Pat Robertson Surprise Today

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jaypeeto4
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jaypeeto4

Guest
Discussing political candidates on these forums is currently banned.

The purpose of this Thread is to discuss televangelist and
Christian Coalition Founder Pat Robertson, NOT, NOT, NOT
the candidate he endorsed today.
PLEASE DO NOT MENTION THE NAMES OF ANY CANDIDATES IN YOUR REPLIES. THANKS.

Today, right wing Christian organizer Pat Robertson,
host of the 700 Club on tv,
endorsed a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights candidate for President.
Robertson previously had ALWAYS urged Christians to never under any circumstances vote for pro abortion candidates.
Now he has done an about face.

WITHOUT mentioning or discussing ANY candidates,
ARE ANYONE of you all **as surprised as I am **by this action of
Pat Robertson? I have lost any respect I had for the man.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
I don’t know any of the details; this is the first I’ve heard of this. But then again, Pat Robertson has zero influence on my voting.
 
Hi Davebj,
Pat never “influenced” my vote either,
but I always respected his valiant attempts to
rally pro-life voters to go to the polls.
Now he has betrayed his own principles, it seems.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
Jaypeeto4 said:
Hi Davebj,
Pat never “influenced” my vote either,
but I always respected his valiant attempts to
rally pro-life voters to go to the polls.
Now he has betrayed his own principles, it seems.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
Click to expand...
Do you think that his battles have for so long been mostly along party lines that he has lost sight of the original intent and now just wants to make sure that the party in quesiton doesn’t gain power?
 
Is it against forum rules to put a link to an article about this “surprise”?

Never mind…I found it quite easily.

I have never much cared for brother Pat anyway.
 
All I can say is that I am
surprised and appalled at
his craven lack of principles,
after years and years of raising hundreds of
millions to get pro-life, pro-family voters to the polls,
then to turn around and do THIS.
What a wishy-washy person.
This wasn’t even a “reluctant” endorsement,
it was a hale and HEARTY endorsement.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
PLEASE DO NOT POST ANY LINKS BECAUSE
THEY ALL NAME THE CANDIDATE.

Jaypeeto4
+JMJ+
 
And the devil takes another giant step at separating our separated brethren from God. Why does this surprise us, I don’t know, but I’m deeply saddened.

May God bless and protect us,
JLC
 
Before his death Jerry Fallwell hinted at leaning the same way Robertson ultimately leaned. It is disgusting. I agree with RTConstant. These members of the so-called “moral majority” used to claim they were non-partisan, i.e. that they would never just vote for a party, rather they would vote for candidates who endorsed their values. But now we see proof of what many suspected was happening: they have become full partisan. They are firmly part of a certain party, and if they are just going to blindly endorse candidates from that party, regardless of whether those candidates care about core values, then there is absolutely no reason to take their votes seriously. It is my sincere prayer that if both major parties put forth pro-abortion candidates, that enough Christians show the backbone to raise up a third party protest candidate.
 
I agree. It seems that the power of being ‘in’ with a political party is now more important then the pro-life values. I just saw the endorsement clip re-played on the news and it seemed like Pat Robertson was completely sold to the power side–instead of making the candidate toe the line of the values to get the endorsement.
 
he’s nuts for doing this. I just hope those who watch his program do not follow his example or this country is doomed.

I can’t say who the candidate is…but I can just say that Mr. Robertson made a HUGE mistake.
 
Maybe the candidate made a back room deal with Robertson, agreeing to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court or something similar.
 
Kevan said:
Maybe the candidate made a back room deal with Robertson, agreeing to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court or something similar.
Click to expand...
Dennis Miller on the O’Reiley factor alluded to such tonight, and there was a full piece in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times recently (a feew weeks ago?) which argued as much. I hate the argument. I think you have to be totally out of your mind to think that a person who openly supports abortion on demand is going to play a role in appointing judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
 
Kevan said:
Maybe the candidate made a back room deal with Robertson, agreeing to appoint strict constructionists to the Supreme Court or something similar.
Click to expand...
While this would be a good thing, it does mean that the leaders of both political parties would be pro-choice. Depending on how much sway the party leaders have over the direction of the party, this could be a devastating blow to the pro-life movement.
 
NewAbdalMaseeh said:
Dennis Miller on the O’Reiley factor alluded to such tonight, and there was a full piece in the Op-Ed section of the New York Times recently (a feew weeks ago?) which argued as much. I hate the argument. I think you have to be totally out of your mind to think that a person who openly supports abortion on demand is going to play a role in appointing judges who will overturn Roe v. Wade.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It’s a pathetic attempt to deflect accusations of blatant partisanship. While the evangelical “leaders” like to claim they don’t favor any particular party, but rather a platform, it is clear from Robertson’s endorsement that the only goal is getting one party in office. Traditional principles can be re-prioritized apparently.

I pray his influence does not permeate too deeply among the pro-life forces that have worked so hard for so many years. I pray this sell-out of an endorsement doesn’t influence any other “leaders” to jump on the bandwagon. I saw an interview with Falwell just days before his death and while he did place a heavy emphasis on the importance of defeating terrorism, he maintained the fundamental priority of the life issues. I don’t think he would have agreed with Mr. Robertson.
 
A Pat Robertson endorsement is a two-edged sword. It could hurt more than it would help.
 
blessedtoo said:
Agreed. It’s a pathetic attempt to deflect accusations of blatant partisanship.
Click to expand...
I don’t know about Miller, but I have no interest in defending Robertson. I take a dim view of people who try to order hurricanes around, unless they are deity or something.

But I can’t tell from a distance whether this is more of Robertson’s kookiness, or whether it’s a shrewd outcome of his knowledge of “how the game is played” (as he worded it). I’ll refrain from rash allegations, since I don’t want to be guilty of slander or false accusations. But I will state that I would not vote for a proabort even if he promised to abolish the IRS, appoint strict constructionists, and resume the practice of having senators elected by the House. So Robertson is wrong, whatever his reasoning.
 
Kevan said:
I don’t know about Miller, but I have no interest in defending Robertson. I take a dim view of people who try to order hurricanes around, unless they are deity or something.

But I can’t tell from a distance whether this is more of Robertson’s kookiness, or whether it’s a shrewd outcome of his knowledge of “how the game is played” (as he worded it). I’ll refrain from rash allegations, since I don’t want to be guilty of slander or false accusations. But I will state that I would not vote for a proabort even if he promised to abolish the IRS, appoint strict constructionists, and resume the practice of having senators elected by the House. So Robertson is wrong, whatever his reasoning.
Click to expand...
Agreed.

Miller has already endorsed his candidate and for me it’s clear what his priorities are. He is a conservative on the war, terrorism, and economics. He is a social liberal and has stated that publicly many times.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top