Catholic Exchange

US Social Conservatives Criticise Robertson’s Giuliani Endorseme

The reaction from leading US social conservatives to Pat Robertson's endorsement of pro-abortion and pro-gay Rudolph Giuliani for the Republican presidential nomination has ranged from outraged denunciation to conspicuous silence.  Robertson's move is especially significant since the evangelical protestant leader's  "700 Club" program influences millions of Americans and he has in the past had major influence on US elections.

According to One News Now, the news agency of the influential American Family Association, only one pro-family leader they contacted agreed to respond — anonymously.  A close friend of Robertson, he reportedly said that the endorsement is "tragic", and nominating Giuliani "will destroy the Republican Party."

However, other social conservatives were quite public in their reaction to the endorsement. Randy Thomasson, president of the the pro-life Campaign for Children and Families, told the Christian Post that "Pat Robertson is leading pro-family voters astray by abandoning moral standards for government," and, "This shocking news is a 180-degree turn by the founder of the Christian Coalition."

Randall Terry, the founder of Operation Rescue, announced that a protest would be held outside of Robertson's Christian Broadcasting Network offices in Washington, D.C., stating that "I am literally sick to my stomach over Dr. Robertson's decision. He wrote a forward to my book, Operation Rescue, I have been on the 700 Club, I have spoken at Regent University, CBN helped me get started in radio, and the attorneys of the ACLJ have been heroic advocates for our pro-life mission. This is what happens when a leader puts party ahead of principle; it corrupts ones ability to reason consistently."

The endorsement seems to indicate a change in priorities for Robertson, who has traditionally emphasized human life and family issues.  He justified his decision to support Giuliani by referring to the candidate's leadership on law enforcement, tax cuts, and military aggressiveness.  He listed social concerns as third, after military and economic issues. 

Robert Tracinski of Real Clear Politics sees the endorsement as a sign of "a significant political retreat by the religious right". In his recent column he notes Robertson's altered priorities and says, "we have reached the point at which a long-time top leader of the religious right has conceded that the religious social agenda should not be the Republican Party's 'overriding' concern."

Tracinski says that the significance of the endorsement is that "the religious right has apparently accepted much more modest political goals, settling for Rudy Giuliani's promise about judges…In short, the religious right is preparing itself to settle for a kind of bare minimum from the Republican presidential candidate. It is preparing itself to subordinate its religious agenda to a secular agenda."

Another highly influential conservative political activist, Paul Weyrich, released his endorsement of Mitt Romney just before Robertson came out with his announcement. Weyrich recently told Newsmax, I'm not for Giuliani. I want to try to stop him from getting the nomination."

However, the liberal publication "Mother Jones", which has an incentive to play up the Robertson endorsement to discredit Giuliani, opines in its blog that the Robertson event is "irrelevant": "Does this mean evangelicals don't care about abortion and homosexuality as much as people think? No. Frankly, I think this just underscores Robertson's irrelevance. He's a cranky old man who has been replaced by younger and more energetic leaders in his movement."

The Times of London, after dismissing Robertson as a crackpot based on a series of well-known public gaffes and embarrassments, sees the event as evidence of a "crackup" in the evangelical protestant movement in the U.S..  "It was always a neat fiction put about by the godless media that evangelicals were like some giant army of automatons who could be programmed to march to the voting booths, Bibles aloft, ready to vote for God's way exactly as defined by their preachers" writes the Times. "There was always more diversity than that, but these days the diversity is startling. Evangelicals are fracturing."

Comments

  1. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Sometimes leaders get it wrong. While many think that falling in line with Giuliani is the thing to do, I agree with a discussion I heard yesterday. We need to fight to get a pro-Life candidate on the ticket in both major parties. Robertson may lose what support he has left after this latest gaffe. There has been a deep suspicion among moderates and those who could not stomach Republicans for their own historical reasons that some people (Robertson included) have been using pro-life issues as a cover for promoting Republican politics and a certain world view of the role of the United States. Evangelicals may split from their leaders but I think Pro-Life people will hold to their values. Now we have to show that pro-Life issues matter.

    I have often counselled Democrats that they should be Pro-Life since many people would vote for them if they were and the far left would never vote Republican. Therefore being pro-Life should be a win-win for them. Now I fear pro-Choicers in the Republican Party are urging leaders to take the risk the Dems would never take. these. The Giuliani types are gambling that the Republican Party can make compromises on moral issues since we will feel that Hillary or Obama would be worse than a lukewarm Giuliani. We need leaders to step up and say NO to his mentality before we get to a General Election with no voice.

    Should both major parties offer pro-Death candidates then we will have to pray and discern very carefully; but it is far too early in the process to support someone who has turned up their noses at the core values of our Faith. For now we should into promise to support.

  2. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I wonder if his (Giuliani's) positioning on military and economic issues appeals to the expectation of Armageddon found in some evangelical 

    Christian circles.  Just a thought.
  3. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Pmccrsp, well said!

  4. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I'm not sure what gaffes made by Pat Robertson the author is talking about. I believe he's referencing the conversation between Robertson and Jerry Falwell concerning 9-11 where Falwell said God may have allowed the destruction because of moral decay. He also said Americans should have an attitude of repentance before God and ask for God's protection.  He listed the ACLU, abortionists, feminists, gays, and the People For the American Way as sharing in the blame.  He mentioned those groups because they are at the forefront of advocating for pedophilia, abortion, homosexual sodomy and drug use just to name a few.  Ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? Put me on the record for agreement with Falwell…

  5. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Thanks for the compliment, Claire. 

    Dear Lazar,

    I see your point.  So why is Rev. Robertson endorsing Mr. Giuliani? 

