Announcing Robertson's endorsement of Giuliani, MSNBC failed to note Robertson's numerous controversial remarks
SUMMARY: Reporting on the announcement that Pat Robertson would endorse Rudy Giuliani for
president, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer stated, "A big coup, of course, for Giuliani,
who is fighting to win the votes of social conservatives." NBC political
director Chuck Todd described Robertson as "the guy that almost invented the
social conservative political movement" and asserted: "Robertson is a foreign
policy hawk, and on foreign policy he sees eye to eye with Giuliani." But
neither Brewer nor Todd noted that Robertson has repeatedly made
controversial
and inflammatory comments,
including calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez,
and endorsing the
late Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments that "the abortionists," "the feminists," and
the American Civil Liberties Union "helped this [the September 11, 2001,
terrorist attacks] happen."
During the 9 a.m. hour of the November 7 edition of MSNBC Live, reporting on the announcement that Pat Robertson, former Republican presidential candidate, founder of the Christian Coalition founder, and host of the Christian Broadcast Network's (CBN) 700 Club, would soon endorse former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) for president, MSNBC anchor Contessa Brewer reported: "It now appears that Pat Robertson, the evangelist, is going to come out and endorse Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican nominee for president. This is expected to happen at 9:30 this morning. A big coup, of course, for Giuliani, who is fighting to win the votes of social conservatives." NBC political director Chuck Todd described Robertson as "the guy that sort of almost invented the social conservative political movement" and asserted: "Robertson is very much a foreign policy hawk, and on foreign policy sees eye to eye with Giuliani." Todd later added: "[I]t's interesting. I mean, abortion and gay rights -- they are just not playing in this election. I don't know if you want to say that it's pragmatism when it comes to Republicans, or the fact that Pat Robertson looks around and says, you know what, they're all flawed, OK, but my number one priority is foreign policy. Well, if that's the case, the guy that probably lines up closest on foreign -- on some of the key foreign policy issues regarding the Middle East, both Israel, Iran, and Iraq -- well, then Robertson lines up closest with Giuliani." However, neither Brewer nor Todd noted Robertson's history of controversial remarks.
As Media Matters for America has extensively documented, Robertson has repeatedly made controversial and inflammatory comments, including calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and endorsing the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments that "the abortionists," "the feminists," and the American Civil Liberties Union "helped this [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] happen."
From the 9 a.m. hour of the November 7 edition of MSNBC Live:
BREWER: Good Wednesday morning, everyone. I'm Contessa Brewer. We have some breaking political news now. It now appears that Pat Robertson, the evangelist, is going to come out and endorse Rudy Giuliani to be the Republican nominee for president. This is expected to happen at 9:30 this morning. A big coup, of course, for Giuliani, who is fighting to win the votes of social conservatives. And another big endorsement this morning: Sam Brownback, who was a presidential candidate himself, the conservative senator from Kansas, now is going to endorse his former Republican rival, John McCain. Let's get right to Chuck Todd, NBC's political director. Chuck, big endorsements this morning. But how effective are they really? How influential in terms of getting votes?
TODD: Not influential of getting votes, but influential of creating this idea and story line that social conservatives are completely split in this Republican primary. You know, Pat Robertson, this is the guy that sort of almost invented the social conservative political movement. You know, Jerry Falwell started it, but Pat Robertson made it practical and rode it to a second-place finish in the Iowa caucuses back in 1988. He comes out for Rudy Giuliani. You know, a year ago, the idea of that would have seemed crazy. But in the last few months it doesn't seem so crazy. You know, Robertson, very much is a foreign policy hawk and on foreign policy sees eye to eye with Giuliani.
Meanwhile, you go over to John McCain. John McCain and Sam Brownback have been very chummy in the Senate for quite some time. Brownback had been flirting with possibly endorsing Giuliani. I mean, the one person he didn't want to endorse was Mitt Romney. And see - and that's what all of these endorsements have in common.
BREWER: Why is that? Why did he have such a problem with Mitt Romney?
