Thursday, November 08, 2007

Back To Outrage

"Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first." ~ Ronald Reagan

OK. I am outraged again, but not about anything the Libs are doing or saying, although they continually do and say outrageous things. The fact is, Libs are so outrageous so often that they have ceased to outrage me--at least for the time being. Usually they are just comical. Actually, I think they do us all a service by keeping us laughing about the stupid things they say and do continually.

No, this time I am outraged (actually not really outraged so much as mildly chagrined) over "Reverend" Pat Robertson endorsing Rudolph Guiliani for President. I put "Reverend" in quotes because, frankly, I believe he is a phony.

This guy represents himself as a Conservative Christian leader and yet he endorses a man who openly supports gay marriages and abortion? Not only is that not Conservative it's not even representative of most Christian's viewpoints.

Actually, I'm OK with gay marriage. It's not gay marriage that concerns me as much as the acceptance of the homosexual lifestyle that bugs me. And if you allow gays to marry you are basically saying the lifestyle is a legitimate, normal, and acceptable way to live.

It isn't.

But if gays want to marry each other they do the rest of us normal people a favor by keeping perversion within their own community. As long as they aren't allowed to adopt and raise children I am OK with gay marriage.

Allowing gay people to raise children is child abuse.

And then there's abortion.

What kind of Conservative Christian would ever, ever endorse a pro-abortion candidate for dog catcher, let alone President? What is Robertson thinking?

I'll tell you what I believe he is thinking. There is money in this for him somewhere. Pat Robertson is all about money. Watch his broadcast sometime, if you can get through it without gagging. 90% of what he talks about is money. He is obsessed with money.

I suspect Rudy bribed him to obtain his endorsement. And that is giving Robertson the benefit of the doubt. He may really be in favor of gay marriage and abortion himself but won't admit it, as it would most certainly destroy any credibility that remains after his money obsession becomes publicly known.

Oh yes, I am aware many Conservative leaders are throwing their support behind Rudy. Sean Hannity claims he likes all the Republican candidates for President, but if you spend any time listening to his radio broadcast, it is as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that he is a "Rudy man".

So what about Sean's argument that Rudy has promised that if elected he will appoint strict constructionist Justices in the model of Scalia, Alito, and Roberts?

If you believe that, I know a fellow in Florida with some prime real estate to sell you cheap.

Why would a pro abortion President appoint pro-life Justices? That just doesn't make sense. If he appointed any pro-life Justices it would be because they agreed with him about other issues, and abortion would be simply a fortunate coincidence. In other words, just because he says he will appoint strict constructionist judges, it doesn't mean he will appoint pro-life justices.

Obviously, if a Justice is a true constructionist, he would not be able to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, but as we have seen, that doesn't necessarily mean he would judge accordingly. As Laura Ingraham points out in her book, "Power to the People", sometimes Justices change their judicial philosophy once they occupy the bench. They stop being constructionist Justices and become activist Justices.

Think Souter and Kennedy.

No, I don't trust Guiliani, and I certainly don't trust Robertson. And if Robertson endorses him, he might as well tell me personally, "Don't vote for Guiliani".


But let me be clear. If Guiliani is chosen by the Republican party to be our Presidential candidate in '08, I will vote for him. Why? Because even the very worst Republican is better than the very best Democrat.

And Sam Brownback endorses John McCain? Sheeeeeeeeesh! Say it aint so, Sam!

It's no wonder many Conservatives say the Republican Party has lost it's way.

May God and Duncan Hunter save us.

9 comments:

Dan Trabue said...

Could it be that Robertson knows he's considered to be such a whack job in the general population and that so many find his opinions distasteful that he threw his endorsement to the person he liked the least?

Crazy like a fox, eh?

Abouna said...

When even Christian pastors, ministers and Catholic priests will endorse a pro-abortion,pro-gay,pro-illegal immigration and pro-strict gun control candidate, of the Republican party,for president, You gotta know we are in trouble.

Marie's Two Cents said...

Is Pat Robertson that much of an influence anymore?


And if Ron Paul becomes the front runner, I wont even vote this election.

I cant stand that dingbat!

ELAshley said...

Perhaps Robertson has decided to compromise principle over perceived electability. Choosing to accept the poorest conservative candidate before the nomination has even been decided? C'mon! It's one thing for Brownback-- a politician --to back McCain. But the head of a large voting bloc?

Stupid move on Robertson's part. It'll cost him.

Marshall Art said...

It could simply be that Robertson, no infant to the world of politics, feels that Rudy offers the right the best chance to the White House. It could be that those who find Rudy possessing some necessary qualities for president feel they outweigh his negatives. Voting is like buying clothes off the rack. You can only decide from what's hangin' there. Many on the right feel that radical Islam is the greatest threat to our way of life and that Rudy is a proven leader that we need in the White House.

I don't find Robertson to be the wack job many feel he is. I think he's a bit long in the tooth and when speaking off the cuff he doesn't say things in the best way. I spend a lot of time listening to him, but I can say that his speculation over the cause of 9/11 isn't so goofy from a spiritual point of view. It's not the kind of speculation that leads to short term solutions, but could pay dividends long term. God's protection is based on God's Will. Should our country have veared too far astray of the type of people God would like to see us be, then such a wake up call is not without Biblical precedent. But who's to say? God thinks as God thinks.

ELAshley said...

ANYTHING can happen between now and the Republican nomination... look at Bernie Kerik's indictment on corruption charges! Robertsons' endorsement is way premature. Who will he endorse if Rudy loses Iowa and New Hampshire? Who's Robertsons' 2nd pick?

Marshall Art said...

I can't disagree on the premature nature of the endorsement. Heck, the entire race began way too early! I just think that Robertson, like many who support Guiliani, might merely be going with the guy that appears the best for the biggest threat to our nation. That is from where Guili's support emanates. The desire for the toughest leader against radical Islam and terrorism.

But yeah, he coulda waited a while.

The WordSmith from Nantucket said...



Obviously, if a Justice is a true constructionist, he would not be able to find a right to abortion in the Constitution, but as we have seen, that doesn't necessarily mean he would judge accordingly. As Laura Ingraham points out in her book, "Power to the People", sometimes Justices change their judicial philosophy once they occupy the bench. They stop being constructionist Justices and become activist Justices.


Mark, I don't understand your citation of Ingraham's point, to support your dismissal of Rudy's assertion that he will appoint strict constructionist judges. What if he were a pro-life candidate? Going by Ingraham, you're still not guaranteed a strict constructionist justice, once in.

Ms.Green said...

I'm just as disgusted as you are Mark. I'm disgusted with the right-wingers like Rush and Hannity as well...they're all pushing Rudy.