WASHINGTON, Nov. 11, 2007

God Only Knows

Schieffer: Why Is Pat Robertson Is Supporting Rudy Giuliani?

  • Play CBS Video Video God And The Election

    Pat Robertson claimed that God gave him inside information on the 2004 presidential election. Now, Robertson is endorsing Rudy Giuliani for president and Bob Schieffer wonders why.

  • Photo Essay Rudy Giuliani

    September 11th made this combative New Yorker "America's Mayor." Will he also be America's president?


(CBS)  Weekly commentary by CBS Evening News chief Washington correspondent and Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer.


Back in 2004, when Pat Robertson said that God had told him George Bush was going to win the election in a blow-out, I decided to check it out.

Now, I've never claimed that I have inside information on God's thinking, but I did reach a source who considers himself very close to the Lord. He agreed to talk on the condition of anonymity, since he is not authorized to speak for God.

Well, the way he told it, Robertson must have had a bad connection or just didn't hear it right. Of course, God knows how these things are going to come out, my source said. He knows everything. But he never tells how elections or football games are going to come out. If he did, he'd be inundated with people trying to find out the winning lottery numbers and things like that. It's just more trouble than it's worth.

So when Robertson announced he was supporting Rudy Giuliani, who is for so many of the things that Robertson has spent his life railing against - gay rights and abortion rights to name just two - I decided to go back to my high-level source with the obvious question: Why?

There was a long pause. Finally, my source said "God only knows."


E-mail Face the Nation.


By Bob Schieffer
© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Video and Galleries from Opinion: Bob Schieffer

Add a Comment See all 32 Comments
by springfever0 November 11, 2007 12:52 PM PST
Birds of a feather flock together. In this case, looney birds.
Reply to this comment
by rv11939 November 11, 2007 2:17 PM PST
I sure would like to get past the days when Journalist and news media would quit refering to Pat Robertson as a Christian leader. The guy is a quack on a good day. How could a so called Christian leader back a candidate who is completely contrary to the fundamental beliefs of Christians? If you are going to refer to Christian leaders, I vote for Dr. Dobson, or someone who works to protect the family.
Reply to this comment
by matter77 November 11, 2007 5:05 PM PST
Intellectually, it has the same caliber as Chariots of the Gods from the 70''s that sold well, but ended up in the landfill. Only this time, it''s threaded with hatred. The entire idea is insulting. On and on and on, just like those cult leaders - EXACTLY like a cult leader who first only wants you to get on the bus, then just go for a drive, then just stay the night, on and on and on.
No, YOU believe this trash. Not me. I can''t believe there are people out there that STILL believe Cheney was behind the 9/11 attacks, fearmongering suspicions about, for crying out loud, big US Corporations that indoctrinate everyone but you to join them in making millions. God help us. It''s not the insanity of a few that scares me, it when these ideas actually stick in someone''s brain and fester that scares me. I know there are deadly pathogens out there, it''s a lot more scary when they begin killing people in hospitals. And if you don''t think ideas can kill, then how can good ideas help people? For decades millions upon millions of people were destroyed in the Soviet Union, because of an idea. The Zeitgeist Movie is just as stupid and destructive. Instead of asking everyone else what they think, why don''t you do some intelligent research for once. Do you even read books? Oh sorry, I forgot. Those are all published by huge corporations, too. God help us.
Reply to this comment
by sanfelz November 11, 2007 5:26 PM PST
People who claim to speak to or for a god, and fervetly believed it, used to be put into mental hospitals.

