AAARRRRGGGH! Ya beat me to it.
Obviously, that is INDEED what it means!
Posted on 11/08/2007 12:13:54 PM PST by EveningStar
When Rudy Giuliani captured the endorsement of Christian Coalition founder and 700 Club host Pat Robertson Wednesday, many heads turned. Why did it happen? What does it mean?...
(Excerpt) Read more at townhall.com ...
It means Robertson is senile?!
Or desperate for significance.
Time to hang it up, Pat.
So ALL conservative evangelicals respect Pat Robertson’s opinion? Give me a break.
A rooty toot endorses the Rudy Toot. What a thrill!
My preference is Duncan Hunter with Thompson running a distant and extremely weak second.
It means little more than, “Pat Robertson’s brain has left the building...”
Why only the mention of Guiliani and Romney?
I would hope that the folks over at TownHall aren’t limiting their selection to these two. Yikes.
It means that rooite told him he would visit the Whithouse often and that he could be the next “Billy Graham” (in pat’s mind).
LLS
“So ALL conservative evangelicals respect Pat Robertson’s opinion?”
No, but those who did now have their issues cleared up.
This and other views by Hugh have left him useless to the right IMO. I listen to the guy once in a while, but just about always come away with the same conclusion.
On some things he's good, but what value is that if it's just going to lead people to think his views on this type of matter is also reasoned?
This is one of those endorsements that only hurts the endorser.
“On some things he’s good, but what value is that if it’s just going to lead people to think his views on this type of matter is also reasoned?”
Hugh doesn’t analyze, he only cheer leads, the first election I went through with him (early 90s?) he was so convincing and positive about the outcome that I distrusted my own take on the situation. Hugh turned out to be totally wrong, I have learned that he only has one speed, “salesman”.
I agree with you!!There is no other way to put it..CBN will lose and it will be because of this..He might as well have backed Hillary Clinton..
Well he’s too much of a (political) party animal for me. If it’s handed down from on high by the RP, count Hugh on board. I haven’t been able to back that idea at all since 1992.
I agree with you, and what he is selling I find I’m not able to buy, all too often.
Those votes won't matter much.
However, IMO there'll be a wave of voters on Feb 5th that endorse Rudy in spite of religious differences.
Remember, until Reagan the evangelical south typically voted dim.
It's a relatively small percentage of people that will vote AGAINST Rudy due to his position on abortion or gays. Far more will vote against him because of his hard-line stance against the jihad.
Whether the socons care to admit it or not, Rudy would put many traditionally blue states in play in the general election, including CA and NY.
I don't believe he'd lose a single red state in the process.
AAARRRRGGGH! Ya beat me to it.
Obviously, that is INDEED what it means!
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.