TODD: It's interesting, for Brownback, he was uncomfortable that Romney, I think, was a flip flopper on this stuff, or a Johnny-come-lately on social conservatism. Not quite sure if that's where Pat Robertson is going to be, and why he did this. I mean, it will be interesting to see what he says. But that's sort of like I said the common denominator here. This isn't not good for Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney. Both of them have been trying to figure, to be the candidate that could coalesce social conservatives. Instead, they're as split as ever. Pat Robertson, look, as a political leader anymore, his days are - you know, he's sort of waning as far as influence is concerned, but symbolism, it's huge, and that's why I think the Giuliani campaign is --
BREWER: OK, but here's Mitt Romney, who has already won an endorsement from Bob Jones III, he founded this very famous Christian university. You have James Dobson, Focus on the Family, who says none of these guys are who I want representing my views. And now you have Robertson coming out and saying Giuliani is my man. Well what about his stand on abortion?
TODD: Well it's interesting. I mean, abortion and gay rights -- they are just not playing in this election. I don't know if you want to say that it's pragmatism when it comes to Republicans, or the fact that Pat Robertson looks around and says, you know what, they're all flawed, OK, but my number one priority is foreign policy. Well, if that's the case, the guy that probably lines up closest on foreign -- on some of the key foreign policy issues regarding the Middle East, both Israel, Iran, and Iraq -- well, then Robertson lines up closest with Giuliani. I mean, one of the things that a lot of us overlook when it comes to Giuliani is, yes, he is a social moderate or liberal when it comes to gay rights or an abortion, but not -- he's very much in the conservative when it comes to foreign policy as far as his ideology on that or when it comes to taxes. So, you know, on one hand you sit there and you say, wow, the New York City mayor is getting Pat Robertson endorsement? It's sort of cats and dogs living together. This seems nuts. But watching this campaign over the last three or four months, it isn't that nutty and it isn't that surprising. Again, collectively, Brownback for McCain, Robertson for Giuliani, this is not something that's going to make Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson happy. Because it's just more proof that social conservatives aren't going to coalesce. And that's good news right now, for the national front-runner, Rudy Giuliani.
BREWER: So what we'll do is we'll stay on top of this, and once again, that announcement about Robertson's endorsement is expected to come at 9:30. So we'll be looking at that. Chuck, thanks.
[...]
BREWER: We want to go back to Washington, D.C., now, where we understand the political breaking news that we've been following this morning is under way. Apparently an announcement about who is endorsing Rudy Giuliani. Let's listen in.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: -- International Family Entertainment, who has a very important announcement and statement to make. Thank you.
ROBERTSON: Thank you. Thank you very much. Ladies and gentlemen, I want to give a prepared statement and then I guess we'll take some questions. In less than two months, American voters will begin choosing the nominees of their respective political parties for the office of the presidency of the United States. To me, the overriding issue before the American people is the defense of our population from the bloodlust of Islamic terrorists.
Our second goal should be the control of massive government waste and crushing federal deficits. Uppermost in the minds of social conservatives is a selection of future Supreme Court justices and lower court judges who will sit on both the federal circuit courts and the district courts.
Our world faces deadly peril: Nuclear-armed North Korea and the foreboding of nuclear arms in Iran. Deadly violence from Hamas and Hezbollah against Israel. The possible overthrow of Pakistan's government. And drawn-out wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. In all of the crises which confront our nation and the world, we need a leader with a bold vision who is not afraid to tackle the challenges ahead. For months I have contemplated our future and the outstanding group of men who are offering themselves to the Republican Party to be its standard bearer in the 2008 presidential election. Today, it is my pleasure to announce my support for a mayor, America's mayor, Rudy Giuliani, and a proven leader who is not afraid of what lies ahead and who will cast a hopeful vision for all Americans.
