The Occasional Observer

David Dayen had this to say over at The Right's Field:

In recent years, when Pat Robertson has made statements like “We should assassinate Hugo Chavez” or Gays and lesbians are to blame for 9/11″ or “Cities that reject intelligent design deserve to receive a hurricane”, evangelicals would always claim that his influence has been lessened over the years and he is no longer relevant.

On the August 23, 2005 episode of Fox News’ Special Report, Hume declared, “The televangelist Pat Robertson’s political influence may have been declining since he came in second in the Iowa Republican caucuses 17 years ago. And he may have no clout with the Bush administration.”

Morton Kondracke echoed Hume, exclaiming that “Pat Robertson’s day has long since passed.”

Therefore, I guess the least relevant evangelical leader in America just endorsed Rudy Giuliani. (Hey, how’s that “We deserved 9/11″ business square with that?)

I’m not sure what his import is anymore. His influence in creating the law school, Regent University, attended by the likes of Monica Goodling and dozens of other Bush Administration Justice Department officials, is considerable. My point is that this will suddenly be seen as “the most important endorsement EVAH” after years of hearing that Robertson is a crazy old coot and an afterthought. Just a window into how the media works.

Over at R 4 '08, the feedback's coming in, and it isn't exactly unanimous that this was some kind of home run. And remember, these are the conservatives who are actually dialed-in to the campaign. My favorites are here:

33. econ grad stud Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:06 am
The hypocrisy here in Rudy accepting an endorsement from a man who blames 911 on abortion and gays and the hypocrisy in Pat offering that endorsement to a man who supports abortion and homosexuality is rank.

It reminds me of the Queen in Alice in Wonderland who “believed six impossible thing before breakfast”. Rudy and Pat have outdone her.

38. WiseGuy Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:11 am
Pat Robertson is so out of touch. I have a couple of questions for you, Pat:

Why would you support a presidential candidate who is cozy with NARAL?
Why would you support a presidential candidate who supports abortion?
Why would you support a presidential candidate who has explicitly rejected being characterized as “effectively pro-life”?
Why would you support a presidential candidate who supports embryonic stem cell research?
Why would you support a presidential candidate who has the most skeletons in his closet?
Why would you support a presidential candidate knowing that 25% of Republicans would stay home if he were the nominee?
Why would you support a presidential candidate who believes that a strict constructionist can be pro-Roe?

Here are some more:

2. sampo Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 10:28 am
Translation: Pat likes principles in politicians, almost as much as a like them to be pliable. For me, Giuliani had the best principle-to-pliability ratio in the field, so I chose him.

3. ACT Blog Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 10:29 am
Sadly, another Republican willing to dump Social Conservatism in the trash just to win one election.

4. Conservative Gladiator Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 10:38 am
I just heard on the Glenn Beck show that Rudy Guiliani is a Conservative and that his Pro-Choice stance is the only thing that makes him different. This after they discussed the Pat Robertson endorsement.

It’s happening…the dumbing down of the Conservative movement…Good Luck with that.


6. econ grad stud Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Pat Robertson is a loon. When the Mayor was standing next to Pat he looked very uncomfortable.

Perhaps that’s because Pat Robertson said we were attacked on 9-11 because of abortion and gays. These are things the Mayor supports. So… Pat has endorsed someone who he thinks contributed to 9-11. The Mayor has accepted an endorsement from someone who blames gays and abortion for the 9-11 attack.

So the hypocrisy on both sides is overwhelming.

24. econ grad stud Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 10:57 am
The bigger issue Peter is that the old leaders no longer have much influence in the religious right.

An endorsement from Pat Robertson would mean a lot in 1996 and even a little in 2000. His embarrassment since then (blaming 911 on abortion and gays) and blaming Hurricane Katrina on abortion also.

That Rudy accepts an endorsement from this loon shows just how desperate he is to get any credibility with religious people.

26. Peter Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Why is it that moral issues don’t matter???

Rudy Giuliani is not a conservative.

28. UA Razorbacks Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:00 am
I figured Robertson would have gone for anyone but Giuliani. I wonder how the Robertson following will react. I’m sure they will not be pleased.

53. UA Razorbacks Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 11:26 am
I have just emailed Pat Robertson regarding this endorsement. I cannot, for the life of me, understand why he is endorsing the most liberal GOP candidate.

I consider myself a social conservative and will never settle for a candidate that is against my moral values. I will not vote for Rudy, no matter what.

106. Conservative Gladiator Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
continued from 103 in response to 70…

Pat Robertson was the hypocrite in all of this.

108. Keven J Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
The big question is, who loses the most credibility with this endorsement-
Giuliani or Robertson? Probably Robertson. But to look at it from a non-
cynical point of view, I think Pat Robertson may really have been trying
to do the right thing here, trying to prevent a 3rd so-con party from
forming.

118. Greg Says:
November 7th, 2007 at 12:37 pm
Serious question. Did Giuliani cheat on (commit adultery) both of his first two wives? Or was it just the one> I am trying to figure out if he is a serial cheater, or if he just likes to occasionally fool around outside of wedlock. Thjanks [sic].

I could go on, but you get the point.