Reports: Pat Robertson to endorse Giuliani; Update: Video added

posted at 9:02 am on November 7, 2007 by Bryan

According to the WaPo:

Pat Robertson, one of the most influential figures in the social conservative movement, will announce his support for Rudy Giuliani’s presidential bid this morning in Washington, D.C., according to sources familiar with the decision.

Robertson’s support was coveted by several of the leading Republican candidates and provides Giuliani with a major boost as the former New York City mayor seeks to convince social conservatives that, despite his positions on abortion and gay rights, he is an acceptable choice as the GOP nominee.

It also slows any momentum for Mitt Romney within the social conservative movement. Romney had recently secured the backing of conservative stalwarts Paul Weyrich and Bob Jones III — endorsements that seemed to strengthen his bid to become the electable conservative alternative to Giuliani. Romney had made no secret of his desire for Robertson’s endorsement and has to be disappointed this morning.

The Politico is reporting the same:

Giuliani has struggled to win support of social conservatives because of his moderate views on abortion and gay rights. But now he has one of the most resonant imprimaturs with Christian voters.

Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.), meanwhile, plans to announce his surprise endorsement of former Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) for president on Wednesday, a campaign official told Politico.

The endorsement is to be announced in Dubuque, Iowa.

The alliance gives McCain — once a front-runner, now struggling — a crucial bridge to social conservatives, an important constituency that has remained suspicious of him despite his opposition to abortion.

If anything, the Robertson endorsement is more significant than the Weyrich endorsement that the Romney camp won earlier in the week. Both endorsements strike me as wiser than the threat to either sit home or support a third party bid if Giuliani is the nominee. I’ve written of my ambivalence about Giuliani, but the prospect of religious conservatives handing the Democrats victory next year by sabotaging the GOP nominee ought not be on the table. Robertson and Weyrich get that, even if they arrive at different places when it comes to endorsing a candidate.

Update (AP): Here’s the announcement.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

Damn the conservatives, full speed ahead…we must win the election, before we can change the landscape.
I get it, and so does Pat.

right2bright on November 7, 2007 at 9:05 AM

Not that I ever gave Robertson much credence but I would think endorsing Guiliani with his views and baggage tarnishes Robertson. Not one of the republican candidates is 100% conservative down the line but Rudy is the most distant by far. I’ve always thought Robertson a bit of a nut ever since I saw him on his show say that God told him the United States needed more tanks. I have to wonder if Robertson just can’t handle Romney being a Morman and what Rudy offered him for the endorsement.

peacenprosperity on November 7, 2007 at 9:08 AM

I never bought into the idea that Christian conservatives willgo third party if Rudy is nominated, but I have to admit I am fearful that they’ll decline to use their vast organizational apparatuses to help Rudy get elected. That would be like the Dems trying to win without the union aparatus (and probable voter fraud). You just can’t win without them.

Luckily, this is one step closer to avoiding that possibility.

Nessuno on November 7, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Don’t fall for the theory that the flow of moderates and undecideds will go from Hilary to Rudy. It can easily go the other way. If the msm is saying Rudy has the best chance to beat Hilary you have to take into account the msm ulterior motives and agenda and the likelihood they are thinking the same thing.

peacenprosperity on November 7, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Ooh. I didn’t see this coming.

Lawrence on November 7, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Rudy is inevitable. We might as well sit back and enjoy it.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 9:18 AM

Rudy is inevitable. We might as well sit back and enjoy it. tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 9:18 AM

So was Howard Dean.

I’m just hoping Hitlary makes it to the general election. I want the Republicans to sacrafice her on the altar, not her fellow Dhemocrats.

Mojave Mark on November 7, 2007 at 9:21 AM

Yesterday, Kit Bond here in Missouri officially endorsed him as well.

Mindcrime on November 7, 2007 at 9:22 AM

What about Fred?

AlexB on November 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

I am not a one-issue voter, but my number 1 concern is Islamoterrorism and the person best suited to fighting the jihadis and holding our Saudi “allies” accountable is Rudy. No two ways about it.