Rudy Giuliani stood tall as his city was rocked by the worst terrorist act in America's history. Rudy Giuliani took a city that was in decline and considered ungovernable and reduced its violent crime, revitalized its core, dramatically lowered its taxes, cut through a welter of bureaucratic regulations and did so in the spirit of bipartisanship which is so urgently needed in Washington today. He proved time and again that he is a true fiscal conservative. Rudy served as a high official in the Justice Department of Ronald Reagan and later, as a United States attorney, won a claim as a valiant crime fighter. Justice triumphed as he took down mafia dons, drug traffickers, and corrupt politicians. He understands the need for a conservative judiciary and, with the help of the distinguished Ted Olson, who's here today, and other members of his team, has assured the American people that his choices for judicial appointments will be men and women who share the judicial philosophy of [Supreme Court Chief Justice] John Roberts and [Justice] Antonin Scalia. Today, I wish Rudy Giuliani success in the caucuses and primaries which will take place in a few months. And beyond that, it is my hope and prayer that he will lead the Republican Party to victory in November of 2008. Congratulations.
GUILIANI: Thank you very much.
ROBERTSON: Thank you.
GIULIANI: Thank you very, very much, Pat. I am very, very honored by this endorsement. Pat Robertson is very well known leader, person of great, well-deserved reputation, someone who has, as Ted pointed out, run for president of the United States, been all across this country, understands, I think to a very large extent, what America is all about, and has very well articulated what are the overriding issues of our time: dealing with the Islamic terrorist war against us, dealing with that in a way in which we are safe or as safe as we can be, and we conclude it with victory and success as quickly as it reasonably can be done, and the enormous importance of having --
BREWER: All right, Rudy Giuliani there, accepting the endorsement from Pat Robertson today to be the Republican nominee for president. Of course Pat Robertson is a staunch conservative, founded the Christian Coalition, founded the Christian Broadcasting Network. And in a time when the Republican candidates are fighting to win support from the Christian right, obviously, his endorsement means something there to Rudy Giuliani. Bad day for Mitt Romney though, and Fred Thompson with this endorsement. We've also heard today that Sam Brownback has endorsed John McCain for president. So, there you are on the political front.
Just curious if FAUX and CNN falied to note Robertsons lies and past also? I have always had issues with msnbc but I would hope if CNN and FAUX would be held to the same standard as MSNBC?
To be fair, MSNBC has started saying a lot about this tonight.
Justice and Truth in the USA - FACT CHECK:
But neither Brewer nor Todd noted that Robertson has repeatedly made controversial and inflammatory comments, including calling for the assassination of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and endorsing the late Rev. Jerry Falwell's comments that "the abortionists," "the feminists," and the American Civil Liberties Union "helped this [the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks] happen."
First, the liberal media HAS reported on the statements of Roberts many times.
Second, the current story is about the impact of the endorsement on the Giuliani campaign. Not on past statements by Roberts
Third, Roberts has, in fact, apologized for some of his intemperate remarks. However, Hugo Chavez in never going to apologize for destroying democracy in his own country.
The clear decision has to be against MMFA in this topic.
Dude, if you are going to make judgements, at least get the parties' names right! Its Robertson, not Roberts.
This is my question to those reporting on this endorsement: How do Rudy's social views make him an acceptable candidate to someone like Pat Robertson?
Can we get any critical reporting on this topic?
"Dude, if you are going to make judgements, at least get the parties' names right! Its Robertson, not Roberts."
Actually, you're both wrong. It's neither Roberts nor Robertson, it's Robber's Son. (As in, robbing the grave of Reb Yeshua.)
Well played.
Actually, good journalism dictates that the story include both the up side and the down side (or left and right, as it were) of the story. Why would Robertson's endorsement help Giuliani? Why would Robertson's endorsement harm Giuliani? The second part was missing and that's what MMFA was talking about. So, yes, omitting half the story constitutes misinformation, in this case conservative.
The media have reported Robertson's intemperate remarks, for sure. If the conservative media has not done so, then we'd suspect that the conservative media will only give us half the story (big surprise!)
Now, you want Chavez to apologize for destroying democracy in his country? Let's start at home and see what Bush or Cheney will apologize for, then we can worry about Chavez.
