Robertson to endorse Giuliani
Update: Video added
***
Pat Robertson will endorse Rudy Giuliani for president. Well, so much for religious conservatives abandoning the GOP.
The question is whether Robertson’s followers will, well, follow.
According to the AP, the men have a long-standing relationship:
A Giuliani campaign aide said the Giuliani has known Robertson for a long time, and their relationship was cemented on a flight back from Israel shortly after Saddam Hussein was captured, where they discussed views on Israel and domestic policies.
The Giuliani aide said that the two have shared goals despite some minor differences.
Hmm. I wouldn’t call them “minor.”
Meantime, the McCain campaign is countering the Giuliani coup by touting an endorsement from Sen Sam. Switchback, who recently dropped out of the GOP race.
Weak.
***
Flashback – Giuliani’s speech at Regent University in July…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
Say goodbye to Rudy…say hello to Rudy’s endorsement of McCain?
January 29, 2008 08:04 PM by Michelle Malkin
41 Comments
GOP Florida debate: Show us the conservatism; Update: Icky public displays of affection; Grade: Zzzzzzz
January 24, 2008 06:42 PM by Michelle Malkin
280 Comments
“Three reasons I can’t trust Giuliani on immigration;” Plus: Huckabee’s open-borders roots are showing again
December 3, 2007 10:01 AM by Michelle Malkin
108 Comments
Categories: Rudy Giuliani
Babalu Blog
» Greece is BurningPatterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitDaily Caller
» Inside Media Matters: Sources, memos reveal erratic behavior, close coordination with White House and news organizationsNice Deb
» Former DEA Chief Tells Fox News: 3 Other Federal Agencies Knew About Operation ‘Fast and Furious’Gateway Pundit
» Notre Dame Tells Obama: HHS Mandate Is a ‘Grave Violation of Religious Freedom and Cannot Stand’AmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidThe Hill
» Rep. Ron Paul not conceding Maine vote
And thus social conservatism ends.
Neither endorsement will sway me one little bit in favor of voting for either one of them. Both McCain and Giuliani are RINOs in my book. I could really go for a Thompson/Hunter ticket myself.
Well, well well. Frankly, I think this is good news. All the talk about a third party candidate is all but certain death for conservatives in the ’08 election.
It’s nice to see that Robertson is actually paying attention. Guiliani may not be the ideal republican candidate but damn it, I’ll take him over Chillary any day.
It’ll be interesting to learn where Dobson stands.
Why doesn’t Pat Robertson endorse Hillary? After all, the difference between her views and Rudy’s are minor by this definition.
What’s not to love for the family values voter about a guy who’s had multiple failed marriages, supports “choice”, and whose own kids don’t support? Grrreaat.
Is anyone else concerned about what details are going to come out about Rudy’s divorces if he gets the nomination?
Not that he speaks for me…
“I know this is painful for the ladies to hear, but if you get married, you have accepted the headship of a man, your husband. Christ is the head of the household and the husband is the head of the wife, and that’s the way it is, period.” –Pat Robertson
Thats an endorsement I could live without.
Giuliani isn’t perfect, but the War on Terror comes in first on my list of priorities and he’s got a proven record for standing strong. I’m not too excited about anyone at this point.
sorry, I meant “whose own kids don’t support”… his candidacy.
Who is Pat Robertson and why is this news?
This is bizarre. While not a religious man by any stretch, I am puzzled by the choice for a man who seems to fly in the face of Mr. Robertsons core convictions.
A few things come to mind here:
1) Robertson is aware that our current dealings with the Middle East trump gay marriage and abortion. He’s probably also aware that Rudy will appoint judges that are strict constuctionist, so that lessens the impetus to have someone who is 100% pro life under all circumstances (since the courts are the main vehicle for the Prez to enact abortion related policy).
2) We shouldn’t be so schocked that Robertson cares about other things besides social issues. Foreign policy is clearly the biggest issue out there, and Rudy’s been the strongest on it.
3)Not having our heads lopped off by Islamists is a pretty important social issue that might just trump some of the other things right now, and it seems that Robertson acknowlegdes that.
i am sorry.. i would be willing to accept a guiliani ticket IF i have to, but i cannot understand this endorsement. i would think that pat could find that Mit’s differences are far more minor than Rudy’s.
