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.

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

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

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.

“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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Or at least that’s the plan.