So, those among us who cry and moan about his past views on abortion and gun control need to get a grip. Roe v. Wade will never change in our lifetimes, it is what it is. Also, no one is going to go house to house and confiscate our guns either.

kcluva on November 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Switchback endorses McCain. Color me shocked.

Guess we should just hand it over to John then…

Darksean on November 7, 2007 at 9:27 AM

Just prooves what I’ve thought about Robertson all along… he’s not actualy a man of character.

Well folks… anyone know a good CONSERVATIVE party out there?

Romeo13 on November 7, 2007 at 9:28 AM

Just prooves what I’ve thought about Robertson all along… he’s not actualy a man of character.

Ah, yes. You don’t agree with me? You’re evil.

Way to go.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 9:33 AM

They best thing about this is that it significantly pares down the field to the 2 most electable candidates.

Bye bye, McCain, What’s a dollar?”, Huckabee, and the rest.

It’s gonna be a slug fest between Rudy and Mitt, with the winner taking all.

Honestly, from a strictly conservative party POV, I think, and Tommy is certainly free to disagree, that the best scenario is for Mitt to be president and Rudy to be Sec of Homeland Security. If Rudy becomes president, I don’t see Mitt being involved in Rudy’s administration. That’s too bad, because his experience would be a huge help to Rudy.

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 9:34 AM

If the msm is saying Rudy has the best chance to beat Hilary you have to take into account the msm ulterior motives and agenda and the likelihood they are thinking the same thing.

peacenprosperity on November 7, 2007 at 9:13 AM

Rudy is the msm’s Republican candidate. If they can’t get hillary elected, they’d be almost as happy with Rudy.

Texas Nick 77 on November 7, 2007 at 9:36 AM

What about Fred?

AlexB on November 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

What about Spencer Abraham?

You know, Fred’s jihad-loving campaign director that Fred lied about?

Loundry on November 7, 2007 at 9:37 AM

There’s still time for Brownback to make a last minute switch here…

sublime on November 7, 2007 at 9:38 AM

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 9:34 AM

It looks that way, I think Mitt will get the momentum from winning the early primaries. I just don’t have a good feeling, yet. I’ve been supporting Mitt so far, but I just think there are way too many voters out there who have a problem with him being a Mormon, which boggles my mind.

I could be wrong, I’m basing this off some polls I’ve seen adn some general comments in the blogosphere.

reaganaut on November 7, 2007 at 9:47 AM

They best thing about this is that it significantly pares down the field to the 2 most electable candidates.

Nonsense. There are at least four or five candidates still very much in contention. A lot can happen between now and the end of the year, let alone by the convention next September.

While I’m not committed to any candidates in particular — or perhaps because of that — I think that the Republicans are in a damn strong place in terms of the candidate pool. Any one of the four frontrunners, even though each has areas where he is weak or unappealing, would make a competent executive leader in the White House and would be worthy of one’s vote.

And ALL of them are eminently more qualified to be the POTUS than Hillary Clinton, whose sole qualification seems to be that she’s married to a former POTUS.

Harpazo on November 7, 2007 at 9:52 AM

And ALL of them are eminently more qualified to be the POTUS than Hillary Clinton, whose sole qualification seems to be that she’s married to a former POTUS.

MEANIE. You’re just picking on her because she’s a poor, helpless girl. :-)

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM

reaganaut on November 7, 2007 at 9:47 AM

That’ll be easy enough for Romney to correct. All he need do is (1)emphasize the practical commonality of his values with Christian values, and (2) affirm that he’s running for the Presidency, not the Papacy.

Piece of cake.

Harpazo on November 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM

…because she’s a poor, helpless girl. :-)

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 9:54 AM

HAH! Prove it!

Harpazo on November 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Rudy will put gay people in charge of taking my guns.

