Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Pat Hearts Rudy…?

As many of you may have heard, late last week conservative Christian televangelist Pat Robertson announced his official endorsement of Republican presidential candidate Rudy Giuliani, giving the former NY mayor a huge boost in the Religious Right stratosphere. Late Night suggested that this could make an interesting blog topic. I’m inclined to agree.

The Religious Right, as we have seen in past years, is a powerful voting bloc capable of swinging entire elections. Not to stereotype (but to generalize), the group tends to vote two issues: abortion and homosexual marriage. Typically, they will support the candidate that is unabashedly pro-life and anti-gay.

So why is Pat Robertson, one of the group’s iconic figures, throwing his considerable weight behind a pro-choice, civil-union supporting, mob-tied cross-dresser? Giuliani is twice divorced, has been accused of “open and notorious adultery,” and is reviled by his own children. On top of all this, he’s a Catholic. Gross.

I’ve come up with two different theories.

The first is that Pat Robertson has decided it’s time to hedge his bets. Consider the front-runners for the Republican nomination. McCain has successfully made himself obsolete through old-man stubbornness and the Straight Talk Express. It’s a cute little act, but can’t possible sustain through the electoral process. That leaves Giuliani and Mitt Romney. Robertson, I’m sure, sees the possible election of Romney as an assault on Christianity. A Christian, any Christian, even a baby-killing Christian, would surely be better than a Mormon. I expect that Robertson fears Mitt’s primary objective in the White House will be to convert the nation.

My second theory is that Robertson is a phony bologna and uses his religious affiliation as either a business or a means to further his own agenda. It doesn’t take much digging to unearth some of the televangelist’s darker secrets. In 2001 he approved of abortion as a form of population control in China. At the time he needed the Chinese government’s support of a business, Zhaodaola, which he founded and financed. The business was looking to set up internet facilities in China. Also in 2001, it was discovered that Robertson was a partner in a gold mining venture in Liberia. The business provided infamously brutal dictator Charles Taylor (who is now on trial for war crimes) with a cut of the profits.

It seems Pat Robertson’s moral authority crumbles under the weight of the almighty dollar.

What does the man himself have to say about his seemingly hypocritical support of Giuliani? While announcing his Giuliani endorsement, Robertson made the following statement: “to me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists. Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits.”

I’m not sure when governmental spending became a part of the Religious Right’s agenda, but I’ll put that issue aside.

If you’ll all join me on a trip down memory lane, I’d like to remind everyone of Robertson’s response following 9/11. At the time, he asserted that the terrorist attack on the World Trade Center was God’s punishment for abortion, homosexuality, and the “rampant secularism” that had overtaken America. He believed we had it coming. Now he claims we need protection from the wrath we brought upon ourselves? And he supports a man who seems to be rampant secularism incarnate (and is essentially running on the 9/11 platform: http://www.theonion.com/content/news/giuliani_to_run_for_president_of_9).

A little contradictory?

I’m not saying…I’m just saying…

Theory #3: Robertson is hoping that electing Giuliani to office will hasten the arrival of Armageddon.

Thanks for reading.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

Is there anyone that I would feel comfortable to have as our next president? Not that I know of.

What is going to happen this next election? Pat Robertson does some things that really bug me. He gives Christians a bad name sometimes and I don't know what to do about it.

Like I said a few months ago. Go Hillary! She is so cute!

Anonymous said...

Hillary? Honestly?

Anonymous said...

Werd, you just ruined a perfectly good day for me. Hope you're kidding

Anonymous said...

I don't know too much about the Pat Robertson Character, which I probably should, but I enjoyed the post nonetheless.

You propose interesting theories, any of which are believable to me. My favorite is that he is hastening an Armageddon though.

I don't have too much of an opinion on the issue, and quite frankly, don't care who Mr. Robertson supports either.

A question that comes to mind, though, is why people are wasting their time supporting a Republican candidate. It seems to me that they have a very very slim chance at winning this next election. It seems more a formality than an actual belief that they can win this thing.

Is anyone following all of the stuff going on in the Iowa caucus? Looks like things are going to get interesting.

Go Obama!

Anonymous said...

In all honesty all I care about is that Hillary doesn't get elected. I don't really like any republican candidates any more than any democratic ones (this coming from a right winger).

Say, if I annouce my intentions to run at a noon press conference tomorrow, can I expect support from you all?

What I am having a really hard time with is a statement you make Gruber. You said, "I’ve come up with two different theories." (about why Pat R. is supporting Mr. 9/11) but you clearly presented three... what gives???

Anonymous said...

I gotta say that i agree with Pat...as long as Hillary dosn't win, no matter how sexy she is, i will be happy. I really don't have a candidate to vote for as of now, but honestly, Hillary?