You're absolutely right Salamand...
Would the corporate media dare to wonder if a Robertson endorsement could actually harm Giuliani?
I think we know the answer to that.
No one take this fool serious he is a phony just like Rudy
Actually, the clear decision is that JusticeTroll is still posting useless crap here.
Hate to agree with Just an Untruth, but I don't see any misinformation here.
Besides, is there anyone outside Pat's 700 Club sheeple who don't already know he's bat sh*t insane?
If Rudy is the nominee, this works against the Republicans as it will ensure the "Give me Pro-Life or Give Me Death" faction who might have otherwise coalesced around a conservative will stay home.
Praise Jeebus.
If Rudy is the nominee, this works against the Republicans as it will ensure the "Give me Pro-Life or Give Me Death" faction who might have otherwise coalesced around a conservative will stay home.
Not necessarily.
Rudy has promised he'd nominate Pro-Life judges to the Supreme Court.
Of course the Dems would block this at all costs, but the Religious Right won't think that far ahead ;-)
Must disagree. The reaction (or nonreaction) of the Christian Coalition, Dobson, and others today speaks volumes. They don't trust Rudy and I don't think they'll show up for him.
Giving half of the facts would be like having an article about Mussolini that said he made the trains run on time, and nothing else. It's biased by omission.
Careful there, Marv. You've just made a clear, accurate and effective analogy. By tomorrow morning, the 30%ers will be screeching at you for saying Robertson is the same as Mussolini.
Marv is right.
Everyone should review MMFA'a "About Us" page:
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
I would say that MSNBC's spotty reporting forwards the conservative agenda, by making Robertson appear to be sane when he is in fact a lunatic.
"Just curious if FAUX and CNN falied to note Robertsons lies and past also?"
CNN was covering his previous lies.
justicetruthus8276-"First, the liberal media HAS reported on the statements of Roberts many times."
Just not in the instance specifically discussed in this topic. Nice try at diversion though.
"Second, the current story is about the impact of the endorsement on the Giuliani campaign. Not on past statements by Roberts"
The current story is about a bat s@#$ crazy person endorsing Giuliani. That makes his previous bat s@#$ crazy comments germane to the discussion. Another nice try at diversion.
"Third, Roberts has, in fact, apologized for some of his intemperate remarks. However, Hugo Chavez in never going to apologize for destroying democracy in his own country."
Apologizing for "some" remarks but not most or all of his bat s@#$ crazy remarks? Another nice try at diversion with the Hugo Chavez remark.
"The clear decision has to be against MMFA in this topic."
I'm beginning to see Pat isn't the only one who is bat s@#$ crazy.
Don't forget ... the "liberal media" allows statements that "Osama bin Laden endorses HRC" or John Kerry to go unchallenged ...
So the crossdressing, pro-gay, pro-choice Giuliani has been endorsed by Pat Robertson, king of the pro-life, anti-gay bigots? That's quite a coup. Who'd he bribe to pull that one off? What's more, why would he want that nuts endorsement anyway? Sounds like another round of I'm more conservative than thou...
One nut deserves another nut.
Please notice: Pat Robertson, who said something equivalent to: "America was attacked because we deserved it", has endorsed Rudy. Ron Paul did not say America deserved to be attacked. It would seem that Rudy *HAS* heard something like what he was falsely claiming Ron Paul had said. He just didn't remember ?? Isn't it strange that Rudy has no problem with Pat Robertson's endorsement? Does Rudy have a problem with his memory and his hearing? I do not think Rudy is presidential. I think Ron Paul would be the best president since our founding fathers. His views are spot on for our present predicament. Truth remains truth, even this many years later.
I heard a report that other more respected religious leaders are strongly regecting Rudy in favor of other Republican options. I have to follow up on this to find out more details. To be fair, this should have been included in other news reports about Pat's endorsement of Rudy.
On This Day in the year 2000: A Disputed U.S. presidential election...