Giuliani must be willing to accept the endorsemeny of any fool if he will accept the endorsement of Robertson. Sen. Grassley should insist the finances of Robertson be examined for fraud.
Reply to this comment
by matter77 November 11, 2007 5:28 PM PST
How would you like it? Suppose I parade a dozen people you have never met, in front of a judge, charging you with one crime after another. And the burden of proof is not upon them, it''s upon YOU to actually PROVE that you didn''t do these things. And no sooner do you reveal that you can''t, then this becomes the basis for MORE accusations. They just keep shoveling as fast as you can speak. Soon, the court explodes with accusations against you and no one wants to even listen to you. Finally, you are ushered out of the court room while THEY continue agreeing among themselves how all these charges MUST be true, since you can''t immediately PROVE with bare hands that they are not. So, how do you like it? Is this what American''s have fought for? Because that is exactly what you are doing, and you believe that people are supposed to just climb aboard because the accused is big gov''t and big business. I guess it''s OK to steal from rich people, too.
Reply to this comment
by matter77 November 11, 2007 6:11 PM PST
No, FeelFree1. I provided the commentary simply as an alternative to the blind absolute adherence you preach. It''s not from someone who is for or against the movie. That''s all. Now you''re trying to use it, well, I''m not sure what your point is.
But, since you''re so gullible, I''ve decided to make a movie about how George W. Bush causes every tsunami. Yeah, he has a big red button hidden under his desk and whenever he''s in a bad mood he just presses it. And the proof? I know someone who knows someone that saw him near his desk on that day, and hey, the deadliest tsunami just happened to occur while he was the President! That''s too much for a coincidence.
So, standby, the movie should be finished in a couple hours. Then I''ll stick it on the Internet where it can begin attracting flies as soon as possible.
Reply to this comment
by elkc November 11, 2007 6:34 PM PST
The problem with the last two presidential elections, is that America voted for their salvation, not for a man to become their nation''s leader. Through lies, deception and like thieves in the night, voters bought in to that old medicine man road side show, not once but twice! As for Pat Robertson, he realizes his days are running out. Seeing what happen to Fallwell, probably has him a bit spooked too. It''s never to late to change and accept and love your fellow man. Besides after federal investigators get finished with Richard Roberts and ORU, they more than likely are going to look for smoke from other such institutions. Come clean now while you still can and support the most electable ''cause if they win they can also pardon. We live in a democracy and hopefully people will remind themselves, that we are voting for a leader, chief, top dog, president, not our eternal state of being. God is not going to send you to Hell for voting for the wrong person. Rudy being endorsed by Pat Robertson, may be the only non-deviding gift this nation has seen in nearly 8 years. Peace!
Reply to this comment
by rayuk-2009 November 11, 2007 9:53 PM PST
Robertson has frequent chats with God and likely knows that Giuliani will be the new president. This gives Giuliani an unfair advantage because he will have a direct path to God. The other player might as well toss in their cards. The show is over.

Evangelical history will describe Robertson as the second coming of Nostradamus or maybe even Moses.
Reply to this comment
by tbweb November 12, 2007 12:32 AM PST
Pat Robertson''s support of pro-choice, multi-marriage Rudy Giuliani is not only sleeping with the enemy of his conscious but demonstrates the low level Right Wing Republicans are willing to sink to in order to win the next Presidential Election! America beware, everything is on the table as they say!
Reply to this comment
by roger3815 November 12, 2007 1:18 AM PST
The powerful have for untold centuries claimed to know what the gods want. The advantage to that strategy is no one has to worry about in such being showing up and setting the record straight.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." ~ Susan B. Anthony
Reply to this comment
by libsluvsuvs November 12, 2007 1:24 AM PST
I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." ~ Susan B. Anthony

Posted by roger3815 at 01:18 AM : Nov 12, 2007
+ report abuse

**************

you know what you are right..i notice that athiest liberals tells society THAT THEY KNOW WHAT WE WANT AND WHAT WE NEED but funny thing is..IT SERVES THEM BEST.
Reply to this comment
by tbweb November 12, 2007 1:26 AM PST
The powerful have for untold centuries claimed to know what the gods want. The advantage to that strategy is no one has to worry about in such being showing up and setting the record straight.

"I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires." ~ Susan B. Anthony

Posted by roger3815 at 01:18 AM : Nov 12, 2007,,,

It''s true, many powerful servants of God have lost credibility and violated the sacred trust entrusted to them. A worst case for me being the little girl who testified a Catholic Priest told her "Let me show you what it feels like to have God inside you." That''s disgusting ...
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 12, 2007 2:13 PM PST
Shieffer says Robertson''s call to God must have had a "bad connection"? Try "non-existant. All he''s ever had is a toy plastic phone.
Reply to this comment
by alanrobisch November 12, 2007 2:15 PM PST
People who claim to speak to or for a god, and fervetly believed it, used to be put into mental hospitals.

Actually they were called prophets
Reply to this comment
by tibu987 November 12, 2007 2:26 PM PST
The religious kiss of death.
So long Rudy......
Reply to this comment
by logicanada November 12, 2007 2:32 PM PST
Trust a nut ball like Robertson to endorse someone even the Pope has said he wouldn''t give communion to.
Reply to this comment
by tibu987 November 12, 2007 2:40 PM PST
Hold on, I''ll be right back, God is calling me on my direct line to heaven.
O.K., I''m back.
God told me that Robertson and Giulani are both whackos and to vote for a Democrat.
Thanks God, but I was going to anyway.
Reply to this comment
by dmgenet November 12, 2007 8:07 PM PST
Robertson is the symbol of the religious right''s last grasp (?gasp) for power. At least the ones who still believe that politics and religion can mix and provide results. The religious right has a lot of it''s members moving away from politics and back to what they do best; preach fire and brimstone.

I am sure there will be more religious right leaders who will court the Republican party in the future but for now they were hosed by Bush and his neocon cabal and very disappointed in the Bush agenda.

