Like the Divine Mrs. M.Z. said, that Pat Robertson guy is really a character, isn’t he?
This Rudy story, however, has got to be an example of when reporters might want to avoid the “strange bedfellows” image in a lede. Don’t you think? Here’s the top of one version of the New York Times report by David D. Kirkpatrick and Michael Cooper:
They could compete for strangest bedfellows of 2008.
Rudolph W. Giuliani is a supporter of gay and abortion rights who is building his Republican primary campaign around his response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
Pat Robertson, the Christian conservative broadcaster, once said permissiveness toward homosexuality and abortion led to God’s “lifting his protection” to allow those attacks.
So what is going on?
Back in 2000, I heard veteran D.C. politico Michael Barone make an interesting observation during a forum at the Ethics & Public Policy Center. We were talking about major news stories in the cliffhanger election and he said that one of the most interesting stories that no one covered that year was the silence of the great evangelical superstars — meaning Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell. Either they were locked out of the Bush inner circles or they elected to be quiet. Either way, it was a big story.
My guess is that Robertson is determined not to be locked out again.
But here is my question to GetReligion readers. Is the Robertson endorsement of Giuliani a sign that the Great Evangelical Crackup Thesis is right or wrong?
Over at Slate, a bright young journalist — with roots at Patrick Henry College — is convinced that the whole New York Times Magazine thesis is a myth.
Here is a bite of David Sessions’ piece:
To hear the press tell it, the so-called values voter is disenchanted with the Republican Party and will stay home and pray for our country on Election Day ‘08 if the GOP nominee ends up being a cross-dressing home wrecker or, God forbid, a Mormon. …
But rather than pinpointing a genuine political trend, the piece just triggers a nagging sense of deja vu, one confirmed by a search of the Times archives: In a February 2000 Times Magazine cover story, Margaret Talbot concluded that “it cannot be denied that as a political force, the religious right is flagging” and described “a newfound disillusionment with politics.” Now, in 2007, Kirkpatrick calls 2004 the zenith of evangelicals’ influence and says that the religious right is once again “cracking up,” facing “end times.” If this convoluted chronology is to be believed, then no other political demographic has ever vacillated as impressively between retreat and triumph.
Now, personally, I don’t think the “evangelicals,” whoever they are, are a tower of cultural unity anyway. And, when it comes to politics, I don’t think that we have seen much of a collapse of the white evangelical values vote, yet. It was cut, a bit, by Iraq and, a bit, by disappointment with Bush. The Democrats also ran some old-fashioned, culturally conservative candidates in a few key races in 2006. And there is some evidence that younger evangelicals are tired of the GOP, but are not flocking to the Democrats. This is complex.
So things are in flux, maybe. We will have to see.
But what about the Robertson story? Is that sign of a crackup or a sign that the old Religious Right mojo is still there? What say ye?
 | Posted at 7:37 am |  Print
| Permalink | Trackback |
Comments (9) |
November 8, 2007, at 10:41 am
I think it’s a sign that Pat Robertson would like the mantle of Billy Graham.
November 8, 2007, at 11:30 am
[…] The Get Religion blog is not sure that the buzz surrounding Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani is all together accurate: Now, personally, I don’t think the “evangelicals,†whoever they are, are a tower of cultural unity anyway. And, when it comes to politics, I don’t think that we have seen much of a collapse of the white evangelical values vote, yet. It was cut, a bit, by Iraq and, a bit, by disappointment with Bush. The Democrats also ran some old-fashioned, culturally conservative candidates in a few key races in 2006. And there is some evidence that younger evangelicals are tired of the GOP, but are not flocking to the Democrats. This is complex. […]
November 8, 2007, at 11:44 am
Since you asked, I don’t take anything Pat Robertson does or says as having anything to say about evangelicals.
There was a point a few years ago where many identified abortion and gays as the primary issue, in other words, there was a classic ‘single-issue’ vote by many. I think many are now looking at that and seeing issues in a broader context. This is significant because of how close the 2000 and 2004 elections were, especially 2000.
There’s also a “half a loaf” discussion going on - there’s a candidate who is very closely aligned with life issues but is not getting support because he’s not seen as electable. This always comes into play when dealing with politics - do you vote your principles or vote for the half-a-loaf candidate.
And, once you decide that, will someone who voted for Bush based on life issues be willing to support Senator Clinton who has proposed measures to reduce the number of abortions, for example.
