Pat Robertson backs Giuliani
This is not surprising, since Pat Robertson was a member of the absurdly named group, “Social Conservatives for Giuliani.” But still, to see the
official announcement is shocking.
“It is my pleasure to announce my support for America’s Mayor, Rudy Giuliani, a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans,” Robertson said in a statement issued by the Giuliani campaign.
“Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations, and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today,” Robertson said.
Ben M. writes:
I guess Pat has given up the culture war. All the issues he has supposedly cared about all these years. He doesn’t mention them once in his press release and that is because he can’t. [Italics added.] When you endorse this man for President you must give up the culture war. What the hell was the last 20-30 years for? Pat has spent all these years everyday talking about our decaying culture. How the United States has given up God and morals. How hypocritical is it to then turn around and endorse the complete opposite of everything he has talked about for twenty years! Using the excuses Pat did above does not fly at all. He is just speaking about the usual bullcrap about lower taxes blah blah blah, working in bipartisanship which is of course easy when you are already a hard-core liberal. What a disgrace.
LA replies:
John Podhoretz must be happy today. He announced gleefully after 9/11 that the culture war was dead because only terrorism mattered now. And now the actual so-called cultural warriors are putting Podhoretz’s idea and wish into practice.
LA writes:
Joseph Farah at WorldNetDaily has had it with Pat Robertson over the latter’s endorsement of Giuliani.
In expanding on Robertson’s lack of principle, Farah also tells about how Robertson sold the Family Channel to sleaze meister Rupert Murdoch in 1997. I’m shocked. I’m so out of it, tv-wise, that I didn’t know about that. I used to like the Family Channel, back when I used to watch tv, and often watched The 700 Club.
Curiously Farah says that there are two other GOP candidates in addition to Giuliani who “should be scratched from all serious consideration,” the others being McCain and Romney. I’d be interested in his reasons for excluding Romney. Yes, Romney is somewhat artificial and manufactured as a political figure. But isn’t he basically a good man?
I just found this via the ever-wonderful Google. Last June Farah wrote:
Mitt Romney is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Though he has attempted to remake himself in the image of Ronald Reagan, he does so with a political track record that belies his positions. As governor of Massachusetts, he supported abortion and the demands of radical homosexual activists. Today he tries to convince gullible Republicans he has experienced an epiphany. I don’t believe it for a minute.
Here’s a longer consideration from this past August by Farah of Romney’s positions, in which he calls Romney a charlatan.
Yes, we all know that Romney has a quite liberal record. I’ve written before of how I even wanted him defeated in his 1994 contest with Edward Kennedy because of his announcement that he had the same positions as Kennedy. But, as I’ve also said, Romney has changed his positions, and, having made such a deal of changing and then running on that basis, he would not be likely to change back. I’m not thinking of Romney as an absolute good. I’m looking for acceptable alternatives to Hillary Clinton as president. To me, Giuliani is out of consideration and I would never support him. I don’t feel the same about Romney.
Posted by Lawrence Auster at November 07, 2007 03:04 PM | Send