Pat Robertson the most famous Christian leader? Geez, why not Desmond Tutu? Oh that's right, he's not a foaming at the mouth zealot and hatemongering demagogue, so he doesn't count for beans with the right wing lunatic enablers at Politico.

Politico and it's whore reporters are Phase 2 of FOX Whore news. Two incestuous peas in a pod of bullshit.

Is that Larry "Crack" Kudlow talking to the guy with the marble mouth?

Wingnuts are glad to have the endorsement of the batshit insane? Someone who attributes hurricanes and other natural events to divine revenge? Desperate must the wingnuts be.

And as equally disgusting as the fawning over Giuliani was the fawning over the Politico.

Wake up!

Politico is the same website that proudly stated they get their news from Drudge.

Becware those news organizations and pundits (Howie Kurtz, Politico, etc) that tout their neutrality while consistently delivering the right wing's talking points!

Since when is the 2008 election a contest between Clinton and Ron Paul? Someone is getting out pretty far ahead of the game. Just because we don't think Ron Paul's far right ideology is a panacea for all things doesn't mean we worship at the alter of Hillary Clinton.

Noun verb 911!!!!

Mike Allen is a closeted homosexual, and an uncloseted Republican rooter-tooter. Pat Robertson is an unabashed nutcase Christo-fascist, and Rudy Giuliaini is a thrice-married (once to a cousin) serial adulterer who put the Emergency Headquarters of New York into the World Trade Center (which had already been atttacked in 1993). Are these people three of the stupidest, most idiotic stooges ever to exist? Unfortunately, the answer is "Yes".

thier all a bunch of nazi pigs!

smokedope @ 7:

i would like to be sympathetic to the people who watch the 700 Club because they're mostly poor white folk

?????

This endorsement was most likely cover for a deal to cut the New York Mob in on Pastor Pat's blood diamond interests.

Hee hee. The poor, poor evangelical theocrats. As their influence wanes, they just can't bear their choices:

a. Bolt from the Republican Party to support an open theocrat, in the hopes that the Republicans will lose, thereby proving just how important the theocratic base is; or

b. Endorse a front runner who's coo coo for cocoa puffs insane, but in a different way, in hopes that he will win, thereby proving just how important the theocratic base is.

Either way, they're screwed. It's the first time in a long time I've wanted simply to bust out the popcorn and watch the politics play out.

smokedope @ 9:

Well I smoke pot everyday, and I know that Ron Paul is fucking crazy. How come people can't see him for what he is? He's a pro-corporation wacko hiding behind the cover of a Constitution-worshiper.

What is wrong with being in favor of the constituion? You do realize that it is the constitution that protects you from a bad/evil government, don't you?

Also, I think you are confusing the concept of corporations and free markets. Ron Paul is pro free markets. Free markets may be made up of corporations, but only those corporations that have a good business model will survive in a true free market.

All that Pat Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani serves to prove is that he and many other self-professed evangelical Christians are in fact nothing of the kind. Someone who truly believes in the importance of an ethical principle does not sacrifice that ethical principle simply because it is expedient to do so. Someone who truly believes in the importance of an ethical principle does not believe that the vice or virtue in a particular course of action varies or alters simply for the sake of convenience. Any so-called ethical principle which can so readily be sacrificed for the sake of expediency and/or convenience is little more than a form of self-satisfying, self-justifying hypocrisy. If the Christian Right truly believes that abortion and homosexuality are wrong and should not be tolerated, then how can they possibly in good conscience endorse a candidate such as Giuliani who has historically demonstrated that he does not share these views? The answer is very simple -- THEY CAN'T. Not in good conscience, they can't -- and the fact that they have only serves to demonstrate that they have no true conscience. The fact that the Christian Right is willing to soften its stance on positions for which they have previously been willing to fight virtually tooth and nail in order to endorse Giuliani only serves to demonstrate that they're actually more willing to follow the GOP than they're willing to follow the God of the Bible in whom they claim to believe. If so many of them truly believe what they claim to believe -- that God's law is higher than man's law -- then they should not be so willing to soften their stance purely for the sake of an election, and all that this does is demonstrate that they are little more than hypocritical, self-serving control freaks and that their self-professed beliefs are little more than lip service.

they give us nothing but garbage to vote for , human waste, vote for the only honest son of a bitch weve got left !kucinich!

