Initially, I wasn’t sure if shock or utter frustration was the dominant emotion evoked by the news of Pat Robertson’s endorsement of Rudy Giuliani. The more I have had time to think about it, the more I’m convinced it’s the latter rather than the former.
On the merits, Robertson’s stated reasons for supporting Giuliani do not measure up to what pro-life voters expect from leaders in the pro-life movement. In announcing his endorsement, Robertson said that he believes “the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the blood lust of Islamic terrorists” (source). The “overriding issue”? Does he really think that one has to make a choice at this point between protecting the unborn and protecting the nation from terrorists? Isn’t he aware that there are several other candidates who are just as strong on national defense as Giuliani but who are also pro-life? Anyone who cares about protecting the unborn would choose one of the many candidates who is both pro-life and strong on national defense. To back a pro-choice candidate at this point makes no senses at all. This is primary season, after all, not the general election.
But should we really be all that shocked anymore at the gaffes of Pat Robertson?
You can read the rest of the article here.