Just hours after Pat Robertson announced that he was endorsing Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the presidency, a supporter asked what Giuliani thought of the televangelist’s comments right after 9/11 (which he claims to have predicted), when he essentially said that the terrorist attacks were God’s wrath unleashed on a stiff-necked nation. Specifically, he said:
"We have allowed rampant secularism and occult, et cetera, to be
broadcast on television. We have permitted somewhere in the
neighborhood of 35 to 40 million unborn babies to be slaughtered in our
society. We have a Court that has essentially stuck its finger in God’s
eye and said, ‘We’re going to legislate you out of the schools, we’re
going to take your Commandments from off the courthouse steps in
various states, we’re not going to let little children read the
Commandments of God, we’re not going to let the Bible be read — no
prayer in our schools.’ We have insulted God at the highest levels of
our government. And, then we say ‘why does this happen?’ Well, why its
happening is that God Almighty is lifting His protection from us."
OK, so it was more like he was saying the Almighty withdrew his countenance — his protection — from us.
Anyway, Rudy is no stranger to dealing with the protection racket. He brushed off that concern, saying, "Gosh, I’ve had to explain lots of comments of mine at different times."
Saying, "I’m very, very pleased to have Pat Robertson’s endorsement," the former mayor went on to explain why. If you want to know why, watch the video. And if you want video of the announcement earlier in the day, you can find a clip at this site.
Related Posts
Come on Brad, be a sport. Just tell us why!
Brad,
For the sake of being non-partisan, as you demand everyone else here to be, please post links to all the times you’ve trashed a Democrat the way you’re trashing Giuliani here, and Romney below.
Here’s betting you’ve metaphorically spit at Mark Sanford more times than you’ve actually criticized the Democratic Party in your entire life.
And yet you cloak yourself in the guise of the neutrality of intellectual pursuit.
Shame, shame, shame.
Just hours after Pat Robertson announced that he was endorsing Rudy Giuliani’s bid for the presidency, a supporter asked what Giuliani thought of the televangelist’s comments right after 9/11 (which he claims to have predicted), when he essentially said that the terrorist attacks were God’s wrath unleashed on a stiff-necked nation. Specifically, he said:* Brad
Wait until the Rev finds out that 9/11 was a inside job by Rudy….Than what? Does the Rev strike him dead with the Marriage Certs by all former 4 wives of Rudy or does he hold another religious fund raiser to battle the gays at Disney World again?
Weldon, I’m not sure how to respond. First of all, I just reread what I wrote, and fail to see how I "trashed" anybody.
At most, I greet these developments with puzzlement. I find myself wondering, "Whose vote is actually influenced by Pat Robertson or Bob Jones III?" Are Romney and Giuliani chasing fool’s gold in seeking such endorsements? Do they actually gain more than they lose in credibility? In fact, I think I’ll do a separate post about that.
But "trash" Rudy? I can’t see it. And since I can’t see it, I’m at a loss to provide you with the "balancing" posts that you ask me to point out. I seem to recall Democrats throwing the same accusations at me over what I wrote about John Edwards a while back — something I submit to you was, objectively speaking, actually CRITICAL of the guy. Then there were folks who thought I was too rough on Grady Patterson. But I wouldn’t even call either instance "trashing," and I certainly don’t accept service that I did such to Rudy.
What do the rest of y’all think?
OK, maybe “trash” wasn’t the right word.
But your post wasn’t exactly an endorsement, was it?
Also, rather than Giuliani “chasing fool’s gold” from Robertson’s endorsement, it’s much more likely Robertson is chasing credibility, and maybe something else, by hooking on to someone he perceives as the GOP frontrunner.
Haven’t people yet figurd out that the religious right is NOT religious? A truly religious person would not have forsaken all fundamental qualities to help nominate a candidate that has nothing in common wth them.
Why did not they support Huckabee? Because he is NOT electable. He has all the qualities the religious right requires – except one – he can’t win the nomination.
The religious right has shown their true colors to the rest of the world. Like the true tv evangelists that they are – all they want is power and MONEY!