Immoderation
Update: an eagle-eyed reader, Jerry Chandler, pointed out that it was Rudy Guiliani who received an endorsement from the Rev. Pat Robertson, not John McCain. I have edited this entry accordingly.
Rudy Giuliani decided to cast aside his moderate street creds and accept an endorsement from the Rev. Pat Robertson, while McCain was busy brown-nosing Sam Brownback. Both Robertson and Brownback represent a Christian evangelical movement that promotes bigotry and immorality.
Yeah, yeah, I know, Christians believe themselves to be “moral.” I don’t care. The belief that homosexuality is an affront to God is merely bigotry, and bigotry is immoral. I don’t care if it’s in the Bible. I really don’t. The Bible was written not by God but by men.
What’s worse is that Robertson is merely an extreme manifestation of the bigotry that is sanctioned by some of the largest mainstream Christian denominations. While I realize that not all Christians are bigoted, far too many are. What’s most frustrating about it is the extreme hypocrisy of these Christians. The New Testament of the Bible preaches humility and non-judgment, and yet so many Christians blithely exemplify the opposite. It’s why I went from being a devout Catholic to a man without a religion.
Giuliani was a social moderate. McCain used to be a maverick who actually took stands on principle regardless of the cost. Now both are pandering to the bigots who form the base of the Republican party. Well, guess what? Even if either one wins the party nomination and later the general election, how can either be an effective leader after having abandoned so many of their principles? How can anyone? It’s a problem that’s plagued every president since Ronald Reagan, who pretty much agreed with his party’s base but was charismatic enough to win a general election.
November 11th, 2007 at 9:29 pm
Ah, what a fun year we have ahead of us.
Both are disappointing me, but one disappoints me more then the other.
(Cary Grant voice) Rudy, Rudy, Rudy…
I know Rudy wasn’t all that and a slice of fried gold to begin with, but he’s been the biggest waste of potential this year. Yeah, some may argue that McCain was, but McCain has been flaming out now for the better part of two and a half years. This crash and burn was only a secret to people that were politically deaf, dumb and blind.
But Rudy? Rudy Giuliani has been p%$#ing off lots of people I know for a while now. He’s (http://www.factcheck.org/) inflated his record of action during 911, inflated his time at ground zero, inflated his tax cuts, inflated the facts of his cancer experience, downplayed his connections to Kerik in the clumsiest fashion possible and now he does this.
Good ol’ Pat Robertson comes a callin’ and Rudy goes a runnin’. Thing is, any smart pundits or political opponents will rip him a new with this. Rudy and his most vocal media supporters are big on attacking others for the company they keep. So how can any of them think that this is good for Rudy? Rudy Giuliani, “hero” of 911, gets in bed with the man who said that we deserved what happened to us on 911!
Pat Robertson, the man who, along with the late Rev. Jerry Falwell, put forth the assertion that “the abortionists,” “the feminists,” and the American Civil Liberties Union “helped this [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] happen.” Good old pat later backtracked on that one, but it doesn’t change the fact that his words to Falwell in response to the comments were ”Well, I totally concur, and the problem is we have adopted that agenda at the highest levels of our government.” Pat Robertson, the man who called for the assignation of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, lied about it when the public outrage scared him and then went back to claim that he was right in the first place we he called for the assignation. Pat Robertson, the man who claimed that God told him: “I will remove judges from the Supreme Court quickly, and their successors will refuse to sanction the attacks on religious faith.” Two months later, Robertson again predicted that “before the end of this year there will be another vacancy” on the Supreme Court. Pat Robertson, the man who issued a warning to Orlando, Florida, after city officials voted to fly rainbow flags from city lampposts during the annual Gay Days event at Disney World. Robertson stated: “I don’t think I’d be waving those flags in God’s face if I were you. … [A] condition like this will bring about the destruction of your nation. It’ll bring about terrorist bombs, it’ll bring earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor.” Pat Robertson, the man who said that former Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon’s stroke was the result of Sharon’s policy, which he claimed was “dividing God’s land.” Pat Robertson, the man who described Islam as a “bloody, brutal type of religion” and stated that “Islam is not a religion. It is a worldwide political movement meant on domination.”
Actually, that last one might score him some major points with the nut fringe of the right. Still… Why would anybody want the endorsement of that loony toon? He’s like Al Sharpton if ol’ Reverend Al got high before his public appearances. How is this even remotely good for his prospects with the 80% of the voters who keep saying that they’re fed up with stuff like this?
