The Chronic Curmudgeon

Pat Robertson is not an elected official. He is not in the President's cabinet. So why should the President have to say anything about his statement?

Robertson is a nut ball. He makes funky statements frequently. Does this one really surprise anyone?

Hi John -

Because Bush is closely aligned with Robertson's organization. Because Robertson's organization is seen by many - both inside and outside this country - as calling the shots for Bush's policy direction. With Bush's approval ratings falling into the low 40s and high 30s, pretty much the only people who are sticking with him are his Christian right base -- represented, led, and personified by Pat Robertson. He may not be in Bush's cabinet, but the group he leads is seen by nmost to be the folks that Bush answers to and speaks for. That's why.

You can bet the farm, the house, your car and savings account that had, say, Michael Moore made some statement about needing to assassinate a right wing world figure (say, the Pope for example), that Republicans would be *screaming* for President Kerry to forcefully disavow the statements. And Hollywood has a lot less influence on the left than the Christian right has on this administration.

Thanks for coming by, I appreciate you reading.

Mudge...everyone's missing the point, even though I agree with your condemnations and calls for high-profile Rs to actually renounce the guy.

Robertson says stuff like this ALL THE TIME. In fact, didn't he say something almost as provocative earlier this year?

Robertson has nothing to lose. He won't lose his 700 Club followers' support. He can say whatever the hell he wants. He could receive a blow job from an overweight intern and remain stronger than ever, at the 700 Club's helm through it all.

Robertson made his comments to pave the way for a political groundswell/popular support of right-wing censorship of satellite radio and television. Keith Olberman's not-so-subtle recitation of right-wing talking points on MSNBC's "Countdown" pretty much spelled it out last night, in fact.

These people are tricky. Don't fall into their trap. How will you argue against censorship a few months from now when, today, you denounced what Robertson said?

Don't get into nuance with me on how you'd argue your point two months from now. The people leading the charge at the grassroots level to stifle free speech won't understand your nuance no matter how logically sound it may be. All they'll understand is "hypocrite liberal."

Don't get involved in the wrong argument right now. This is what i'm saying. The argument you're engaging in plays directly into long-term right-wing strategy.

I'm not saying Robertson doesn't have the right to say what he wants. No one's arguing censorship. But I do think that it's incumbent on Bush -- *specifically* because Pat Robertson is no "ordinary citizen" -- to publicly and forcefully disassociate from them.

Whether conservatives like it or not (and as a liberal I especially don't!), the perception both inside and outside this country is that Robertson and his organization and those they represent are calling the tune that this administration dances to. When the leading representative of an organization perceived to have the president by the short-n-curlies makes a statement, it carries far more weight than would a statement from a random loony.

Do I believe that the Bushies are planning to assassinate Chavez? Probably not. But because the perception is that Robertson speaks for the president's base -- a base that besides the Wall Street bottom feeders are pretty much the only ones not to have abandoned him yet -- this statement becomes perceived as "the base stating the policy that the president can't say out loud." Absent a forceful disavowal, and given the terribly negative perception of the US in much of the world right now, people are going to be inclined to believe that Robertson spoke for Bush. And no mealy-mouthed tepidity from Rummy or Rice will be effective subsitutes. It needs to come from Bush, and it needs to be unequivocal.

Now, I could laugh all day about the concept of a so-called "man of God" and a Christian calling for the murder of an opponent. To me it is hardly shocking -- I'd say that it simply is a more obvious revelation of the real and true Christian right's morality.

But you've touched on a different issue -- the need (or lack thereof) for a denunciation from Bush. I don't care that Robertson's base will stick with him unless he's caught with a live boy or a dead girl. I do care that in an already tense international environment, Bush has not come out personally to emphasize that assassination is not US policy. Our eyes are blacked enough around the world as it is, due to our policies of the last five years... we don't need to be punching ourself in the face some more.

Again, Roberston says this stuff all the time. He's the fall guy with nine lives. Do you see my point?

Perhaps this is a Catch-22 for liberals. We must, for the sake of geopolitics, make a loud noise that says, "Shut up, Robertson." Yet, when we do so, we help right-wing goody-two-shoe ass wipes build a case to censor media not currently under the FCC's legal purview.