AZCON on November 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Rudy is inevitable. We might as well sit back and enjoy it.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 9:18 AM

If you need me, I’ll be at the place I’ve chosen to hide my guns.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM

Confirmed.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 9:58 AM

I am not a one-issue voter, but my number 1 concern is Islamoterrorism and the person best suited to fighting the jihadis and holding our Saudi “allies” accountable is Rudy. No two ways about it.

kcluva on November 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

I was shocked when I saw it at the end of last year, but before he died, Jerry Falwell appeared on a CNN Show, “What would Jesus Do?”, or something like that. In that interview, Falwell said that he liked Rudy because the number one problem facing the country was Islamic extremists. He said the problem was worse than Hitler and he thought Rudy was the best man to fight this very serious threat to our country. Falwell explained that if you have a brain tumor, you want the best surgeon possible. It doesn’t matter if he’s a Christian, you want the best man for the job.

Ordinary1 on November 7, 2007 at 10:08 AM

Check out the comments at the WaPo link.

Lovely people.

JammieWearingFool on November 7, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Disgraceful hypocrite.

Valiant on November 7, 2007 at 10:09 AM

Disgraceful hypocrite.

Feel the love.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 10:11 AM

1. Abortion

2. Government healthcare

3. Gun control

4. Immigration

5. Gay rights

Rudy and Hillary have a lot more in common than I like to think about.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

It’s gonna be a slug fest between Rudy and Mitt, with the winner taking all.
csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 9:34 AM

I tend to agree. Mitt seems strong in the early states. Can he hold onto those leads as the actual votes approach? Assuming he does, can he turn those early wins into momentum going into Super Duper Mega Ultra Tuesday? I can see him pulling it off, but the more likely outcome is Rudy does not win but performs well in the early states, maybe wins S.C., definitely wins Florida and rolls on Tuesday.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

So is it just me or is the “backlash from the Jesus Freaks” that the left has been counting on NOT happening? Weren’t we endlessly told that Mitt or Rudy would get their comeuppance once conservative Christians got a whiff of their views on abortion (everybody knows that the Jesus Freaks only care about abortion, right?).

IMO, the left has once again underestimated the sophistication and values of traditional conservative voters.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 10:17 AM

Pat Robertson to endorse Giuliani

It’s so embarrassing to be a Republican sometimes. What’s my reaction supposed to be? Yay? The man’s a buffoon. I’m not doubting his political clout but geez. Ugh.

This is like a Daily Kos endorsement for *Random Democrat* as far as I’m concerned. Worse.

Dash on November 7, 2007 at 10:18 AM

Pat Robertson = Judas

Medicated on November 7, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Rudy and Hillary have a lot more in common than I like to think about.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

But which do you want in power to pick the next two SCOTUS justices? It is likely that the next President will end up filling two vacancies. Do you REALLY want the spouse of the man who gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg anywhere near that process?

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 10:20 AM

1. Abortion

federal funding for abortion as contraceptive v. the same position as Fred

2. Government healthcare

Socialized medicine v. tax incentives for private insurance

3. Gun control

Only for those in well regulated militias v. individual right

4. Immigration

open borders v. closed borders with physical and technological fence

5. Gay rights

gay marriage v. no gay marriage and possible constitutional amendment if necessary to protect marriage

Rudy and Hillary have a lot more in common than I like to think about.
Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

I can see why you would get the two confused, because you don’t think, or don’t think very well.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

But which do you want in power to pick the next two SCOTUS justices? It is likely that the next President will end up filling two vacancies. Do you REALLY want the spouse of the man who gave us Ruth Bader Ginsberg anywhere near that process?

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 10:20 AM

Of course not. But what makes you think Rudy would do any better? He talks a good game, sure, but I don’t trust him any farther than I can throw a locomotive.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Rudy is the msm’s Republican candidate. If they can’t get hillary elected, they’d be almost as happy with Rudy.

