Didn't take long

I alluded to the orgasms many on the left would have over Pat Robertson's latest foot-mouthed idiocies a couple of days ago.  Although I'm not ready to claim prophet status (after all, how hard is it to predict leftist behavior), I think it appropriate to point out some of the salivating that's taking place.

Jim Wallis, my most favorite liberal masquerading as an objective moderate, comes out swinging today.  Now, admittedly, some of the criticisms are well deserved but how hard is it really to find fault in something Pat Robertson said?  Almost as hard as Pamela Anderson is to look at (not that I would care Mrs. BH... Heh...).

I'm less impressed however with Wallis' hammering of the media's favorite Christian whipping boy and more intrigued and amazed (when I shouldn't be) at what Wallis has to say about Hugo Chavez.  I mean one would think that if Wallis had his way, Chavez would be atop the ticket in 2008 for the Democrats:

Chavez, a democratically elected leader in no less than three internationally certified votes, has been an irritant to the Bush administration, but has yet to commit any holocausts. Nor does his human rights record even approach that of the Latin American dictators who have been responsible for massive violations of human rights and the deaths of tens of thousands of people (think of the military regimes of Chile, Argentina, El Salvador, and Guatemala). Robertson never criticized them, perhaps because many of them were supported by U.S. military aid and training.

This incident reveals that Robertson does not believe in democracy; he believes in theocracy. And he would like governments, including our own, to implement his theological agenda, perhaps legislate Leviticus, and "take out" those who disagree.

Legislate Leviticus and take out those who disagree?  I think that's a bit... hyperbolic from Mr. Moderate.  But set that aside.  Wallis' embrace of Chavez (and the apparent embrace of Wallis' sycophants fans) is telling and troubling.

Chavez is no choirboy:

Chavez idolizes Cuba's Fidel Castro, is chummy with Libya's Moammar Khadafy and was a Saddam Hussein pal. He's made nasty remarks about President Bush and "suggestive" public comments about Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.

According to Gerver Torres, a former Venezuelan government minister, Chavez's "main motivation now is to do everything he possibly can to negatively affect the United States, Bush in particular . . . trying to bring together all the enemies of the United States."

And his rise to Venezuela's leadership (and his subsequent holding on) has been less than peaceful:

Violence has marked each step along Chavez's road to power.

The former paratrooper first tried to seize control by a coup in 1992; he failed and instead spent two years in jail. He later tried democracy and was elected as an outsider by Venezuelans six years later.

Chavez's opponents admit he is popular, especially among the poor. But being popular, they say, does not give the president the right to do whatever he wants. The police, military and armed thugs have been tools used freely by Chavez to hang on to power during a coup attempt and a national strike in 2002.

And yet Wallis would find him so... appealing... 

I think this tells us more about he-who-masquerades-as-an-objective-moderate than perhaps he'd want us to know.  And it tells us more about those who find Wallis to be so... heroic.

Or maybe I'm simply mistaken.

(I don't think so).

Comments

[Mike]

Rick - your point escapes me. Personally, I posted on this embarrassment because Pat Robertson is a buffoon, as well as a self-proclaimed Christian - not because he's conservative.

It's not always about partisanship. You do not do yourself any favours here. You agree that Robertson is a joke, then criticize those who criticize him, presumably because the loudest criticism comes from those you place on the left.

[Rick]

Mike,

When I see you wail away at members of the Religious Left, some of which are just as buffoonish as Robertson only with more subtlety (which makes them all the more dangerous), with the frequency that you wail away at my brethren on the right, then your claims to be non partisan (and your counterclaims that I'm partisan) will have more credibility with me.

I'm looking for some honesty Mike. It doesn't even have to be brutal.

[Mike]

That's a strange argument, Rick. But go with it if it works for you.
Peace.

[Rick]

Nice drive-by Mike.

I don't think it strange to be honest nor to ask for honesty.

But go with it if it works for you.

[Mike]

OK, I'll pull over to the curb.

Can you address my point? You riduculed Robertson, but are spending your time ridiculing those who are also riduling Robertson. Not because they're doing that, I presume, but because they're "on the left". Can you elaborate on that?

[Rick]

Mike,

I'm not finding you curb-side. I'm finding that you've driven into the ditch... again.

You want me to explain why I find it odd that you and Wallis seem to be embracing Hugo Chavez (who is truly a dangerous world leader) while you both pine away at Pat Robertson (who is truly not)?

While you're in that ditch, I'll offer you assistance in getting out after you've explained your seeming love for the Venezuelan leader.

Deal?

[Mike]

Rick - OK, so now criticizing Robertson is akin to supporting Chavez. You are a slippery one.

Have a good one.

[Rick]

Mike,

You found the Guardian editorial you linked to "fascinating".

It came across to me as a puff piece praising Chavez.

What's so fascinating about the editorial?

And you call me slippery?

Please...

[b. wineholt]

How many Americans remember that this is the SECOND time that this lunatic psychopath has issued death threats to national leaders from an FCC sanctioned, ostensibly "Christian" (Peace/Love/Brotherhood) perch. He spewed similar loose-cannon death threats at Khadaffy back in '85.How can the self-righteous neocons diss HBO,etc. while this madman continues to possess the ability to defile this nation's reputation ?

[Jeff H]

Uh, swineheunt--sorry, make that "wineholster"--what Robertson said can in no way (by a sane, literate person) be considered a "death threat". He does not speak for the US government, never claimed he does, and did not say he himself was going to take action against Chavez.

You do read English at something above a kindergarten level, don't you?

[Mr smith]

please send me your e-mail address I would like to send you something to read that I cannot send on this system.

thanks