Symes @ 25:

ron @ 21:

smokedope @ 9:

ron @ 5:

Well I smoke pot everyday, and I know that Ron Paul is fucking crazy. How come people can't see him for what he is? He's a pro-corporation wacko hiding behind the cover of a Constitution-worshiper.
I don't know any Democrats who support Clinton. Who are they? Who the fuck are the 48% or whatever who support Hillary over real Democrats like Kucinich?

He is an anti-military expansionist and since the major corporations that suck off your and mine tax dollars are the military industry giants getting contracts for military projects and weaponary, that are consequently used during wars to wear out and be replaced by a new weaponry that again is paid by your tax dollars perpetuating the bloody cycle, I think that if he can limit that madness bankrupting this nation, people will be able to afford products from corporations such as Apple, Microsoft, Motorola, Nike, GM, Disney which will make the companies profitable again, their workers will get better medical insurances and pension plans, the outsourcing will lessen, everyone will be relatively happy, private schools will educate more effectively and noone said that Paul will let BCBS or Humana continue doing what they've been doing. His health care reform plan is better of two evils, Clinton failed to do anything with her health reform when she had a chance, Edwards and Obama are simply the do-nothing dems, which according to the law of probability, in 4 years time of theirs in the White House would probably achieve exactly that, nothing.

AND...

He wants to eliminate the Dept of Education, remove oversight on product safety, end Federal regulation of anything, shutdown the IRS and the Fed, eliminate ALL tax's...etc.

He is a Utopianist nutcase, if we are going to go that way let's do it right and get ourselves a true Anarcho-Socialist to run things. Same thing without corporations.

RP would just do what the NeoCons want without the Military.

He wants to reform those things, not eliminate them completely, because that would require The Ron Paul's Party and pretty substantial majority. Look at the gradual decline of SAT score averages over the years, poisoned toys, poisoned cat food, dog foot, beef and probably hundreds of other things the current government regulatory bodies are unable to spot, not to mention point to those who should be held accountable. Further, Congress won't let him shutdown the IRS and the Fed, but his ideas, what he says and how he represents American on the world stage will once again show the world what America is made of, who were the founding fathers that started it all and why Bush and Chaney were not meant to be in the first place. Utopian nutcase? There are cities in Europe "made of glasses", just like the utopian books describe, run exclusively on solar and wind energy. The "utopian" places are in many parts of the world already, but that requires invention, inspiration and belief in dreams that in this nation appear to be either demonized by the media, squashed for their "radicalism" or simply forgotten.

He wants to reform those things, not eliminate them completely, because that would require The Ron Paul’s Party and pretty substantial majority. Look at the gradual decline of SAT score averages over the years, poisoned toys, poisoned cat food, dog foot, beef and probably hundreds of other things the current government regulatory bodies are unable to spot, not to mention point to those who should be held accountable. Further, Congress won’t let him shutdown the IRS and the Fed, but his ideas, what he says and how he represents American on the world stage will once again show the world what America is made of, who were the founding fathers that started it all and why Bush and Chaney were not meant to be in the first place. Utopian nutcase? There are cities in Europe “made of glasses”, just like the utopian books describe, run exclusively on solar and wind energy. The “utopian” places are in many parts of the world already, but that requires invention, inspiration and belief in dreams that in this nation appear to be either demonized by the media, squashed for their “radicalism” or simply forgotten.

The polls are picking the Clintons and willard to win Iowa.

sulphurdunn @ 22:

This endorsement was most likely cover for a deal to cut the New York Mob in on Pastor Pat's blood diamond interests.

I am an atheist. No, let me reiterate, I am a FUCKING ATHEIST. I DO NOT BELIEVE IN GOD.

Yet Pat Robertson makes me wish I could believe in Hell. I'd like to see him in Dante's Ninth Circle, a traitor not to just his friends or his country but to humankind itself. I'd like to see him frozen face-down in the ice of the Ninth Circle with his cracked homophobic ass up in the air, being violently reamed by Satan for all eternity, his animal claws looped through Robertson's hair in a painful domineering grip. Pat's tears of misery and humiliation and utter shame freezing to his eyes, flowing over and making an ever-growing pile of frozen tearjuice until it's so high you can fucking snowboard down off it and catch some really wicked air off the cliffs.

