Felix Ungar and Oscar Madison. Turner and Hooch. Mutt and Jeff. America sure loves the odd couple - it’s obvious. No further proof was needed that opposites indeed attract than when on Nov. 7th, amongst a storm of celebrity presidential endorsements (most non-plussed nor surprising), Pat Robertson announced his support for “America’s Mayor”, Rudy Giuliani.
Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today…
If the thrice-divorced, pro-abortion and pro-gay rights former mayor of New York being backed by the founder of the Christian Coalition of America is something you find a bit odd, well, you should….and not just from the narrow angle of Pat Robertson.
Considering Rudy Giuliani’s rather scathing remarks to Republican Congressman Ron Paul during the South Carolina Republican debate regarding the reasons for the 9/11 attack, five months later he accepts endorsement from a man suggested we invited the 9/11 attacks due to moral degradation (Pat Robertson Quotes).
We have permitted somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our society. …..We have insulted God at the highest levels of our government. And, then we say ‘why does this happen?’ Well, why its happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us.
Giuliani’s aide reported that the two have “shared goals” despite “minor differences”.
The overriding issue before the American people, is the defense of our population against the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists,” Robertson told the National Press Club audience. “Our world faces deadly peril…and we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead.”Robertson said Giuliani is “a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans … It is my hope and prayer that he will lead the Republican Party to victory in November of 2008.”
“Minor Differences”? My experience with Christian “values voters” often placed abortion at the forefront of the important topics driving vote. Often, pulling hibernating voters from their four-year slumber to sluggishly waddle to the booths, without a hesitant dangling chad to be found in the crowd. But now abortion is a “minor difference”? This article sheds some light on this change:
Abortion is a low priority among Democratic-leaning voters (38 percent) and even Republican-leaning ones (43 percent). Voters overall rate the economy and the war in Iraq as leading issues.
Among Republican-leaning voters, the top issue important to their vote is terrorism with 77 percent marking it as very important. For Democratic voters, the leading issue is health care with 82 percent indicating so.
But wait…terrorism? But Mr. Robertson, I thought you agreed that such evils as pornography and abortion led to 9/11…I guess that core base has shifted. So have you. Irony? Considering the large backlash against John Kerry during the 2004 election over him being a “flip-flopper” and “waffling” on issues, I guess if you flip-flop in all the right directions, it’s not such a bad thing! Either that, or modern-Republicans have a short attention span.
Then again, maybe this is what Thomas Jefferson feared when he wrote this letter in 1802:
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
As they say, politics makes for strange bedfellows. And compromises. Is this what was envisioned years ago? Perhaps the implications was to not only keep religion out of the state (for freedom of religion purporses), but to also keep the politics out of the church. For if once grievous abominations in the eyes of the moral majority can now become a minor difference, if those pushing for a return to a “Judeo-Christian baseline” will support the perceived “morality” more than the man, whom will the masses follow? Who has become their God now? Is it chasing after power? Is it honoring morality as equivalence to righteousness? Or has the self-proclaimed holy-water been muddied by the hands of agenda. For as power corrupts, are we so blind as to believe that the lust for such power is absent in the holy hands of the politically motivated Christian leader? For this nation, let’s hope history hasn’t been devoid of its lessons.
Robertson is irrelevant. He represents a very tiny percentage of Christians, and most serious Christian leaders disavowed him long ago. I wrote about this on my blog when it happened two weeks ago, and said that “God is merely his puppet, whose name he invokes to gather support for his personal crusades.”
There are many things about Giuliani that I don’t like. But perhaps the biggest indictment in my mind comes from some of the New York City firefighters. If you are not familiar with their accusations, let me sum them up. They claim that Giuliani supplied them with faulty radios that were not adequately tested before they were distributed. When the radios were determined to be faulty, those radios were sent back, leaving the firefighters with the exact same radios they had during the first World Trade Center attack in 1993. Those radios didn’t work either, and when the call was made for the firefighters to vacate the WTC buildings on 9/11, they didn’t receive the radio transmissions. So they died needlessly. And we’ve all been told they stayed because they were so heroic. Anyway, that’s just part of the story. And some of these firefighters plan on starting a political action committee (PAC) similar to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to tell their side of the story.
I respect Pat Robertson. CBN is a good organization that does a lot for furthering the gospel of the kingdom. That said, one should only follow a leader to the extent they follow Christ. And as much as I love and respect Pat Robertson, I think he began to get off course when he became increasingly more politically motivated. In my mind that does not discredit his labor of love, but I can see why others might not feel that way. But to all who call themselves Christians, I leave with you this scripture, Galatians 6:1:
“Brethren, if a man be overtaken in a fault, ye which are spiritual, restore such an one in the spirit of meekness; considering thyself, lest thou also be tempted.”
