Proclaiming the Robertson is a fringe figure is a useful canard for conservatives – after all, better to explain Robertson away than to admit that he represents a powerful wing of the GOP. And yet the truth remains – radical evangelicals are a significant force, maybe the single most influential, in today’s Republican Party, and among that crowd, Robertson is far from an outcast – he is one of their most prominent voices. If Republicans want to confront Robertson and his ilk, they ought to do so. But it is a self-serving falsehood to pretend that he is irrelevant to modern conservatism and thus to the Republican Party. Not having the guts to tell the far right to piss off is rather different from them being insignificant.
Thursday, August 25, 2005
Robertson and the Republicans
This editorial from today’s Washington Post is one of the better treatments I have seen of Pat Robertson’s inanity about assassinating Chavez. It takes the appropriately dismissive tone. But it perpetuates one myth that has been predominantly (and rather self-servingly) spewed by conservatives, and is clearly entering mainstream liberalism, or at least the editorial desks of the Post: Pat Robertson’s supposed irrelevance.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Robertson has had personal meetings with GWB, no? Face-to-face meetings with the president sort of takes one out of the realm of "the fringe," and I'm disappointed (but not surprised) that no one seems to be calling the White House on this little shift.
Rhonda --
That's a great point. And it is also why you don't hear this talk about his irrelevance among politicians so much as among the rank and file or else conservative writers who feel they have to explain him away. The administration could throw him under the bus any time they wanted, but I doubt highly that they will, since he and his ilk serve a useful purpose for the party.
dcat
In 1997 George Stephanopoulos repeatedly publicly recommended we assassinate Saddam. I guess I missed it when the media made a big deal out of that. Actually, it IS entirely possible that I really did miss when the media made a big deal of it, but that is beside the point now isn't it?
Um, if I have to explain to you the difference in context between our relationship with Saddam in 1997 and Chavez in 2005, and the context of Stephanopoulos' and Robertson's comments, you might be a bit over your head here.
But why be so coy? You are being argumentative without making an argument, so let's have it -- do you support Robertson's comments, and thus the assassination of Chavez? If so, have the balls to say so. If not, then what the hell does your 1997 red herring have to do with anything? I opposed assassination of saddam then because I oppose assassination of other heads of state, as it sets a pretty bad precedent (and rarely works). Beyond your ham handed attack on the media, what do you feel about assassinating Chavez?
Defend Robertson or don't. This half-assed and muddled quasi-criticism (of the media? Of assassinating foreign leaders? Who can tell -- you don't bother to go that far!) doesn't actually say a whole lot.
dcat
Post a Comment