But since I don't believe in Hell, all I have is the satisfaction of knowing that sometime hopefully soon, Robertson will fall over into a swoon and never, ever, ever wake up, his consciousness obliterated. Death will level this fantastically arrogant son of a bitch down to where the rest of us are, and repay him for all of the horrid shit he's visited on his fellow human being. If you think I'm being too harsh, google Robertson+Diamond.

all these old white d00ds are looking for their daddy. Rudy is their thrice married "street fighter" who will save them for islamowhatever

Karen @ 24:

Hee hee. The poor, poor evangelical theocrats. As their influence wanes, they just can't bear their choices:

a. Bolt from the Republican Party to support an open theocrat, in the hopes that the Republicans will lose, thereby proving just how important the theocratic base is; or

b. Endorse a front runner who's coo coo for cocoa puffs insane, but in a different way, in hopes that he will win, thereby proving just how important the theocratic base is.

Either way, they're screwed. It's the first time in a long time I've wanted simply to bust out the popcorn and watch the politics play out.

Right. Robertson's endorsement of Guiliana hurts both Robertson (and by default, the theocratic base) and Guiliani.

It hurts Robertson's credibility with his followers. They will wonder how he can support Guiliani who is about 180 degrees away from him socially. How can Robertson now preach his hate against gays and his oppositon to abortion when he supports a politician who (once) embraced "the gay agenda" and a woman's right to choose?

The endorsement hurts Guiliani, because Guiliani *was* the secular-ish right wing candidate who didn't buy into all of that religious tripe and instead (supposedly) held "true" conservative ideals. Now that he's aligned with the chief nutbagger, he could lose a lot of support of the secular righties.

smokedope @ 39:

noitaluspacne @ 26:

smokedope @ 9:

Well I smoke pot everyday, and I know that Ron Paul is fucking crazy. How come people can't see him for what he is? He's a pro-corporation wacko hiding behind the cover of a Constitution-worshiper.

What is wrong with being in favor of the constituion? You do realize that it is the constitution that protects you from a bad/evil government, don't you?

Also, I think you are confusing the concept of corporations and free markets. Ron Paul is pro free markets. Free markets may be made up of corporations, but only those corporations that have a good business model will survive in a true free market.

Ron Paul does not believe in the idea of CHANGE. Anyways, he still (even after his $4.2 million day) only has fringe internet support and a few catholics, so he's still about as relevent as Gravel at this point. He's no Ross Perot.

His followers sure know how to be annoying assholes though.

CD @ 42:

smokedope @ 39:

noitaluspacne @ 26:

smokedope @ 9:

What is wrong with being in favor of the constituion? You do realize that it is the constitution that protects you from a bad/evil government, don't you?

Also, I think you are confusing the concept of corporations and free markets. Ron Paul is pro free markets. Free markets may be made up of corporations, but only those corporations that have a good business model will survive in a true free market.

Ron Paul does not believe in the idea of CHANGE. Anyways, he still (even after his $4.2 million day) only has fringe internet support and a few catholics, so he's still about as relevent as Gravel at this point. He's no Ross Perot.

His followers sure know how to be annoying assholes though.

Ron Paul's followers are the greatest Spammers in the history of the internet.

Karen @ 43:

smokedope @ 37:

Karen @ 24:

Hee hee. The poor, poor evangelical theocrats. As their influence wanes, they just can't bear their choices:

a. Bolt from the Republican Party to support an open theocrat, in the hopes that the Republicans will lose, thereby proving just how important the theocratic base is; or

b. Endorse a front runner who's coo coo for cocoa puffs insane, but in a different way, in hopes that he will win, thereby proving just how important the theocratic base is.

Either way, they're screwed. It's the first time in a long time I've wanted simply to bust out the popcorn and watch the politics play out.

I don't know what you're problem is. I know lots of very poor people who will listen to Robertson, because, well, he's the only person on TV during the day who speaks their language. (I say during the day because a lot of these people work nights.) And I feel sorry for them, because the system has trapped them, and they must go along with it.

I'm not sure what your comments have to do with mine. I agree with you on your points here, and I don't think they refute mine at all.

If you're upset that I responded to your earlier post with nothing but a series of question marks, well, I was rather baffled by the statement. I apologize for not articulating my bewilderment better. I'll mention that I think the person who responded on your behalf and noted that the emphasis in the sentence I quoted should be on "poor" rather than "white" was correct, but I was waiting to hear from you before I continued along those lines.

As for my glee in watching the evangelical theocrats struggle with their political predicament, I'm referring to the Robertsons, Dobsons, etc. who lead the pack, not those whose unfortunate life circumstances might cause them to turn to such vile leaders. But with those leader, oh, yes, I have a problem. They're bigots, theocrats and hypocrites, and represent a grave danger to our Constitutional republic and our liberties.

In that case Karen, we're on the same page, and sorry for the dispute. I agree with you about the leaders of the movement.

