"Evangelicals cursed and screamed when President Clinton had an affair in the White House, but it's clear they are willing to overlook the past marital failures of Giuliani, his fractured relationship with his children and his support for gay and abortion rights when mayor of New York," CNN.com's Roland S. Martin writes. "Those are not the family values they have beaten into the nation's consciousness for nearly 30 years." No, they are not.

Former conservative Democrat Pat Robertson's endorsement of liberal Republican Rudy Giuliani demonstrates the television preacher's devotion to power and not principle. Robertson is not a clergyman injecting himself into politics but a politician injecting himself into religion. Born into politics, Pat Robertson saw his father elected to the House of Representatives and later the Senate. Robertson, after switching his registration to Republican, ran for president in 1988. Out of the ashes of the Moral Majority, Robertson formed the Christian Coalition and picked as its executive director not an evangelical Christian leader, but Ralph Reed, a political operator best known for College Republican in-fighting. The Christian Coalition, though it did good work in energizing and educating religious conservatives, was, in essence, a political revival, as anyone attending their conventions can attest.

Pat Robertson seeks the Kingdom, but it's the one headquartered in Washington, DC. He could have boosted the campaign of a bona fide religious conservative, Mike Huckabee, or any number of pro-life candidates running. Instead, he chose the Republican candidate most diametrically opposed to his professed views: Rudy Giuliani. Why? Because this puts him closer to power. As Jeff Greenfield observes: "In many ways, Robertson's best days are behind him. The Christian Coalition is a shadow of itself, barely functioning. His own influence, eroded by comments that have brought him widespread condemnation--most especially for his apparent belief that the 9/11 attacks were a sign of God's punishment on America for its licentious ways. At a time when many other evangelicals are, to put it mildly, uneasy with some of Giuliani's views, this puts Robertson back in the political center ring."

The endorsement also demonstrates the degree to which the presidency of George W. Bush has decimated the movement of Christian conservatives. After getting one of their own in the White House, religious conservatives compromised their principles to rationalize their support for Bush. When Bush nominated to the Supreme Court a feminist who had supported abortion, Robertson, Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson came to the defense of his embattled nominee. This, evidently, was a sign of things to come. Once in power, religious conservative leaders would sacrifice principles to stay there. Robertson is perhaps discarding his principles to get back into power's graces.

A third reason involves opposition to the Democrats, which has become the raison d'etre of Republicans. This stance is heightened when Hillary Clinton's name is injected into the mix. Supporting any candidate save the one who is most likely to defeat Hillary, it is reasoned, is de facto support for Hillary. This is destructive to conservatism, as this faulty reasoning always seems to find the more liberal candidate the more electable candidate. Not the promise of conservative ideas governing the nation, but the spectre of Hillary Clinton, or John Kerry, or Al Gore, serves as the rationale for going to the polls.

With abortion further entrenched, and gay marriage codified in several northeastern states, Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani can be seen as a white flag in the culture war. Could there be a more grovelling surrender for a Christian culture warrior than endorsing a pro-abortion, pro-gay rights, thrice-married liberal? Robertson has apparently moved on from the issues that once motivated him. The war on terror, which has distracted conservatives as conservative politicians have pursued liberal policies, is apparently Robertson's new moral crusade. And what better man to lead it than the man who showed so much leadership on 9/11?

Pat Robertson is not the king of religious conservatives, despite what liberals, who have benefitted by portraying him in this role, might say. We shall see if the pastor without a pulpit influences his television flock to do as he says. Conservative Christians aren't the "poor, uneducated, and easy to command" mob that the Washington Post's Michael Weisskopf's once claimed, are they? One way of proving such stereotypes false is for religious conservatives to ignore Robertson's bad advice.

Because of his frequent verbal gaffes, Pat Robertson has been one of the liberals' favorite conservatives. Now liberals have another reason to like him: advancing the presidential prospects of one of their own.

I hope that you get this piece published in various newspapers.

Spot on.

Pat will be judged by God the way he lives his life on this earth.

RUDY SCRATCHES ON 8 BALL PAT ROBERTSON ...GAME OVER......Now for some positive news....... Mitt's perfect storm on the horizon as he leads in the first five states will prove to be a wonderful Christmas.

Great post Dan!

Two thoughts on how this may be ideology and not just desire to be near power.

1) Giuliani is not at all close to a shoe-in for the GOP nomination, it is simply too early to be committing oneself like this, particularly when the negative reaction from many quarters is easy to anticipate.

2) Giuliani really can't beat Hillary. Remember his abortive run against her for the NY Senate seat? Where is the difference between them? The country is yearning to vote for a Democrat, and the only chance the GOP even has is if it is Hillary running b/c she has such high negatives. I think something like 35% of the electorate simply will not vote for her, something like that. But how could Giuliani realistically garner the votes of the base he needs, particularly when he can take no northern states from her period.

3) B/c of my point one I wonder at the timing and all I can come up w/ is that this was announced on Weds. the 7th in response to Ron Paul setting the record for campaign fundraising in one day for the GOP as well as the most by any candidate so far this cycle. He did that on Mon. the 5th, then 2 days later Giuliani gets this endorsement. I am not at all trying to be conspiratorial, this is just my suggestion based on my supposition #1.

I could see this as reflecting his absolute committment to our current misguided strategy for dealing w/ the very real threat radical Islam poses to us, as well as his committment to a certain strand of hard-liner Israeli political thought.

I was going to respond to your comments in the previous post about this but you've nailed it so there is no need.

Just goes to show how little the Democrats/Liberals (and the UK Telegraph, for that matter) know about real conservatives. Neither Rudy nor Robertson is one and at least one of them is a fraud.

It is a shame for Pat Robertson to have done this. For whatever reason he did it, it is wrong. The Bible tells us not to condone evil! It is wrong to support and condone those who embrace the killing of the unborn (abortion), the homosexual lifestyle,and the other evils in our society today. All this has done is advance the liberal agenda for America which is taking our nation done the wrong path. It creates another way for the liberal Democrats and their ill-informed/misguided followers to continue their attempt to still the voice of FAITH in God our Creater in our nation. Their agenda is to attempt to take even the NAME of God/Jesus Christ out of America! Instead, we need to go back to our roots as a Christian nation before it is too late. Shame on Pat Robertson!

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2VlZTJmNmQzMzI5YTAwZWQ1ZTY4MzdhYjcwN2NmNDU=

Robinson's endorsement highlights his lack of courage in his convictions or puts a spotlight on what his true convictions are. I am truly saddened that a "conservative" would make such a poor use of their influence. At least now we know that a Robinson endorsement is as meaningful as being awarded a noble peace price.

Remember that Pat Robertson and his knuckle-dragging following are Christianists with a distinct tilt towards end times, Zionism, Armageddon, "Left Behind" and all that ball of wax.

And Rudy Giuliani, despite being so sinful that the Vatican says he should not receive the sacraments, has a foreign policy team packed with fanatical ultra-right wing Israel Firsters and neocons such as Norman Podhoretz, Daniel Pipes and Charles Hill. They're yearning for "World War IV", bombing Iran and all that caper to bring the Rapture a little nearer.

For Rev. Pat and Rudy the Drag Queen, as for many other strange bedfellows, the nastiest little nuclear power in the Middle East and its fan base in the USA can bring opposites together in a relationship of warm mutual exploitation.

Eh? Whatever, David.