Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

June 27, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

GETTING TO KNOW YOU....On Monday Rudy Giuliani made a pilgrimage to Regent "Farm Team to the Justice Department!" University to meet up with Pat Robertson. Jon Chait is unimpressed:

For those who don't recall, Robertson is not just a strong social conservative, he's a raving loon.

....When conservatives are forced to address the subject of Robertson, they usually insist that he's a marginal figure. That's basically what liberals say when forced to discuss the likes of Louis Farrakhan, who is a very close parallel to Robertson. But you don't see Democratic presidential candidates seeking out Farrakhan's warm public embrace. So why isn't the Giuliani-Robertson story getting much national attention?

There's some additional reading material at the link.

Kevin Drum 12:54 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (63)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

Why should we not assume that Guiliani approves of Robertson's ways and agrees with him? My memory is that Robertson has said vile things about Catholics, but I may have him confused with other hate-mongers who hide behind their supposed Christianity.

Posted by: freelunch on June 27, 2007 at 1:09 PM | PERMALINK

...because Robertson is a Christian, loony or not, whereas Farrakhan is Muslim. Making a stink about Robertson is prima facie, for people, making a stink about someone seeking the endorsement of a famous Christian. No one is willing to press that and wind up in the defensive position of explaining why that doesn't make them 'anti-Christian'.

No such problems attacking Farrakhan, so a win-win.

Posted by: Oolong on June 27, 2007 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINK

Matthew 7:21-29
"Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. On that day many will say to me, 'Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and cast out demons in your name, and do many deeds of power in your name?' Then I will declare to them, 'I never knew you; go away from me, you evildoers.'

Posted by: Neal on June 27, 2007 at 1:15 PM | PERMALINK

I think a better parallel might be Al Sharpton, who's a real nutcase but still manages a significant following.

It's not really surprising to me that presidential contenders on either side pander to the likes of Robertson and Sharpton.

Posted by: William Swann on June 27, 2007 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINK

William,

I'd have to disagree. Robertson, crazy or not, is primarily known as "Christian minister". Farrakhan is primarily know, crazy or not, as "Muslim preacher" (close second: black militant). Sharpton is known primarily as a Black activist. Not even secondarily is he known as a Christian minister. So: dismiss Robertson, be prepared to defend yourself against the impression that you are anti-Christian. Attack Farrakhan, bask in the impression that you are anti-Muslim or anti-black militant. Attack Farrakhan, bask in the impression that you are anti Black activist.

Again, win-win for Republicans, lose-lose for Democrats.

Posted by: oolong on June 27, 2007 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINK

That's basically what liberals say when forced to discuss the likes of Louis Farrakhan,

Not to mention other left wing moonbats like Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and the racist Jesse Jackson. How come liberals are getting a pass from you when kowtowing to those lefties, but you're attacking the right for meeting with conservatives you disagree with?

Posted by: Al on June 27, 2007 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINK

Good post, Kevin. Well written. But, wow! The number of posts here are REALLY, REALLY down. I mean, even more than the recent sharp downward trend. Seriously, are you guys getting concerned?

Posted by: Pat on June 27, 2007 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINK

Did Farrakhan ever blame 9/11 on Americans?

IOKIYAR

Posted by: rea on June 27, 2007 at 1:32 PM | PERMALINK

Al equates Giuliani courting Robertson to a DFL candidate courting O'Donnell (?).

Desperate times - for both Ruddy AND Al.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on June 27, 2007 at 1:37 PM | PERMALINK

Why would liberals have to answer about Louis Farrakhan? He's not a liberal and he doesn't support them, rhetorically or financially. His politics are classic isolationist, segregationist, bootstrap, conservative.

Bad Analogy. Bad. Sit.