I actually think the ticket is Romney/Thompson. IMHO put up against a Hillary/Richardson (you know that is her VP) ticket they (R/T) will be a towering presence. This speaks to a more presidential appearance (towering over the two little candidates). People are visual.
To say Rudy is/will be tough on GWT, is not enough. So will McCain, Romney and Thompson. I personally do like Duncan Hunter’s positions, but really think that Thompson is better known. So gets the VP by default.
Besides, Bush is pro-life and not much has come down the pike changing the abortion laws. Roe v. Wade is still on the books.
We are in the fight for our lives and well-being as we know it. And my hat goes off to anyone with the wherewital to notice it and give credence to those who are willing to fight against it.
Pat Robertson made a very wise decision.
I’ve always wondered about the real importance of all of these endorsements. The question above – will the followers really follow? I don’t know.
In response to #11 taylork: I’m not sure though you can say further eroding the moral fiber of our nation is second to Middle East policy. History has many examples of countries which fell from within with very little external pressure.
30 pcs of silver
Myself I’d take Homer Simpson over Hillary if that was the only alternative …
This is one time that, if she is the DemoCrap nominee, I will definitely be voting “against” someone no matter what the options …
I’m with you uhangtight #12 ..I do not understand this endorsement. Others would seem to make far more sense.
OT – what I find funny – the lefties who visit and comment here sometimes – they think we are a monolithic group. Seems not to be the case to me
I am extremely pleased. I had written Tony Perkins my concern of a third party candidate and handing the election to Hillary and it would be on their heads if all the sheep followed.
I meant every word of what I said and it is a reality in that it could happen.
So seeing this, this morning made me very happy. I am definitely pro-Rudy.
uhangtight,
Romney is a force to be reckoned with. He is gaining ground. But what it comes down to is that I will vote for whomever wins the ticket. Hunter’s my guy but he doesn’t have a chance.
dl, amen. Hillary must be defeated…
The way I understand it, Giuliani’s sencences consist of thee things — a noun, a verb, and 911. That could almost be a show on Comedy Central. But what would you call it, RINO 911?
He’s sticking with what works…that’s makes sense.
Funny, I have spent 25 years in the Conservative Protestant community, and I have never met anyone who paid much attention to what Pat Robertson said or did. As one person said, the only person who pays attention to Pat Robertson is Pat Robertson. The only reason he still gets in the newspapers is because the newspapers, with typical ignorance about what us horrible fundamentalists think, keep going to him for quotes.
IIRC, Pat Robertsom has taken some awfully odd positions in the past, for a social conservative. Didn’t support Clinton during the impeachment or something?
I’d rather have someone with 911 in the forefront than someone ignoring the matter all together or having their head in the sand. and I’m with dl also, anyone but her period.
+ Homer would be running on the food ticket and, well you know. lol
#19 – silver….I’m with you – although I’m not sure my guy has even entered the race….
My local election yesterday for several positions had the situation of repelling from one candidate being far stronger than my attraction to the other. The repelling force made me vote for the other guy.
cRus
#3 30 pcs of silver:
“All the talk about a third party candidate is all but certain death for conservatives in the ‘08 ”
Dead on, Thirty.
A third-party candidate delivered us eight years of the Clintons.
(I do not believe for a minute that as many voters were bled from the Democrats as were bled from the Republicans.)
The crucial objective, for the good of our country, has to be to keep Clinton or any other Democrat out. Period.
As I have said before, we must NOT let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
Conservatives who don’t like some aspects of the GOP candidate, by voting for a third-party nominee they more closely agree with, are essentially doing what the kid does who takes his ball and bat home with him because he doesn’t like how the game is going; and thus are effectively electing a Democrat president.
Trouble is, the ballfield is always there for the kid the next day, the next week;
however, I am not so sure whether our country that we know and love will still be there when the third-party voter decides to return to support a Republican candidate.
Talk about being in a quagmire…
Whatever the case, the GOP needs to unite once the candidate is chosen. Warts and all, it’s too important to bicker over who endorsed whom and when. I still haven’t made my mind up — except that McCain is absolutely not getting my vote on Primary Day.