The U.S. presidential election ended in a statistical tie between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush, only to be settled on December 12 by the U.S. Supreme Court after a bitter legal dispute. The counting of votes was stopped and Bush was appointed President.
An the rest of the story from that point forward has established the sorry legacy of the Bush Presidential Story. Even the Bush Library plans in Texas at SMU has run into an unwillingness of many Texans to have it there.
MSNBC did note Robertson's controversial statements. Keith Olbemann talked about it. Not only does Keith suffer from Bush Derangement Syndrome, he also suffers from Giuliani Derangement Syndrome.
Yeah, that guys crazy. Doing news items about stuff that actually happened. Let's turn on Fox and make it all better.
Yeah, exactly. Nothing he reports on could *possibly* be true, because he's gots de "Boosh Durangement Syndrome" so we should discount everything that's said on the show. FUXNoise World sure is comforting.
No comment on Joe Scarborough's supposed "joke" linking Ron Paul to extremist christians.
So following Media Matters philosophy - that anytime somebody voices an opinion - their past actions and opinions are to be brought up in the same story to discredit their current opinion. I wonder if the following would pass here.
Senator Edwar Kennedy (D. Mass) took to the Senate floor today to denounce waterboarding and the drowning induced fears it can cause. Kennedy is an expert on the tragedy of drowning. in 1968 he himself escaped from the horror while his mistress drowned after an alleged drunken Kennedy drove his car off a bridge.
WC,
You do have a bit of a point, but wouldn't it be informative to ask how Robertson's views will jive with Giuliani's on social issues?
Im glad you can see my point on Media Matters foolishness.
On your point - RG is the one running for leadership so it is his responsibility, in accepting the endorsement, to clarify his positions in relation to the one doing the endorsing. If he doesn't then let the press ask the questions.
" If he doesn't then let the press ask the questions."- WC4Me
Wow, you actually proved the opposite of your point with that statement. Don't you realize that this MMFA post that you claim is unreasonable is centered around an instance of the media NOT asking those questions that you just said should be asked? I assume we can expect an apology from you with a retraction of your attack on MMFA.
Perhaps you failed to realize that RG is not actually in the conversation so there is no opportunity to query him on the subject. As this story only broke yesterday and there are still many months before primary season there will be many opportunities.
Once again Media Matters is full of crap in it's supposed uncovering of "conservative bias".
So are you actually saying that the subject of an issue being discussed by the media must always be present during the discussion? That is such a lame comeback. Just admit that you have alterior motives, or you misspoke, or whatever, but don't embarrass yourself with that comeback. The media can't bring up a relevent issue related to a story unless they pose the question directly to the person? That is absurd. What if he answers, "no comment". What do they do then? Do they just continue to not discuss the issue, or when someone brings it up, they have to shout him down, saying "He answered no comment, we can't talk about this. We don't know what his position is." You can't honestly believe that.
If this is your opinion, why is it ok for these media personalities to fall all over themselves talking about how great Robertson is and how important the endorsement is. Shouldn't they not say good things either until they have a chance to personally ask Rudi what he thinks? Or could it be that you just over-extended yourself trying to find a way to criticize MMFA and now have egg on your face because your point was laughable.
So are you really saying that the media can't discuss an issue until they had a chance to talk to the subject personally? That is laughable! Do you really believe this or are you just trying to save face because you got caught over-extending yourself trying to find fault with MMFA.
If that is the case, why is it ok for them to fall all over themselves praising Robertson and talking about how important this endorsement is? Shouldn't they not talk about the issue at all until they ask Rudi about it? Come on, that is absurd. I guess we can't talk about Pakistan either until Musharraf gets interviewed on 60 minutes, right?
Sorry, double post.
Media Matters is presenting this as biased because the press did not reveal and examine and the endorsers full range of beliefs. They are implying that the candidate therefore shares all the same beliefs as the endorser and the press is trying to hide that. Robertson is endorsing Guilani because of all the candidates he's the one who best aligns with his beliefs. Guliani is not endorsing Robertsons beliefs - but that's what Media Matters would have you believe.
