The Whacked Award: Nominee No. 1, Pat Robertson
The Grumpy Moderate has decided to start nominations for the person who makes the most whacked-out public statement during the rest of 2005.
Nominee No. 1 surely has to be the televangelist Pat Robertson, who today recommended that the U.S. government kill Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said, who also noted that killing the man would be "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ..."
The Grump thinks that this statement is whacked-out in so many different ways that it's hard to know where to start. For starters, it's a little anti-Christian, isn't it? The Grump isn't an expert on religion, but thinks it unlikely that assassination for political purposes is a central tenet of Christian theology. Plus Chavez is democratically-elected (at least in a South American sort of way), which matters a good deal to the Grump. Who's next, Chirac? Finally, readers know that the Grumpster really dislikes meanness, and publicly stating that you propose to kill someone because you disagree with their politics is really really mean, especially from someone who thinks of himself as a Man of God. (And, no, it doesn't matter that Chavez may, in fact, be an America-hating megalomaniac, Pat; the Grump still doesn't think you should kill him.)
So, the first nominee, Pat Robertson, for a truly whacked out statement by someone who ... wait a minute, the Grump almost said "should know better."
The Grumpy Moderate waits to see how the Right responds to this.
Nominee No. 1 surely has to be the televangelist Pat Robertson, who today recommended that the U.S. government kill Venezuela's President, Hugo Chavez. "We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability," Robertson said, who also noted that killing the man would be "a whole lot cheaper than starting a war ..."
The Grump thinks that this statement is whacked-out in so many different ways that it's hard to know where to start. For starters, it's a little anti-Christian, isn't it? The Grump isn't an expert on religion, but thinks it unlikely that assassination for political purposes is a central tenet of Christian theology. Plus Chavez is democratically-elected (at least in a South American sort of way), which matters a good deal to the Grump. Who's next, Chirac? Finally, readers know that the Grumpster really dislikes meanness, and publicly stating that you propose to kill someone because you disagree with their politics is really really mean, especially from someone who thinks of himself as a Man of God. (And, no, it doesn't matter that Chavez may, in fact, be an America-hating megalomaniac, Pat; the Grump still doesn't think you should kill him.)
So, the first nominee, Pat Robertson, for a truly whacked out statement by someone who ... wait a minute, the Grump almost said "should know better."
The Grumpy Moderate waits to see how the Right responds to this.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, August 23, 2005 at 7:27 PM.
You can skip to the end and leave a response.
5:52 PMC'mon, Grump, cut good ol' Pat a little slack. He makes it very clear that he's a well know expert on morality, and besides the next day he said that (a) he was sorry he said it and (b) he didn't say it.
... The Laughing Liberal
» Post a Comment