Texas Nick 77 on November 7, 2007 at 9:36 AM

I think the MSM and the left, fear Rudy and absolutely hate him.

as for Mitt, I like him okay and think he’s qualified. However, the MSM will absolutely smear/expose the Mormon religion next year. They won’t have any issue in doing so either, since mormons vote Repub. at close to the rate that blacks vote Dem. Utah was the reddest state in 2004

jp on November 7, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Rudy and Hillary have a lot more in common than I like to think about.

Rudy is the Un-Hillary:

Rudy Giuliani served as the third highest ranking official in Ronald Reagan’s Justice Department, worked as a US Attorney, and argued cases before the Supreme Court. He understands the responsibility the President has to appoint and nominate federal judges. The kind of judges he has said he would appoint are strict constructionists like Justices Scalia, Thomas, Roberts and Alito—principled individuals who can be trusted to respect the Constitution as it is written, rather than attempting to legislate from the bench.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 10:26 AM

Of course not. But what makes you think Rudy would do any better?

Personally, it’s because I trust Ted Olson.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 10:27 AM

The idea that we need Giuliani to beat Hillary is an idea rooted in ignorance. Half of the electorate won’t vote for her. Not that most people know that. So the Hildabeast is good strategy. If she turns in another lackluster performance in a debate that tactic becomes far less valuable.

Giuliani kills social conservatism, and governs just like he did when he was mayor. Tough on crime, tough on the border, tough on terrorism, then comes the amnesty (with assimilation rhetoric that never results in assimilation, because you have to stop the flow of Hispanics to let them assimilate, Rudy will not stop Latin American immigration to accomplish assimilation), gay marriage, abortion funding and lord only knows what else. I have so desire to see a socially liberal POTUS.

But if true this is a win for Rudy. Wouldn’t it be funny if Pat Robertson started getting hate mail and he had to change his stance on Giuliani because of the backlash, just like Immigration and Republicans? One can only hope.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Can you imagine the rush of illegal immigrants demanding their benefits and coming over the borders and flying here on “student” visas next year if the POTUS contest is Rudy vs Hillary? The will have nothing to loose, and almost guarenteed amnesty coming their way.

AZCON on November 7, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Falwell and Robertson represent the pre-millenialist Christians, they are naturally very knowledgable on Islamo-fascism and the Middle East, because of Israel.

amillenialist and post-millenialist, are not like this and do not think Israel is God’s Kingdom they have to protect. Not that many don’t support Israel for other reasons. Anyway, thats the group of Christians to worry about going 3rd party or staying home…some are even flirting with or outright support Ron Paul.

jp on November 7, 2007 at 10:30 AM

And ALL of them are eminently more qualified to be the POTUS than Hillary Clinton, whose sole qualification seems to be that she’s married to a former POTUS.

Harpazo on November 7, 2007 at 9:52 AM

Dittoes. Plus, you know that Democrat activist/operatives are moaning to each other over pints, “Why can’t we have just one of those guys.”

silverfox on November 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 10:27 AM

And Rudy could appoint Ted Olson as Attorney General.

Or if Mitt wins the primary he could appoint Rudy as Attorney General.

I’d love to see a Mitt/Rudy or Rudy/Mitt ticket but they are probably going to have to put a Southerner in there to “balance the ticket”.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM

Pat Robertson to endorse Giuliani
Nov 7, 2007 9:02 AM by Bryan
29 Comments » | 4 Trackbacks
Huge

Yup. That’s a Big Deal.

hillbillyjim on November 7, 2007 at 10:32 AM

AZCON on November 7, 2007 at 10:29 AM

Frankly I cannot envision that scenario if Rudy is elected.

If Hillary wins they will be waiting at the border with voter registration cards for the Democrat Party.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 10:34 AM

1. Abortion

federal funding for abortion as contraceptive v. the same position as Fred

Rudy is pro-choice. Period.

2. Government healthcare

Socialized medicine v. tax incentives for private insurance

My last understanding was he was for some sort of Government funded insurance. Might not have been him. I have been known to be wrong.

