Posted on 11/08/2007 11:50:54 AM PST by bulldozer
I have known, liked and admired Pat Robertson for about 25 years – maybe more.
Pat has said and done some dumb things occasionally during that period of time, but, until this week, I would have counted him among the "good guys" – a righteous man of principle.
With his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for president of the United States, he has me doubting him – big time.
Keep in mind, this is the presidential primary season. I admit, the choices among the front-runners – Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Mike Huckabee, John McCain and Mitt Romney – leave a principled constitutionalist with a biblical worldview in doubt. In my opinion, there is no clear choice among them.
(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...
Wonder why all these idiots are selling out. Well, we aren’t.
I have been wondering the same thing. They are simply nuts.
Understatement of the Year.
He chose an interview with the anti-abortion Sean Hannity, who is inexplicably besotted with the former mayor, to roll out his updated abortion position to a conservative audience. He told Hannity: "I hate it":
I think abortion is something that, as a personal matter, I would advise somebody against."
This is similar to something he said during his unsuccessful mayoral bid in 1989, except he left out the part where he said he would pay for his daughter's abortion. People who "hate" abortion don't usually pony up the cash to pay for one:
"I have a daughter now," Giuliani told TV’s Phil Donahue. "I would give my personal advice, my religious and moral views…I would help her with taking care of the baby. But if the ultimate choice of the woman -- my daughter or any other woman -- would be that in this particular circumstance, to have an abortion, I'd support that. I'd give my daughter the money for it."
He also said in the interview:
I've said that I'll uphold a woman's right of choice, that I will fund abortion so that a poor woman is not deprived of a right that others can exercise, and that I would oppose going back to a day in which abortions were illegal.
http://www.powers-point.com/2007/02/rudy-rehablitation-watch-he-was-against.html
BLITZER: How do you balance your historic support for closer relation with China, improved trade relations with China, with what many conservatives complain about, specifically the so-called forced abortions in China?
ROBERTSON: Well, you know, I don't agree with it. But at the same time, they've got 1.2 billion people, and they don't know what to do. If every family over there was allowed to have three or four children, the population would be completely unsustainable.
Right now, they run the risk of a tremendous unemployment. There are some antiquated factories that the government owns that have to be shut down that is going to put hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people out of work. And the leadership is like on a teeter-totter board, they can fall off if the population gets too restive.
So, I think that right now they're doing what they have to do. I don't agree with the forced abortion, but I don't think the United States needs to interfere with what they're doing internally in this regard.
BLITZER: But in effect, won't your critics on the right be saying that Pat Robertson is justifying abortions in China?
ROBERTSON: Well, I just think they need to get involved in what's happening.
But I'll tell you what the Chinese are doing, and it's going to be a demographic catastrophe. When they're having abortions, they're picking the girl babies for the slaughter, and they're allowing only the males to be born. And in another, say, 10 or 20 years, there's going to be a critical shortage of wives. The young men won't have any women to marry, so it will, in a sense, dilute the -- what they consider the racial purity of the Han Chinese.
And that to them will be a great tragedy, because then they will have to be importing wives from Indonesia and others countries in order to fill up the population.
Pat might as well condone sinning and move on.
I am very disappointed in Pat.
We have known something was adrift among conservatives for the last few years.
I guess after this election cycle we will have a fresh new look at who is who, and where they have chosen to line up.
Already I think we can conclude that there will be many changes among the names of who the true leaders are, and who the hitchhikers were.
There’s only two conclusions to draw; either Robertson is a sellout, or hates Mormons so bad that he’s trying to prevent Romney from winning.
Wonder what this mook is gonna do is Fred Thompson wins the nomination? Take his ball and go home?
That Robertson is taken seriously as a religious leader is the real scandal.
After his dirty deals in Africa with blood diamonds, etc.
Funding abortion is forcing people to, without constitutional authority, pay for something they deem to be absolutely abhorrent.
If the pro-aborts are so adamant, and they have such a large support base as they claim, they should set up their own fund to provide abortions/eugenics for the poor.
Hear, hear. It’s one thing to reluctantly support someone like Giuliani (if nominated) vs. someone like Hillary. It’s something altogether different to try to support a pro-abortion candidate before the primaries. With this, Robertson loses his last vestige of credibility (of the very little he had left).
According to my late father-in-law, who went to college with him, Robertson has been a bum most of his life.
My feeling as well.
However, you are being too kind by half by continuing to refer to them as conservatives.
You lose the conservative moniker once you sell out ALL of your principles and decide to support an extreme Liberal such as Rudy.
There are several so-called conservatives that I have lost my trust in and respect for. The following is the short list:
1. Robertson
2. Hannity
3. Medved
4. Ted Olson
5. Fred Barnes
I refuse to read their articles or listen to their shows until they get their minds and hearts right.
They are a waste of my time.
Having personally met Pat Robertson a number of times in pro life political endeavors, I too was at first stunned by his endorsement of Rudy. However, I have decided to withhold judgment until we get a bit further into this election cycle to see if Rudy remains the GOP front runner.
If one is honest with themselves before God, in politics there comes a time when one has to answer the question; whether it is more noble to compromise and at least achieve or effect less ambitious but doable steps toward the ideal of good than it is to uncompromisingly continue to fight for a more perfect ideal or goal which is within the current circumstance largely unachievable.
If in fact the promises Rudy exchanged for Pat’s endorsement ends up in a meaningful way predetermining the sort of judicial nominees Rudy might choose if elected, then Pat’s sacrifice of his reputation with this GOP front runner at this time may well end up playing a far more determinate role in effecting the future of the abortion and homosexual issues religious conservative care about in this country than anything some posturing wind bag running for office might express to them.
How did medved end up on the list, i used to listen but haven’t paid attention lately
He has been real soft on Rudy to the point of an implicit endorsement and he came out real strong against Thompson basically saying that it is over there is no way he is going to win the nomination.
For any conservative to make that kind of statement when a strong conservative candidate is polling a strong 2nd this early in the game tells me he is not in the game to promote conservatism, but to promote the GOP.
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.