Robertson once said that he didn't need to be nice to we Methodists because we are the spirit of the anti-Christ.

And I thought I had bad things to say about the UMC.

This is so frustrating. I hope conservative, evangelical voices continue to critique him; I think we gain credibility when we acknowledge abberant voices in our midst:

http://addisonrd.com/WordPress/?p=183

peace
-ml

Robertson is the Al Sharpton of the right.

Robertson is a humorless twit - at least Sharpton has some spirit. Robertson is the Garofalo of the right, although I agree with the gist of your comment, Eric.

I love Robertson's attempt to cover himself. "Hey, all I said was that he should be kidnapped, not assassinated! Wanting the government to kidnap someone isn't nearly as bad as having the government kill them. Eh? Eh?"

Eric wrote:

Robertson is the Al Sharpton of the right.

Well, Robertson came first, so I'd say Sharpton is the Robertson of the left. But the comparison is apt either way.

If Sharpton had any real influence over the Democratic Party, I'd agree.

Doug-

Well that's certainly a distinction. Sharpton's power within the Democratic party is peanuts compared to Robertson's power within the Republican party. At last count, his Christian Coalition had a controlling majority of more than 1/3 of the state Republican committees around the country. Dobson probably has closer relations with the White House at this point, so his star has ascended a bit, but at the grassroots level Robertson is still the primary player. When the Christian Coalition decided to go local after his failed 1996 presidential bid, they moved very rapidly to take control of those state committees, not to mention hundreds of school boards and city councils and such.

Well, Robertson hasn't been in charge of the CC for years, so I don't think it's accurate to equate their current influence with his. I couldn't find info on their board of directors to see if he currently sits on it or not.

As far as the grassroots level, he's known but not very influential in general Republican circles. Pundits like Sean Hannity, Hugh Hewitt, etc., have more influence from what I've seen. Robertson still has significant influence among evangelicals, but he has already been surpassed by Dobson. I speak from my experience as both a grassroots Republican and an evangelical.

All that said, Robertson probably does have more influence in the GOP than Sharpton has among Democrats...but not by all that much, really. Not anymore.

I don't think the fact that he is no longer the de jure head of the Christian Coalition means much of anything. He's still the de facto head of the operation. And in terms of the grassroots campaigns to get out the vote, putting out voter guides, etc, no one can touch the Christian Coalition for organization. He pretty much wrote the book on it and everyone else is just following the plan.

There's something else I noticed about Robertson's remarks (in the original speech, that I haven't seen anywhere except for my own commentary.

The Good Reverend is still fighting the war against communism, even after we've already won, had the victory dance, tore down the goalposts, and had a five-frat-deep kegger on the quad. And I quote:

He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

Seeing as how communism and religious extremism of any stripe are pretty much the epitome of antithetical, how Robertson can string the words together is beyond me. Of course, I can see why he did it, trying to pull the good ol' anti-communist sentiment into the mix, but if simply citing Muslim extremists aren't enough to do that, I'd be suprosed.

And I'm utterly suprised that no one has caught this one.

Robertson is the George Soros of the Republcan Party. Both made them money from questionable business dealings and because of this they have a higher place in party hierarchy than their extreme views would normally rate. They are more in line with the more extreme elements of their respective movements. The biggest difference is that while Pat's influence peaked more than a decade ago (probably around 1992), George has probably not hit his yet.