Tons of stories are erupting after Rudy got Pat's endorsement. Here are a few:So Robertson had a choice. He could support the one GOP candidate that furthest from his moral and political views or he could support the candidate who espouses his same views more than any other candidate but belongs to a religion he loathes, believes is a cult, and believes is a threat both spiritually and financially to him and his constituents.
He chose the former. He chose to risk losing all credibility and being pushed to the fringes of the “moral majority” wing of the American electorate, all for fear of
legitimizing a religion different from his own. How disappointing. Does he not know that despite doctrinal differences and misunderstandings, the LDS Church is among the biggest proponents of strong families, and pro-life and pro-marriage causes.
But that is not enough, Mr. Robertson could not allow a Church that he fears to potentially have the boost it would by Mitt Romney being elected as President. So he chose to become a hypocrite and compromise all that he stood for. He would have been better off endorsing a candidate that couldn’t win, aka Huckabee or Thompson or by not endorsing at all.
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.
Ideally, reporters would start to ask Giuliani about whether he agrees with some of the comments made by his buddy.
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?
1 comment:
The bloggers over at Evangelicals for Mitt have been very balanced. in their support of Governor Romney. They agree with his values (and his unmatched executive abilities) and think he is the best choice to be president. At the same time they let fellow evangelicals know that the theological differences between Mormonism and evangelicalism would would disqualify him to teach their Sunday School class.
When conservatives say they will not support Mitt Romney based on his his previously pro-choice position and claim his conversion is not sincere 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 the pro-life cause. 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 a social liberal leading the conservative movement, however oxymoronic that may appear to some. Exactly where Giuliani would lead conservatism isn’t in question. But does the movement 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. Instead Hannity invites his guests to bloviate on the justifications for suppoting Guiliani. I must 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 leading the charge to propel the conservative movement toward more liberal views. 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 Republican standard. Conservative morality is a much higher bar.
Wasn’t it moral relativity that got the GOP banished to the congressional minority wilderness? And now Pat Robertson supports Rudy as the conservative hope. 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.
Off all the republican candidates for president Mitt Romney is likely the most able mouth piece for conservatism to say nothing of the fire in his belly and his ability to bring conservative change to federal government operations and legislation. Given Governor Romney's moral family life, his nearly forty year marriage that hasn't moved beyond newlywed status, and a life-long association with business rich with honest, ethical behavior I would welcome Governor Romney to teach my Sunday School class.
Social conservatives and the religous right who reject Romney in favor of Rudy, McCain or Thompson are lining up firmly behind a biggoted cause they are reticent to articulate.
They don’t want a Mormon in the white house.
Post a Comment