Top Conservative Group Wants To Know: Does Rudy Agree With Robertson On 9/11?

Comments (25)

Crust wrote on November 7, 2007 3:45 PM:

Nice work.

Fred wrote on November 7, 2007 3:54 PM:

I agree. It also shows that not all right-wing Christian groups are the same--an important thing to remember going into the general election.

Tony wrote on November 7, 2007 3:55 PM:

I bet Russert will wimp out.....I lost a lot of respect for Russert. What a jerk-off TV hitman. He's nothing like his father.

EH wrote on November 7, 2007 4:09 PM:

This will be an easy one for Rudy to deflect. Giuliani agrees with Robertson's fundraising skills, it's as simple as that.

Ken wrote on November 7, 2007 4:22 PM:

"Good questions. Will anyone else ask them?"

No.

This has been another episode of "Simple Answers to Simple Questions".

Yucca wrote on November 7, 2007 4:24 PM:

Let's not give the FRC too much credit. They're just taking shots at Rudy because they like Mitt and Huck better. At least their rank and file do. Recall: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6465.html

Art wrote on November 7, 2007 4:25 PM:

All right-wing christian groups ARE the same.
They are just not identical.

Johnny2Bad wrote on November 7, 2007 4:26 PM:

Fred wrote on November 7, 2007 3:54 PM:

I agree. It also shows that not all right-wing Christian groups are the same--an important thing to remember going into the general election.

Not really. Maybe they're looking for Rudy to say "yes, I agree". Cuz I guarantee you...they do.

Dennis wrote on November 7, 2007 4:28 PM:

Not accepting Robertson's endorsement would require the exercise of political principles. Neither man has either.

Rudy is entirely acceptable to the religious right for his authoritarian personality. It's his unwillingness to carry water for their silly social positions they can't stand.

tsisageya wrote on November 7, 2007 5:24 PM:

Warning: I am on the WARPATH. Who can predict what will happen?

Wherefore:

My own special nickname for my brand-new grandson is TILLMAN.

His given name happens to be Isaiah Malachi Nathanael. Go figure.

Nickname hint: "THIS WAR IS SO FUCKING ILLEGAL."

Fragging incident. Bushco.

Independent Conservative wrote on November 7, 2007 5:51 PM:

"9/11 is what Rudy's campaign is fundamentally based on," Charmaine Yoest, a vice president at Family Research Council Action, told us. "This does beg the question -- does Rudy agree with Robertson's comments about 9/11?"

-- Doesn't this make you wonder why someone would choose to ask a question to which they already know the answer?

Charmaine Yoest KNOWS that Rudy doesn't share Robertson's views on 9/11 ... or homosexuals ... or Hinduism ... and on and on. Robertson has a significantly large conservative Christian audience that believes most (if not all) of what he says. Rudy knows that he needs the support of a decent chunk of the CC voting block in order to secure the nomination.

Also, to bring up the 800 LB gorilla in the room, Robertson won't endorse Huckabee or Thompson (because he thinks they can't win) or Romney (guess why?).

Powkat wrote on November 7, 2007 6:41 PM:

I thought all the comedy writers were on strike. Okay, who's leaving the picket line to write this stuff? 'Fess up.

EthanQ wrote on November 7, 2007 6:52 PM:

"Good questions. Will anyone else ask them?"

Of course not, the media is MUCH too busy beating up Hillary about drivers licenses!

There oughta be two new entries in Wikipedia:

"Pirhanacus Mediablightus" -- Species of media consultants who feed on Democratic candidate misstatements

"Slothicus Mediamoronicus" -- Species of media who respond to Republican candidate misstatements

Timothy3 wrote on November 7, 2007 7:46 PM:

I'm sure the religious right squirms with pleasure at Rudy's belligerencies, especially when the Republicans "debate" how best to atomize Iran. I just wish--no matter how vainly--they'd admit that authoritarianism rather than morality drives their social agenda.

Jake D wrote on November 7, 2007 7:52 PM:

As I said to an acquaintance years ago who was trying to convince me to support the Democrat in an election because the Republican "wasn't trustworthy," even if that's true, why should I vote for someone I can count on to do things I hate over someone I can't count on to do things I like?

Troll Patrol wrote on November 7, 2007 9:02 PM:

Jake D knows full well tpm banned him!