Posted by: Martin on June 27, 2007 at 1:40 PM | PERMALINK

Pat Robertson Calls Down the Wrath of God on the Supreme Court (or part of it)

“Religious broadcaster Pat Robertson urged his nationwide audience Monday to pray for God to remove three justices from the Supreme Court so they could be replaced by conservatives. Robertson has launched a 21-day ‘prayer offensive’ directed at the Supreme Court in the wake of its 6-3 June vote that decriminalized sodomy....{He said]"’One justice is 83-years-old, another has cancer and another has a heart condition. Would it not be possible for God to put it in the minds of these three judges that the time has come to retire?’ “
CBS/AP, July 15, 2003

The Reverend was scandalized.
In anguish he bewailed
That two adults for private acts
Would henceforth not be jailed.
He cried to Heaven high,
Beseeched the Lord to wield His rod
Confusing, as he often does,
His will with that of God.
He prayed with passion that the Lord
Might stretch His hand below
And move some sitting Justices
To pack their briefs and go.
He wasn’t too explicit,
Leaving many things unsaid
Perhaps he meant “retire them”
But it could be “make them dead”.

Now speech is free in this great land
But Robertson might worry
That some might think that he’d implied
That God was in a hurry,
And thought to speed things up a bit,
Restoring Pat to hope
With Colt, or maybe Remington
With mounted sniper-scope.
Yes , Pat should pray with all his heart
That God’s the only shooter,
At Kennedy, O’Connor, Breyer,
Stevens, Ginsburg, Souter,
For even if he might expect
The Rapture any time,
When last I looked, inciting
Homicide was still a crime.


Posted by: jrosen on June 27, 2007 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK

Most people (not just liberals) dismiss Farrakhan because he's not just out to lunch every day of the week, but also because he has no real power, political or otherwise.

Robertson, also several balloon animals short of a birthday party, has a nightly teevee show on the ABC Family Channel. Also he has a huge database of wingers who knock on doors and raise money. He has power. Hence the ring-kissing. Rudy could probably give a rat's ass what Robertson actually thinks.

Posted by: merciless on June 27, 2007 at 1:59 PM | PERMALINK

Bad Analogy. Bad. Sit.
Martin is correct. Just because Farrakhan isn't a right-wing Republican doesn't mean that he must be a liberal.

Posted by: Qwerty on June 27, 2007 at 2:00 PM | PERMALINK

Wasn’t it Robertson who attributed 911 to the wrath of God, thus inadvertently elevating Al Qaeda to the status of being an instrument of God?

Wasn’t it also Pat Robertson who lied about serving in combat in Korea? He was on a troop ship on the way to Korea alright, but thanks to some string pulling by his dad (a powerful senator) was allowed to get off the ship when it docked in Japan.

Posted by: fafner1 on June 27, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

That's basically what liberals say when forced to discuss the likes of Louis Farrakhan, who is a very close parallel to Robertson.

Robertson is an intimate of the most powerful figures in the GOP. Farrakhan is an outcast who disagrees with virtually everything the Democratic Party stands for. How is there in any way a very close parallel?

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2007 at 2:16 PM | PERMALINK

Yes, Martin is correct. The only parallel between Robertson & Farrakhan is their anti-Semitic wingnuttery. William Swann is also right on -- Sharpton is a better parallel, as he represents the interests of (and, to some degree, speaks for) a significant segment of Democratic voters. Because of this, he's given a wide berth, even though he has a history of saying some totally crackpot things -- much like Robertson. The fact that Robertson, Sharpton, & Farrakhan happen to be -- or claim to be -- religious is incidental. Chait's point has to do with Robertson's marginality -- not his Christianity.

This said, merciless pretty much sums it up by pointing out that, of those three figures, Robertson's power is real, rather than simply rhetorical. It's no stretch to say that he's more political organizer than he is preacher.

Posted by: junebug on June 27, 2007 at 2:30 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani must publicly stoop to kiss Pat Robertson's ring in order to demonstrate to the big money boys that old Rudy is totally devoid of personal integrity. The one indispensable ingredient for any Republican candidate who hopes to attract the support of the powerful is that he be desperately willing to ignore principle and obey.

It's why a fraternity pledge eats a can of dogfood, but it's far more repulsive.

Posted by: chance on June 27, 2007 at 2:36 PM | PERMALINK

Robertson is disgusting. It pains me when Republicans pander to him.

It's a shame that so many Conservative Christians are represented by this huckster. Similarly, it's a shame that many African Americans are represented by hucksters Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson.

Posted by: ex-liberal on June 27, 2007 at 3:04 PM | PERMALINK

Well what Jon Chait is leaving out of couse is that Giuliani is a long shot (and the big REASON why Repugs are desperate for Fred Thompson) because when it comes to those Southern states, I mean, what would ex-Judge Roy Moore of Alabama have that relates even remotely to NY Rudy?

