What Robertson’s Giuliani endorsement means for the race

TV preacher Pat Robertson, himself a former Republican presidential candidate, bucked the religious-right trend and threw his official support to Rudy Giuliani today.

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, will announce his support for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid this morning in Washington, D.C., according to sources familiar with the decision.

Robertson’s support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions on abortion and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.

At first blush, this may appear ridiculous. Giuliani, as mayor, supported abortion rights, gay rights, gun control, and lax immigration laws, all issues on which Robertson takes the opposite position. Perhaps more importantly, Giuliani is a thrice-married serial adulterer, who is largely estranged from his own children, a lifestyle choice Robertson would likely find offensive.

And yet, it’s really not that strange at all. Giuliani has been trying to circumvent religious-right leaders all year, but Robertson has been the exception. Giuliani has been to Regent University, he’s been a regular on the Christian Broadcasting Network, and he’s sat down a few times with CBN’s David Brody. For those of us who’ve been watching these two, Giuliani and Robertson have been like two peas in a pod for quite some time.

Some of the media reports this morning have suggested this undermines the for Giuliani’s campaign among leading evangelicals. These reporters don’t appreciate the fact that the religious-right movement has serious schisms — and Robertson hasn’t been in the mainstream for years. His principles are malleable, his ideas are embarrassing, and his goal is to have a seat at the table. Robertson goes where the political winds take him.

Dobson, Wildmon, Weyrich, Land, and others are ideologues, not partisans. Robertson is the opposite.

As for Giuliani, today’s endorsement could prove to be more of a curse than a blessing.

Chris Cillizza argues that Robertson is “one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement,” which necessarily means that Giuliani will get an important boost out of today’s announcement. Don’t count on it.

Robertson, even in religious right circles, is considered something of a clown. He has a cult following that keeps the Christian Broadcasting Network afloat, but Robertson’s Christian Coalition has practically been driven out of business, and other leading evangelicals are embarrassed to be seen with him. You’ll notice, for example, that at last month’s “Values Voter Summit,” the largest gathering of the year for the movement, Robertson wasn’t invited and played no role whatsoever.

With that in mind, Giuliani shouldn’t expect a sudden rush of support from Christian fundamentalists. Indeed, as far as the threats about a third-party move go, today changes nothing — Robertson wasn’t part of these talks before, and his endorsement won’t mean anything now.

Indeed, I think the more meaningful trend to watch here is whether Robertson’s support actually becomes a hindrance for Giuliani. The former NYC mayor is cozying up to someone most reasonable people find to be stark raving mad.

Ideally, reporters would start to ask Giuliani about whether he agrees with some of the comments made by his buddy. For example, on Sept. 13, 2001, 48 hours after the Twin Towers fell, Robertson said Americans “deserved” to be attacked. Does Giuliani agree with this? If not, why is he trumpeting Robertson’s endorsement as a major development?

For that matter, Robertson believes the U.S. federal judiciary is more dangerous than “a few bearded-terrorists who fly into buildings.” Does Giuliani have any problem with that?

Robertson told a national television audience a couple of years ago that he’d like to see terrorists hit the State Department headquarters in DC. Does Giuliani find that to be an acceptable comment in our public discourse?

Robertson has said mainline Protestant denominations are “the spirit of the Anti-Christ,” and insisted that he has the ability to move hurricanes with his mind. Is Giuliani comfortable with all of this?

Inquiring minds want to know.

A telling slip, Steve 🙂

Giuliani, even in religious right circles, is considered something of a clown. He has a cult following that keeps the Christian Broadcasting Network afloat. . .”

Rudy may be considered a clown, but I’m guessing it is Robertson that keeps CBN afloat per the next sentence.

  • This must have been one of those Bush-Putin moments when Robertson looked into Rudy’s soul and saw another fellow batsh*t crazy loon and vowed to endorse him.

    Given that for the coming election the Iraq war and the economy are probably the two hottest issues, rather than abortion and gay marriage, I doubt Robertson’s input will matter much.

  • Guiliani is a clown of sorts, but there should no longer be any doubt about his derangement. He, like Robertson, is clearly stark raving mad. The Rethug candidates have to out-right and out 9/11 each other to get the nomination from the crazy primary voters, but does Guiliani think rational people will forget he got into bed with a has-been delusional maniac when he campaigns in the general? Clearly he doesn’t care. I fear Guiliani is going to get the imprimatur of the power elite, and then we’re in real trouble.

  • of course one has to weigh the other endorsement news – Brownback endorsing McCain this morning – to come up with some Net-Nutjob-Impact-Index.

  • I agree that the idiot Pat Robertson’s endorsement isn’t going to bring much to the idiot Giuliani’s run for president. Robertson has really lost standing in the last couple of years, mainly because he runs off at the mouth and makes terrible pronouncements:

    [March 1, 2006] If evidence is needed that the Rev. Pat Robertson’s shoot-from-the-hip approach to world affairs has embarrassed some of his fellow evangelicals, it comes from the recently concluded convention of the National Religious Broadcasters.

