Working the political and public destruction of Pat Robertson.

[benburch]

Randi Rhodes has me convinced. Robertson is the next person we need to destroy in the court of public opinion.

Any good thoughts as to how we should begin?

Ideally, we should get the message out in such a way as to get his Base so disgusted that they stop donating to him, followed by enough lawsuits to ruin him.

Who has a good idea about how we should start?

[Double T]

1. Pat Robertson Is Anything But A Christian

[MaineYooper]

2. you would think his hypocrisy and money-grubbing would be enough...

by itself.

He is clearly one of the more reprehensible public figures in this nation. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people who are willing to go way beyond any reasonable benefit of the doubt for someone who claims to be a "Christian" leader.

[arkie dem]

3. I vaguely remember hearing about a book written by

a fellow officer who served with Asswipe Robertson in Korea. Might be a good place to start.
His ties to African dictators would be another.
Just the mention of his name gives me the shits...!!!

[Alizaryn]

4. Give him all the opportunities we can to speak

He will hang himself.

[jean]

5. Use his own words: He offered video clips galore yesterday on 'This Week'

Robertson said he would totally support Guiliani, an adulterer, for prez. He indicated being smitten by Sen Allen's appearance ("he's very good-looking!"). Both comments conflict with his homophobic, anti-gay, we-must-protect/defend marriage stance. Very unsettling for his wingnut base.

He also said he's anti-anyone-from-or-related-to-The Middle East and doesn't want anyone like that serving in the White House, in any capacity. Robertson covers how many countries and Americans of Middle Eastern heritage with such a racist blanket statement?

[gizmo1979]

7. I agree He couldn't have sounded more bigoted

than yesterday.Give him some prime time speaking engagements and he'll be gone in less than a week.

[NAO]

6. The Anti-Pat Robertson / Christian Coalition Site

The Anti-Pat Robertson / Christian Coalition Site
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7027/patrobertson.html

Fundamentalist Radical Clerics such as Falwell, Dobson, and Robertson are not merely medieval throwbacks or misguided religious hacks. They are part of a well organized subversionary movement known as "Dominionism". Dominionism constitutes a serious threat to American Democracy. These Radical Clerics have developed and are executing a detailed plan to gradually replace the free, secular democratic society of the United States with a Theocracy.

The Despoiling of America: How George W. Bush became the head of the new American Dominionist Church/State
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm

The Anti-Pat Robertson / Christian Coalition Site
http://www.geocities.com/capitolhill/7027/patrobertson.html

We need a Freethought PAC -counter the spread of religious fundamentalism
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3581897&mesg_id=3581897

Absolute Proof the Founding Fathers Intended the United States to be a Secular Nation
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1757409&mesg_id=1757409

[BringEmOn]

8. Premarital sex Pat?

http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/blindleaders.html

Many Conservative Christians have no problem with millionaire "Rev." Pat Robertson's professing to represent Jesus of Nazareth, who was no friend of the rich. But there is a great deal about this shadowy man behind the "Christian Coalition" that should trouble any Christian, no matter how "Conservative". Most of the quotes below are from the recent book by journalist James Retter, called Anatomy of a Scandal.
When Pat Robertson (son of a U.S. Senator, lawyer, big business man, TV evangelist and Conservative leader) decided to run for the presidency (as a Republican) in 1988, he "made integrity and moral values the core issues of his presidential campaign. In the speech for his declaration of candidacy, he said, 'We must bring back the old-fashioned concept of moral restraint and abstinence before marriage.' " (p.174)
Now, when asked if it was true, as reported in the Wall Street Journal, that his own marriage had occurred on Aug. 27, 1954, just 2 1/2 months before his son was born, Robertson claimed that he was married six months earlier. In an 10/08/87 interview with the Washington Post, he said, "I did give an honest answer" explaining that he and his wife have always considered March 22 (his own birthday) the day they were married because "our son was conceived on that day." The couples' legal marriage on August 27, 1954, "to us, wasn't any big deal."
The candidate told the Washington Post on 10/8/97 that it would be an error to suggest that 'there had been a pattern of deceptions' in his writings and speeches. He said he may have occasionally - and inadvertently - said something 'imprecise,' and that he may have used a 'malapropism' on occasion. But he added emphatically 'I have not lied about my marriage or anything." (p. 172-3) "But the questions kept coming. An angrier Robertson said, ' I think it is outrageous to pry into a man's past and try to do damage to a man's wife and children under the guise of journalism.' " (p. 174)