Roy probably thinks that Rudy Giuliani's abortion thing is what brought down the wrath of God on 9/11.

Somehow, I really can't see those Southern states voting for a guy like Giuliani, and of course, without the Southern conservative vote - Rudy might as well be whistling Dixie past the political graveyard. It's been said that Dems need some of the Southern states to win but Repugs CAN'T win at all without the Southern vote.

I don't care how hard Giuliani hugs Mr. Pat Robertson, he doesn't speak redneck and those Southerners won't see anything but a Massachusetts liberal. There is too much John Kerry in Rudy Giuliani, sort of a NY state of mind, like a big blue stain of sin that liberal Repugs can't wash out even if the practice a Southern draw.

And Jon Chait isn't very sharp if he can't figure that out.

Posted by: Me_again on June 27, 2007 at 3:07 PM | PERMALINK

Hogwash. Robertson is nowhere near as far out on the kookometer than, say, Al burn-the-Jews-out Sharpton, yet look how quickly your team puckers up every time he drops his pants.

Posted by: minion on June 27, 2007 at 3:09 PM | PERMALINK

Shorter "ex-liberal" and minion: Look over there!

Nice to see that Robertson's influence over the GOP is such a touchy subject. Obviously Kevin's on to something.

Posted by: Gregory on June 27, 2007 at 3:26 PM | PERMALINK

It isn't getting any attention because it isn't news. Mr. Giuliani's meeting with every nutcase in town has no public interest component. He has as much chance of being elected president of the U.S. as Mr. Putin does!

Posted by: Archie1954 on June 27, 2007 at 3:34 PM | PERMALINK

If we had a free press, they would press Giuliani about this. It's not that hard to dig up a kooky quote by Robertson and ask Giuliani what he thinks about it.

Moderate Conservatives don't fear attacking Bill Clinton, whom a lot of people like. There is no reason anybody should fear criticizing Pat Robertson.

People laughed at McCain when he visited Bob Jones. People now should laugh at Giuliani. Robertson is a whackjob among whackjobs.

Posted by: reino on June 27, 2007 at 3:35 PM | PERMALINK

Al, defend your position. What's so wrong with Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell and Jesse Jackson that we should treat them the same as Pat Robertson? For starters, they haven't called for the assasination of any head of state, and then made an obviously bogus attempt to call it a joke, like Pat Robertson has. Saying that we should treat Pat Robertson like these people is like saying we should treat the terrorists the same as any regular people on the street, if I'm understanding the facts right.

Posted by: Swan on June 27, 2007 at 3:43 PM | PERMALINK

Uh, I think I said Robertson has earned a place on the kookameter, just not as far out as the Brownsville Riot Kid. BTW, Robertson lost a lot of cred with the truly religious conservatives when he justified forced abortions in China.

Posted by: minion on June 27, 2007 at 4:05 PM | PERMALINK

"ex-liberal" wrote: Robertson is disgusting. It pains me when Republicans pander to him.

Given your own disgusting pandering to the neocon agenda, your statement, as usual, reeks of disingenuousness.

Posted by: Gregory on June 27, 2007 at 4:07 PM | PERMALINK

I think I said Robertson has earned a place on the kookameter

Un, no, you just said "look over there!" Your statement -- "Robertson is nowhere near as far out on the kookometer than, say, Al burn-the-Jews-out Sharpton" -- declares that Sharpton is more koody than Robertson; it isn't declarative that Robertson is, in fact, kooky, and more to the point, it elides the vastly greater influence Robertson has with the GOP than Sharpton does with the Democratic Party. Which is, of course, what your feeble handwaving is all about.

But why are we discussing this with you as if you post in good faith, "minion"?

Posted by: Gregory on June 27, 2007 at 4:12 PM | PERMALINK

Greg, why can't you share the love with ex-liberal?

The biggest single difference between Robertson and Sharpton is that Robertson as used his fundraising from the gullible to finance voter registration drives adding hundreds of thousands of voters to the rolls, Sharpton has used his shakedowns from foundations and corporations to finance dozens of new voters, while he travels first class as befits a gentlemen of his caliber.