Pat Robertson is a charlatan… have you heard about his bragging about being able to leg press 2,000 pounds so he could sell his energy drink? Did you know he was a faith healer in the vein of Benny Hinn 30 years ago? Did you know that he called for the assassination of Hugo Chavez? He discredits Christians everywhere. He may at one time have been a solid Christian, but that is many many years ago. Just because his organization is good doesn’t mean much.
I guess I don’t see how the radios thing is a legit argument against Giuliani. After all, I really doubt that Giuliani personally was involved in the radio situation. Perhaps he could have done better and might be ultimately responsible, but faulty radios, seriously? I think he gets (and takes) too MUCH credit for the 9/11 response and handling, but this is overboard.
I don’t think Robertson is irrelevant, but he might be out of touch. The bizarre thing is that the reasons why he shouldn’t support Giuliani are exactly the reasons that I think should be non-issues. Presidents have very little impact on abortion laws or gay rights, so I’m not too concerned about where a candidate stands on those issues. And the reasons why Robertson endorses Giuliani (his foreign policy) are the reasons I believe he is unfit to be President.
Jew, you are quite wrong that presidents don’t impact abortion laws. I’m not sure where you get this idea, but I know it’s repeated a lot by some folks. Bush has repeatedly fought against federal funding of abortions, something Clinton promoted. He also fought for, and won, a ban on partial-birth abortion (a small step in the fight against abortion as a whole). Bush promoted parental rights and medical notification of mothers in abortion centers, both of which help to reduce abortion. Most importantly, Bush has added two judges to SCOTUS who would overturn Roe v. Wade if given the opportunity. Giuliani would do none of these, though he does promise to appoint conservative judges. However, this promise is pretty empty in and of itself.
The most accurate statement about presidents’ lack-of-effect is regarding economics. Bush has helped with his tax cuts, but really, our economy pretty much does what it wants, no matter how liberal or conservative the policies.
Giuliani’s a cross-dressing Caeser wannabe. Seriously, you can see him parading around in drag at several events. Just search for it on Youtube. Not that I don’t support a person’s individual rights to be “flamboyent”, but it does betray his tough-cop dictator image. As for Robertson loving such a outright police state liberal, he’s always been a bad actor portraying a pseudo-man-of-God. His motives have always been political and not always reflective of someone who is advocating for religeous people. In other words, he exists to manipulate people of faith into voting a certain way…this year it’s Judy Riuliani.
If you a person of faith and you happen to still believe in the U.S. Constitution and real conservatism take a look at Ron Paul. You won’t see this 10-term republican congressman wearing a dress but what you will see is a man of great integrity with an impeccable public service record. Thanks.
“I guess I don’t see how the radios thing is a legit argument against Giuliani. After all, I really doubt that Giuliani personally was involved in the radio situation. Perhaps he could have done better and might be ultimately responsible, but faulty radios, seriously? I think he gets (and takes) too MUCH credit for the 9/11 response and handling, but this is overboard.”
I disagree. If you are the mayor, the buck stops with you. If he was not personally involved, then that in itself could be viewed as an issue. The guy on top can always pass the buck to his “Brownie,” but really the buck stops with the one in charge. If something happens in the Bush administration, Bush has got to take some of the heat for it; it is, after all, the Bush administration. Same thing goes for local politics. When you are the mayor, you are ultimately responsible for the security of the city - even if your underlings have immediate responsibility.
I do agree that he takes too much credit for the handling of 9/11. He mentions it in nearly every speech he gives, and he has made a considerable living doing it.
Presidents can’t pass laws. It’s as simple as that. The only effect a President can have is by appointing Supreme Court justices (whose voting patterns can never be predicted in advance, so it’s a crapshoot) and by being a public advocate for a certain policy (in the hopes that someone in his party will submit that policy as a bill in Congress.)
Regarding the Justices, I’m not convinced that either of Bush’s appointees would vote to overturn Roe v. Wade. They might vote to limit its impact, or strip away some of its effectiveness, but an outright overturning of that landmark case is wildly improbable.
And for the advocacy, there are plenty of groups working through the courts and the state legislatures. The President’s involvement isn’t critical or even very effective at influencing the law or the courts.
And you can’t give Bush credit for the partial-birth abortion ban. That was in the works for years before Bush even ran for office. Clinton vetoed it a couple of times, sure, so I guess you can claim a President can have an impact that way. But when it was finally passed the last time, it was with a veto-proof majority, so it wouldn’t have mattered who was President. That’s my point: this stuff is ultimately out of the hands of the President.
Jew, so you think the partial-birth ban would have gone through if Clinton was in power? Do you not remember that he vetoed those bans when he was president?
Both Roberts and Alito are very much against Roe v. Wade, and will vote to overturn it. I see Roe v. Wade having no more than 10 years of life left. However, the fight against abortion will obviously run much longer, as the fight would then go to the states.
