I think the comparison of Robertson to Moore is an apt one, and least in terms of their symbolic role relative to the conservative and liberal (or Repbulican and Democratic, if you want to be simplistic here) camps. 

By this:

It should also be noted that the leaders whose star has risen as Robertson's has fallen aren't exactly paragons of good sense themselves. Take a look around the website of James Dobson's slick and hyper-influential Focus on the Family and you'll see what I mean.

I assume that you mean that you disagree with the views expressed by FoF and think a good deal of this stuff is pretty flaky.  But in terms of the model Dobson's got going on here, I think it's pretty damn smart.  A lot of the people who are looped into the stuff his group churns out are relatively normal but socially conservative people who are looking for childrearing advice as well as a sense of support for their efforts to raise their children with certain moral/cultural values (Some of which, like anti-materialism or disliking the fact that half the clothes in the 4-6x section of target look downright skanky, are quite understandable.  One of the top stories on that site right now is about teens and stress--I'm sure a lot of non-conservative non-wackjob parents are also concerned about this issue).  Several of Dobson's childrearing books have sold a lot of copies and I don't think it's all about the religious or political bias they have.  By appealing to those concerns, Dobson and his cohorts are building an audience and base for their more unreasonable ideas. 

I've long thought it would be smart for some more liberally oriented folks to start an organization providing similar resources and support to parents without the conservative religious slant, and even occasionally working in progressive policy ideas about, say, education and health care, but not as the major message.   Conservative ideas aren't always bad--brining some market competition to combat Dobson would be a good approach here.

Certainly in a world where rightwingers seem to think it's fair to attribute Michael Moore's movies to the leadership of the Democratic Party, it's worth being a bit concerned about the Rev. Robinson's views.

Why hasn't the White House commented on Robertson's statement?

Has James Dobson or anyone else in the Christian Right come out and said assasination is, well, un-Christ-like?

What's concerning is not Pat Robertson, but that everyone else on the Right either agrees or is unwilling to denounce his statement.

I find it amusing that people are surprised that the White House won’t condemn Robertson’s statements as against US policy when I distinctly remember Ari Fleisher as Press Secretary saying that we could avoid the cost of the then-looming Iraq War for the price of a single bullet. The minute they do, I imagine the guys at The Daily Show pulling that clip from their hypocrisy files.

Actually, Becks, I am surprised that people are surprised at Robertson's remarks at all.  After all, George Stephanopoulos called for the assassination of Saddam Hussein back in the '90s.  And I fail to recall a similar hue and cry about that.  Heck, Stephanopoulos was much closer to the Clinton White House than Robertson is to this White house.  But I guess that doesn't make it into Stewart's hypocrisy files.

There are some differences between Hussein and Chavez:

1. We have not as of yet had a declared war against Chavez (the attempted coup notwithstanding)

2. Chavez has never invaded a neighboring country

3. Chavez has not been known to use chemical weapons, nor is there any evidence that he has ever contemplated developing nuclear weapons

Besides, we were not involved in a massive quagmire-esque conflict  during the Clinton administration and thus had Special Forces available to engage in such a mission. 

"Actually, Becks, I am surprised that people are surprised at Robertson's remarks at all.  After all, George Stephanopoulos called for the assassination of Saddam Hussein back in the '90s."

Can you refresh me on the times when Hussein won a democratic election, and the times when Chavez attacked his neighbors?  I seem to be forgetting these incidents, which are certainly necessary for your comparison to be anything other than feeble.   

I agree that it's very important for liberals and moderates to take the same care as conservatives to hold their tongues unless it is absolutely necessary to deliver a calm chiding.

I mean, just because someone has a TV audience in the millions is no reason to condemn him for making wingnut recommendations about how to conduct foreign policy. A period of due diligence should ensue until his membership in a particular movement is ascertained, the significance of the movement is weighed carefully, and his influence in the movement is found to be sufficiently strong.

As we all know, words can hurt people, and it's important not to say hurtful things about someone just on the off chance that one of his marginal group of followers--perhaps less than 5% of the US population--might take the lack of condemnation as a tacit endorsement.