How about a big liberal hug??

noitaluspacne @ 33:

Symes @ 25:

He wants to eliminate the Dept of Education, remove oversight on product safety, end Federal regulation of anything, shutdown the IRS and the Fed, eliminate ALL tax's...etc.

The country isn't going to go up in a ball of flames if the Federal Government actually only did the things as limited in the constitution. Some agencies obviously are a lot more useful than others, but even some of the useful ones have issues. I'm not even sure if Ron Paul, as president, would have the authority to terminate any of the agencies outright, so this might be a moot point anyway.

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have a president that actually respects, understands, and wants to follow the constitution?

Sure I would, but that is a disingenuous argument.

RP is a die hard Libertarian.

That means no Federal oversight at all.
That means States do ALL the leg work.

That means elimination of ALL prote3ctions we have fought for over the last 200 years, basically starting over from scratch.

RP wants to bring us back to 1798, and I bet he can do a lot more damage than you are giving him credit for with the Dems being such losers and the Repugs being such asshats.

Like I said, we'd be better off going all the way and electing an Anarchist to high office and shutting down Congress.

smokedope @ 46:

Karen @ 43:

smokedope @ 37:

Karen @ 24:

I don't know what you're problem is. I know lots of very poor people who will listen to Robertson, because, well, he's the only person on TV during the day who speaks their language. (I say during the day because a lot of these people work nights.) And I feel sorry for them, because the system has trapped them, and they must go along with it.

I'm not sure what your comments have to do with mine. I agree with you on your points here, and I don't think they refute mine at all.

If you're upset that I responded to your earlier post with nothing but a series of question marks, well, I was rather baffled by the statement. I apologize for not articulating my bewilderment better. I'll mention that I think the person who responded on your behalf and noted that the emphasis in the sentence I quoted should be on "poor" rather than "white" was correct, but I was waiting to hear from you before I continued along those lines.

As for my glee in watching the evangelical theocrats struggle with their political predicament, I'm referring to the Robertsons, Dobsons, etc. who lead the pack, not those whose unfortunate life circumstances might cause them to turn to such vile leaders. But with those leader, oh, yes, I have a problem. They're bigots, theocrats and hypocrites, and represent a grave danger to our Constitutional republic and our liberties.

In that case Karen, we're on the same page, and sorry for the dispute. I agree with you about the leaders of the movement.

How about a big liberal hug??

{{{{{{{{{{{{{------------hug-------------}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Is that how it's done? ;)

Big Dan @ 49:

Robertson is going to die someday, and he will join Jerry Fallwell...IN HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nah, his sentience will simply dissipate, leaving behind just another carcass not bodily raptured into the sky.

Karen @ 50:

smokedope @ 46:

Karen @ 43:

smokedope @ 37:

I'm not sure what your comments have to do with mine. I agree with you on your points here, and I don't think they refute mine at all.

If you're upset that I responded to your earlier post with nothing but a series of question marks, well, I was rather baffled by the statement. I apologize for not articulating my bewilderment better. I'll mention that I think the person who responded on your behalf and noted that the emphasis in the sentence I quoted should be on "poor" rather than "white" was correct, but I was waiting to hear from you before I continued along those lines.

As for my glee in watching the evangelical theocrats struggle with their political predicament, I'm referring to the Robertsons, Dobsons, etc. who lead the pack, not those whose unfortunate life circumstances might cause them to turn to such vile leaders. But with those leader, oh, yes, I have a problem. They're bigots, theocrats and hypocrites, and represent a grave danger to our Constitutional republic and our liberties.

In that case Karen, we're on the same page, and sorry for the dispute. I agree with you about the leaders of the movement.

How about a big liberal hug??

{{{{{{{{{{{{{------------hug-------------}}}}}}}}}}}}}

Is that how it's done? ;)

haha something like that! i like the posts on your blog, how about doing some more?

smokedope @ 54:

Karen @ 50:

smokedope @ 46:

Karen @ 43:

haha something like that! i like the posts on your blog, how about doing some more?

The Liveliest Crib one? Thank you so much! We always wonder whether anyone's been clicking my name and listening. We're actually aching to do another podcast, but just haven't had the time. We were gonna do one this week, but I've been really sick, and have an icky case of laryngitis. Not much sense in doing a podcast without a voice. :) But we will.