I’m a little surprised by this endorsement…I would’ve expected Robertson to say something similar to what Dobson said.
That much said, these days, the only time Pat Robertson makes the news is when he’s predicting gloom’n'doom for the USA.
This endorsement does nothing for me.
Rudy is NOT the only GOP candidate that can be strong on terror! He is a RINO, pure and simple. I am truly disappointed in Pat Robertson. I’m a member of The 700 Club and will be canceling my donations TODAY. Pat Robertson has lost all credibility as far as I’m concerned. I’m done with him.
Pat Robertson’s “followers” aside, as a follower of Christ, I am pleased to see that a prominent Christian voice has stepped up and demonstrated that faith voters are not single-issue intransigents. The media evermore portrays Christians as weak-kneed sheep who think exactly alike on all worldly matters, which we do not. I’m not a fan of Robertson, necessarily, and have often been left in a world-class *cringe* at his statements. Today, I applaud his stand.
Nope, I do not understand this at all. Rudy is on the wrong side of most conservative issues.
So, he will be tough on terrorism. Why? Because he was in NY? Please.
I will vote for Rudy if he is the Repub choice but he is no conservative and Robertson has jumped the shark IMHO.
Huck and Mitt are way more conservative. Huck is on the wrong side of shame-nasty but so is Rudy.
Pat is in bed with a candidate already because of friendship – that is it.
To On-My #33, I’ll be interested to see if Robertson’s endorsement at least loosens the reins on faith voters to examine all issues and make decisions based upon a broader range of concerns. I’m with you that, if Rudy’s the nominee, I’ll vote for him. Until then, I’m watching the field to see who breaks out on all matters of importance and not just abortion & gay rights; the two hot-buttons unfairly boxing in faith voters.
Robertson is convinced Hillary will be the opponent. Is so, Rudy is the best choice to take her on with the gloves off.
How about Giuliani/Steele?
I have yet to understand how Rudy is tough on terror even. Isn’t he a sanctuary city (and no that’s not a church sanctuary lest anybody is confused).
Let me remind everyone of someone who has ALWAYS been on the correct side of Shamnesty and has always been pro-life and fiscally conservative – Fred Thompson. I’ll catch hell for this, but had Rudy not been the mayor of NYC on 9/11, we would NOT be talking about him today. Think about it and you know I’m right.
Ladies and Gentlemen, remember how outraged most everyone was over Shamnesty. Remember the switchboard lighting up at the Senate? We need to be equally outraged. Are we going to let ANYONE including Pat Robertson try to redefine Christian conservatism for us? I, for one, am NOT!
sorry #36 – isn’t Rudy a sanctuary city guy…
Oink…beat me to the Rudy is only even (?widely?) known through 9/11. W/o actions of terrorists, Rudy would not be considered. Honestly – he was the mayor of a big city. Not exactly same level of issues as even a small state.
Yup, I always figured Pat Robertson was a phony.
Giuliani is a liberal. He supports abortion, and welcomes illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities. He opposes gun rights. He supported a Democratic candidate for governor in New York, and among his 75 judicial appointments, Democrats outnumbered Republicans by more than eight to one.
Giuliani increased spending in New York from less than $22 billion to over $27 billion in less than a decade. When Congress for once got its act together by reforming welfare in the mid-90s, Giuliani fervently opposed the reforms. His big government economic policies don’t stop here. Giuliani has fallen with Democrats on Medicare, supported increasing the minimum wage and backed regulations such as rent control.
Pat might as well endorse Hillary.
Oink – BINGO!
NBF – BINGO, BINGO!!
Unless Pat’s gone nuts, this is just an attempt to not be out of the deal. Robertson is under the mistaken notion Rudy has any use for him other than for this one off.
I doubt many of Robertson’s followes will follow him on this.
Many people live without the Bible.
And many live with the Bible even though it is being removed from everything on earth.
This has nothing to do with the Bible and everything to do with a Christian leader throwing in his endorsement of a liberal dressed in sheep’s clothing.
Shame on him.
