We love Rev. Pat Robertson's precious First Amendment rights. May he always be free to speak whatever's on what's left of his mind in this our great land of the free.
He's a great conservative, a great evangelical and a great Republican. And he's covered himself in Christian glory once again.
His remarks recommending the assassination of Venezuelan strongman President Hugo Chavez to save us the expense of another war, had special meaning to those of us who look to Robertson for Christian witness and The Peace That Passeth Understanding. Of course, his blathering managed to make the tinhorn Chavez look good and scapegoated--especially when held up to the forked tongued Robertson...
What pisses us off is how right wing talk radio chooses to ignore the pusillanimous neochristionic gruntings of Rev. Robertson, who bravely chooses a TV pulpit in Virginia Beach to fire his missiles of deluded apocalyptic foreign policy.
He is the tip of the spear of the "life-affirming" community, doncha know. They'll advocate keeping a reanimated corpse of Terri Schiavo bobbing and blinking for the TV cameras in an obscene puppet show in the name of "life," but would advocate the illegal, immoral, clandestine, and cold-blooded murder of a duly elected head of state just to save us a few bucks on the deficit.
Bryan Suits (KVI m-f, 6-9p) wasn't afraid to bring up the topic. But he changed the subject by making it about Robertson's right as a private citizen to say what he pleases. That's like saying about Jeffrey Dahmer: "Well, a guy's gotta eat."
Our questions for discussion are :
Why is this does this man have access to our President and his administration?
If Robertson has earned political capital with the President and the Republicans, can't we just pay him back with frequent flyer miles?
Is this some kind of horrid trial balloon floated by a desperate administration failing on every other front?
Why doesn't the FCC consider his remarks more obscene than Janet Jackson's nipple?
Who would Jesus assassinate?
Sure enough, there were plenty of listeners on the Bryan Suits show who thought it would be just fine if we bumped off ol' Hugo. It's the kind of hypocrisy that neoconservatism, (or Wilsonian Democracy when the liberals do it) is based upon.
I'm sure Bryan in his heart of military hearts would be fine with that as well...but we expect such from grunt soldiers and talk hosts. But men of alleged higher callings like those of Christian pastor or Republican President, we, for one, expect more.
We always say this about the religious right, but Rev. Robertson's just proved our point again. They always eventually overreach and offend the American people. They have a tin ear for politics and once they have a little clout they get impatient and push it too far--they're dealing with heaven and hell, after all. Or as the great Knute Berger once wrote:
The problem with the monotheists is that only one of them can be right. But that isn't true in a genuine democracy under which there can be more than one right answer. And a key element to an open society is the ability of those in power to be held accountable for mistakes. Infallibility is not a virtue in democratic leadership.
Monotheist is too nice a word for the likes of Pat Robertson. He's a charlatan; a perverted, power-hungry little man, who, thank god, never realized his dreams of world domination and has to reinflate his national profile every once in a while with this sort of toxic flatus.
Funny how the radio gasbags can yammer on for weeks about comments made by an obscure Colorado university professor, but the moment that one of their most notable radical clerics starts advocating murder, they hush right the fuck up.
Posted by: Lazy Murrow | August 24, 2005 at 12:52 AM
i use pat being insane, as a great example of why we have and should keep a seperation of church and state. the bush admin is full of the same group of insane church people. just because a person says they are a good church going person who has been born again, does not mean they still can't be a madman or woman (to be pc) and this bush crime family group are both insane and in charge of nukes. god help us all.
Posted by: mndcrm | August 24, 2005 at 09:30 AM
mndcrm sez "i use pat being insane, as a great example of why we have and should keep a seperation of church and state. the bush admin is full of the same group of insane church people. just because a person says they are a good church going person who has been born again, does not mean they still can't be a madman or woman (to be pc) and this bush crime family group are both insane and in charge of nukes. god help us all.
Now there is loonieness at its best. The Bush crime family group? God help us all?
Posted by: Lump | August 24, 2005 at 10:16 AM
Does anyone consider Pat Robertson to be a Christian???? Why?
Hey, he made it all better today. He said that he was misquoted and that he knew there were many ways to "take out" Hugo, and that kidnapping would work just as well.
I just had to laugh.
It must be in here somewhere, but darned if I can find it - the single, powerful Bible verse that would explain everything today.
For a couple of hours now, I've been scouring my New Testament, looking for the part where Jesus says we should send out hit squads to assassinate foreign political leaders.
I found the stuff about loving our enemies. I came across the passage about turning the other cheek. I even spotted some words that seemed to say that meek people are blessed. What's up with that?
But where on earth is the murder-foreign-leaders verse? Don't the rest of us deserve the same divine guidance that the Rev. Pat Robertson gets?
Pat Robertson once declared that feminism "encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians." He contended that liberal judges appointed by Democrats are a bigger threat to America than al-Qaida, beseeching God to create a few more openings on the U.S. Supreme Court.
Shortly after the Sept. 11 terror attacks, he agreed with fellow evangelist Jerry Falwell that feminists, gays, abortionists and civil libertarians were to blame for the attacks. Robertson has long maintained a nutty obsession with gays - "self-absorbed narcissists who are willing to destroy any institution so long as they can have affirmation of their lifestyle."
