to approve a bill ensuring the right to individual prayer in school, as well as the right to abstain from prayer."

This is meaningless legislation that does nothing that is not already outside the scope of the Bill of Rights that would do nothing but waste the government's time and add another meaningless law. Isn't that what Ron Paul is supposed to be against?

On the topic at hand, I was listening to Diane Rehm this morning. The panel of guests pretty much unanimously agreed that this is a net gain for Giuliani and a net loss for Robertson. His endorsement makes him appear morally weak and cowardly, trying to hitch a ride on whomever he thinks can win the race.

Dobson, on the other hand, wields much more influence these days, and I believe he has said he would never support a Giuliani candidacy. I think a lot of middle class conservative Christians put a lot of faith into James Dobson, and a lot of those same people think Pat Robertson is batshit insane.

11/9/2007 11:53:00 AM

Go, Rudy!

11/9/2007 12:16:10 PM

Quote :

"This is meaningless legislation that does nothing that is not already outside the scope of the Bill of Rights that would do nothing but waste the government's time and add another meaningless law. Isn't that what Ron Paul is supposed to be against?"

except that we already trample all over the Constitution, so that's hardly much of a guarantee.

Quote :

"Dobson, on the other hand, wields much more influence these days, and I believe he has said he would never support a Giuliani candidacy. I think a lot of middle class conservative Christians put a lot of faith into James Dobson, and a lot of those same people think Pat Robertson is batshit insane."

concur

11/9/2007 6:11:09 PM

So I am just remembering wrong that people have been discouraged from praying in school and at graduations etc... ? That never happened? It isn't like the public schools have had the ten commandments removed and so on... ? We are just as free to talk about Christian morality in public schools as we were 70 years ago? I think not.

I said "stuff like that" I figured you guys would get my drift.

And way to redeem yourself from defending Rush in the other thread joe_schmoe you
have reassured TSB of your whole hearted disdain for the el-rush-bo.

Being serious for a minute, I do think that Rush's audience is more likely to actually engage in politics. Oprah and well for example the "View" are less likely to follow through on any action, it is more about warm fuzzies and maybe recipes or fashion tips. Rush on the other hand arms people with information that is typically misreported or downplayed in the mainstream media. Is Rush simplistic and naive on certain issues, sure. But so is the evening news.

11/9/2007 8:04:07 PM

In other news, Rudy's right hand man has ties to the mafia ... so surprised!

[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 8:18 PM. Reason : .]

11/9/2007 8:18:32 PM

Quote :

"way to redeem yourself from defending Rush in the other thread ... you have reassured TSB of your whole hearted disdain"

sorry to disappoint you.

but i do in fact have a certain admiration for the man.

Quote :

"Is Rush simplistic and naive on certain issues, sure. "

oh definitely not.

Rush is a master at confounding his political enemies with intentional factual distortions, red herrings, and clever sophistry.

make no mistake, he is a political heavyweight. Rush's recent riposte of the entire Democratic Senate was a thing of beauty to behold. Of course, it didnt help the Dems that Harry Reid showed up to a gunfight with a pocketknife.

Now Rush's audience is another matter... they are stereotypically what I might call "simplistic and naive."





[Edited on November 9, 2007 at 8:41 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2007 8:37:30 PM

Look's like he's got the Parkinson's vote!!

11/30/2007 8:14:45 PM