Giuliani picks up Robertson endorsement.

[Deadshot]

I'm curious, as a Democrat, is an endorsement from Pat Robertson a good thing?

Here's the link to the CNN story, Conservative endorsements (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.endorsements/index.html)

I'm asking because Robertson has really done some stupid and offensive things in the last few years and was just curious how some of the Conservatives here thought about the endorsement.

[micfranklin]

Another nail in the coffin:scared:

[AlonzoMourning23]

Well, Giuliani is the 9/11 candidate, and Robertson is an expert on the causes on 9/11.

[Elrathin]

I'm curious, as a Democrat, is an endorsement from Pat Robertson a good thing?

Here's the link to the CNN story, Conservative endorsements (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.endorsements/index.html)

I'm asking because Robertson has really done some stupid and offensive things in the last few years and was just curious how some of the Conservatives here thought about the endorsement.


It is a good thing (for them), because many of the religious right types are duped into believing that if Pat Robertson endorses someone, then they are the choice for Christians. Therefore the big time religious rights guys will be behind Guiliani as well.

If it is a Hilary/Guiliani battle, I look for people to make their decision based on who they pick for vice president rather than the presidential candidates themselves.

A Hilary/Guiliani battle would be boring to say the least and would wind up just being which devil do you want in the whitehouse.

[micfranklin]

Well, Giuliani is the 9/11 candidate, and Robertson is an expert on the causes on 9/11.


But Giuliani's only real substance is either 9/11 or reducing crime.

[Deadshot]

I'm curious, as a Democrat, is an endorsement from Pat Robertson a good thing?

Here's the link to the CNN story, Conservative endorsements (http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/07/conservatives.endorsements/index.html)

I'm asking because Robertson has really done some stupid and offensive things in the last few years and was just curious how some of the Conservatives here thought about the endorsement.


It is a good thing (for them), because many of the religious right types are duped into believing that if Pat Robertson endorses someone, then they are the choice for Christians. Therefore the big time religious rights guys will be behind Guiliani as well.

If it is a Hilary/Guiliani battle, I look for people to make their decision based on who they pick for vice president rather than the presidential candidates themselves.

A Hilary/Guiliani battle would be boring to say the least and would wind up just being which devil do you want in the whitehouse.


But how do you, if you were a good and pious Christian, vote for a candidate who supported Gay Rights AND Abortion, who even know doesn't say that he's against either?

[Drocket]

But how do you, if you were a good and pious Christian, vote for a candidate who supported Gay Rights AND Abortion, who even know doesn't say that he's against either?

To be perfectly blunt, most people who listen to Pat Robertson aren't too bright. If they had enough brain cells to make independent judgments about candidates, they'd be smart enough to realize that Robertson is a completely immoral slimeball who's sole goal in life is making money, and start looking for a new religious leader.

[Labrocca]

To be perfectly blunt, most people who listen to Pat Robertson aren't too bright.

Since when is that important in an election? If anything it's a proven fact that corraling the dumb voters is smart politics. I see this as a positive for Rudy. This won't change anyone on the left as they won't vote for Rudy and this will draw the base of conservatives that much closer to Rudy.

[Scorpion]

But how do you, if you were a good and pious Christian, vote for a candidate who supported Gay Rights AND Abortion, who even know doesn't say that he's against either?

To be perfectly blunt, most people who listen to Pat Robertson aren't too bright. If they had enough brain cells to make independent judgments about candidates, they'd be smart enough to realize that Robertson is a completely immoral slimeball who's sole goal in life is making money, and start looking for a new religious leader.


Exactly spot on correct. The guy is a waste of time reminiscent of Jim Baker.

[Drocket]

The guy is a waste of time reminiscent of Jim Baker.

Hmm, not really. Baker struck me more as someone who started out with some decent intentions, but was eventually consumed by the money and power he found himself surrounded by when he became successful. Robertson is a whole different animal - I can't find any evidence that he ever had a good intention in his life. I'm quite positive that he became a preacher purely because he saw it as a good way to legally scam old people.

[lily]

Well, Giuliani is the 9/11 candidate, and Robertson is an expert on the causes on 9/11.



You are sooooo going to hell!:lmao:[hr]
The guy is a waste of time reminiscent of Jim Baker.

Hmm, not really. Baker struck me more as someone who started out with some decent intentions, but was eventually consumed by the money and power he found himself surrounded by when he became successful. Robertson is a whole different animal - I can't find any evidence that he ever had a good intention in his life. I'm quite positive that he became a preacher purely because he saw it as a good way to legally scam old people.


I can't see how they are that much different. Robertson is backing who he thinks will win. He's had a taste of the power that goes with that backing and doesn't want to give it up, otherwise he wold have picked someone that holds the same values as he and his followers believe.

What makes me wonder is how someone could just give up their morals and everything they believe in, on wanting to have that power or maybe a promise of turning the Supreme Court. It's going to bring in focus Rudy's three marriages, his pro-live and gay marriage stance further into the spotlight.

[hr]
This won't change anyone on the left as they won't vote for Rudy and this will draw the base of conservatives that much closer to Rudy.



There are pro-life and anti-gay marriage people in the Democratic party.

[Drocket]

I can't see how they are that much different.
Well, I was speaking more in the larger sense, not specifically regarding this issue. As far as I can tell, Baker was someone who started out with some decent intentions but fell to temptation along the way, while Roberts is someone who became involved in religion because he found it a good way to fleece stupid people. Worlds of difference there, IMO, regarding who's the worst person.

Even regarding this specific issue, though, I think there's a difference: I think good, decent people could be followers of Baker because they saw that he wanted to accomplish good when he started, and then failed to notice when he went off the tracks. Something like endorsing a candidate who doesn't represent those values might act as a sign for them - hey, wait a minute, this guy isn't quite doing what we think he should be.

Followers of Roberts, though - they're fools. Period. If his defense of China for forced abortions isn't going to wake them up, if they're going to ignore his involvement in the blood diamond trade, if they can not notice his investments in what is essentially slave trading, then this isn't going to get their attention. If they're dumb enough to regard Roberts as a legitimate religious authority, they're not going to blink when he orders them to vote for a pro-choice candidate. They're just too stupid.

otherwise he wold have picked someone that holds the same values as he
I don't think he has any, except perhaps 'he who dies with the most toys wins'.