Posted by: minion on June 27, 2007 at 4:15 PM | PERMALINK

Giuliani isn't as dead in the south as I read here. Republicans simply want to win. And when they're down (like now) they'll blindly offer whatever rationale comes to mind to prop up their candidate.

Unlike Democrats, who are as likely to trash a solid candidate over single-item issues as they are to support that candidate.

Posted by: wishIwuz2 on June 27, 2007 at 4:21 PM | PERMALINK

A better question:

How long until Repug candidates make a required pilgrimage to Ann Coulter's throne?

Kiss her ring everyone!
Kiss her ring.

And while you do so:
Don't forget to click those boot heels smartly!

Posted by: ROTFLMLiberalAO on June 27, 2007 at 4:24 PM | PERMALINK

The biggest single difference between Robertson and Sharpton is that Robertson as used his fundraising from the gullible to finance voter registration drives adding hundreds of thousands of voters to the rolls, Sharpton has used his shakedowns from foundations and corporations to finance dozens of new voters, while he travels first class as befits a gentlemen of his caliber.

Ah yes, poor, humble Pat Robertson...

Gregg Palast
Observer, London May 23, 1999

The combination of ministry and Mammon has provided Robertson with a net worth estimated at between $200m and $1 billion. He himself would not confirm his wealth, except to tell me that his share of the reported $50m start-up capital for the bank is 'just a small investment for me'.

....More interesting is the way the Operation Blessing funds were used in Africa. Through an emotional fundraising drive on his TV station, Robertson raised several million dollars for the tax-free charitable trust. Operation Blessing bought planes to shuttle medical supplies in and out of the refugee camp in Goma, Congo (then Zaire).

But investigative reporter Bill Sizemore of the Virginian Pilot discovered that over a six-month period - except for one medical flight - the planes were used to haul equipment for something called African Development Corporation, a diamond mining operation a long way from Goma. African Development is owned by Pat Robertson.

Did Robertson know about the diversion of the relief planes? According to pilots' records, he actually flew on one plane ferrying equipment to his mines.

One of Robertson's former business partners recalled that, although he often travelled in the minister's jet, he never saw Robertson crack open a Bible. 'Everywhere we were flying he had the Wall Street Journal and Investors' Daily.'

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2007 at 4:40 PM | PERMALINK

Robertson is nowhere near as far out on the kookometer than, say, Al burn-the-Jews-out Sharpton, yet look how quickly your team puckers up every time he drops his pants.

That would be the same Pat Robertson who said "You're supposed to be nice to Episcopalians, Presbyterians and Methodists ... Nonsense. I don't have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist"? Yeah, no kook he....

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2007 at 4:43 PM | PERMALINK

And, when he's not diverting relief supplies, Robertson is busy enriching savage lunatic dictators:

In another international business deal involving Robertson, Liberian President Charles Taylor has reached a mineral development agreement with Robertson's Freedom Gold Ltd. to hunt for gold in southeast Liberia's Bukon Jedeh region, which is believed to have substantial reserves.

www.cnn.com/WORLD/europe/9906/02/scotland.robertson

That would be this Charles Taylor:

Former Liberian leader and war crimes suspect Charles Taylor is going on trial in The Hague - the culmination of a lengthy campaign for him to be brought before an international court for allegedly backing rebels in neighbouring Sierra Leone....His friends over the years have included the once-radical Colonel Gaddafi of Libya...and a rogues' gallery of businessmen, local and foreign, prepared to flout UN disapproval to make money in Liberia.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/2963086.stm

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2007 at 4:49 PM | PERMALINK

Louis Farrakhan is a liberal?

When did liberals take ownership of a nationalist, in this case a black nationalist?

Nationalism is contrary to the egalitarian and cosmopolitan principles of liberalism. When the Declaration of Independence said 'all men are created equal', it referred to all men (and women), not just those within our borders.

As a black nationalist, Farrakhan has more in common with the right wingers of the world than liberals. The problem the NRO set has with him is that he's a nonamerican nationalist living within our borders.

We should emphasize the fact that Farrakhan is not a liberal; he's just another nationalist crazy who wants to wall off part of the world for his particular tribe.

