The avalanche of criticism falling on Pat Robertson for endorsing Rudy Giuliani is so overwhelming I almost feel bad for the guy. But he did what he did, and I think it tapped into that strong emotional reaction we all have when sensing hypocrisy.
Aside from much written commentary, the cartoon commentary is also expansive. Here's a sample. See 7 more on page 2:
Nick Anderson, Washington Post...
Tom Toles, Washington Post...
Henry Payne, Townhall.com...
Tony Auth, Philadelphia Inquirer...
Signe Wilkinson, Washington Post...
Henry Payne, Townhall.com...
Gary Varvel, Townhall.com...
Seriously, what was Robertson thinking???Posted by: Nathan Will Sheets at November 9, 2007 11:37 AM
Robertson was thinking that Hillary is the DEVIL, so Rudy is the best shot we have at beating Hillary and having conservative judicial appointments.
He was also thinking that Dobson's attempt at forming a 3rd party candidate would split the vote and we'd end up with Hillary.
At least, that's what I think he was thinking.Posted by: Jacqueline at November 9, 2007 11:42 AM
God, it's fun watching the conservative Christian movement self-destruct. It's about time.Posted by: tp at November 9, 2007 11:50 AM
God, it's fun watching the conservative Christian movement self-destruct. It's about time.
Since you escaped the womb unharmed you can say that. Glass houses.Posted by: Jacqueline at November 9, 2007 11:53 AM
Sometimes I really just can't understand you guys. Pat Robertson is one of the biggest jerks in politics. I don't see why anyone should care what he says- if anything, you're going to lose more of the moderates that were leaning Republican with his endorsement.Posted by: Erin at November 9, 2007 12:01 PM
tp, fine if you think that, but that's not what's going on here. There isn't a conservative split over what Robertson did, as my post pointed out.
There's something else going on here altogether, a mass condemnation of Robertson's actions and holding him accountable, which liberals don't do, which is why you don't understand it.Posted by: Jill Stanek at November 9, 2007 12:05 PM
Jill, if you want to eat your own, go ahead. Robertson has been as unChristian as they get for a long time, and we will enjoy watching him go down, along with any splintering of your side that comes with it.Posted by: Ray at November 9, 2007 12:21 PM
There isn't a conservative split over what Robertson did, as my post pointed out.
As of today, Giuliani is still the Republican front-runner, even though social conservatives almost universally LOATHE him. Pat Robertson decided to endorse him, probably hoping to promote unity and give Giuliani the boost he needs to compete with the Democrats, but it seems to have backfired on him. Now he's being disowned by the very movement he helped start.Posted by: tp at November 9, 2007 12:49 PM
Erin, I agree. This could really hurt Guiliani. Not because Robertson really matters, but because of his tendency to say shocking things. This might end up helping the other Repub canidates.Posted by: Carrie at November 9, 2007 1:07 PM
Thank you, Pat Robertson, for allowing us to see how Rudy will be pilloried by the media should he be nominated as the Republican standard bearer. Republicans--are you ready for months of this?
Also it is worth noting that the "religious right" is often characterized as a single issue constituency. Now we have Pat Robertson endorsing someone that does not exactly fit the mode of a single issue candidate. One would think that the leftist media would be applauding the newfound enlightenment of the right!
Of course their reaction to Rev. Robertson's endorsement is just what one would expect because their previous criticisms were insincere to begin with.Posted by: Jerry Nickels at November 9, 2007 1:42 PM
"As of today, Giuliani is still the Republican front-runner, even though social conservatives almost universally LOATHE him."
Wasn't DEAN the front runner until Iowa? We'll see what happens. Just because the polls tell us one thing doesn't mean it's true.Posted by: Kristen at November 9, 2007 2:02 PM
Am I missing something here? Why is Gary Varvel calling Giuliani a woman?Posted by: Leah at November 9, 2007 2:12 PM
Love rejoices when truth prevails, and it doesn't seem that either Robertson or Guiliani, much less Hitlary, Obama, & co. has been particularly zealous for socially salvific truth, at least in this campaign. But no one who exults in the moral downfall or destruction of others is in a position to evaluate anyone else's Christianness or lack of it, Ray, tp, etc,ad naus. It is, however, the sort of thing we have come to expect from people who support torturing babies to death legally, at any time, for any reason or no reason.Posted by: flynn at November 9, 2007 4:01 PM
But no one who exults in the moral downfall or destruction of others is in a position to evaluate anyone else's Christianness or lack of it, Ray, tp, etc,ad naus.
Au contraire, Flynn, there is no hypocrisy here. We aren't the ones out there proclaiming our "Christianness" while continuing a practice of making statements offensive to just about everybody on the planet.Posted by: Ray at November 9, 2007 5:38 PM
Jill, that's a great collection of cartoons.
I'd think candidates would want to stay away from Robertson - how many people really think he's not a nutjob? Oh well, I guess he'd bring some votes, eh?
DougPosted by: Doug at November 9, 2007 7:34 PM
This statement from Robertson on China's forced abortion policy was covered on Bob Enyart LIVE the evening after the endorsement.
* Robertson Defends Forced Abortion: Pat Robertson discussed on CNN's Wolf Blitzer Reports on Dec. 16, 2001 China's forced abortion and their outlawing of brothers and sisters. "I don't agree with it," Robertson said, "but at the same time they've got 1.2 billion people, and they don't know what to do. ... I think that right now, they're doing what they have to do. I don't agree with forced abortion, but I don't think the United States needs to interfere with what they're doing internally in this regard." Denver Bible Church pastor Bob Enyart says to Pat Robertson, "Christians should not defend mass murderers. The Chinese need us to bring them liberty and Christianity, not to defend the slaughter of their children. It's bizarre that Pat Robertson says he's against abortion, except where it's forced, then he's for it. Moral relativism has brought the ‘pro-life' Republican movement into a post-Christian era.Posted by: Zeke13:19 at November 10, 2007 4:02 AM
Forced abortion is an egregious human rights violation.
So Pat Robertson doesn't support human rights for women or children.Posted by: hippie at November 10, 2007 2:38 PM
Since you escaped the womb unharmed you can say that. Glass houses.
It's rather telling that you consider the womb to be a prison to be escaped from. Why do you believe so?Posted by: Jaxebad at November 10, 2007 4:49 PM
Found your blog through a friend, keep up the good work.Posted by: Caleb at November 11, 2007 5:24 PM
PETA endorsing Michael Vick for Dogcatcher -- hahahhahahhaaaaPosted by: Doug at November 12, 2007 10:04 PM