Several coworkers, a number of friends and Jenn were all happy to see Giuliani get into the race. Now, now that Rudy has had time insert his feet deep into his mouth, they’re all metaphorically just shoving their heads into their hands and weeping whenever he comes up on the TV screen. He’s fast becoming a bigger letdown to the moderates on the Left, on the Right and in the center then Fred was to the Right.
Ohhhhh yeah… Fred was a real winner. He really was the second coming of Reagan. Well, if you stripped all of Reagan’s good points away from him. Sheesh…
Anywho… As for the rest on the Right:
McCain is flaming out in an attempt to be the maverick that tows the party line, Romney keeps inflating his record in areas that are to easy to fact check and the remainder of the under crowd of Republican candidates just can’t get any real traction or, as is the case of Ron Paul, won’t be allowed to be seen as having traction by the press. I’ve watched the debates and cringed. Ron Paul is the closest thing to a supportable Republican candidate for me and he ain’t really lighting my fire.
http://www.factcheck.org/
Then there’s the other side. Ah, those wonderful Dems and their wacky ways…
Obama is flaming out in so many ways. His poling numbers are still higher then most of the field, but I honest to God think that half of his numbers are from the media promoting him as the second coming. The more he has to talk, explain and elaborate, the more he looks like a lightweight at best and an empty suit at worse.
John Edwards might actually be the best candidate in some respects, but he just hasn’t found a way to stand out. He’s like political candidate equivalent of sudden, unexplained, short term euphoria. He shows up, everybody goes “WOW” and then he goes away and you can’t really figure out what made you so happy a few minutes earlier. He’s got a few good stands, but he just blands his way down the memory hole.
Joe Biden is trying too hard and comes off that way.
Bill Richardson is pretty good, but he’s not going to get any traction. Every debate is about the Clinton and Obama show, every interview is about Clinton and Obama and he’s from the state that’s best known as the home of the Roswell Museum.
Kucinich and Dodd? Who are they again?
And then there’s Clinton. Clinton is a whole other ball of fun. Clinton has got to be the single most unelectable candidate that ever made herself a shoe in for a nomination. And I can’t for the life of me figure out why she’s supposed to be all that great. She’s only so-so on her stands, she’s not really a seasoned politician (although, she is slick as hell) and she’s not really giving anyone something to vote for. Her biggest points seem to be people’s desire to get back to the “better days” before Bush, Clinton nostalgia (Really… How screwed up is that?) and her possible historic significance. Oh, and we can’t leave out the press. In the age of news being entertainment and ratings driven, a Clinton puff piece means a better pop then a serious look at the issues of any of the other candidates. Hillary is almost the political Paris Hilton. She’s famous for being famous. An overstatement, but only just it sometimes seems.
Oh, and how can we leave out the EOH (Enemies of Hill) when discussing her popularity? She’s got all the right enemies (Hannity, Rush, Savage, Coulter, Maulkin, Robertson, Fox News, etc.) to create the perfect knee-jerk responses. They’re all in such a frenzy to attack her that they go so far overboard as to make her come off as sorta sympathetic. You get an almost knee-jerk feeling of wanting to defend her after about ten minutes of those clowns painting her as the devil in female flesh.
There was a one off poster over on PAD’s blog who posted in a Hillary thread something about shaving the beast’s head to see what everybody would really be voting for. That post came off as sane next to some of the EOH. You almost start thinking that, if these yahoos think that Hill is bad, she might not be such a bad candidate. They pant her as soooooo bad that she ends up looking good in comparision to the caricature they’ve created.
Of course, they go overboard to the point of comedy sometimes. One of the latest flaps shows how some on the Right just doesn’t get it and will end up making her look better then she actually is. The latest false flap over Clinton “stiffing” her waitresses for their tip…
http://mediamatters.org/items/200711090019?f=h_latest
… got debunked pretty fast after it got played up heavy in the media. Of course, Clinton’s critics had to go the extra mile in stupidity. After having savaged Clinton on Fox news for not tipping, they turned around and aired the correction in the form of attacking her for the size of the tip.
From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the November 9 edition of Fox News Live:
HILL: Hillary Clinton says that America can’t afford all her ideas, but that is not stopping her from spending like a Learjet liberal on the campaign trail — it just plays into what people say about liberals. OK, think about this. You go to a restaurant and you spend $157 for burgers and shakes — you got a big group of people. What would you tip? A $157 bill. What would you tip? Well, if you tipped 18 percent, it would be about $28 and change. That’s what I think most people would do, right? Well, Hillary Clinton apparently got very good service and — so she gave a $100 tip. A $157 bill, a $100 tip, that is 64 percent. Not bad. And by the way, that information is from her spokesperson. Apparently they were proud of this huge tip of campaign cash. It seems that more and more people have their hands out.