Pat you know i got your back if you're runnig and if you need to hire somebody to print off the zizzle zot everyday and bring it to your desk along with the comments, than i am your guy. I would only charge 400K per yer, and we'll just increase taxes, which of course i wont pay, to afford my services.

Yeah Grubes what's with that, two equals three all the sudden...hmmmmm

Anonymous said...

my name cut out, it finishes with,

time" Ritchie

Zizzle-Zot said...

I agree, K-Han. Things should get interesting. Anyone want to go to Iowa with me on Saturday to work for the Obama campaign? (I'm being serious.)

P Corcs, you can expect full support from the Zot, and exclusive coverage on Zizzle-Zot, etc. What are the odds I could be named Press Secretary? Or Special Ambassador to International Relations with Pretty Ladies?

Sorry about the incongruity in the 2/3 theories. I like to under-promise, over-deliver

Hillary is one hot mamma. (Still being serious.)

Anonymous said...

I am making signs reading "Pcorcs '08" Nice come back on the "what gives" too Pcorcs.

On one hand I am happy that Robertson continues in his asinine money grubbing antics. It reminds me of the prophets in the Bible, namely Amos in which the so-called leaders of the faith become self-righteous and forget about the orphans, widows, and the poor. Now I don't mean to mix politics and religion, but the religious rightists of this country find nothing wrong with the mixing, and go on to pervert the gospel of Christ with their political/self-seeking agendas. Now what has faith got to do with Robertson's bank account? And what Bible does he read that says "Jesus' death wasn't good enough. Humanity still needs a little more punishment."

Being that his Christian theology is more than a little out of whack, his prodding into politics takes on an ugly demeanor.

On a brighter note: The more hypocrisy that delves out of the Religious Right, the more superfluous they become to the political scale.

Disclaimer: I by no means am saying that another or any Christian candidate has "God's Politics" figured out. But I am boldly claiming that the Religious Right have twisted many Americans' perception of Christianity by trying to claim Christianity in a political agenda. This is why I believe we should never vote for a candidate because they claim they are "Christian". I would much rather vote for an ethically and morally sound Jew, Muslim, Mormon, Hindu, Budhist etc., than a greedy person who labels themselves "The Christian Candidate" (or party).

The "Christian" agenda within politics can be sought after. But if the agenda is peace and justice that pretty much sums up what every other party or faith strives for in this country. The problem is that Religious Rightists believe they firmly know "God's way" of reaching these ends. The truth is, every party and faith wants the same ends, but their are many different and possible theories for reaching those ends. When some claim that they know God's method of reaching those ends, that's when things get really ugly.

This is why we should all practice sepparation of Church and state. Not to sepparate morality from politics, but to realize that the state, or a political candidate is not the saviour of the world. Jesus Christ is for Christians, or Yayweh for Jews, or Allah is for Muslims. The God of all these faiths gave moral instruction to seek peace and justice , but He/She did say how to do so in every complex situation, namely American politics. Peace and justice must be our motive because they are God's motive. This is God's end. The means to reaching God's end is nevertheless up for debate.

Any challengers? I'm writing my next paper on Church and State and would love some food for thought.

The Friendly Liberal said...

I'm not surprised. I think this makes sense.

People like Robertson (and the religious right in general) thrive off of their political connections...it's almost like they get off on it. There was a time when evangelicals were getting pushed around by the media, by Washington, by the science community, ect, ect, ect. Bottom line: they weren't getting respect.

Then George W. Bush comes along. All of a sudden, Ted Haggert is chillin' in the White House and the Justic Department is stacked with lawyers from Falwell's university.

Political clout gets respect and I think that's the primary goal of the religious right these. Whether or not this actually furthers the Christian agenda...I don't know. A lot of compromising seems to be going on. The obvious hope is that Rudy's election is only made possible because of people like Robertson. They believe that'll turn into political chips that they can cash in, regardless of Rudy's ideology.

It's very machiavellian and I don't think it reflects well on either side.

As a side note, what has turned Hillary into the devil spawn you guys seem think she is? I'm not supporting her in the primary for (I'm sure) many of the same reasons you guys don't support her. But I just don't have the same fear as you guys seem to have. If she's elected, it's not going to be the end of the world. She's much closer to the center than people realize. I mean, she's a moderate compared to Bush. If the problem is political oppertunism and her being disingenuous, then I would argue that Romney is equally as bad.

So, what is it that freaks you guys out so much?

Anonymous said...

I'm going to say it Mr. A. She's a WOMAN!

Zizzle-Zot said...

This post says it all, Mr A:

http://erikgruber.blogspot.com/2007/08/menopausal-clinton-calls-for-global.html

In all seriousness though, her disingenuousness goes above and beyond the call of duty (post on this topic in the works). But you're right to say the same is true of Romney, and 99% of politicians for that matter. McCain might be the only honest one of the bunch, and he's certifiably insane.

Who wants to go to Iowa on Saturday?