Posted on 11/07/2007 6:41:35 AM PST by xzins
Robertson to Back Giuliani By LIZ SIDOTI Associated Press Writer
MANCHESTER, N.H. (AP) - Pat Robertson, a prominent Christian leader and social conservative, will endorse Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, GOP officials confirmed Wednesday.
The former New York mayor backs abortion rights and gay rights, positions that put him in conflict with GOP orthodoxy, and has been trying to convince cultural conservatives to overlook their differences with him on those issues. That makes the support of a high-profile religious conservative like Robertson a particular boon.
Giuliani, the front-runner in national popularity polls, and Robertson will make the endorsement official later Wednesday at a news conference in Washington. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to avoid publicly pre-empting the announcement.
The endorsement is a blow to rival Mitt Romney, who has been making inroads with the powerful network of social conservative leaders. Romney recently announced that Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III were on board with his candidacy, and he had been seeking Robertson's support.
Robertson, who unsuccessfully ran for president in 1988, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network, the Christian Coalition and Regent University in Virginia Beach.
Which candidate(s) have discussed the Arab Muslim "Big Lie" (about "Palestine") in a public forum, on national television, and have vowed to put an end to it?
From 1994 to 2001 G. was mayor of New York City, population 8 million. Remember that?
During that time all crime statistics dropped by 30 to 50 percent. G. had added about 30 percent more LEOs to the NYPD by the end of of his second year in office.
I could go on but I hope you get the point.
Shows he good at delegating but I learned something else interesting about him today. (see post 79 above) It seems he lets his petty jealousy take precedence over the good of those he is supposed to be defending. Doesn’t say much about his potential to be CIC, does it?
Uh - I recommend you read post 79 above. It doesn’t really matter who started it. It matters who enforced it.
Did that come from DNC Opposition Research, like much of the other libelous swill posted by Values Voters about Newt and Giuliani?
I guess you've had this problem w/math for a while now? Let's see, you could have the terrorists repeat 9/11 every day since 9/11 & you still can't match the daily number of abortions in this country.
We were imploding from the inside-out long before bin Laden took aim @ our country. (Of course. I understand. It's pretty easy for all of us, myself included, to be elitists & not threatened by the war on the womb now that we've escaped that deadliest place on earth)
This is exactly why you and Perkins and the lot of you need to make good on your threat to form your own monomaniacal Anti-Abortion Party.
As it stands now, your association with us standard-issue Republican Conservatives means that you're forced to twist and manipulate words and reality to give your issue urgent primacy among the many issues we're concerned about, one of which, but not the only one, is abortion. Abortion is not "war on the womb" it's a bad law permitting a barbaric practice which must be changed. Period. But it is not the only issue.
I know "war on the womb" is a dramatic sound bite, but one could just as easily make the case that (for example) the pending and growing Islamist threat is a war on the womb, the testicles, the fetus, the toddler, and the adult American. Are we to wait until al Qaeda has detonated 10 nukes in 10 American cities before we give terrorism the same primacy you;d like to have for abortion? I think not.
So again I think you should go with Huckster and Perkins, so that we Conservative Republicans can reassume the clarity of our 150-year-old message and principles, and so that you can promote your single issue Anti-Abortion platform without any further histrionics and drama or dilution by your ... ahem .... "association" with our Grand Old Party. (I'll leave it to you to determine why I've italicized the relationship as an "assocation").
OK, how can we be speaking past each other on this one when you openly concede its barbarism? A "barbaric practice" is usually relegated to experiments on animals, war atrocities, or violent exchanges in society.
Call it what you will, if there was a particular turf in this country where you could be killed with impunity; and if you were deemed inconvenient, too disabled, too expensive, too intrusive, or too whatever, then if you choose NOT to call your forthcoming potential dismemberment as something other than "warfare," so be it.
But it is not the only issue.
Never said it was.
...one could just as easily make the case that (for example) the pending and growing Islamist threat is a war on the womb, the testicles, the fetus, the toddler, and the adult American. Are we to wait until al Qaeda has detonated 10 nukes in 10 American cities before we give terrorism the same primacy you'd like to have for abortion? I think not...So again I think you should go with Huckster and Perkins.
Again, it's not like we're on distinct pages here. I'm sure if I perused Perkins' daily e-mail messages to his constituents, there might be one two-week period I could find where he didn't mention pro-life concerns but mentioned Islamofascism. (Yet I wouldn't start railing against him for failing to speak out for the pre-born & advise him to take his "Islamophobia" packing from the Republican party...talk about somebody who's "extemist"...I keep envisioning your front door as you slam repeatedly slam it upon showing your guests the exit as quickly as possible...maybe you can apply to be a hospitality greeter @ the GOP Convention this year?)
...you can promote your single issue Anti-Abortion platform...
"Single-issue" is your words, not mine. I wouldn't dare to operate as a judgmental mind-reader and say that terrorism was your only concern 'cause I'm sure you're a more complicated individual than that.
But the fact that you can so easily reduce your pre-born neighbors to the level of a mere "issue" is quite telling. In Germany, the "question" was once upon a time the "Jewish question." In the West, the "issue" is the "abortion issue." Had even the Jewish advocates 60-70 years ago or the supposed pro-lifers of this country in these past 35 years actually lived out their rhetoric that these were actual people at risk, more of them would have been protected.
Instead, we get invectives hurled at their protectors by even those who concede, "Yup, it's a barbaric practice..."
I believe people should do what they want for as long as they want. Robertson has every right to speak his piece. We have the right to disagree.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.