Oh, and, uh, I don't want to hijack the thread, so, uh....on topic...uh...Giuliani and Robertson....uh,....Yuck! :)

Symes @ 48:

noitaluspacne @ 33:

Symes @ 25:

He wants to eliminate the Dept of Education, remove oversight on product safety, end Federal regulation of anything, shutdown the IRS and the Fed, eliminate ALL tax's...etc.

The country isn't going to go up in a ball of flames if the Federal Government actually only did the things as limited in the constitution. Some agencies obviously are a lot more useful than others, but even some of the useful ones have issues. I'm not even sure if Ron Paul, as president, would have the authority to terminate any of the agencies outright, so this might be a moot point anyway.

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have a president that actually respects, understands, and wants to follow the constitution?

Sure I would, but that is a disingenuous argument.

RP is a die hard Libertarian.

That means no Federal oversight at all.
That means States do ALL the leg work.

That means elimination of ALL prote3ctions we have fought for over the last 200 years, basically starting over from scratch.

RP wants to bring us back to 1798, and I bet he can do a lot more damage than you are giving him credit for with the Dems being such losers and the Repugs being such asshats.

Like I said, we'd be better off going all the way and electing an Anarchist to high office and shutting down Congress.

I cannot say exactly what he will do as president. He has stated a dislike for a number of the federal agencies, but I think it is you who is jumping to the conclusion that he would roll things back to 1798. If you look at how he votes and if you look at what he says and what he has written, he has Americas best interest in mind. He actually gives a damn about the little people. I think it is disingenuous to believe that Ron Paul will screw over the American people as president.

"Now you have the most famous Christian leader , short of the Pope and Billy Graham" ... Pat ROBERTSON?? the most famous Christian leader, just after those two??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

noitaluspacne @ 58:

Symes @ 48:

noitaluspacne @ 33:

Symes @ 25:

The country isn't going to go up in a ball of flames if the Federal Government actually only did the things as limited in the constitution. Some agencies obviously are a lot more useful than others, but even some of the useful ones have issues. I'm not even sure if Ron Paul, as president, would have the authority to terminate any of the agencies outright, so this might be a moot point anyway.

Seriously, wouldn't you rather have a president that actually respects, understands, and wants to follow the constitution?

Sure I would, but that is a disingenuous argument.

RP is a die hard Libertarian.

That means no Federal oversight at all.
That means States do ALL the leg work.

That means elimination of ALL prote3ctions we have fought for over the last 200 years, basically starting over from scratch.

RP wants to bring us back to 1798, and I bet he can do a lot more damage than you are giving him credit for with the Dems being such losers and the Repugs being such asshats.

Like I said, we'd be better off going all the way and electing an Anarchist to high office and shutting down Congress.

I cannot say exactly what he will do as president. He has stated a dislike for a number of the federal agencies, but I think it is you who is jumping to the conclusion that he would roll things back to 1798. If you look at how he votes and if you look at what he says and what he has written, he has Americas best interest in mind. He actually gives a damn about the little people. I think it is disingenuous to believe that Ron Paul will screw over the American people as president.

Yet a guy like Bush easily can be a Republican nominee and no one doesn't seem to be fearful of what a real chimp can do to a well functioning democracy. Let's see what presidential material is acceptable for you. A drunk, failed baseball team, a governor that set a death sentence record in Texas, non-articulate, no international affairs experience, war mongering talent, no diplomatic skills, no judgment skills leaving all the missions unaccomplished and in total disarrey killing the total of close to 1 million people in a matter of 6 years, and finally a lier that should be impeached and only the Democrats' spinelessness is saving his pitiful heritage and letting him vegetate in the White House until the term's expiration. This surreal world with 9 trillion national debt and wars financed by the Chinese is good. Ron Paul, on the other hand, is bad because he might screw a little bit, a little, conveniently unknown, imaginative f******g something. The Republicans arguing who will nuke a Middle Eastern nation harder and more pashionately is good, the only sane person among the presidential choices from the Right that seems to respect the Constitution and knows wars will not solve a thing, is yet again, in your opinion, bad. Wow, you must be so proud of being such a Hillary loving American armed with a ballot and information, ready to put the country on the right track by getting the clue from the TV screen. Good luck, you'll need it.

pc @ 60:

"Now you have the most famous Christian leader , short of the Pope and Billy Graham" ... Pat ROBERTSON?? the most famous Christian leader, just after those two??

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Funny thing is they left out Bishop Desmond Tutu.

I like Jack Cafferty's remark on Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani the best. He said it was like getting a kiss from your crazy old aunt.

Who the hell helped Robertson take one step out of the Loony bin?