3. Gun control

Only for those in well regulated militias v. individual right

Rudy want to let the states decide. It’s not a state issue. It’s a guaranteed right.

4. Immigration

open borders v. closed borders with physical and technological fence

He helped keep NYC a sanctuary city. I don’t trust him with the borders.

5. Gay rights

gay marriage v. no gay marriage and possible constitutional amendment if necessary to protect marriage

Read it again. Gay Rights, not just gay marriage. I don’t believe in special rights for any group, with the exception of the physically and mentally handicapped.

Rudy and Hillary have a lot more in common than I like to think about.
Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

I can see why you would get the two confused, because you don’t think, or don’t think very well.

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

I think just fine, Skippy. Just because I don’t think like you, that doesn’t make me less. It makes me a conservative.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Pat Robertson = Judas

Medicated on November 7, 2007 at 10:19 AM

Lovely…

Wouldn’t it be funny if Pat Robertson started getting hate mail and he had to change his stance on Giuliani because of the backlash, just like Immigration and Republicans?

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 10:28 AM

Um, no?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 10:38 AM

I am not a one-issue voter, but my number 1 concern is Islamoterrorism and the person best suited to fighting the jihadis and holding our Saudi “allies” accountable is Rudy. No two ways about it.

kcluva on November 7, 2007 at 9:23 AM

Did you really just say that?! Yes, yes you did.

Wake up. Please.

Saudi Arabia is a very lucrative client of Giuliani’s law firm. In fact, Bracewell and Giuliani are the exclusive legal counsel for the Saudi oil ministry. In March, his firm filed papers in a Texas court case on behalf of Saudi Arabia’s oil ministry — taking sides with, Citgo, which is controlled by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Sure it would. Pat would not think he is smarter than those that suport him.

Giuliani is a social conservatives nightmare. Rudy beleives in the power of the federal goverment to push policy. That is dangerous.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 10:40 AM

Personally, it’s because I trust Ted Olson.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 10:27 AM

That’s not enough. You’re not electing Ted Olson. He shouldn’t even be a consideration.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 10:23 AM

Thanks for fleshing that out. I had the same reaction when I saw that but I didn’t know the specifics.

silverfox on November 7, 2007 at 10:44 AM

Of course not. But what makes you think Rudy would do any better? He talks a good game, sure, but I don’t trust him any farther than I can throw a locomotive.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:24 AM

Fair enough. This is the primaries and the time where the various candidates and their issues get vetted out.

BUT, lets fast forward and assume that the choice in November 2008 is Hillary or Rudy (I think this a far from certain line up from both parties). Would you vote for the person you don’t trust any further than you can throw a locomotive or the woman who would willingly throw you under that locomotive if she thought it would help her politically? And please don’t start down the third-party route or bring up idiots like Ron Paul or Michael Bloomberg.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Do you understand what it is that law firms do?

hillbillyjim on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

That’s not enough. You’re not electing Ted Olson. He shouldn’t even be a consideration.

Well thanks for telling me what I should and what I shouldn’t take into consideration.

If it’s okay with you, I’ll think for myself, thanks.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 10:47 AM

I’ve been impressed by the high quality of Pat Robertson’s thoughts on the current situation. He’s not afraid the things that need to be said, but aren’t politically correct. Two examples are his statement about assassinating Hugo Chavez and his admitting that China is doing what it has to do in having its one-child policy. Though Pat Robertson and I have extremely different values, I’ll speculate that Robertson and I are motivated to support Giuliani for the same reason. Giuliani is the best candidate to deal with the muslims.

While I was already supporting Giuliana, I feel a little more comfortable that I’m making the right decision.

thuja on November 7, 2007 at 10:47 AM

He shouldn’t even be a consideration.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:43 AM

Why not? I ask honestly, has Olsen officially retired or something?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Ah…if a person’s law clients are up for discussion, I’m sure a few on this board can bring up some of the less-savory clients of a particular candidate.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 10:50 AM

We need this guy to win. He’s the only one tough enough to tell everyone to go f–k themselves.