A good start would be an official "dramatis personae" encompassing the list of people we are allowed to condemn roundly for saying foolish things. It should be limited to perhaps 50 individuals. I mean, seriously, saying hurtful things is serious business and it would be terrible if more than a few public figures were exposed to the possibility of having hurtful things said about them.

OK, I relent on one important issue. If the person in question is an obscure rap artist with 100 or so fans, all bets are off. We need some kind of stress valve, right?

It didn't look that way by your original post Al.  You seemed to downplay Robertson's comments by comparing it to something else and something completely different.  And if I remember right Stephanopolous was commenting on the possibility of the Iraqi opposition within Iraq taking out their own and was not calling for a sanctioned "hit" by the US government.

I read that Chavez introduced a number of very dubious practices that undermine the democracy.  For example, a company politically connected with the government implemented the system of paperless electronic voting.

To appreciate how devious this guy is, note that every one of his abuses was copied from USA -- but used for a nefarious purpose!  (Recall who declared a strike of state employees illegal and fired all participants.) 

It's not surprising.

But the President should, to clear the air, shouldn't he? By not denouncing the remarks, it gives the appearance of agreement.

Heh. Yeah, that was it. Meta-sarcasm.

</lying to cover up incredible dumb feeling right now&gt

Damn, my sarcasm meter ran out. That happens when caffeine levels get low. It's back on now. Sorry dude.

Nothing new. He's been doing that show the way you describe it since at least 1980. I remember watching it on a UHF broadcast channel late night as filler before I moved to NYC in the early 80's.

Why do I mention that? I think it's important not to give him equal credit or stature beyond what he has and to realize the difference between him and who came after him.

It's important tactically from all of us left of center to understand his history within the right wing movement and how he has basically been cast aside by many on the right for being too nutty. You cannot fight smart if you do not understand the factions.

He is one of the main progenitors of the whole culture wars in the 1980's. The whole liberals/feminist thing v. family values. Him and Jerry Falwell were our arch enemies back then.

But then something happened, precisely: Ralph Reed and his ilk. They saw how the Robertson/Falwell wingnuttiness was counter-productive, turning off more reality-based social conservatives who aren't interested in looking for the anti-Christ. Appealing to a new generation in a new way, tossing aside all that zany stuff.

As he was coming up the ladder, Ralph Reed advised Robertson and his ilk for a while, and that is why you would, from time to time, see Robertson in his more reasonable persona, as when he ran for president in 1988. He would not dare say some of the things he said on 700 Club, and disavowed many of his previous statements when someone in the major media would bring them up; this was very much training by handlers like Ralph Reed in an attempt to raise his poll numbers and reach a wider audience.

It failed, because Pat Robertson could not stop being Pat Robertson. And he still can't, he's still at it.

So in actuality, disavowing Pat Robertson helped the right wing machine grow, you see? He is old school "family values" crowd and the new school likes to keep him in the closet because of his wingnuttiness.

Here's where he NOW does the most reality-based damage. Not in the U.S., where he cannot get any traction, because he is wingnutty. But with his huge corporate machine, he tries to affect foreign countries! Especially in certain spots in Africa he has caused much damage.

But I strongly believe that he is a has-been in U.S. politics. Dobson is a much more powerful force now, a force that Rove has to deal with, even though Bush is rumored in places like the NYT and WaPo to dislike him very much. Robertson is not acknowledged because he has very little power to affect U.S. politics. In domestic, he's a has been, he really is, the only time you hear his name is when he says something wild.  I would not be suprised if his main TV demographic was all over 70 years old. But I would also not be suprised if the State Dept. has a "watch list" to keep track of his foreign "charitable" activities, though.

For more info. on the history, see the Wiki on Robertson.

Mho, the best way to treat Pat Robertson is with ridicule, as a clown, especially since many on the right think of him that way already, they just have the discipline not to broadcast that.

Because a significant part of the Christian right doesn't even like to have their name associated with him. Ralph Reed, for example, walked away long ago. See my post later on this thread.

And Bush himself does not even like Dobson, much less Robertson.