don't confused upholding FED law which when one takes the oath of office!
Posted on 11/07/2007 9:59:13 AM PST by 2ndDivisionVet
The Why
Both Giuliani and Robertson share an apocalyptic worldview about the clash with [radical] Islam; for Robertson, it is religious and based in biblical prophecy. For Giuliani, it is secular -- but given his 9/11 experiences, just as personal.
Evangelical Christians cite the war on terror as their chief policy concern, and it is not that surprising that Giuliani, who is more identified with an aggressive prosecution of that war than any other candidate, is doing well among evangelicals. It's not that they ignore his views on social issues; it's that they see the war on terror like he does: black-and-white, good-versus-evil, a struggle for the soul of civilization.
Robertson's legacy is greater than his influence these days, but remember: in 2000, it was John McCain's attacks against Robertson (and Jerry Falwell) that arguably doomed his campaign after South Carolina. Social conservatives may be warier of Robertson than they once were, but he is a pillar of their movement and is greatly responsible for legitimating their political activism.
And here's why this endorsement matters politically:
Unlike Paul Weyrich, who endorsed Mitt Romney yesterday, actual voters have heard of Pat Robertson. Actual voters in Iowa helped place second in the 1988 Iowa caucuses.
Robertson is the most significant conservative Christian to endorse, and his endorsement goes to Rudy.
What does that tell you about the state of the GOP race?
(Excerpt) Read more at marcambinder.theatlantic.com ...
He is just the latest in a series of faux conservatives stampeded into thinking that the country has turned sharply left and the only way to prevent the disaster of a Hitlery reign is to pick a Hitlery lite.
Amnesty is Rudi's achilles heel. Once it is driven home that he not only supported anmesty, but made NYC a sanctuary city to impose it on the rest of the country, the 78% or so of the country who doesn't wish for the United States to become Mexico Norte is going to reject him.
Don’t faze me, Bro.
Posted many many times today. We get the point.
BTW, who is in on this conspiracy? The “vast elite establishment”?
Laura Ingraham was upset at the “elites” backing RG today, then Lou Dobbs was on her show to complain about the “elite corporations” backing RG and Hillary.
But they did not name names, but it is popular to use this parlance.
The fact that the polls in the primary states are from those citizens, not elites.
And the primaries are VERY fluid, endorsements don’t make a candidate.
Its kinda looking that way more and more. All I can say is, if the powers that be within the GOP, want either an abortionist named Rudy, or a recent converted abortionist named Romney, as the GOP nominee in 2008, then there is no doubt. The Republican Party has betrayed its conservative roots and its pro-life agenda. Sad and pathetic. Hard to believe the Republican Party is so willing to embrace liberalism.
BS.
Pat is a used-to-be. He is irrelevant.
FWIW, Dr. Dobson is THE most significant Christian.....
After all the emphasis on the abortion issue, do you really think RG or MR will appoint pro-abortion judges? I just don’t think they would pull a Souter.
Hey I may write in Pat's name. If he were elected the last time, we would have avoided 9/11, sending jobs to China, and illegal immigration. Plus his views on gay marriage and abortion are right on. Pat come back, the country needs you.
The GOP candidates need to do to Rudy what the Dems did to Hillary in the last debate... attack and expose.
This could be a silly theory, but maybe his support could draw fire away from a probe into the financial dealings of his ministry?
duncan hunter too liberal for you?
LLS
He's a close second. Rudy is at the rump end.
This is an analysis of the news, not so the articles you linked to. It is not the AP story.
You’re third of the Robertson thread posters to use that excuse for not searching.
I knew that there were “Pat Robertson endorses Rudy” articles already, I had posted on some of them. This piece is Marc Ambinder’s analysis of what the endorsement means, not the announcement of its occurence. Do you see the difference, MI FRiend?
No Giuliani, NO PROBLEM.
Is your head ready to explode? ;^)
don't confused upholding FED law which when one takes the oath of office!
I don’t agree that we conservatives are in big trouble. We have two leading candidates to choose from without stooping to embrace a liberal like Rootie. If leadership experience is the issue, Romney has more than Rudy and if being more conservative on ALL our important issues is more important, Fred Thompson and Ducan Hunter are leaders for our values. The hype over this dissonance is getting laughable.
Guess our work is cut out for us..
The grass roots now have to beat the RATS and the Republican Party!!
It's got to happen or we're doomed!!!
I knew this was coming for some time. Like I said on another thread. Pat`s returned to his Democratic roots -— LIBERALISM.
I’m sure old Absalom Willis Robertson is turning over in his grave. LOL
>I knew this was coming for some time.<
Me too. Pat’s always had kind of a soft spot for Rudy...
When did Pat Robertson become relevant again?
If his endorsement of Rudy means anything, then the GOP might as well mail the election in now to the DNC. No GOP liberal will beat Hitlary...and will cost the GOP House and Senate seats
It is obvious that Robertson is not a conservative (he is a globalist)...and I am beginning to doubt if he really is a Christian..
I think this is a no brainier. The Islamofascism has already stated it wants a war with the west. Iran wants the apocalypse with the west to usher in the hidden Mahdi. The question is, who is qualified to fight this war?? Hillary - No, Obama - No, The Breck girl - No.
What really makes you think Rudy is qualified to fight it?
>>>>>Romney Never was an aboirtionist NEVER!
There is too much historic evidence against Romney. His 2005 political epiphany, comes across more like another case of political expediency.