Aren''t we all.
Reply to this comment
by dmgenet November 12, 2007 8:13 PM PST
RE: "People who claim to speak to or for a god, and fervetly believed it, used to be put into mental hospitals.

Actually they were called prophets"

Actually, Vatican II allowed us mere mortals to talk to God directly especially when confessing our sins. And even before the Catholics ''allowed'' us to speak to god other religions encouraged it through prayer and reflection. We are all prophets.

I believe the main message that Jesus was preaching was to be wary of organized religion as was he. After all it was a religious organization, not the Romans, that wanted him dead.

With re: to mental hospitals. Robertson cloaks his hatred of humanity through his religion. He does not belong in a mental hospital. He belongs in hell.
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 13, 2007 12:31 AM PST
I notice the 2:15 commenter is a touch less that straightforward about who he is suggesting is a prophet. Robertson? Bush?

One could imagine he is somewhat lacking in the courage of his convictions. Or does he just like to see his name in print?
Reply to this comment
by scribe7716 November 13, 2007 10:36 AM PST
Robertson would support Judas if he thought Judas had the best chance of beating Hillary.
Reply to this comment
by cfin5 November 14, 2007 1:07 AM PST
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adapted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or intended against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed"---Thomas Jefferson, June 12, 1823........Vote for Jefferson by voting for RON PAUL, The Constitution honoring candidate in 2008! GO USA!!!
Reply to this comment
by cfin5 November 14, 2007 1:17 AM PST
Pat Robertson''s endorsement of Giuliani in my view makes him an accessory via the voting booth to the continuing American holocaust of unborn little boys and girls, just so his not favorite candidate might loose.......very shallow and unscriptural I''m sure of!
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 14, 2007 2:28 AM PST
Why do anti-abortion folks have to play word games? Why "unborn little boys and girls" instead of "male and female fetae"? "Pro-life"? How about "pro-fetus"?

"Pro-life" should also include being against the death penalty, and against this absurd war. I suspect many of you do not include those in your definition of "pro-life"

To suggest or imply there is no biological difference between "pre-born" and "post-born" is absurd. One can make perfectly logical and moral argument against destruction of a fetus without suggesting it is no different than infanticide. Playing word games doesn''t change that.
Reply to this comment
by cfin5 November 14, 2007 3:21 AM PST
Word games like how pro-infanticide advocates prefer "pro-choice" because it doesn''t sound so.......BLOODY?
Reply to this comment
by cfin5 November 14, 2007 3:45 AM PST

"Pro-life" should also include being against the death penalty,-------------That''s called "PRO-JUSTICE".
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 14, 2007 7:13 AM PST
Cfin5 plays word games again. "Infant" and "fetus" are two different words having two different definitions. To suggest they mean the same thing, in addition to serving no logical purpose, makes irrelavent any dialogue concerning the legal and moral justification for destroying a fetus. Does he think it unimportant to have that dialogue?

It is called the DEATH penalty. The opposite of "death" is "life". To suggest there is an antonymic relationship between "death" and "justice" is just another word game, an obfuscatory attempt to bolster a weak argument.

Additionally, the historical evidence of the occasional execution of the "wrong person" is well documented. Were YOUR loved one the victim of such a miscarriage, I doubt you would term it "justice".

There is a legitimate apologia for executing a person convicted of a capital crime which is diminished by your word game with "life".
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 14, 2007 7:32 AM PST
And, while you''re at it, cfin5 (or any anti-abortion "Christian" out there), give me your understanding of Numbers 5:15-28, and (the clearly misogynistic) 30-31.

The inerrancy advocates must really have a fun time with those passages.
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 14, 2007 7:38 AM PST
Lastly, cfn5, your placement of quotation marks in your 3:45 suggests that I used the term "pro-justice". I did not.
Reply to this comment
by cfin5 November 14, 2007 9:16 AM PST
Lastly, cfn5, your placement of quotation marks in your 3:45 suggests that I used the term "pro-justice". I did not.

Posted by Quatrops at 07:38 AM : Nov 14, 2007-------------------
No kidding.
Reply to this comment
by quatrops November 14, 2007 10:08 AM PST
Witty riposte! Well, it''s early yet.
Reply to this comment
by suggestion1 November 14, 2007 2:35 PM PST
This is not a response to this story. I just wanted to give "60 Minutes" a suggestion for a news story.
Do a segment on seat fillers at talkshows, and game shows. What percentage of the audience is actually seat fillers... and do seat fillers keep the prizes they win?
Reply to this comment
See all 32 Comments
  • MOST POPULAR
  • Viewed
  • Commented
Latest News
Featured Blogs