Posted by: Nick on June 27, 2007 at 4:54 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't make myself clear -- in my opinion Robertson is a kook, and deserves the hottest spot in hell for some of his scams... but I think his corruption is less pernicious than Sharpton's...no accounting for taste and all that.

Posted by: minion on June 27, 2007 at 5:00 PM | PERMALINK

WHITE SUPREMACISTS VOICE SUPPORT OF FARRAKHAN

By WAYNE KING, SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
Published: October 12, 1985

Leaders of neo-Nazi and other white supremacist groups met in a gesture of solidarity against Jews last weekend and talked of an accommodation with Louis Farrakhan, leader of a Black Muslim group who has been accused of anti-Semitism.

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F7081EFC3A5D0C718DDDA90994DD484D81

And yet Farrakhan is a liberal problem?

Posted by: Nick on June 27, 2007 at 5:08 PM | PERMALINK

but I think his corruption is less pernicious than Sharpton's...no accounting for taste and all that.

So diverting famine relief supplies for your gold mine, and entering into a crooked gold and blood diamond smuggling deal with an African warlord engaged in a vicious war against innocent civilians, the proceeds of which were used to fund international terrorism, is less pernicious than what you think Al Sharpton has done? OK, well, now at least we've established what your level of, ah, taste is.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2007 at 5:10 PM | PERMALINK

I don't just say that Louis Farrakhan is a marginal figure. I add that he is a strong social conservative and raving loon. Then I add that he is an enthusiast for supply side tax cuts too http://tinyurl.com/332ngr

He supports self reliance and traditional gender roles and sexual mores. Obviously he's a reactionary. I don't see how anyone can dispute that.

Posted by: Robert Waldmann on June 27, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

A student-sponsored speech by a Nation of Islam minister that attacked whites, homosexuals and Jews in mocking and often cruel ways has ignited a bitter debate at Kean College....

http://select.nytimes.com/search/restricted/article?res=F00616FB3D540C7A8EDDAB0994DB494D81

A nationalist bigot (redundant) is a nationalist is a nationalist--and is definitely NOT a liberal.

Posted by: Nick on June 27, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

but I think his corruption is less pernicious than Sharpton's

The instant sharpton starts investing in blood diamonds, giving money to corrupt fascist regimes in Africa, and having poorly educated disciples get appoints en masse at the justice department through illegal violations of civil service laws, you can call Robertson's corruption "less pernicious." 'Till then, be quiet.

Posted by: Tyro on June 27, 2007 at 5:12 PM | PERMALINK

I didn't make myself clear -- in my opinion Robertson is a kook, and deserves the hottest spot in hell for some of his scams... but I think his corruption is less pernicious than Sharpton's...no accounting for taste and all that.
-------------------------

You still didn't make yourself clear.

You obviously meant to say that the EFFECT of Robertson's corruption is less pernicious than Sharpton's.


I'd like to see the metrics on that assertion.

Posted by: Nick on June 27, 2007 at 5:16 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think nationalism is contrary to liberalism; rather, it's fundamental to liberalism. It's not contrary to liberalism any more than the writings of John Locke are contrary to modern liberalism. Liberalism de-emphasizes nationalism relative to other methods of government, such as classical conservativism.

As a black nationalist, though, Farrakhan takes it too far and becomes a racial supremacist, which, I think, is necessarily contrary to modern liberalism in modern ethnically-pluralistic society. Now, in another nation, defined more tightly to the race of the people living there, race might have a lot to do with nationalism, and pride in your race might not be too different from legitimate racial nationalism. It's hard to describe Israel or Ireland without talking in terms of race. For Americans, though, to make race part of your politics instead of just interest in and pride in your background, family, community, what have you, is inimical to democracy/liberalism.

Posted by: Swan on June 27, 2007 at 5:18 PM | PERMALINK

It's hard to describe Israel or Ireland without talking in terms of race.

Or India, or dozens of African nations / other nations that are more or less defined by / historically united by a common race or ethnicity.

Posted by: Swan on June 27, 2007 at 5:20 PM | PERMALINK

I don't think nationalism is contrary to liberalism; rather, it's fundamental to liberalism.

Posted by: Swan on June 27, 2007 at 5:18 PM |
-----------------------

Nationalism--the idea that ones nation is morally superior to all others--is not only contrary to liberalism, it's acutely contrary to that radically liberal assertion in the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.