~ Romney ran against Senator Edward M. Kennedy in 1994. During a debate, Romney declared: 'I believe that abortion should be safe and legal in this country. I have since the time that my mom took that position when she ran in 1970 as a US Senate candidate. I believe that since Roe v. Wade has been the law for 20 years we should sustain and support it.' " (NOTE: Romney has supported abortion since before the 1972 Roe v. Wade ruling!) - Boston Globe, 3/2/2006
~ "On a questionnaire Planned Parenthood gave to the gubernatorial candidates in 2002, Romney answered ''yes" to the question, 'Do you support the substance of the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade?' Romney also professed support for state funding of abortion services for low-income women, [Erin] Rowland [spokeswoman for the Planned Parenthood League of Massachusetts] said." - Boston Globe, 3/25/2005
~ "Marie Sturgis, legislative director of Massachusetts Citizens for Life, said she hasn't detected any change in Romney's stance. The group considers Romney to be an abortion-rights supporter, as do national antiabortion groups such as the Family Research Council." - Boston Globe, 3/25/2005
~ "Romney, a Republican and the former Winter Olympics chief, was endorsed by the New York-based Republican Pro-Choice Coalition. He mentioned his mother, Lenore Romney, who favored abortion rights when she ran for the U.S. Senate in 1970, even before the 1973 Roe v. Wade case affirmed women's constitutional right to abortions. . . . Lynn Grefe, director of the Republican Pro-Choice Coalition, applauded Romney's 'commitment to family planning and protecting a woman's right to choose' in a letter on Wednesday." - Associated Press / New Bedford Standard-Times 10/3/2002
~ In 2002, Romney responded to the National Abortion Rights Action League's candidate survey: ''I respect and will protect a woman's right to choose. This choice is a deeply personal one. Women should be free to choose based on their own beliefs, not mine and not the government's. The truth is, no candidate in the governor's race in either party would deny women abortion rights." Notably, Romney refused to answer the candidate questionnaire sent to him by Massachusetts Citizens for Life. - Boston Globe, 7/3/2005
“When did Pat Robertson become relevant again?”
Who said he was relevant?
Rudy: who knows? He’s been mayor of a big city. Maybe the most complicated city in America. So what? That doesn’t give him military or foreign policy experience. So he can talk tough - BF Deal.
Everything I keep hearing all conservatives say they want in a candidate, Duncan Hunter has. I’m not a shill, I’m a fiscally and culturally conservative American who hasn’t given money to any candidate because, as a member of the military, I’m not permitted to. But I keep wondering, what the heck is WRONG with Hunter, other than the fact he hasn’t raised enough money, isn’t sexy and never gets to answer more than one question at a televised debate. Can anybody tell me what position he’s taken that isn’t fiscally or culturally conservative?
Colonel, USAFR
Romney was Never on demand he personally was always prolife and counsel all those when was a Bishop or Stake president to carry the child full term and allowing the child to be adoptive!
Pat Robertson, that old Commie-loving wolf in sheep’s clothing. What an absolute sl*t.
I understand he's great on so many issues..We don't hear too much about him.
What I have heard is that he is for open borders.
I would like to know if that's true.
You are confused. When a man defends abortion and even supports it for family members, he is not pro-life, he is pro-choice. He may have changed that persepctive now, but he was pro-choice and said so. Try to keep up, even if it means confronting reality about your favorite candidate.
I think Rudy told Pat Robertson that he would give him a Scalia in return for his support. If so, it was too good an offer for Robertson to pass up. I hope that’s all there was involved here.
“What I have heard is that he (Hunter) is for open borders.” And absolute wrong assertion. Of ALL the candidates who we may be guaranteed would build the fence to stem the invasion flood, Hunter is the ONLY one we could trust to try and get it done.
No you are confused in politics good people need to find a way through the communist maze!
Your comment is absurd. You haven’t actually read what Dobson has written or heard what he has to say. His comment have been misinterpreted.
“A recent letter to the editor erroneously mentioned that Dr. James Dobson has suggested “abandoning the GOP and forming a third party that is more distinctly Christian in orientation.”
Dr. Dobson has been very candid about his voting strategy, publicly acknowledging that he votes according to his principles, not for “the lesser of two evils.” Dr. Dobson accepts that his approach may lead him to cast a ballot for a candidate outside a major party - not in the primaries, but in the eventual general election.
At no point, however, has Dr. Dobson said he wants to start, or will cooperate with the start of, a third political party. He has simply encouraged others to consider a principle-based candidate selection strategy come election time, even if that means voting for someone outside the mainstream.”
Where in my post did I say Rudy was qualified to fight it? I merely posed the question. The democrats have no leadership to offer.
I think he has the ability to lead, the question is can he pull the trigger?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elx3UWmyAY4 Click here
Where in my post did I say Rudy was qualified to fight it? I merely posed the question. The democrats have no leadership to offer.
You responded to a section of this sentence:
Both Giuliani and Robertson share an apocalyptic worldview about the clash with [radical] Islam; for Robertson, it is religious and based in biblical prophecy. For Giuliani, it is secular -- but given his 9/11 experiences, just as personal.
with the comment that it was a "no-brainer." I apologize for thinking that you were endorsing the entirety of the sentiment.
But what do the Democrats have to do with it? Nobody seriously thinks that Robertson would endorse a Democrat. What's at issue here is which Republican he endorsed and why.
I hate that. "His 9/11 experiences" aren't any more "personal" than mine or my fellow countryman's. It was OUR nation that was attacked.
Does anyone really believe Giuliani has some special insight into national security? Particularly given his naivete on illegal immigration?
I sure do. Your thread is exactly what I've been looking for more of all morning since I heard the news...intelligent political analysis of a development I just simply do not get.
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.