I agree Soap – a leftist with an R after his name is as bad as a leftist with a D after her name.
My mention of the Bible isn’t related to the Robertson-Giuliani story, but to the quote from StrangeLove. It’s right from the Bible, not a Pat Roberston original.
Rudy TRANSFORMED NYC. Violence dropped, property values sky rocketed, and Times Square was cleaned up. I’d say that’s a monumental accomplishment, espically since Philly, Balitimore, Detroit, Chicago, etc. are still in a 50 year slump.
He’s proven he can govern effectively, and get results no else has been able to, even though NYC was dominated by democrats.
Thompson’s done. Even he’s admitting it.
What choices do we really have for Presidential candidates???? A liberal NY politician and Hillary Clinton!!! No choice at all!
#49 Dandapani:
“What choices do we really have for Presidential candidates???? A liberal NY politician and Hillary Clinton!!! No choice at all!”
We have to make the best choice that we can from the available alternatives.
Sort of like making the best of a bad situation.
We certainly can’t afford to make a bad situation worse…
Rudy TRANSFORMED NYC. Violence dropped, property values sky rocketed…
Ummm at the same time property values sky rocketed EVERYWHERE else. Credit Rudy?
Rudy got things done in NY ’cause he is a liberal. Except for the (R) behind his name, one could easily mistake him for a Donk.
If we keep this up, we might be called for “swiftboating” Rudy.
Taylork # 48 – Fred’s even admitting it? My God, take a joke! It was a JOKE!
Rudy’s a RINO and Pat Robertson has lost it.
Oink, would you vote for Guiliani if he won the ticket?
Couldn’t have said it better myself. (Well, I might have substituted Tancredo for Thompson, but other than that….)
OT-
Shuttle landing in lil over 30 mins.
NASA
Not in the big cities, with the exception of certain areas of Balitmore, every other place was stagnent.
So either that says a lot about Rudy, a lot about the other dems, or maybe a little of both.
Liberals only make things worse in urban areas, since he made things better I think that disqualifies him from being called a liberal.
In 2008 it will be no time for an imploding GOP.
I agree with this:
I do not have quotes, but have read that Guiliani believes abortion should be left up to the states and not federally funded. He does not like abortion, nor endorse abortion from what I have read.
That said, there IS NO PERFECT CANDIDATE. But we all need to get behind the one who will defeat Clinton. Otherwise you are shooting yourself in the foot, as I can only imagine what new policies and social “fixes” she will have for our children.
Rudy Giuliani will have my vote next November—-or Fred Thompson, or Mitt Romney. Or even McCain against Hillary or Obama.
Fighting terror (radical Islam) trumps any other issue and I believe the GOP will do this much better than the Democrat candidates who want to be diplomats only.
The first part describes both of em – but only one is named Hillary. Hmmm
Endorsements are usually irrelevant, but this is a neutron bomb.
Giuliani wants terrorists dead at all costs. That sounds pretty pro-life to me. Giuliani, Romney, McCain and Thompson are all fine men, but to me Rudy is the right man.
Robertson did not do this out of altruism. He did it out of pragmatism. He knows that if Rudy wins without him (highly possible), then Robertson risks becoming irrelevant, the same way Bill Clinton marginalized Jesse Jackson compared to his predecessors.
It was a smart move by Robertson, who has seen his influence wane.
If Rudy wins, Robertson can claim it was because of his endorsement.
eric
http://www.blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com
Also, those on the far right that went with a fringe candidate in 1992 got Bill Clinton…80% agreement is not a 20% enemy…Any one of the top 4 candidates is better than Hillary by a country middle America mile.
Respectfully,
eric
aka the Tygrrrr Express
Encore, encore – balcktygrrr
30 pieces, yes I like Duncan Hunter; and sadly, he is not a front runner. But, because Thompson is considered a front runner, whoever wins should pick him as VP. As I said, the two Romney and Thompson literally physically towering over the two little shrimps Hillary and Richardson will create a lasting visual. The visual is presidential versus the picture of Hillary and Richardson together…need I say more?