The rest of the quote @: http://mediamatters.org/items/200711100003?f=h_latest
You almost walk away from the average Fox News day wanting to root for Hillary.
But honestly, what are ANY OF THEM offering at this point? I’m left of center. I tend to be more skeptical of the candidates on the Right, but the Left ain’t doing much better so far. So far, it’s building up to be a repeat of 2004’s election. I’m seeing lots of guys that I would vote against, but I’m seeing very few candidates, especially when looking at the frontrunners, that I really want to vote for. I’m tired of voting against the candidate I hate rather then voting for the candidate I like. It sucks.
Going back to the starting point…
Yeah, Rudy Giuliani just keeps looking worse and worse as the campaign wears on, but does he really look worse then the overall heard of frontrunners? Rudy Giuliani is selling his positions, his values (what few he really had) and his political soul to be the man on his side, but who else, on either side, is really looking all that great themselves? They’re all coming off as posers, sound byte machines, lightweights or outright hypocrites.
Was this all over the place? Yeah. Was this completely on point? No. But, damn it, I’m getting tired of the political game become so asinine. Things were never the “great old days” that some people like to talk about, but they weren’t as consistently as bad as this. Is it too much to ask for to want candidate that really has the country’s best interests in mind rather then political power, financial power, popularity and party politics. Hell, I’d even be happy to settle for a candidate that just holds the country’s best interests in 50% of their mind.
Ok… Longwinded, depressing and pessimistic rant/screed over. We now resume your regularly scheduled programming.
…………………………
“… and then the zombie rabbit chomped ‘em right in the nards! Oh, the hummanity!!!!!!!!!!”
November 12th, 2007 at 11:17 pm
“Was this all over the place? Yeah. Was this completely on point? No.”
Mimicking perfectly the race so far….
November 13th, 2007 at 1:21 pm
Can’t help it. I’ve been a total news and political junky for years now. I actually use to enjoy the hell out of keeping up with this stuff. Now? Not so much. Sure, there were slimy and disgusting aspects of the game before, but it just feels like there is so little there to counter that anymore. It feels like the players are look at it as a game more then ever now. The results are sucky as hell.
Like I said, I’m getting tired of figuring out who I most want to vote against rather then having someone I really want to vote for.
November 14th, 2007 at 9:25 am
I’m not saying that you SHOULD be able to help it, Jerry. I’m saying they should.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:35 pm
I akchually found this very intresteen.
I wish there wuz a cat I culd vote fore.
November 14th, 2007 at 10:40 pm
I agree with Katie. Bill’s OP and Jerry’s response were both interesting.
What is really sad about the state of American politics is that Katie is right - a cat would be an interesting candidate, especially in this day and age of protest votes.
Katie, would you consider running on the Black Cat ballot? You would be a lock for the female and the cat vote. Katie? Where are you going? I know there’s a bug on the window… Katie? This is important! Come back! Oh, forget it.
November 15th, 2007 at 6:51 am
Katie was just trying to appeal to her first special interest group. “Vote for me or I’ll eat you.”
November 15th, 2007 at 1:41 pm
I iz viz prezadentahl mateariall!!!! I hav gud slowgun al redee!
“Vot 4 Kaytee the Awsum Kat or I, Nio the Eevel Kitee, wil KIL U!!!!”
Howz that 4 a elehcsan slowgun?
Meow.
Eevel Kitee Nio
November 17th, 2007 at 6:10 am
Bill and Jerry, excellent posts, very interesting. Have you considered becoming pundits? (pundits is a funny word, isn’t it?)
I was wondering, does a republican candidate even have a chance of winning the nomination without at least tipping the hat to the Christian base?
What happened to Obama, he has so much charisma? I thought he has a chance to get many votes because he has a Hebrew first name, a Muslim middle name and an Irish family name.
Look at the other side of the coin. In my country politicians shift very quickly from being the greatest thing since sliced bread to being worse than stale bread.
“a cat would be an interesting candidate”
Certainly, you need the 9 lives. Nixon had two and it stil wasn’t enough.
“Katie? Where are you going? I know there’s a bug on the window… Katie? This is important! Come back! Oh, forget it.”
Don’t let the short attention span dissuade you. If Bush could win. It makes her look folksy. I think many Americ… Oh, there’s a bug on the window…
November 17th, 2007 at 6:41 am
I didn’t want to post again until I read Jerry’s post, which was certainly long, but no lengthier than it needed to be and was very thought-provoking. It also stole my thunder, as I was going to start a subsequent thread about how difficult it is to determine what either party stands for these days.