LtE126 on November 7, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Would you vote for the person you don’t trust any further than you can throw a locomotive or the woman who would willingly throw you under that locomotive if she thought it would help her politically? And please don’t start down the third-party route or bring up idiots like Ron Paul or Michael Bloomberg.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 10:46 AM

If I have no other reasonable option, I’ll vote for Rudy. And the only 3rd party candidate I’d like to see is Nader. He’d siphon off enough of the nutroots to ensure a Republican victory. As far as your last statements goes, I don’t even consider Paul a candidate for anything other than king of the dingleberries.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:51 AM

WOW – that is big news.

The kooks over at FreeRepublic are going to be going nuts.

jake-the-goose on November 7, 2007 at 10:55 AM

We need this guy to win. He’s the only one tough enough to tell everyone to go f–k themselves.

LtE126 on November 7, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Hunter is too. Problem is that republicans apparently don’t really want a conservative on the ballot.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:55 AM

I’m not surprised. The worst thing that can happen to the Christian right is for them to not endorse the winner, and therefore become irrelevant on the national scene.

Verbal Abuse on November 7, 2007 at 10:55 AM

Giuliani has nuanced everyone of his past positions, but he won’t do that as POTUS, he will not rationalize his position and try to sell unpopular policy, like Bush did with immigration. Whatever…

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 10:56 AM

Ah…if a person’s law clients are up for discussion, I’m sure a few on this board can bring up some of the less-savory clients of a particular candidate.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Please do. I’m not a Fred fan.

I made my point in reference to someone’s hope that Giuliani will, and I quote, “hold our Saudi allies accountable”. Please. Giuliani has come a long way since dramatically turning down $10 mil from the Saudi prince. He works for them now – and it is very lucrative indeed.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:57 AM

I’m not surprised. The worst thing that can happen to the Christian right is for them to not endorse the winner, and therefore become irrelevant on the national scene.

Verbal Abuse on November 7, 2007 at 10:55 AM

What if Hillary wins because Christians boycott Giuliani? They will become less relevant? Methinks not, they would own the party.

Theworldisnotenough on November 7, 2007 at 10:58 AM

Nonsense.
Harpazo on November 7, 2007 at 9:52 AM

No I don’t think so. The republican candidate is going nowhere without the Christian right. Rudy and Mitt are gobbling all those endorsements up and Fred is left holding an empty bag. That IS a HUGE problem because he was supposed to be the shoe in for the Christian right.

“Dust Bunny” has created this quagmire he finds himself in, because he is trying to fool everyone into believing his associations with scummy people is part of his “private” life and should be seen in a vacuum. The rest of the country recognizes this as further proof that “What’s a dollar?” is a Washington insider who is disconnected from middle America and is trying to fake his way into the presidency so he can continue his pattern of screwing over regular folk in favor of the scumbags that pay the most money. The white house will never be turned over to Fred and his lobbyist scum friends. America will.not.have.it.

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 10:58 AM

What if Hillary wins because Christians boycott Giuliani? They will become less relevant? Methinks not, they would own the party.

Nonsense. No one will embrace a coalition that caused them to lose.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 11:00 AM

“Pat Robertson to endorse Giuliani.”

Run like hell, Rudy! – in the other direction.

locomotivebreath1901 on November 7, 2007 at 11:01 AM

Why not? I ask honestly, has Olsen officially retired or something?

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 10:48 AM

I don’t see any wisdom in voting for someone because of who works for them. Let me ask you and Slublog honestly: why do you have such faith that Giuliani would even follow Olson’s advice? Because he says he will?

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 10:39 AM

Consider me woken up. I did not know that. But, I also know that he told the Saudi prince to go take his $10 million check and jam it when he showed up after 9/11 and then proceeded to denounce America’s foreign policy as a possible cause of 9/11.

I also remember him tossing Yassir Arafat from the UN concert and trying to close the PLO offices in New York.