Leave him there, for christ's sake, it's fun to watch him bounce off the walls.

If you want to know what kind of a president Rudy will make, I suggest you take a look at the Washington Monthly profile of Giuliani by Rachel Morris. Although Morris is fairly objective in her portrait, citing the good things Rudy did for NYC, she comes down hard on his style and temperament, illustrating the cover blurb's contention that "As president, Giuliani would grab even more executive power that Bush or Cheney." I thought Matt Taibi's Rolling Stone article on Giuliani was trenchant and incisive, but Ms. Morris's is superior. One comes away from it convinced that the only difference between Giuliani and Mussolini is that one ended up dangling from a noose. Giuliani is a dangerous lunatic. Kudos to Washington Monthly for bringing us such a fine piece of journalism.

If Ron Paul represents the Libertarian leaning republicans, why does he take contributions for his run as President.

This endorsement is further evidence that the world has gone fuckin nuts!
Whats next? Dogs and cats living together??

Some "news" organization needs to corner this rat Robertson into a corner and ask him to state his views on abortion and homosexuality and then remind him that Rudy supports a womans right to choose and gay rights.....unless Rudy Flip Flopped on these issues....
Robertson is a "con man"

CD @ 67:

noitaluspacne @ 65:

mo_dems @ 63:

Just because Ron Paul seems like some kind of alternative to you doesn't mean he's not just as crazy as the rest.

I've seen a lot of "Ron Paul is crazy" "Ron Paul is a loon" "Ron Paul is a wacko" statements, but with little to no explanation of why. Which is fine, but, it really would be a shame for some one to dislike Ron Paul because they were misinformed. The "Paulites" that come to this site and "spam" the various articles are trying to help inform people about Ron Paul because lord knows the media is doing a piss poor job of doing so.

For starters he wants to eliminate the department of education.

If you think public schools suck now imagine them with less money.

How is getting rid of the department of education going to translate to less money for public schools? Please elaborate on this logic or cite some sources that back up this claim. This sounds like a classic example of the kind of misinformation people are harboring about Ron Paul.

Ron Paul statements:

Today, Congress can fulfill the wishes of the American people for greater control over their children's education by simply allowing parents to keep more of their hard-earned money to spend on education rather than force them to send it to Washington to support education programs reflective only of the values and priorities of Congress and the federal bureaucracy.

As a constitutional means to provide parents with the means to hold schools accountable, I have introduced the Family Education Freedom Act (H.R. 368). The Family Education Freedom Act restores parental control over the classroom by providing American parents a tax credit of up to $3,000 for the expenses incurred in sending their child to private, public, parochial, other religious school, or for home schooling their children.

I have also introduced the Education Quality Tax Cut Act (H.R. 369), which provides a $3,000 tax deduction for contributions to K-12 education scholarships as well as for cash or in-kind donations to private or public schools. The Education Quality Tax Cut Act will allow concerned citizens to become actively involved in improving their local public schools as well as help underprivileged children receive the type of education necessary to help them reach their full potential. I ask my colleagues: ``Who is better suited to lead the education reform effort: parents and other community leaders or DC-based bureaucrats and politicians?''

I would have assumed Robertson backed Guiliani because he thought Guiliani was talking about how much could bench whenever he brought up 9/11.

What a fawning sychophant. I think he's wrong, I think that it isn't a seal of good housekeeping on Giulliani's campaign. I think this is going to cost Robertson support amoong his own flock, and that is going to cost him donations.

negoldie @ 72:

If Ron Paul represents the Libertarian leaning republicans, why does he take contributions for his run as President[?]

How are Libertarianism and accepting contributions mutually exclusive?

Maybe everyone's forgotten that Robertson is the one predicting the end of the world and Armeggeddon - Maybe he's endorsed Rudy because Rudy's the best one to bring on the end of the world - Bi-polar, bad judgment, surrounded by corrupt cronies, Mafia connections and pedophile priests - And his finger on the button! Ole Pat sees Rudy as the best bet to end the world as we know it!

Mike Allen is the ultimate "blow job Republican reporter." Anything he says is semen-stained from Republican National Headquarters. The man swallows their stuff whole-hog.

For him to say that the mean-spirited, thrice-married, adulterous punk, Rudy Giuiliani, is somehow saved by the mendacious, spiritually moronic Pat Robertson is laughable.

Mike Allen, Pat Robertson, and Rudy Giuliani are all major-league assholes. But only one of the is gay. Another is a transvestite (but that's another story).