The story that Robertson endorsed Guliani is news and should be reported, however until Guliani is questioned on where he stands on all of Robertsons positions in accepting his endorsement no implications can be made.
In posting this story Media Matters has tried to discredit the candidate by linking him to some extreme positions of an endorser. This is not an example of a biased media but a sure example of political activism.
Ok, now I see where we are disagreeing here. I am not saying that they should blast Giuliani for the endorsement at this point without giving him a chance to distance himself from Robertson (which I personally don't think he will do during the primary), so on that point I agree with you.
My point is that they are clearly being biased in favor of Robertson by having this huge discussion about him and how important his endorsement is without even mentioning why his endorsement could be a problem for a candidate based on his whacko statements and beliefs. There is absolutely no excuse for not bringing up the negative aspects of Robertson. By not bringing it up at this point, they are laying the groundwork for there being no controversy once Giuliani cuddles up to him , which there is every indication he will do.
Agreed. Good discussion :-)
I agree with you that it is kind of silly to expect the media to mention Robertson's controversial statements. However I do believe it would serve the reader better to describe Robertson as "often controversial".
BTW, MMFA doesn't try to uncover conservative bias. They do expose conservative misinformation, which is not the same thing. In order to prove "bias" you need to be a mindreader. MMFA doesn't play that game like newsbusters, mrc and aim do for the conservatives. Perhaps that is where you are mistaken in thinking they are analogous. They really aren't in that important way.
WC,
I am not sure I asked you a clear enough question. I am wondering if any of the media will ask Robertson about his endorsement and Rudy's past social positions. I would love to see that interview if it happens. What assurances do you think that Robertson was given (if any) by Giuliani?
I think I disagree with the premise that it is Robertson who needs to be queried. Robertson has a handfull of candidates to choose from. No doubt some of Robertsons positions are "extreme". I think it is Guliani that needs to be queried on how he interprets the Robertson endorsement and how he stands on some of those "extreme" positions.
I am looking forward to that interview.
WC,
I honestly think they both could use a query on this one. I was shocked when I heard about it.
WD40, I fail to see the analogy. Is Kennedy advocating an official policy of drowning women in cars?
Thanks for playing...feel free to try again.
If you cant follow along go back to bed.
....that anytime somebody voices an opinion - their past actions and opinions are to be brought up in the same story to discredit their current opinion.
...and you call Bush a "numbnuts"?
Theocrat Pat's endorsement is a "coup" for Judy Ruliani?
"Coup-coup" is more like it.
WC,
Great point. At what point are we forgiven for past atrocious statements? When we ask forgiveness. The problem is Robertson never asked for forgiveness or really explained his calling for assassination of Chavez. Furthermore, I have a major issue with religious figures in this country calling for their own personal jihad, excuse me, assassinations of political leaders in other countries. Had this been a democrat who was endorsed by such a polarizing character the media would have been all over it, and we all know this to be true.
Mediamatters, et al, Since we're so conserned about the media listing Pat's past controversial statements, please hold the media to the same standards anytime Robert Byrd is referenced in any story. The people should be informed that the senior most democrat leader in the senate is a former KKK "Kleagle" -- an official recruiter, as well as all of the racist statments he's made over the years calling blacks mongrels, etc. Consistency in applying standards is key to being taken seriously.
I agree with your point. I think MMFA is being a little silly here to expect mention of Robertson's batsh*t crazy remarks. That is the kind of stuff we have come to expect from guys like Hannity and not the media. Perhaps Robertson should be simply described as being a controversial figure.
Which is, of course, why you fail to include Byrd's repeated and on-the-record repudiations of and apologies for his past -- as opposed to Robertson's squirmy weaseling.
Hypocrite.
Aren't there any religious leaders these days who aren't freaky wingnuts ?? Why is there no new MLK ???
And why does the media show any respect for Robertson ? You know they know he's a freak. Is it pandering just to keep viewers ?