Now, I am not a defender of Israel, but at least he is willing to call a terrorist a terrorist.

kcluva on November 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM

why do you have such faith that Giuliani would even follow Olson’s advice? Because he says he will?

Because eventually, you just have to trust someone, honestly. In all of the criticism I’ve seen of Giuliani, no one has ever said he goes back on his word.

Slublog on November 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 10:58 AM

I wondered why you were here then remembered. Someone mentioned Fred. lol

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM

tommylotto on November 7, 2007 at 10:15 AM

Between Rudy and Mitt, I think we are in excellent shape to field a candidate that can win in 08. It is by far not a stone lock, but there is more reason to hope than to despair. Now, if “Dust Bunny” gets the nod, we are in deep doo doo and will have to really get behind the guy in order to avoid a landslide defeat.

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 11:04 AM

The worst thing that can happen to the Christian right is for them to not endorse the winner, and therefore become irrelevant on the national scene.

So where does your hostility for Christians come from? I think you will be sorely disappointed if you think that the Christian Right depends on picking the right candidate- no matter what he/she stands for- in the name of “remaining relevant.”

Fact of the matter is that the Christian right has drawn a clear line about traditional values and candidates veer into areas like gay marriage, contraception for preschoolers, or embryonic stem cell research at their peril because it is the people that object to these things not the politicians supported by the Christian right.

Oh! And stop hating Christians for standing up for their values. You religious bigots are an untapped source of all that is wrong with the national debate on tolerance. Jusst because you don’t value personal faith HOW DARE YOU BELITTLE THOSE WHO DO?

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 11:05 AM

does this make someone like AP more or less likely to vote for giuliani?

zane on November 7, 2007 at 11:07 AM

Giuliani will not win in ’08, because he divides the party.

A divided Republican party will lose and the elites are more concerned right now with selling out their few remaining conservatives than uniting the party. Without Christians, 2nd Amendment groups, anti-illegal immigration groups, and social conservatives – none of whom will support Giuliani – Repubs will lose. Nominating Giuliani guarantees it.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 11:12 AM

Rudy will put gay people in charge of taking my guns.

AZCON on November 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Heh. The new uniform of the ATF.

infidel4life on November 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:03 AM

Yes, sometimes that is a mistake in a non-Fred thread. :-)

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 11:14 AM

why do you have such faith that Giuliani would even follow Olson’s advice? Because he says he will?

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM

Because he’s told me all the crap I and others don’t want to hear, and which could’ve cost him his candidacy. When he comes out as pro-choice, fully knowing the crowd he’s playing to is significantly pro-life, I trust when he says he’ll listen to Olsen.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 11:14 AM

infidel4life on November 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM

THAT’S funny. hahaha!

csdeven on November 7, 2007 at 11:16 AM

Rudy will put gay people in charge of taking my guns.

AZCON on November 7, 2007 at 9:55 AM

Heh. The new uniform of the ATF.

infidel4life on November 7, 2007 at 11:13 AM

Well, that’ll make it easier to see them coming. Unless, of course, you’re a gun owner in SF.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:17 AM

Consider me woken up. I did not know that.

Fair enough. :)

But, I also know that he told the Saudi prince to go take his $10 million check and jam it when he showed up after 9/11

Giuliani’s come a long way since then. Now he makes millions by working for them.

but at least he is willing to call a terrorist a terrorist.

kcluva on November 7, 2007 at 11:02 AM

He’s not the only one.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 11:18 AM

Giuliani will not win in ‘08, because he divides the party.

Funny, I don’t here that argument being made about Hillary and she has about a 50% approval rating. Does that mean that the “rats” are sheep that will vote for whatever is put in front of them?