I will vote against any Dim(whitted)crat, but would also like to stay true to a conservative platform. As I stated, IF I have to, I will vote for Guiliani. But, I am betting that I won’t be stuck in the position. Maybe a dream, maybe I believe in Miracles or I believe in prayer!
black tygrrr is right. anything is better than Billary or HillBilly, whatever you want to call that duo.
I hear this said a lot. What actual record does Rudy Giuliani have with regard to national security or the war on terror? As far as I can see, the answer is “none” and “none”. He ignored terrorism completely as mayor of New York, even after the first WTC bombing.
As a California party boss once said, “Winning isn’t everything, but losing isn’t anything.”
Get your facts straight. The people who left the GOP to vote for Perot were not “the far right”, they were squishy moderates like you. And Giuliani agrees with us on 20%, not 80%.
And now they have Arnie as governor. How is that working out?
Offered the choice between liberalism and extreme liberalism, I’ll opt for door number 3.
He has done an excellent job of concealing this fact for the past twenty years then.
On November 7th, 2007 at 12:30 pm, 30 pcs of silver said:
Oink, would you vote for Guiliani if he won the ticket?
I would rather him WIN the ticket than be annointed.
Completely incorrect. Giuliani has been a staunch supporter of Roe in the past. He still has not backed away from that. And he has never said he favors abortion being left up to the states.
Here are some recent quotes;
(This is word for word what Bill Clinton said.)
I envision Blue-Dogs getting behind the Huckabee campaign and crossing over in primaries where permitted after this endorsement.
Oink,
Fair enough. There are no disagreements as far as that goes. If I had my pick it wouldn’t necessarily be him. Hunter is more closely aligned with my views. But I’ll vote for Guilani should he WIN the ticket.
Rudy’s mojo is so great that violence was dropping in New York for three years before he even became mayor! The mere fact that he is running for President should suffice to set the world to rights.
“a judge” says Rydy?
Just one guy. Who can be trusted?
I’ll work to defeat that fraud if he wins the ticket. Heck, if you like Giuliani, why not support Bloomberg? He has the same experience as Rudy, and the same stance on the issues, without his personality defects.
Here is what Guiliani has to say today:
http://hotair.com/archives/2007/11/07/audio-mike-gallagher-interviews-rudy-giuliani/
Flenser, I did hear him say that the abortion issue is up to the states, and should not be federally funded. Also, he became tougher on terrorism after 9/11—-as we ALL did.
If Rudy is the nominee and you stay home and don’t vote against Hillary/Obama, then you can bet if the Dems are elected they will put more liberal judges on the bench and be weak on protecting us from radical Islam. That is realism. So stay home, I guess, but I will be voting for a GOP candidate–imperfect or not. This does not make me pro-choice, it makes sense.
Re Rudy and abortion (or any “pro-abortion” candidate for that matter). I’ve heard almost all of them say things like we want to make it less common. My question: Why? Is it a moral issue? If it’s a good thing, then let’s make it more common. If it’s a bad thing, let’s make it go away.
Any other position is dishonest.
flenser, if Bloomberg were running against Hillary, admittedly he’d have my vote.
The point is – Hillary must not become President. Period. I’ll vote to make sure that doesn’t happen.
As an uncompromising Christian, I have very mixed feelings about this.
Where do we go from here? Unfortunately, Robertson blindsided us and knows we have no time left to come up with a strategy.
An idea of a third party is effectively over. We are either going to have to get behind Rudy or prepare to support another also-ran candidate.
Hey, I have mixed feelings,too, as a Christian. I do think to not vote GOP is a vote for Hillary in ’08. So I will not stay home as many did in ’06—as they now see what that got them by putting the Democrats in the majority.
It would be great to have a Reagan, but he was one of a kind. And post 9/11 I will vote for who will protect my family the best from terrorism. I don’t think many will be worrying about Roe vs Wade when suitcase nukes blow up a few cities.
Well for those who want to play the “what are we supposed to do since Pat Robertson endorsed”…
Nowhere in scripture were Christians ever instructed to blindly follow. One church was commended for “searching the scriptures daily to see if [what was being taught] was so”….in another place, we read about the apostle Paul “rebuking” Peter for Peter’s incorrect behavior and teaching.
