Robertson Endorses Giuliani : Dispatches from the Culture Wars

The Week In ScienceBlogs: Sign up for our newsletter.

Profile

Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of Michigan Citizens for Science and co-founder of The Panda's Thumb. He has written for such publications as The Bard, Skeptic and Reports of the National Center for Science Education, spoken in front of many organizations and conferences, and appeared on nationally syndicated radio shows and on C-SPAN. Ed is also a Fellow with the Center for Independent Media and the host of Declaring Independence, a one hour weekly political talk show on WPRR in Grand Rapids, Michigan.(static)

Search

Other Information

Ed Brayton also blogs at Positive Liberty and The Panda's Thumb

Ed Brayton is a participant in the Center for Independent Media New Journalism Program. However, all of the statements, opinions, policies, and views expressed on this site are solely Ed Brayton's. This web site is not a production of the Center, and the Center does not support or endorse any of the contents on this site.

Ed's Audio and Video

Declaring Independence podcast feed

YearlyKos 2007

Video of speech on Dover and the Future of the Anti-Evolution Movement

Audio of Greg Raymer Interview

E-mail Policy

Any and all emails that I receive may be reprinted, in part or in full, on this blog with attribution. If this is not acceptable to you, do not send me e-mail - especially if you're going to end up being embarrassed when it's printed publicly for all to see.

My Ecosystem Details

« Sandefur and Babka on Ron Paul | Main | Gay Fear Mongering in Kentucky Fails »

Robertson Endorses Giuliani

Posted on: November 8, 2007 9:23 AM, by Ed Brayton

Pat Robertson is bucking his fellow religious right leaders like Dobson and has announced his endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. How ironic, especially in light of that ridiculous little wankfest between Robertson and Falwell the day after the WTC went down, when they blamed it on abortionists and gays, among others. Giuliani is pro-gay compared to the others and is pro-choice on abortion. But at least he's not like Clinton, right? I mean, Rudy probably puts on a dress to get a blowjob.

Comments

Thanks a lot Ed, I wont get that horrible mental image out of my mind all day ...

Posted by: dogmeatib | November 8, 2007 9:34 AM

I see this less as picking the "best" Republican from Robertson's point of view as an attempt to get on the Giuliani bandwagon early, in hopes of better combatting the threat from the Democratic side.

Posted by: BobApril | November 8, 2007 9:47 AM

Reverend Pat's homophobia is only exceeded by his xenophobia. The religious right passed him by years ago, and he's trying to make himself relevant again. Rudy bit at the endorsement like a starving bass, because he doesn't want the fundie wackos all voting en bloc for someone else, like Thompson or Huckabee.

The problem is that it doesn't only compromise Rev. Pat's rather tenuous grip on personal integrity (remember how he got pwned when he bragged about his Korean War record, or his pious recommendation that the CIA 'take out' Hugo Chavez?), it makes Rudy look like a weasel, too. But then, that's all a good thing--if people would only notice.

Posted by: Farb | November 8, 2007 10:08 AM

Do you think maybe, with Fally gone, the aging and increasingly floundering Robby is trying to redeem his image (and minimize the lingering effects of that wankfest) by linking himself to the 9/11 mayor?

Posted by: Kristine | November 8, 2007 10:20 AM

It's very scary to think about what kind of deal Rudy and Robertson cooked up, but I think part of this is Robertson's clinging to a literal Bible belief, and clearly Hillary getting elected would be a sign of the end of times, as she is a grrrllll, and women are meant to be subservient to men. Right Kristine?! Just kidding - Don't hit me!

Posted by: J-Dog | November 8, 2007 10:29 AM

I do not understand your apparent need to put in irrational commentary such as the crack about dresses and blow jobs for Giuliani.

Posted by: Mike | November 8, 2007 11:30 AM

Since Guiliani has pledged to appoint judges like Scalia who would overturn Roe v Wade and uphold any new laws with abortion restrictions, in what sense exactly is he pro-choice? He's pledged to do the one thing the anti-abortion right wants from a President, so it doesn't really matter if he in his heart he wants abortion to remain legal.

Posted by: Ron | November 8, 2007 11:38 AM

I have a little visual history lesson about this on my blog.

Posted by: bullfighter | November 8, 2007 12:30 PM

Gee, he's hitching himself to somebody he sees as a likely future president rather than to the person who agrees with the principles he espouses. Why am I not surprised?

These guys are power brokers, nothing more. Why spend your political capital on a losing horse when can attach yourself to the winner and take credit for his victory?

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | November 8, 2007 6:10 PM

He's pledged to do the one thing the anti-abortion right wants from a President, so it doesn't really matter if he in his heart he wants abortion to remain legal.

Salvation by acts rather than faith, as it were?

Posted by: Coin | November 8, 2007 6:14 PM

This weeks Economist has a piece about Rudy as the Republican front runner. The article was a bit prophetic in light of the Pat Robertson endorsement. The point was made that many conservative Christians are both very hawkish and VERY pro-Israel. So perhaps Rudy is considered the best candidate on those issues. All this of course harkens back to the days of the Cold War. During that era various brands of conservatism all united under the hawkish anti-communist banner. As the threat of the "Evil Empire" diminished social conservatives started to harp more and more about abortion and gays etc. But that trend shows signs of splitting the Republican Party. Perhaps the "War on Terror" is evolving into the new banner that all conservatives can agree on. Because the truth is that general speaking the gay rights movement has the upper hand over the religious right. Just look how far their cause has advanced in the last 25 years. So what is the point in fighting tooth and nail over a losing cause.

Posted by: Cheddar | November 8, 2007 8:56 PM