The fact of the matter here is that the GOP is truly the “big tent” party and the time for hashing out issues, including the social issues, is now. If on balance the GOP vets out these issues NOW and gets behind a single candidate (even if not everything one would want) the GOP will not fracture because Rudy is a social liberal. Those kinds of breaks only occur if the core constituency feels that their views have not been included in the vetting process. Getting endorsements from Pat Robertson goes a long way to giving social liberals credibility among voters who would rather have somebody with more conservative views.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Huge, indeed. Good for Pat. Good for Rudy.

Drum on November 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Giuliani will not win in ‘08, because he divides the party.

A divided Republican party will lose and the elites are more concerned right now with selling out their few remaining conservatives than uniting the party. Without Christians, 2nd Amendment groups, anti-illegal immigration groups, and social conservatives – none of whom will support Giuliani – Repubs will lose. Nominating Giuliani guarantees it.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 11:12 AM

I was going to say it, but I’m glad I don’t have to. Rudy won’t win. I think it is funny how many people who DESPISE Robertson now suddenly ‘agree’ with him. I wonder if Rudy had to give him anything for this ‘endorsement’.

Again people like to put groups of people in little boxes. Christians never have voted in a block for a particular candidate over another. It’s like courting Ford drivers, or Chevrolet drivers. Certain candidates have been CONSERVATIVE and that’s who Christians tend to vote for anyway.

Christians vote based on their personal idea of who they think should run the government. Say what you want about Hillary, but she’s still married to her FIRST husband, and her daughter adores her. That means a lot to many Southern Christians.

Rudy won’t win the POTUS. He’d be better for Homeland Security, or Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense or something like that. But Rudy would make a horrible president and he would be no better than Hillary.

ThackerAgency on November 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

Getting endorsements from Pat Robertson goes a long way to giving social liberals credibility among voters who would rather have somebody with more conservative views.

highhopes on November 7, 2007 at 11:19 AM

Not really. Once upon a time I considered Robertson semi-rational. For a few years now I’ve considered him senile. His endorsement doesn’t mean a thing to me.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

We need this guy to win. He’s the only one tough enough to tell everyone to go f–k themselves.

LtE126 on November 7, 2007 at 10:50 AM

Rudy had no problem telling gun manufactureres that when he sued them.

omnipotent on November 7, 2007 at 11:24 AM

Not really. Once upon a time I considered Robertson semi-rational. For a few years now I’ve considered him senile. His endorsement doesn’t mean a thing to me.

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

No sh!t, he makes Ron Paul look lucid!

omnipotent on November 7, 2007 at 11:25 AM

When he comes out as pro-choice, fully knowing the crowd he’s playing to is significantly pro-life, I trust when he says he’ll listen to Olsen.

amerpundit on November 7, 2007 at 11:14 AM

Come out as pro-choice? That’s never been any secret – he always has been. Giuliani donates to Planned Parenthood, and he says that’s consistent with his policy. It doesn’t take any extra moral courage to say that – after all, all the Democrats have done the same – so I guess I don’t see how that makes him any more trust-worthy than ever.

Redhead Infidel on November 7, 2007 at 11:29 AM

Read it again. Gay Rights, not just gay marriage. I don’t believe in special rights for any group

Kowboy on November 7, 2007 at 10:36 AM

Do you believe that married couples should get special rights?

Loundry on November 7, 2007 at 11:34 AM

Well, for one thing, if Rudy or Billary get in, we better learn mexican & arabic, because there are going to be litterlly millions & millions more of them in our beleaguered country in a short period of time. Get ready for federal & state taxes to soar to pay for all the free services. Auto & property insurance will double to cover expenses. And health insurance will go thru the roof. But so what, right. America has lot & lots of money and after all ‘we are our brothers keeper’. Hello ‘third world’. Maybe we can be leader of the turd world countries.

countywolf on November 7, 2007 at 11:41 AM

ThackerAgency on November 7, 2007 at 11:22 AM

You are making an awful lot of assumptions by stating how Christians would vote. I’m a Christian yet I would vote for Rudy in a heartbeat as would my husband, my in-laws and most Christians/Conservatives I know.

Buy Danish on November 7, 2007 at 11:43 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3