If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
This time around, the campaign started way too early; it is a crowded field on both sides and debate is hardly rational or intelligent. Add to that the clutter of numerous blogs (heck, even journalists are blogging when they should be reporting) and almost any insignificant details is presented as news. Debates are getting boring and pundits often attempt to script the story and if it doesn’t fit the script, they spin it to their advantage.
However yesterday an important event occurred that sheds ample light on the moral decay that the once-proud Republican Party is going through. Pat Robertson, the infamous tele-evangelist endorsed the NY-toughie Rudy Guiliani. Now this is as close as chalk-n-cheese comparison as it can get. Guiliani, as Jo Biden aptly said in the last sentence hardly says anything sensible and his typical utterances have a noun, a verb, and 9/11. As far as the social conservatives are concerned, Guiliani’s positions are diametrically opposite to their values. He is thrice-divorced, for gun control, pro-choice, and at worst, indifferent to gays. Even John Edwards on the other side is more conservative, socially speaking. So why would a leading evangelist endorse Guiliani when in fact, ultra-conservatives like Huckabee and McCain are in the field?
Electability or rather, perceived ability to defeat Hillary Clinton who appears to be the inevitable Democratic nominee is considered the primary motive. I for one, think the reasons are much more sinister. After all, Robertson stands among other people for the moral values and social conservative wing of the Republican Party and clearly the endorsement should be a repudiation for like-minded values. So what is Guiliani’s other defining trait? It is the 9/11 fear-mongering. His constant and not-so-subtle references to Islamofascism. Without commenting if Islam is indeed that, the perception that Guiliani and his ilk consider this a religious war is frightening.
This is a very Cheney-esque position that was only tempered by Bush’s seemingly moderate views. Robertson’s endorsement sends a clear message that Christian conservatives are willing to live with abortion, infidelity, homosexuality, and other moral-value keywords if it means battling with Islam in a Crusade-like fashion. They clearly view this as a religious struggle that will end only with brute force of one religion subjugating the other. By doing so, they are indulging in exactly the same tactics that they accuse Islamic fundamentalists of. So then, what’s the difference between the two factions? How are we, the non-religious or the other-religions types, supposed to react to such acts of hypocrisy? We clearly will not be better off if one rampaging religion is replaced by another.
The only hope is that this endorsement will not go down well with the social conservative voters who simply will not show up at the polls as they did during the 2004 elections. For the sake of America and subsequently that of the world, I hope the Republicans see through this hypocrisy. If it must be a Republican next time, let it be anyone but Guiliani.
by Patrix | on Thursday, November 8th, 2007 at 6:00 pm | 
Current Affairs, Politicking, United States . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
November 8th, 2007 at 10:11 pm reply
Though, it will be quite a surprise if Hillary makes it. Given the kind of response I got from a guy in the bluest state called California (”I swear on my d**k I wont vote for a woman!), I wont be surprised if it were another republican.
And Rudy Guiliani; I don’t think he’s going to have that much of an impact. I doubt he has as much clout as he has in NYC in other part of the state.
It will be an interesting election for watch. If anything, i want Michael Moore to be added in the mix - oh the joy of having him in the presidential candidates will be fun to watch!
November 8th, 2007 at 11:15 pm reply
Supremus, I don’t like Hillary much either although not for the reasons your bluest friend declared :) Guiliani strangely doesn’t enjoy much clout in NYC anymore. They hate him down there but he has pulled off his anti-terror toughie image well in the rest of the country. I just am surprised that his anti-terror tactics triumph over all social conservative values that most Republicans so love. Is the country that shit-scared of some stoneage crazies?
November 9th, 2007 at 10:04 am reply
Off-topic
how you doin’, Patrix? ;)
November 9th, 2007 at 11:08 am reply
TGFI, LOL! Off-topic indeed. You don’t give up, do you?
November 11th, 2007 at 12:27 pm reply
Pat - Robertson acknowledged that there are differences between the two but the key is that Rudy promised to appoint a conservative Judiciary. Most Pundits think that he will keep that promise. This is a good way of ensuring that gay marriage is not legalized and Roe V Wade can be challenged. So it is really not straying away from the conservative base after all.
November 11th, 2007 at 1:24 pm reply
Sakshi, first of all I am intensely skeptical of any person who would appoint people to the highest court who hold opinion in direct contrast to his own. Second, Pat Robertson’s optimism for Rudy’s appointments is misplaced. Given the Kerik debacle, his judgment in appointees is suspect too and follows Bush’s fondness for loyalty as opposed to competence.