I’ve got my pros and cons on all the candidates for the 2008 presidential election and I’ve honestly not made a decision on who I’m supporting and/or voting for. And while most, from reading this blog or hearing my sermons, may think I’m inclined towards the Democratic party, I honestly have no particular affiliation. I really do try to examine the person beyond the party lines. I also have gone through the ebbs and flows of how I am to engage politics. I have cursed it, embraced it, and rest now on thinking that politics is what it is. It is important but far from being the cure-all to the ailments of society. It is NOT the answer.
Anyway, I stumbled across Jim Wallis’ post today about his thoughts on Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giulani for President. Honestly, I was stunned and a little confused.
Now, please don’t take this as me against Giulani or me against the Republicans. Please, I beg you. I love my Republican friends and blog subscribers and don’t want to lose your support when I run for President someday after Arnold Schwarchenegger changes that law! If anything, I guess it’s basically my continual lack of understanding how Rev. Pat Roberson processes his decisions. I’m sure he has his reasons but I guess it’s safe to say, I simply disagree. Some of you may remember that while I can acknowledge him as a “brother in Christ” or a “long distant cousin,” I’m more often frustrated at his comments and actions. Now, while I do have some respect for him, the “other stuff” are the reasons why I respectfully declined the 700 Club’s offer/request couple years to visit our church/cafe for a brief video shoot to highlight Quest as their “church of the week.”
I’m hijacking Wallis’ post because it summarizes much of my thoughts. Probably the main reason why Robertson is supporting Giulani is because he thinks that Giulani might be the only Republican that can beat Hilary Clinton. Geez, there are times I just hate politics.
From Wallis’ God’s Politics: Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani for president is simply astonishing. Robertson – the television preacher who founded the 700 Club and once ran for president himself – has made opposition to abortion and same sex marriage his political north star and has been a relentless champion of traditional marriage and family values.
Remember Robertson’s merciless attacks on President Bill Clinton’s lapses of sexual morality with Monica Lewinsky? Or his comments about how the 9/11 attacks were the result of America’s tolerance for homosexuals and abortion?
Now Robertson is for Rudy, a thrice married adulterous husband, who is estranged from his own children and is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights. According to Pat Robertson’s twisted moral logic, forgiving the social conservative shortcomings of Republicans is a Christian virtue, so long as the same virtue is never applied to Democrats. But Pat thinks Rudy can beat Hillary, and Pat really cares about winning for the Republicans.
What exactly goes on in Pat Robertson’s head has puzzled many of us for a long time. This endorsement ranks as one of the most unprincipled in recent political memory. Maybe principles never mattered much to Pat Robertson after all. Perhaps the pro-business economic conservatism of the Republican Party was always more important to the televangelist than saving unborn lives. Robertson’s longstanding support of murderous Liberian dictator Charles Taylor and his diamond investments thanks to Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Seko speak louder than words when it comes to Robertson’s ethic of life. And that’s not to mention the more than $400 million Robertson’s empire made when he sold his International Family Networkto Rupert Murdoch, after building it on tax deductible contributions of thousands of CBN donors, many of modest means. He has been putting profits over principles for years.
Richard Land, spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, has taken a more consistent position. Land has clearly said that he won’t support Giuliani if he becomes the Republican nominee, explaining in a recent Newsweek interview, “I’m not willing or able to violate my moral conscience. It would be like asking an African American to choose between Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, or asking Abe Lincoln to vote for a pro-slavery candidate. I personally can’t do it.” Land predicts that many social conservatives will just sit out this election if the Republicans decide to run Rudy. That’s called standing for principle.
Pat Robertson clearly has taken another position. His endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will seem to many to be unprincipled hypocrisy.
I don’t know. What do you think?