<p>You could have knocked me over with a feather, but as I’m sure you already know by now, Pat Robertson (Mr. “Christian Right” himself) just endorsed Rudy Guiliani as the Republican Presidential nominee. I would have thought he’d have picked McCain (Bush’s loyal lapdog). Other than Romney, I thought Rudy would have been the LAST pick of any ultra right winger. So what does this all mean?</p>
<p>It means Robertson is more of a politician than a Christian. Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are better choices for Christian voters.</p>
<p>Well, Paul Weyrich endorsed Romney yesterday. Fwiw.</p>
<p>Now to see where James Dobson lands.</p>
<p>Dobson has to go for Huck or Paul. He’s already said no to Rudy and Thompson, and has criticized McCain-Feingold</p>
<p>
. Please don’t make generalizations about who would be best for Christians to vote for. It may not have been intentional, but some Christians are offended by being grouped with the right wing.</p>
<p>I meant “Christian voters” as people who vote based on social issues, not as every Christian who votes.</p>
<p>I guess I’d just prefer ‘conservatives’ and ‘right wingers’, and leave the whole Christian label out of it… but I get what you mean now.</p>
<p>I wonder if Robertson picked Guiliani because he believes Guiliani has the best chance of beating Hillary, and "any Republican in the White House is better than any Democrat (especially a Clinton ;))…:rolleyes:</p>
<p>I think Pat is just a die-hard neo-con imperialist to the point where issues like abortion take a backseat even for him.</p>
<p>Political prostitution at its finest…</p>
<p>Robertson said “abortion is just one issue.” That really helped me, because now I can vote for the Democratic candidate with a clear conscience.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>…or that he can take off the blinders occasionally and realize that abortion isn’t the only political issue in the world right now.</p>
<p>"I wonder if Robertson picked Guiliani because he believes Guiliani has the best chance of beating Hillary, and "any Republican in the White House is better than any Democrat (especially a Clinton "</p>
<p>Which is exactly what he said. I have never been much of a Robertson fan, but I give him credit on this. He exhibits a level of pragmatism that is lost on most elements of the fringe of both left and right. Whether the issue is illegal immigration, the war, abortion, terrorism, taxes or whatever, if you tend to be conservative on these issues, the pragmatic conservative will choose whatever Republican candidate that has the best chance to beat the Dems. Only the naive would back a candidate that would increase the chances of a loss in '08. Only the crazies would back a third-party candidate to maintain their ideological purity.</p>
<p>“I meant “Christian voters” as people who vote based on social issues, not as every Christian who votes.”</p>
<p>How about social issues voters? That would be a more accurate grouping. I’m a Christian, a republican and a conservative and I do not vote on social issues. I know many people who feel the same way.</p>
<p>So much for ethical, moral and religioup principle above crass politics.</p>
<p>Actually this could help the Democratic nominee in the general election. There are many evangelical voters who feel compelled to support conservative Republican base solely on social issues like abortion and gay rights. If they feel free to take a broader look at candidates many find that on economic, healthcare, education and evironomental issues they are more in tune with Democratic candidates. For these voters, PR’s decision will make it easier for them to bride the divide between the hot button social issues and the economic, et al issues.</p>
<p>And there are many people who usually vote to the left because abortion is their number one issue, who could give Rudy a serious look because he is pro-choice. Interesting election cycle, to say the least.</p>
<p>Robertson is NOT saying that abortion is not important. What he is saying is that even if you are a single issue voter on abortion, that having a Republican, even a “pro-choice” Republican like Rudy, is better than having any of the Dems.</p>
<p>ZM: no, not really. Rudy’s enough of an authoritarian not-very-crypto-fascist let’s-outdo-Bush-in-neocon-warmongering that even people for whom Choice is a preeminent issue it won’t make a difference. According to a poll here in California, Hillary slaughters him something like 56-40. Of course, it’s a happy fact that the Republican brand is heavily damaged no matter who is running.</p>
<p>I’m still wanting to see how the thugs manage to promote themselves as both loyal to the policies of Bush that warm the cockels of the hearts of the Republican base while being agents of change.</p>
<p>"ZM: no, not really. Rudy’s enough of an authoritarian not-very-crypto-fascist let’s-outdo-Bush-in-neocon-warmongering that even people for whom Choice is a preeminent issue it won’t make a difference. "</p>
<p>I very respectfully (as you know) submit that neither you nor Originaloog can speak for every person, on either side, who enters the polling booth.</p>
<p>Well, if abortion became a non-issue in the campaign, it possibly would allow some normally single-issue voters to choose based on some other issues. I’ve got to think that most of that flow would be away from the Republicans to the Democrats, although I guess there might be some flow in the other direction. (But if Rudy gets the nomination, I predict that the party will make him take somebody clearly anti-abortion as his running mate.)</p>