1) I obey Ronald Reagan’s 11th commandment of not bashing other republicans. Calling me a “squishy moderate” is not only insulting, but it is asinine. Anybody who has read my blog knows my conservative credentials.
2) Some social conservatives are unfairly seen as intolerant bigots. Religion is under assault, and social conservatives should be respected. HOWEVER, some people who happen to be social conservatives ARE intolerant, and they refuse to believe that many people can disagree with them and still be good people. They are the right wing version of liberals, and demand 100% purity.
People who win elections govern. Pat Robertson tried to take the entire table awhile back and lost. Now he wants a place at the table, since that beats getting nothing at all by a lot.
Social conservatives deserve a place at the table, but not the entire table.
eric aka the Tygrrrr Express
Wow!
Throwing a blanket over Perot voters. I am not a moderate. I was terribly sick of a system of politics that did little “for the people”. Perot, in my eyes (and many others) was an opportunity to say, “I am mad as hell and I am not going to take it any more”.
Soap is right of right – (even called a bigot on this blog).
I am with eric on this deal.
P.S. boy, stop with the Christian bit, we ain’t buying it.
Also, those that try to take the entire table often find it is a small table akin to a kiddie table while the large table contains a governing majority without them.
I respect all republicans, be they Christian Coalition, Log Cabin, Wall Street Journal, National Review, or anybody else that wants lower taxes and dead terrorists.
We can disagree about divisive social issues, but we must respect those differences without litmus tests for entry into the party.
We can be tolerant, or we can be liberals. I would rather be tolerant.
Respectfully,
eric
The exit polls that year were crystal clear. Perot drew his support from moderate and liberal republicans. Your not liking the facts does not make untrue.
Hey soap – right of right….well if we wanna play how far right can you go – I think Rush is too far left. – lol
Rus, who is Rush – I can’t even see him from where I am.
Reagan himself never observed the 11th commandment.
I’ve read your blog, and I’m underwhelmed by your conservative credentals. You seem to be a pro-war liberal. I don’t mean that as an insult. We need pro-war liberals.
In todays Republican party, is there ANY place for them at the table? It seems not.
But you are diverting from the real problem. Rudy Giuliani is not only no social conservative, he is no conservative of any sort. He is essentally a liberal running on the Republican ticket. His stance on the issues and his experience is no different from those of Michael Bloomberg. Would you try to claim that Bloomberg is any sort of conservative?
So then you should have no problem with Rudy or any Democrat running; all would be fine with dead terrorists. I on the other hand am not happy with dead terrorists, I need something from my candidate that sets him or her apart from the pack. So far I do not see that in any candidate, Republican or Democrat.
I read up on Pat Robertson and I think he blamed Americans for the 9/11 attacks. As a Christian I cannot support him nor Giuliani’s campaign.
Where do we go from here?
Oh, crud – here we go with the polls being factual and it makes me a liar.
Great. I respect them also. But wanting dead terrorists and lower taxes does not make one either a Republican or a conservative. Who does not want these things?
If I wanted to call you a liar, I’d have done that. Since I did not, it means I did not intend to.
You are, however, wrong. The Republicans who voted for Perot were drawn mostly from the moderate and liberal wings of the party. Your anecdotal account does not change that.
Rudy Giuliani’s track record on protecting New Yorkers from terrorism was absymal. Why on earth do people think he would be any better as President?
I don’t think I can hold my nose long enough to vote for Julie Annie. *sigh*
Liberals
So what beliefs do make a person conservative, flenser?
How eactly was Rudy supposed to stop planes being flown into buildings?
Flenser #92, Democrats. They don’t want those things. They will all raise our taxes and for killing the terrorist, did you see the battle over the AG? They fight to protect the terrorist. They say things like “that would be real trouble for us” when asked if the surge works. I don’t question their patriotism, as I know they have none.
Correction… How eXactly was Rudy supposed to stop planes being flown into buildings. The first WTC attacked occured before Rudy was in office, so that’s off the table.
Southernboy #79, I’m confused by your comment that we now must do as Pat Robertson has done, or maybe I misread your meaning in this comment:
Who tells you or me how to vote? That was my point in post #32: not all Christians have to vote alike or think alike on worldly matters.