    Robertson, 75, a longtime member of the NRB’s board of directors, failed to win reelection despite good odds: He was one of about 36 candidates running for 33 seats, NRB President Frank Wright said.

    Wright said the elections usually hinge on the relative strength of radio, television and Internet broadcasters, so Robertson might have lost simply because he is a TV guy. But Wright acknowledged that there also was dissatisfaction with Robertson’s recent call for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and his assertion that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke was God’s punishment for the ceding of land to the Palestinians.

    “I would say that there was broad dismay with some of Pat’s comments and a feeling they were not helpful to Christian broadcasters in general, but by no means was there any broad effort in our association to dissociate ourselves with him,” Wright said.

    Robertson did not reply to calls for comment.

    Candidate Pat Robertson, in brief

  • It depends on how big the rapture vote is. I think they will all vote for a holy war and Rudy will give them one.

  • I still think the religious right will cave and support whichever candidate the GOP nominates. Right now they have an option when it comes down to election day I think that they will mostly vote GOP. I think this is at minimum an early outlier or at least permission for some.

  • Rick’s on target about the rapture vote, which isn’t as marginal as one might think. The notion that war in the Middle East will bring the Second Coming is fundamental to conservative Evangelicals, and Guiliani gleefully stokes the chances of further confrontation there.

  • Just remember, Pat Robertson was in favor of genocide against Islamic nations before genocide against Islamic nations was cool (ie pre-9/11)

  • All these nuts should watch Constantine. It’s like The Matrix, if it had been written for 12-year-old male conserative Jesus freaks, instead of for 28-year-old male liberal computer nerds.

    Turns out, in this movie, the Archangel Gabriel (who figures so prominently in Islam) is a female, and is crazy (turns against God). So hero Johnny Constantine has to do that angel in. Although the movie had Catholic character as a heroine, I’m pretty sure I heard Gabriel say, towards the end of the movie, that “murderers, papists, and child molestors” were sinners who were going to hell. I even “re-wound” the DVD to listen to the line again to make sure it wasn’t “rapists,” but actually “papists.” I don’t know how they had it on the subtitles/captioning, but it sure sounded like “papists” to me.

    All in all, I enjoyed it, but that line about papists really smarted.

  • As to #15, when was genocide against Islamic nations ever “cool?” I may be reading it wrong, but you make it sound like America thinks killing jihadists and women and children, innocent or otherwise, is cool.

  • Remember when ‘secular humanists’ and their ‘moral relativism’ was a terrible thing! During the 2008 campaign, watch as the Wacked Out Religious Right fall over each other to justify why they support the Repugnican candidate.

    Rudy-Rudy-Rudy:
    Do ‘Family Values’ now include divorcing your cousin to marry a 2nd wife? Do ‘Family Values’ now include telling your 2nd wife via a press conference that you are leaving her to marry your long time mistress? I guess that is all ok now (and Clinton getting head is still an unforgivable moral transgression)!

    Mitt-Mitt-Mitt:
    What ‘morally relative’ explanation will we have for supporting a ‘non-Christian’? I guess as long as he is not a ‘secular humanist’!

    While the Wacked Out Religious Right leaders can pretend to be men of God, their real business is making money and they will go with whichever Repug will be allow their accumulation of money and power…

  • OT

    A funny bit that was included in Constantine, apparently just for the parochialism of it:

    There was a lot of interesting stuff about psychics in that movie, although it didn’t offer any science-based points of view on it. Anyway, there is a psychic underworld in the film (kind of like how other recent horror movies / TV shows have depicted contemporary vampire or werewolf underworlds) and a bar where only psychics are allowed in, run by a voodoo witch-doctor. In the bar, all the psychics wear snazzy Scientologist-esque clothes and pull little stunts with their powers to amuse each other. Since all urban underworlds– I suppose in the eyes of rural conservatives– must give free rein to breaking of cultural taboos, in the bar a couple of lesbian psychics are seen nibbling on each other in front of everybody, and stare at John Constantine when he enters. It gives it just that right Matrix-esque edge, and communicates to the conservative fear of counter/sub-cultures and of the city. I doubt the screenplay writers even realized what they were doing, though.

  • Coincidentally, I’ve been planning writing a horror/noir-esque fiction novel about a psychic underworld myself, which is why I say the psychic stuff is interesting.

  • Robertson is a greedy man and he is far more interested in the Republican pro wealth agenda than saving souls or standing on sound moral principles. His endorsement will have some effect on his own but if I were Rudy, I would hedge my bets a little, and I would not put too much stock in Robertson or his endorsement. The only chance Rudy has is to play to the center and Robertson represents the lunatic fringe.

  • Ah yes, Giuliani and Robertson defending the world from Evil. The A Team for sure. Rudy does the photo op’s and Pat chants away hurricanes. I was convinced that Robertson was nuts after, among other blame fests, he suggested that Frank Zappa had contracted colon cancer for writing all those naughty lyrics. There’s a padded cell somewhere with both of their names on it in gold leaf.

  • Comments are closed.