If all men are created equal, then a necessary corrollary is that no nation of men is morally superior to another.

Posted by: Nick on June 27, 2007 at 5:31 PM | PERMALINK

I mean, in America, what we call patriotism is really nothing more than American nationalism. 'Nationalism' used in its strictest sense is just a context-free word for 'patriotism' (that is, until we start to give nationalism a negative connotation, in which case it starts to imply hints of other meanings).

When we talk about Louis Farrakhan's 'black nationalism,' we're really just using a polite euphemism for what is really his belief in black-racial-supremacy.

There are plenty of African Americans who could more correctly be called black nationalists, whose black nationalism is analogous to what I might call my Irish nationalism, and they are nowhere near as kooky as Farrakhan: they just know something about the African culture and the African-American history and they take a pride and interest in it.

Posted by: Swan on June 27, 2007 at 5:36 PM | PERMALINK

I think you guys are talking past each other. Nationalism has two definitions: 1) the belief that a nation of people (ethnicity) has the right of self-determination, and 2) the belief that your particular nation/ethnicity is superior to all others. The former is the belief that led to nation states forming to govern themselves out of the debris of crumbled empires, a distinctly liberal endeavor. The later is better described as chauvinism.

Posted by: Disputo on June 27, 2007 at 5:40 PM | PERMALINK

Nationalism--the idea that ones nation is morally superior to all others

I think it depends on what book you are reading- I was a poli-sci major and I take issue with your definition of nationalism as incorporating a belief in 'moral superiority.' If what you are talking about is putting the best interests of our nation and its nationals above the best interests of other nations and their nationals, then we are probably all nationalists- but if what you are talking about is something different, a more extreme elevation of one's nation above others, then I think that definition is only used some of the time and a more apt word for what you are thinking of is jingoism.

Posted by: Swan on June 27, 2007 at 5:44 PM | PERMALINK

Re: relative perniciousness, you can start and end with the schools Robertson has built to indoctrinate kids in his crazy world view. Sharpton has come no where near that level of institutionalized dissemination of his views, however you regard them.

Posted by: Disputo on June 27, 2007 at 5:46 PM | PERMALINK

Jon Chait of TNR.

We luuves us some TNR!

Posted by: luci on June 27, 2007 at 5:49 PM | PERMALINK

Nationalism has two definitions: 1) the belief that a nation of people (ethnicity) has the right of self-determination, and 2) the belief that your particular nation/ethnicity is superior to all others. The former is the belief that led to nation states forming to govern themselves out of the debris of crumbled empires, a distinctly liberal endeavor. The later is better described as chauvinism.


Posted by: Disputo on June 27, 2007 at 5:40 PM
---------------------

I think you're correct on several points; my definitions need to be adjusted.

Nationalism as we see it today in the United States is chauvinism--the idea that our nation is morally superior to all others (especially France and places where Muslims dominate). Hence we can bomb the hell out of the critters and torture them. It is a right wing view and is reviled by contemporary American liberals.

Farrakhan's nationalism is also chauvinistic--he believes black people are morally superior to whites and should keep themselves separate.

I think this idea of nationalism, so prevalent in the right wing of contemporary American politics, is antithetical to whatever it means to be liberal.

Posted by: Nick on June 27, 2007 at 5:50 PM | PERMALINK

"But you don't see Democratic presidential candidates seeking out Farrakhan's warm public embrace."

Maybe not Farrakhan, but there's plenty of embracing of bigoted scumbags like Sharpton and loonies like that crazy congressbitch who punched a Capitol cop the other year or Rosie "9-11 was an inside job" ODonnell.

Posted by: pnut on June 27, 2007 at 6:31 PM | PERMALINK

but there's plenty of embracing of bigoted scumbags like Sharpton and loonies like that crazy congressbitch who punched a Capitol cop the other year....

Posted by: pnut on June 27, 2007 at 6:31 PM |
---------------------

A partisan of the party which used the racist Southern Strategy for the past 50 years really doesn't have room to complain about bigotry.

There's a reason African Americans overwhelmingly reject the Republican Party.