Miles Webster wrote on November 7, 2007 9:07 PM:

EthanQ at 6:52 PM: New Media Definitions

"Pirhanacus Mediablightus" -- Species of media consultants who feed on Democratic candidate misstatements

"Slothicus Mediamoronicus" -- Species of media who respond to Republican candidate misstatements

Now thats good! Real good!

adam wrote on November 7, 2007 9:18 PM:

Hi, I am tsisageya.

I am also insanely incoherent. That is all.

Jake D wrote on November 7, 2007 9:19 PM:

What are you talking about, Troll Patrol?

Joe Monster wrote on November 7, 2007 9:41 PM:

This is a case of a voter club testing a candidate for water-carrying skill. They want to threaten and bother him to make it look like it's up the them. But Timothy3's suggestion is dead on. It's authority they crave, and the only part of the Deity they worship.

So now they're ruining the world but not in it? From the planet but not on it? If this is the test, I hope Rudy fails. He can't be as bad as he appears to be. None of us can be as bad as he appears to be.

Come on Rudy, tell them off. Only 30% of US goes to church.

Nancy wrote on November 7, 2007 10:29 PM:

Roberston is BLIND is all that I now see about him. Just plain blind. All that he preaches against he is now for.

See one thing and run to it Roberson just because he is that is not what the former Mayor is all about. SO I guess 9/11 is then OK with Pat Roberson. Just cover it up more.

I hope that the Mayor loses and gets flat on his face. I also hope that the truth does come out about him and 9/11. Which in parts it is that is how BLIND Roberson is.

Sorry but I used to like Pat but not any more. He is just to blind.

William Wallace wrote on November 7, 2007 11:29 PM:

Please notice: Pat Robertson, who said something equivalent to: "America was attacked because we deserved it", has endorsed Rudy. Ron Paul did not say America deserved to be attacked. It would seem that Rudy *HAS* heard something like what he was falsely claiming Ron Paul had said. He just didn't remember ?? Isn't it strange that Rudy has no problem with Pat Robertson's endorsement? Does Rudy have a problem with his memory and his hearing? I do not think Rudy is presidential. I think Ron Paul would be the best president since our founding fathers. His views are spot on for our present predicament. Truth remains truth, even this many years later.

Independent Conservative wrote on November 8, 2007 6:40 AM:

-- No, Ron Paul has not said that America "deserved" to be attacked on 9/11; BUT, he has made statements like this:

THEY COME HERE AND KILL US BECAUSE WE OCCUPY THEIR LANDS AND THEY RATIONALLY REASON AND COME AND SAY WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT. [September 17th debate]

And this:

It was the fact that we had troops in Saudi Arabia -- was one of the three reasons given for the attack on 9/11. [September 5th debate]

-- Many people have taken these statements as assertions that it was our fault we were attacked on Sept. 11, that our presence in foreign lands invited such a response. It's part of Ron Paul's isolationist "If we ignore the rest of the world we'll never be attacked" stance, also known as the Idiot Doctrine (nice version: the Wishful Thinking Doctrine).

Steev wrote on November 8, 2007 9:43 AM:

"the Idiot Doctrine (nice version: the Wishful Thinking Doctrine)."

yeah, because the alternative doctrines of preemptive war and imperialism have been historically proven to be such rational and productive approaches.

i can't speak for ron paul, but non-interventionism as the founders understood it is not at all the same thing as isolationism. the idea isn't that we don't have legitimate diplomatic and economic relationships with other nations. it's just that we don't secretly fund terrorist organizations to overthrow their leaders or run black ops and intelligence campaigns meant to muck around with the integrity of their sovereign right to self-determination.

in other words, we just have to stop letting lying little sneaks dictate our foreign policy so much of the time.

seeryer wrote on November 8, 2007 12:16 PM:

Russert: Mayor Guilliani, how would you characterize the dialogue between the late Dr Falwell and Pat Robertson, a man who has openly endorsed you, despite seeming polar opposites on the issue, in which they seemed to agree that 9/11 occured because of "abortionists & gays" and other favorite targets of the extreme Christina Right?

Guilliani: I would say they were misinterpreted by liberals in the media but from my interpretation they seemed uninformed.

Russert: Only uninformed? You called Ron Paul out of his mind for suggesting US foreign policy in the Middle East led to what happened on 9/11 and the most you can muster up for Robertson's and Fallwell's assertion is uninformed?

Guilliani: Tim, I was the mayor on 9/11 so I know................blah, blah

ONLY IN MY DREAMS!!

Post a comment

Name:
Email Address:
URL:
	Remember personal info?
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)