DeoOmnisGloria.com

Jay,
Pat Robertson supports Giuliani because (1) he’s the most likely to win the nomination and (2) is a zealous backer of all things Israel. Robertson provides unquestioned, enthusiastic support for all Israeli military actions against anyone and everyone, irregardless of whether those being attacked are fellow Christians. He has already sold out his faith for politics, as his stand against the Palestinians and Lebanese has led to dark heartache and an unrivaled lack of hope throughout the Middle East Christian communities. I am pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. As a Christian, I work for peace between these two groups. Robertson has stood against the peace process for years, saying that those who work toward peace between these groups will be killed-off by God. Now, Pat sees Guliani as the candidate most likely to fall into the "war with Iran is inevitable" trap set for us by the current Israeli government.

Robertson's arrogance, ignorance, and tired audacity make him perfect for Washington political circles, as abhorrent and one-dimensional as they are these days. He and Giuliani will make a good team until November 2008, when conservatives will decide to stay home and allow Ms. Clinton to take the presidency.
Michael O.

Many possibilities

If you go with the current thinking, which could change at any time, that Guiliani and Romney are the most likely candidates for the Republicans then one might feel oneself caught between a rock and a hard place.

Guiliani obviously has been liberal on the key abortion and marriage issues but is there any comfort to be found in Romney?

Romney clearly ran as a liberal for governor of MA. His turn hard to the right on so many issues is difficult not to be viewed as anything but self-serving. He even comes off as stiff and calculating at least in IMO.

Sure he promises much but look at Bush Sr. I believe he was pro-choice originally. Who did we get for Supreme Court nominees? Souter and Thomas. A 1-1 deal.

Maybe Robertson felt that Guiliani could be trusted more to stick to his promises and appoint strict constitutionalists that would most likely overturn Roe v Wade and not impose gay marriage by judicial fiat. Plus from what I have read there is some personal relationship with Guiliani whereas he most likely has none with Romney.

There is also the Mormon factor. Not many want to talk about it out of fear of being labeled as a bigot but its out there(ironic the number of questions in debates about creation but none about potentially troubling aspects of Mormonism). Not sure what Robertson's take on Mormonism is but some Protestants consider it a cult and most like Catholics consider it non-Christian. They rail about it for decades and then they are going to vote for one for President? Maybe it is just too much for him to swallow.

So why not Thompson, McCain or Huckabee? Perhaps he doesnt want to bet on a loser. If you bet on the right person and they win then you have an inside track. That's a little more cynical view but I cant help but wonder esepcially given the lack of support that Huckabee, a former Baptist minister and consistent on the social issues, has gotten from evangelical protestant leaders.

Numerous pro-lifers are considering backing Giuliani simply because he isn't as bad as Clinton and stands the best chance of beating the democrats.

Republicans are realizing that the pro-life crowd will always vote for them as long as they are less pro-choice than the democrats (which isn't very hard). This leaves them free to do nothing for pro-lifers as they know the pro-lifers can always be counted upon. What "choice" do pro-lifers such as Robertson really have?

Burnt,
I agree with you. The situation makes for a decision of taking the less of two evils. Pat Robertson, if he is truly pro-life in every sense of the term should in my opinion back a pro-life candidate as long as one is available--such as Fred Thompson. Then after the primary elections if Guliani becomes the Republican candidate move his allegiance at that point. I think it is a bit premature to start backing candidates who obviously hold contrary beliefs on non-negotiable issues. However, with some of the hair brained things that have come out of Pat Robertson's mouth I really shouldn't be surprised.

Maybe he is panicing.

Maybe he is putting pragmatic politics above his beliefs.

Many people are pro-life/conservative/traditional/Christian just to be a winner politically, socially and financially.

I was one of those that voted third or other party in most of the elections I have voted in, yea I helped the Clintons win because having a choice between Dem and Rep I would have voted Rep but when I had other choices I went with them.

You should always vote and do what is right and if things seem to go wrong trust that it is God who causes "all things to work for good"

Burnt, I replied to you on the other threads last nite. I don't know what happened to my post maybe I forgot to click Post or something. I kind of laid out a lot that was on my heart and mind and right now its hard to put into words again what was on my mind, so I apologize. Thanks for the correction on Isaiah 22 though.

Makes sense. I'm not sure why I'm shocked when people make purely political decisions anymore.

Too bad for us this election cycle . . . and for the unborn.

God bless,
Jay

I mean thanks WWWO for the correction.

Those posts just got updated. I am guilt of impatience.

Sorry

Shocking indeed...but then again. when you put anything else ahead of God....Mike Huckabee all the way

I'm not sure if you all saw the news or not but National Right to Life has decided to endorse Fred Thompson due to his staunch pro-life voting record. Fred is the antidote to the relativistic politics of Rudy Guliani and also had the money and backing to make a legitimate run for the presidency. Keep him in your prayers.

Pat Robertson's endorsement of Guiliani was motivated by his hatred of Mormonism. Why didn't he back Huckabee or Thompson or McCain? Because he sees the race between Guiliani and Romney. He arrogantly thinks that his influence is greater than it is... that he can perhaps swing the tide. It is very threatening for Robertson to contemplate a Mormon in the White House. This, to him, is unthinkable. It would give credibility to a religion that he personally loathes.

The endorsement of Thomson by the NRLC conforms what we already suspected which is these endorsements are based partly on principle nad partly on politics. I do not have the link but Hugh Hewitt questioned someone from the NRLC and in attacking him as to why they chose Thompson and not say Huckabee given Thompson's refusal to support constitutional bans on abortion or gay marriage the person stated that they picked Thompson in part because they felt he had a better chance of winning than Huckabee.

Now as to the person who said that Robertson back Guiliani because he hated Mormonism that may be but then again he may also just felt that Romney has no integrity. There is little question that Romney supported abortion, gay rights and other liberal causes. It is hard to accept Romney's conservative stance as genuine when he changed his stance on a multitude of issues simultaneously and so close to the presidential elections.

Personally, I dont really care for Robertson all that much and I am not sure how much these endorsements really matter.

Tom (and everyone else),
Did you see this recent comment by Huckabee?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071118/ap_on_el_pr/huckabee_4;_ylt=AkDDNm68cU94bLam3pgQVIQE1vAI

Is it just me, or during the Republican Debate on FoxNews, Mitt Romney seemed like the most prepared as a "politician", I mean like he had his research and focus group data well rehearsed and really had been coached on who to attack and what to attack them with. This may seem good to some for a president, but I just don't take him seriously, I mean to say I don't get any sincerety from him, I think he's following a playbook and will play politics hard ball and cutt throat to win. It's like he's a male Hillary with a pretty face and good personality but Republican. (but he has done something in private life as opposed to Hillary). I just don't get any sincerety from watching him, for being prolife or anything, just that he wants to win and has the money and the tactics and the machine.

skelly,
I would agree with you. Obama, on the democrat side is comparable to Romney. Obama is all about style, but no real substance. He seems to believe his own hype which is even more dangerous than Romney's insincerity. May God help us in this election year.
In Truth,
Matthew

skelly matthew

I'm kinda trying to think optimistic. Huck/Romney/Paul all would sign the Republican prolife platform with no modifications. Hillary is reportedly running to the center claiming that Obama is the most "Liberal" democrat ever!

In Love

when we were one

Post a comment