This makes the whole issue even more complex and gets us to the current complex question: vote only for someone who matches your values, vote for someone who said he’d advance those, vote for someone else who wants to approach life issues from another perspective, protest by 3rd party or stay home.
November 8, 2007, at 12:55 pm
What I found ironic is that Frank Lucas, the former drug kingpin, announced his support for Guiliani soon after Robertson. Now that’s an odd couple.
November 8, 2007, at 2:52 pm
I guess he’s not too worried that Guiliani is going to be taking direction from Benedict XVI. I can’t imagine B16 is on Rudy’s! best friends list on his cell phone.
November 8, 2007, at 3:24 pm
I think Pat Robertson is losing it. I’d rather vote for Hillary if it means not voting my conscious rather than voting for someone who can “win” our Governator Arnold is the perfect example of a someone who can “win”. I’d rather lose the election so that people can blame the right people when things are not going the way we want them.
As for me my vote will go for Huckabee.
May God Give Us Wisdom when we vote.
November 8, 2007, at 9:07 pm
Anyone who thinks Evangelicals simply don’t care about abortion or fighting the Gay agenda or the Left in other realms anymore is simply not digging enough to get the full story.
Rather than the boring (and obvious) “strange bedfellows” lead, members of the media should be interviewing close associates, church parishioners and others in the GOP to discover what REALLY possessed Robertson - other than easy opportunism - to endorse what must be seen as Hillary in a man’s suit.
…Though, come to think of it, given his history with clothes, we’re likely to see Rudy’s suit replaced with a dress and rouge sometime after his nomination.
November 9, 2007, at 12:21 pm
What was Robertson thinking? Forget Giuliani’s stance on gays, he is so far from a person of integrity that I am shocked any religious conservative can support him. Especially compared to a woman who stayed with a difficult marriage and worked it out as she had vowed to, has taught Sunday School for years, raised a lovely child and who works to reduce abortions (as opposed to merely outlawing them.) Is fighting Muslims the only consideration these religious leaders have? Or are they seduced by the idea of access to power? Can the press cover the depth of the disconnect?
1. Giuliani doesn’t accept the teachings of his religion, but uses its trappings for political gains.
2. He doesn’t respect marriage. He annulled his first marriage against his wife’s protests claiming she was his second cousin, while the priest (of dubious morality himself) who had vetted the first marriage, supported allowing him out on those grounds.
3. He is a serial adulterer while being a moralist.
4. He doesn’t respect women- his own wife had to learn of her divorce in a press conference.
6. He chose a mistress over his children and family. His children are bitter and publicly support Obama.
7. He overlooked the ties of his close friend to the mob, even after having been informed of it. And proposed him for national office. Not good judgement.
8. He moved the emergency command center TO the World Trade Center after its first bombing. Not good judgement.
9. He allowed a no bid contract costing millions to Motorola on unproven and shoddy telecommunications for the emergency workers, and ignored complaints, resulting in unnecessary firefighter deaths. Not good judgement.
10. He profited materially and politically from 9-11. (He was washed up with the NYS Republican party before the planes hit, and only his national post 9-11 standing resurrected him.)
11. He knowingly disseminates false information (like using very old British cancer statistics against recent US ones to “prove” national health care is inferior, even after having been corrected.) Isn’t care for the poor and defenseless a major Christian value?
12. He badly polarized the city while mayor. Another Republican, Bloomberg was able through good management to decrease the polarization significantly.
13. He took credit for crime drops that were largely due to demographics (and had started under his predecessor Democrat David Dinkins) and which declined less than in similar cities. And when he thought his police chief took too much credit from him for the decline, he fired him.
14. He has flip flopped significantly on gun control and other stances to gain votes.
I don’t know that arrogance, impulsiveness, being self centered, engaging corruption and thumbing ones nose at morality makes for acceptable Christian morality. The support of Giuliani puzzles me, but then I had to live in the city while he was mayor and the press spin has less effect.
November 10, 2007, at 1:24 am
There is some evidence that evangelical “leaders” like Robertson have miscalculated badly by backing “someone who can win” rather than “someone who is one of us.”
This article from the LA Times (reprinted in the NH Union Leader) has a few unsolicited remarks from very upset (former) Robertson supporters:
http://tinyurl.com/2urws2