I think the comments Jerry made about the media bear further examination. If you compare today’s presidential candidates to one of our greatest presidents, F.D.R., they come off as faint echoes of his greatness. It’s impossible to imagine them measuring up. I’ve wondered why that is. I think part of the answer may be the way the news media covers political campaigns today. It’s entirely possible that we have a candidate with the gravitas and leadership ability of an F.D.R. in this race, but said candidate’s qualities are being obscured by the media’s obsession with superficiality.
I doubt that’s the only factor at play, but I think it’s certainly a significant one.
November 17th, 2007 at 6:47 am
Micha: “I was wondering, does a republican candidate even have a chance of winning the nomination without at least tipping the hat to the Christian base?”
No, they don’t. That’s McCain’s problem. He tried to win the Republican nomination for president in 2000 by running as a moderate and as a result got his ass handed to him by the undeniably inferior George W. Bush. In part, I blame voter apathy. Moderate voters have got to get up off their asses and assert themselves.
Micha: “Look at the other side of the coin. In my country politicians shift very quickly from being the greatest thing since sliced bread to being worse than stale bread.”
It’s no different here. We like to put people up on a pedestal and knock ‘em down for having the temerity to occupy the pedestal we created and put them on.
November 17th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
Micha: “I was wondering, does a republican candidate even have a chance of winning the nomination without at least tipping the hat to the Christian base?”
That’s kind of an interesting thing. Bill hit some of it, but there’s another huge thing with this that’s actually odd as hell. Pat Robertson is, in all reality, no more the American Christian base then Al Sharpton is the black voter base. Yes, each has a following and they both play the game well, but they are not actually representatives of the blocks that they claim for themselves.
Pat Robertson is a con artist. Most Americans see him as a joke. He’s derided as a fool by most of the mainstream for his many idiotic statements and his 700 Club program packages don’t score anything like the ratings that they used to. He’s only held up as a spokesperson and figurehead for Christianity in America by the some factions in the media, the political machine, himself and the ever declining “masses” of sheeple that tune into his TV program.
A Republican candidate could never get anywhere unless they played up their “Christian values” and tipped their hat to the Christian base, but Pat Robertson ain’t that base. If anything else, he turns that base off. I know a lot of Right of Center people who were absolutely disgusted with Rudy for running to Pat Robertson and cozying up to him for the endorsement. It’s actually become a deal breaker for several of them (as far as voting for Rudy) because they’re tired of the Republican party being as fringe orientated as it seems to be these days.
And it’s the same on the left. There’s a lot of voter disenchantment out there right now. Thing is, they’re as stuck as many on the Right are. Now more then ever, we need a viable third party and, now more then ever, we’re no where near having a viable third party.
I am, as I said before, left of center on a lot of issues. But the Democrats as a whole are not saying the right things for me on a number of key issues right now. None of their frontrunners are portraying their stands in ways that I can fully support. I’d love to have a viable, moderate right or moderate Republican option to vote for. Don’t have one. All I’m seeing is likely nominees that would scare the hell out of me if they became president and then acted as they’re portraying themselves now. All I’m seeing is people to vote against rather then people to vote for.
Micha: “Have you considered becoming pundits?”
Would never work in my case. I don’t pick sides. When you look at the top pundits and successful social commentators in this country, they’re all pretty much advocates for their side rather then standing for their principles. Most of the people out there want to have they’re prejudices and opinions validated, so they gravitate towards the cheerleaders for their team. When a commentator starts attacking their team too much, the “traitor to the cause” slowly gets dropped by his or her loyal audience.
Bill: “… Jerry’s post, which was certainly long, but no lengthier than it needed to be and was very thought-provoking.”
Actually, it was a bit longer then it needed to be. I made the mistake of typing while watching the news channels. That made my originally thought out post about three times as long as it would have been and much more of a vent then a post. I’m a little more on point today because I’ve got the TV off and I’m listening to the Death Proof soundtrack this go round. This has got to be THE best version of Down in Mexico by the best version of The Coasters that I’ve ever heard.
November 17th, 2007 at 10:28 pm
The other reason Bill and Jerry wouldn’t be good as pundits is the fact that they actually listen to people.
Pat Robertson brings up something interesting. He’s a fringe guy, most people realize this. Or seem to, at least. But, he represents one thing really well. The fact that there’s MONEY in religion. Politicians need money for their campaigns, so where do they go? Where the money is. How do they get the money? By saying what the people with the money want them to.
Apologies if all this is blatantly obvious to everyone but me.
November 17th, 2007 at 11:50 pm
I listen???
Sean, could you talk to my wife about this “fact” for me? Maybe you can foo… convince her.