Over the years, he's blamed gays for divorce, abortion and Sept. 11. He asserted that Gay Day at Disney World would bring "terrorist bombs ... earthquakes, tornadoes and possibly a meteor."
Posted by: sparky | August 24, 2005 at 02:20 PM
Bryan Suits (KVI m-f, 6-9p) wasn't afraid to bring up the topic. But he changed the subject by making it about Robertson's right as a private citizen to say what he pleases. That's like saying about Jeffrey Dahmer: "Well, a guy's gotta eat."
Indeed.
If this is just Pat's right to be a gasbag..then why didn't Janet Jackson have the right to nipple bare? After all..doesn't she have a first amendment right to show her tit?
What a bunch of drek.
Posted by: carla | August 24, 2005 at 02:38 PM
A solitary CIA sniper putting a well aimed bullet in the head of Saddam is preferable to a full scale Iraq invasion costing 1900 lives, 14,000 wounded, and $300 billion. Pat Robertson makes a good point... assassination is a better alternative to war.
Posted by: umo | August 24, 2005 at 03:26 PM
"assassination is a better alternative to war." i agree 100%---but what pat robertson and all the right wing nuts out there are wanting to do, is create their own world by putting a bullet in the head of anyone that does not walk,talk and think like they do. i think that's called the mob. and pat's still one insane mofo. (remember jim jones)
Posted by: mndcrm | August 24, 2005 at 03:47 PM
I wish we had someone like Pat Roberston in the White House back in the 1930s. The assassination of Hitler would have saved the entire world a hell of a lot of misery.
Posted by: umo | August 24, 2005 at 04:03 PM
"I'm sure Bryan in his heart of military hearts would be fine with that as well...but we expect such from grunt soldiers and talk hosts."
I'm actually positive ( via the miracle of MP3) that I denounced Robertson for advocating the assaassination of a democratically elected president. Then, instead of hosting a bleating echo chamber of "let's kill Hugo," I turned to whether a "man of god" should be calling for a killing. As opposed to, say...Divine Intervention. And the fact that he has every right in the world to have an opinion.
(He also called for God to create another Supreme Court opening)
In my "heart of military hearts" I've taken an oath to support and defend the constitution and the law. Killing a non-elected, non head of state (like bin Laden), is far different.
I kind of get the feeling that you don't know many people currently in the military.
Robertson is a fucking nutbag, but he exercised his right. So did Dick Durbin. I can tune Robertson out, I can't unelect Durbin.
Posted by: I Heart PTSD | August 24, 2005 at 04:28 PM
is that you Bryan? why don't you sign your name?..comparing Dick Durbin to to Pat Robertson is like comparing Frank Shiers to Charlie Manson.
Posted by: blathering michael | August 24, 2005 at 07:32 PM
umo: we're not at war with Venezuela and Pat Robertson isn't in the White House and KIRO's goin' down...
Posted by: blathering michael | August 24, 2005 at 07:33 PM
Seems to me the only thing going down is Blathering Michael, in his dreams, on a certain Seattle talk host.
Posted by: Bible-Styble | August 25, 2005 at 05:55 AM
ok, I admit it. this blog is about cruising talk hosts. Are you HWP, there bible boy?
Posted by: blathering michael | August 25, 2005 at 08:56 AM
It is amazing that one lefty nutbag can call pres. Bush is a warmonger,and it gets a cheer,one right wing nutbag says let,s kill a tin pot and now...gasp..call in the thought police....sad, sad lefties
Posted by: snoutcounter | August 27, 2005 at 08:46 AM
The right wing nutcases have Reverend Pat and the left wing loonies have Jim McDermitt. A matched set of sillyness.
Posted by: Lump | August 27, 2005 at 11:03 AM
I see...calling someone a name such a "warmonger" is EQUAL to saying that we should kill a democratically elected leader of another country...
thanks for clearing that up
Posted by: sparky | August 27, 2005 at 02:11 PM
Speaking of Jim McDermott, too bad we didn't pay more attention to his Bagdad report. I think he has been more than exonorated.
Posted by: brad | August 27, 2005 at 09:46 PM
lump says: I see...calling someone a name such a "warmonger" is EQUAL to saying that we should kill a democratically elected leader of another country...
#1 No one seemed to have a problem with George Stephanopoulos publicly argued for the same thing for our good buddy,Sadam.(this just after leaving his White House post,remember kiddies)#2 WHO CARES what Pat or George SAID.This is America.they can say what they want.What stinks is the hypocrisy on many sides
Posted by: snoutcounter | August 28, 2005 at 09:08 AM
Lump didnt say that..I did.
It was just as wrong for G-Steph to say that Saddam should be taken out, or for Ann Coulter to say that Tim McVeigh should have leveled the NYTimes building, or that a liberal should be killed as an example to other liberals. What these people seem to forget is in their constant craving for attention and a headline, there are plenty of wackjobs out there with access to things that can make their "requests" come true.
Posted by: sparky | August 28, 2005 at 09:38 AM
sorry sparky,also pardon, lump
Posted by: snoutcounter | August 28, 2005 at 02:43 PM