Pro-abortion. Pro-gay rights. And now, Giuliani's endorsed by the founder of the Christian Coalition. Well, I guess that answers the question, "Does Pat Robertson care more about principle, or power?"
On the other hand, let me be more even-handed. Robertson explained that fighting Islamofascism is an issue of overriding importance to him, and that Giuliani is the best candidate in that sense. That makes sense to me. I don't agree with him, but what Robertson is saying is that this particular issue is so important that it cancels out Giuliani's objectionable stances. OK, fine, fine. Again, I strongly disagree -- a Giuliani presidency would be horrible in the long term for the social-conservative wing of the GOP -- but if fighting Islamic terrorism really is by far the overriding issue for you, then the Robertson move makes sense. Besides, as I've argued, the Christian right has lost the argument on gay rights in the culture, and lost its last real opportunity to stop gay marriage at the constitutional level in 2005. That horse has left the barn.
But for those who agree with Robertson's reasoning, let's not hear any complaints about Christian conservatives who disagree with Barack Obama (say) on abortion and gay rights, but who want to vote for him because other issues (the Iraq war, for example) strike them as more pressing and urgent than abortion or gay rights.
Regarding Brownback's endorsement of McCain, that's got to come as a big blow to Huckabee. (Well, a moderate blow, given that Brownback didn't have much of a constituency). Brownback backs McCain's position on the war -- no surprise there -- and says he is swayed by McCain's consistently pro-life record. He's right about that. One thing many conservatives fail to appreciate about McCain -- and one thing his media fans overlooked in 2000 -- is that he's consistently been a friend to the unborn. If McCain weren't so awful on the war and immigration, I'd seriously consider voting for him.
Anyway, back to Robertson and Giuliani. David Kuo predicts that Robertson's stance could force the hands of the other top Religious Right leaders. I think he's right about that. If Christian conservatives can reconcile themselves to Giuliani, then arguably the sellout of their principles for the sake of power will be complete. Rev. Pat has drawn a line in the sand. The others now have to step to it. Will they cross?
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
I cannot remember what I wrote originally, but this is also relevant:
I think we should declare war on Al Qaeda and put our troops ahead of all domestic concerns until the war is won. No one, not Bush, not Guiliani, not Clinton, is suggesting anything close to that. We have not won any conflict decisively since World War II. That's because there is nothing worse than fighting a war half way. If no one is truly serious about supporting our troops with whatever it takes to defeat terrorism abroad, then bring our troops home. So, I'm a hawk, and I support Ron Paul.
I also support him because a government that tries to do everything, even legislate morality, has made itself into a state religion, in direct violation of the Constitution. Ron Paul will get the government out of the way so that local, charitable, and religious organizations can take on a more robust role in society. If we as individuals don't care about the disadvantaged, we can't expect our government to care for us. That is a recipe for dictatorship.
I deserve an explanation for why my comments are being not being ignored. Apparently there was no legitimate argument against them. Please email me at starfarer1988@hotmail.com.
I'm a social conservative who finds Giuliani acceptable. Does that make me a sell-out?
The advantage of having the "bully pulpit" of the presidency is overestimated when it comes to abortion; the population's attitudes are far too hardened for a president's position to matter one way or the other.
The one and only thing a president can accomplish to limit abortions is to appoint good judges who will overturn Roe v Wade not because it allows abortion, but because it is bad law. Thus, when it comes to abortion, the only practical criterion for a presidential candidate is whether he will appoint good judges; everything else is fluff. All of the GOP candidates pass this test; all of the Democrats flunk it.
Therefore, you have to distinguish the candidates on something else, and for Pat and me, that issue is terrorism, and it is certainly reasonable for us to conclude that Giuliani is the best on this issue.
Donna Dorio,
"Frankly I don't understand why Christians would NOT get it that radical Islamic terrorism is the number one issue."
Me neither Donna. I mean, it's not like W. hasn't told them often enough. Surely they MUST believe him by now, eh? Can't imagine why they don't. ;{O)
Rachel Farer
Guiliani will continue Bush's present policy of tough words while leaving our troops in harms way virtually unsupported. We are not even winning in Afghanistan let alone Iraq, and we're now supporting dictatorship in Pakistan. Support our troops! Declare war, put our troops first until the war is won, and then worry about tax cuts and the price of gasoline. If we are not committed to defeating terrorism abroad (and Bush, Guiliani, etc. clearly are not) then bring our troops home, protect the U.S., and stop getting our sons and daughters killed over a policy to which this administration pays only lip service.
A-frickin-men, sister.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.