Er, sorry, the bill wasn’t passed with a veto-proof majority in the Senate. My mistake.
Darius said: “Jew, so you think the partial-birth ban would have gone through if Clinton was in power?”
Eventually, yes. By 2005 I suspect there would have been enough votes in the Senate to get the bill through regardless of who was President.
Yes, but had Clinton not been the President, it would have been passed 10 years earlier. That’s a big difference.
Darius wrote: Robertson is irrelevant. He represents a very tiny percentage of Christians, and most serious Christian leaders disavowed him long ago. I wrote about this on my blog when it happened two weeks ago, and said that “God is merely his puppet, whose name he invokes to gather support for his personal crusades.”
That’s not so much my point. I’m not saying that Robertson represents American Christianity (though he does still have a large following, despite yours AND mine’s obvious disgust with the man), but more of commenting on how far politics can blur the issues even in Christianity. My point was that a man can rant and rave about abortion all day long, then jump ship, shrug it off, and back someone who supports what he once couldn’t stand. I compared this as well to moral/values voting groups who call for a return to our “Chfristian Roots”, then back a Mormon. It’s about power and the worship of values more than Christianity.
Yes, but had Clinton not been the President, it would have been passed 10 years earlier. That’s a big difference.
Maybe yes, maybe no. The whole point being that such a small, insignificant amount of abortions are indeed partial-birth, it was mostly irrevalant in the long run. It wasn’t so much a move in the right direction as it is a distraction. Do you want to get rid of abortion? Start by redefining when life begins at the legal level. Then again, you’d have to get all the anti-abortion groups/lobbies to agree on this issue. Unless you can place the argument in a way that can be understood at a cross-cultural level, the “IT’S A SIN! IT’S MURDER!” won’t work, due to differences in perception of when “life” (and therefore, individual rights) begins.
“My point was that a man can rant and rave about abortion all day long, then jump ship, shrug it off, and back someone who supports what he once couldn’t stand. I compared this as well to moral/values voting groups who call for a return to our “Christian Roots”, then back a Mormon. It’s about power and the worship of values more than Christianity.”
That’s what I took away from the article. And I think it definitely echoes the way I feel about it. I just don’t see how he can characterize their disagreements as minor. It just doesn’t add up. And yeah, great article by the way. And with regards to the Mormon thing, my sentiments exactly. I mean I just can’t vote for someone who holds those kinds of cultic religious beliefs. A religion who perverts the identity of the Son of God and says he is the “spirit brother” of Satan is well…not good, regardless of their so-called shared values.
That’s what I took away from the article. And I think it definitely echoes the way I feel about it. I just don’t see how he can characterize their disagreements as minor. It just doesn’t add up. And yeah, great article by the way. And with regards to the Mormon thing, my sentiments exactly. I mean I just can’t vote for someone who holds those kinds of cultic religious beliefs. A religion who perverts the identity of the Son of God and says he is the “spirit brother” of Satan is well…not good, regardless of their so-called shared values.
Well, I’ll be honest, I’m not much one for voting morals OR relgion/beliefs, as I don’t think they have much to do with politics. I want someone to protect my rights to freedom of my religion, and not use their own religion/interpretations to impress upon me how I SHOULD be feeling/doing. Like I said, religion and politics make for strange bedfellows with WAY too many compromises. If I respect their beliefs, I would hope they would respect mine, by leaving mine alone and leaving theirs out of their job. Unless we are a specific religious government, it needs to be kept personal.
While I agree with you about Mormons, my ultimate point was that these groups that tend to push for “Christian only” are now backing a Mormon? As you said, over VALUES? I guess it doesn’t surprise me…I don’t think it was every about “godliness” for such groups, as it was for the worship of “morals”. That’s my issue with much of American Christians, they view percieved morality as almost equivalence of righteousness. I guess even values/morals can be idols.
Oh, and thanks for the kind words. I don’t get the time to write much, so I appreciate the positive feedback.
Glad you enjoyed the article, and I think we are pretty much on the same page about this. Maybe Thomas Jefferson, amidst his own forms of heresy, hit the nail on the head with the “seperation” idea. Like I said, for the mutual survival of both church and state.
“Well, I’ll be honest, I’m not much one for voting morals OR relgion/beliefs, as I don’t think they have much to do with politics. I want someone to protect my rights to freedom of my religion, and not use their own religion/interpretations to impress upon me how I SHOULD be feeling/doing. Like I said, religion and politics make for strange bedfellows with WAY too many compromises.”
Yeah, I agree basically. I had already decided to vote for Paul way before I heard him say that he was a Christian. And I respect the fact that he is reluctant to speak about his religious beliefs in the political arena precisely because of the conflicts of interests of those who wear their religion on their political sleeves.