Quit Beating Around The Bush

7:51 pm EST November 8th, 2007 | News | 11 Comments

Let’s just ask: how much money did Rudy Giuliani pay or promise Pat Robertson to endorse him?

Topic:

Related Posts

«
»

11 Responses to “Quit Beating Around The Bush”

  1. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    November 9, 2007 at 12:08 am

    It’s not money, it’s power. Robertson gives Giuliani the presidency, Giuliani givers Robertson a political appointment. Head of Religious Affairs, or something like that.

    Or at least that’s the plan.

  2. SpiderJ says:
    November 9, 2007 at 12:14 am

    I disagree about the appointment of Robertson. It’s about the Court.

    Robertson gets Rudy into the White House, and we get more Alitos and Scalias…the kind willing to overturn Roe v. Wade once and for all, and to rule that the Constitution most definitely would allow an amendment banning gays from getting married. Pat doesn’t need office; he needs results to hold onto the base he already has.

  3. durablend says:
    November 9, 2007 at 10:46 am

    Forget keeping gays from getting married…Robertson wants them deported (along with abortion doctors and anyone who’s not a Republican boot licker)

  4. Jay says:
    November 9, 2007 at 11:31 am

    Why do some people insist on the stupid practice of repeating the same stupid words over and over again when they write? Ok, we get it. The poster thinks Robertson is a “radical cleric.” Does it bear repeating six additional times? It’s really poor writing skills on display.

    With that being said, SpiderJ is right. Robertson is not itching for any kind of political appointment. But he would rather have a Republican appointing Supreme Court justices. Sounds good to me. I’d much rather have a John Roberts or Samuel Alito’s than John Paul Stevens or David Souter.

  5. SpiderJ says:
    November 9, 2007 at 12:05 pm

    You mean the same David Souter who a Republican appointed in the first place?

    Do you have anything to say about the writer’s points rather than his didactic prose? The marriage of Rudy and Pat…oops, I mean the partnership of Rudy and Pat is rank with political opportunism trumping principle and with blatant double standards. If Ron Paul can be pilloried for suggesting that 9/11 was a direct result of US Foreign Policy, how should Rudy talk about Robertson’s assertion that 9/11 was the direct result of American citizens not believing strongly enough in his god?

  6. Jay says:
    November 9, 2007 at 12:27 pm

    Do you have anything to say about the writer’s points rather than his didactic prose?

    Not really. There’s nothing but a ton of speculation and innuendo.

    I mean the partnership of Rudy and Pat is rank with political opportunism trumping principle and with blatant double standards.

    Like that’s never happened before. Cmon dude. You’re not a naive person. You should know as well as anybody that “An enemy of my enemy is my friend” works in politics just as it does in foreign relations.

    If Ron Paul can be pilloried for suggesting that 9/11 was a direct result of US Foreign Policy, how should Rudy talk about Robertson’s assertion that 9/11 was the direct result of American citizens not believing strongly enough in his god?

    I’m sure he’ll be asked about it.

  7. SpiderJ says:
    November 9, 2007 at 1:01 pm

    Like that’s never happened before. Cmon dude. You’re not a naive person. You should know as well as anybody that “An enemy of my enemy is my friend” works in politics just as it does in foreign relations.

    “Like that’s never happened before” is no reason to excuse it happening now.

    I’m aware of the above philosophy in foreign relations. And I’m sure you are aware of just how poorly that’s gone for us the past, oh, fifty years or so. Just because it “works” doesn’t mean it works well.

  8. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    November 9, 2007 at 2:41 pm

    “I’m sure he’ll be asked about it.”

    Asked about it? Are you kidding me?

    He should condemn it before he is asked about it.

    Also, I don’t think Robertson wants to Supreme Court to overrule Roe vs. Wade. He needs abortion to be legal to rally the troops. If they win that battle, they won’t be able to use it as a weapon. No weapon, no power.

  9. SpiderJ says:
    November 9, 2007 at 3:06 pm

    Actually, I think Robertson is even cannier than that. He wants Giuliani in office to appoint the sorts of judges who would overturn Roe v. Wade…but Robertson knows that the actuality of overturning the decision is not very likely…it’s too hot, really, to make the bold, sweeping gesture that his followers demand. Bingo, he’s back on the pulpit railing against liberals for making it hard to overturn Roe v. Wade, raking in the cash and political influence.

    The delicate balance is to do just enough to avoid victory while appearing to still fight.

  10. C.S.Strowbridge says:
    November 9, 2007 at 3:18 pm

    “The delicate balance is to do just enough to avoid victory while appearing to still fight.”

    You would think that eventually the people wouldn’t fall for it anymore.

  11. SpiderJ says:
    November 9, 2007 at 4:06 pm

    I would think that, if people hadn’t made me all cynical.

    I mean, hell…I’m still going to vote Democrat in 2008, but there’s a group that both avoids victory and lately doesn’t even manage to show any fight whatsoever.