    The gaffe that is causing many gasps is Mr. Robertson's endorsement this week of Mr. Giuliani who does not have a pro-Life record on abortion and doesn't make any apologies for that.  He excuses himself by saying that his judicial appointments would be originalist and therefore should be appealing to Pro-Life groups even though he himself will not say he favors a Roe V Wade reversal and would not seek a ban on abortion.  Likewise his I understand he is in favor of homosexual partnerships being declared marriages or some parallel word that would essentially mean the same thing.

     Most Pro-Lifers have held that abortion, euthanasia, defense of marriage, and embryonic stem cell research were essentials in which the sanctity of life demanded no compromise.  We have begged those who had problems with other aspects of the Republican platform to see the moral primacy of these issues.  Now a family values minister is backing a candidate who fails to uphold Christians values on many if not all of these issues.  He justifies it on the basis that Mr. Giuliani will be good for anti-terrorism, the economy and national security.  So after years of begging our moderate friends not to sell out the unborn for important but "lesser" moral imperatives, a major leader has sold out the unborn for a country-club Republican agenda.  And that is a shame.

    We've asked others to hold their noses to vote Pro-Life and Pro-Family.  Mr Robertson is asking us to hold our noses to vote Pro-Death.  You'd have to hold you nose to the point of suffocation to keep the stench of death out.  Of course in the end we may get a choice of deadly and deadlier.  I wish now I had not changed to independent voting status, though in my state, NY, both parties are extremely secularist and ant-life.

  6. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    My gut tells me Robertsons's is a smart move for the pro-life majority. They won't vote for Giuliani anyway, but if he wins, he's somewhat beholden to life issues. 

  7. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    I think we're well on the way to NEITHER party being a party that supports morality.  Why?  Because in order to support morality one needs to live a moral life.  The national rates of fornication, sodomy, divorce/remarriage, contraception use, abortion, to name a few mortal sins, are astonishingly high even for those folks who claim to be a Christian of some ilk.

    Most voters don't want to be held to the standard of living a virtuous life.  Therefore, they won't want virtue enshrined in a political party either.  It's a matter of, "Don't say anything about my sin, and I'll turn a blind eye to your sin as well."

    I write this as a swallow the last cold dregs of coffee in my mug which I drank hot and mellow while reading a pamphlet for the Mirena hormonal IUD.  Now where did I get that brochure?  At my ostensibly Christian Ob/Gyn office.  Now who gets that abortifaecent product inserted?  Why the Christian sitting next to you in the pew.  Well, at least Mirena allows a woman the "Freedom to be yourself…..Love the Freedom"! (their marketing slogans).  How can either of the parties mentioned–doctors and patients–vociferously fight against abortion sterile same sex gential contact?  Sow the wind and you'll reap the whirlwind.  A moral nation starts in the hearts of each citizen.  We must each examine ourselves and root out sin–today. 

  8. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Everyone better think long and hard about voting for Rudy. Compare him against Clinton and there is no difference. If the Republicans remove the Right to Life plank in their platform, it will never come back. This is a win, win for the pro-death crowd. I’m looking at going to a third party. Maybe it’s time to cut the ties to any party and just be free to influence the elections from the outside instead of just getting lip service from the Republicans. Think about it, all the Republicans have to do is keep the issue alive and never let it be resolved, thereby keeping the Pro-Life vote. If Roe V Wade is overturned then voters are free to go to other issues. So we keep getting strung along.

  9. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Maybe Robertson is jockeying for VP or some other appointment. Politics makes strange bedfellows indeed. It's still too early to get excited about this. I trust that the Reps. will give us at least an acceptable ticket.

  10. Guest Avatar
    Guest

    Robertson's endorsement of Rudy should come as no surprise when one examines Robertson's record in politics.  Often he is working to be in on the winner's team and he thinks Rudy can win, it's that simple but what is not simple is the 2008 Election.  Social Conservatives are not going to vote as a "bloc" as in the last two elections and may be split among many candidates.  Each major party has several candidates in the race now and don't forget the Third Party players that will come into play next summer/fall. 

     

    Part of this is a good example of a religious leader letting his influence go to his head.  What Robertson should be doing, as others should be doing, is sharpening the debate on the issues, asking the candidates where they stand and comparing to what they have done on a given issue.  I mean, look at some of the consequences of this action by Robertson.  First, he has shown that perhaps "power" is more important than belief in this endorsement.  Second, he puts Catholics at odds with other believer's as when one sees a report from the USCCB that puts abortion as the number one issue and then sees Robertson all but cave concerning abortion what are voters to think?  Third, he splits the social conservative bloc and does that help? 

     

    What is really sad is that the USA has come to think of its Constitutionally mandated elections as a referendum on killing fetuses.  When the Constitution was written it was not done so in order that decades later American citizens could spend hours discussing abortion.  Think about it.  Here we are referencing a horrible act, medical yes but a horrible act and treat it like another issue.  What should be discussed is why are women needing to kill a fetus that is in their womb?  No one wants to address the real culprit: zealous feminism. 

     

    Feminist Theory has run amuck in America and now we witness one of its profound legacies.  Untold millions of human beings sent to their maker before their time.  While there are valid points of inquiry concerning Feminist Theory, what should be stated LOUD and CLEAR is that the desire to destroy all things patriarchal, leaves society with pregnant women that are not married, not able to parent their unborn child, and loose morals that allow for untold and irresponsible pregnancies. 

     

    When Pat Robertson endorses a candidate for federal office that will not oppose abortion then look at what he is doing to the Electorate.  I will be the first to say that terrorism is a more important issue than abortion and I suspect that were Rudy the President then he would do all he could to prevent terrorist attacks.  However, what will he really do concerning Judges who support abortion?

     

    Joseph Bailey

Leave a Reply