Posted by: Nick on June 27, 2007 at 6:36 PM | PERMALINK

Oh, so you have no actual point then, Nick? Don't have to waste more time on you, I guess.

Posted by: pnut on June 27, 2007 at 6:49 PM | PERMALINK

There's a reason African Americans overwhelmingly reject the Republican Party.

There's also a reason women, gays, the young, Hispanics, American Indians, Muslims, Arabs, Jews, etc. etc. overwhelmingly reject the Republican Party. They just better pray this country never runs out of angry frustrated white men...but given the way the demographics are shifting, it doesn't look so good.

Posted by: Stefan on June 27, 2007 at 6:51 PM | PERMALINK

Any white guy with enough time on his hands to worry about blacks oppressing him needs to stop faking back pain, get off of disability, and do something with his life.

Really folks. This society is so damn racist in favor of white man, that any white man that can't be a success needs to just off himself and be done with it.

Posted by: Disputo on June 27, 2007 at 6:55 PM | PERMALINK

given the way the demographics are shifting

Hence the "freedom wall".

Posted by: Disputo on June 27, 2007 at 6:57 PM | PERMALINK

AFAIK Farrakhan isn't a liberal and has never claimed to be a liberal. But why let that stop you from making an empty-headed comparison?

And I think I can speak on behalf of a lot of liberals when I say I wouldn't piss on Rosie O'Donnell if she was on fire, so let's put that to rest already....

Posted by: nota bene on June 27, 2007 at 7:21 PM | PERMALINK

Farrakhan is a good analogy. I've always been amazed and appalled that Robertson's record hasn't been more carefully scrutinized in the press, or that, given the record, he isn't shunned by mainstream figures the way Farrakhan is (and rightfully so). His book New World Order, by all accounts, is straight up Jewish banker conspiracy theory of history, with the word "Jewish" elided (although, apparently, with large sections lifted verbatim other than that from notorious 19th century anti-Semitic tracts).

By the way, this raises the question of why Farrakhan's anti-Semitism is so widely discussed, given his relatively marginal role in Black American culture (certainly compared with Robertson's role in white Evangelical culture). Without getting too paranoid, the question needs to be asked, whose interest is served by stirring up animosity between Blacks and Jews?

The answer, of course, is a political party whose name begins with "R".

Posted by: larry birnbaum on June 27, 2007 at 8:08 PM | PERMALINK

The story did appear for awhile (around 6 - 7 PM) in various links on the enhanced Google site (http://www.google.com/ig?hl=en). But in any case, aside from the oddities of the news media so well documented by prog-blogs, this can be a good clip to show on TV later.

Posted by: Neil B. on June 27, 2007 at 9:22 PM | PERMALINK

Bwa ha ha ha haaaa!

Posted by: Corvair on June 27, 2007 at 9:56 PM | PERMALINK

Al: "...left wing moonbats like Michael Moore, Rosie O'Donnell, and the racist Jesse Jackson."

Yes, moonbats who are wildly popular with wide cross-sections of the population. Unlike you, whose own mother has written in, begging Kevin to take you off her hands.

And guess what, numb-nuts: saying it doesn't make it so. By the way, been to church or the recruiting station lately, or are just a big, fat sack of barely thrown-together lies? Yup, that's what we thought.

Posted by: Kenji on June 28, 2007 at 12:49 AM | PERMALINK

mionion wrote: The biggest single difference between Robertson and Sharpton is that Robertson as used his fundraising from the gullible to finance voter registration drives adding hundreds of thousands of voters to the rolls, Sharpton has used his shakedowns from foundations and corporations to finance dozens of new voters, while he travels first class as befits a gentlemen of his caliber.

Frist of all, Robertson sure seems to travel first class himself, so rip that false distinction up right now.

That said, it's good to see that you agree with me that Robertson weilds more influence overthe Republican Party than Sharpton does over the Democrats.

Toad.

Posted by: Gregory on June 28, 2007 at 10:40 AM | PERMALINK

Frist of all, Robertson sure seems to travel first class himself, so rip that false distinction up right now.

Excuse me, but Robertson doesn't travel first class at all.

He travels on his own private jet.

Posted by: Stefan on June 28, 2007 at 7:23 PM | PERMALINK
Post a comment









Remember personal info?










 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly