From: mpolen@suntory.mti.sgi.com (Mike Polen)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc
Subject: Re: Pat Robertson's remarks at the convention...
Keywords: hate
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:25:04 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: suntory.mti.sgi.com

|> >I simply asked a question - were the remarks attributed to Robertson at the
|> >R. convention correctly quoted? One reader said no, but also said he didn't
|> >catch the speech in question - I did catch the speech, and believe the quote
|> >correct, but wouldn't swear on it, because I wasn't paying close attention
|> >at the time.
|> 
|> |+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|> | "It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages
|> | women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft,
|> | destroy capitalism and become lesbians."
|> |
|> | Televangelist, Pat Robertson, who spoke at the Republican convention, 
|> | on the proposed equal-rights amendment
|> |+------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|> 
|> Robertson didn't say that at the convention, and I have included the
|> complete text of his convension speech below to prove that.  Again I ask
|> you people, what in this speech makes you think Robertson is a sexist,
|> racist, bigot, or wants to use the power of government to force his views
|> on you?  Claims of this type are regularly made.  I don't understand it.

There have been numerous statements agreeing that Robertson's characterization
of NOW was not made at the convention, but was in a mailer his organization
sent out.  He supported the statement.

As to you question about Robertson based upon his speech:

As for forcing his views, Pat says:

|>     But ladies and gentlemen, a more benign but equally insidious
|> plague has fastened itself upon the families of America.
|>     It is the belief that bureaucrats know more about managing
|> people's affairs than the people themselves.
|>     Ladies and gentlemen, the carrier of this plague is the Democrat
|> Party.
|> 
Then, showing that although democratic dureacrats believe they know
more about managing peoples affairs than the people themselves, he
sets the legislative agena so that he can tell people how to manage
their affairs.

|>     --until parents can have true choice in the education of their
|> children
|>     --until parents with children receive the tax relief they richly
|> deserve
|>     --until we honor the elderly and protect the unborn child in its
|> mother's womb
|> 
As for sexism: He never knocks Hilliary, but he presents four
paragraphs on Barbara Bush.  Either he is saying that Hilliary is none
of these things, or they are a waste of paper and convention time. 
Since there was a strong anti- Hilliary bias on the podium at the
convention, I lean toward believing the following called Hilliary's
humanity, graciousness, dedication, caring, and devotion into question. 
Or maybe he was just wishing Barbara was running, not George.  In any
case, these paragraphs extol the virtues of women that can and do
chose not to work -- Pat's idea of a REAL woman.
|> 
|>     Ladies and gentlemen, we have a First Lady, Barbara Bush, who is a
|> gracious lady, a devoted wife, a dedicated mother, and a caring
|> grandmother.
|>     In 1985, I travelled with then Vice President George Bush and
|> Barbara Bush to a desert refugee camp in northern Sudan.  Emaciated
|> people near death were walking through the burning desert to flee
|> famine and Communist tyranny in Ethiopia.
|>     I will never forget the haunting eyes of 1 emaciated little
|> six-month old boy who only weighed 5 1/2 pounds.  And I will never
|> forget Barbara Bush in the midst of the dust, the flies, and the
|> disease, taking that little child in her arms and loving it as only a
|> mother could.
|>     Ladies and gentlemen, no one can convince me that the American
|> people are so blind that they would replace Barbara Bush.

Sexism is believing that persons of a particular sex should only 
fulfill particular roles.  If Pat Robertson is not a sexist, he is
doing the best imitation I have seen in years.  Rich little could
take lessons.

Finally, as a "man of god" we should expect Pat Robertson to show
some respect for the truth, and the whole truth.  In his speech, he
gives the republicans the total repsonsibility for bringing
communism to it's knees.  He even makes the following statement:

|>     It was a Republican president who stood before that blood-soaked
|> wall of slavery dividing East from West Berlin and shouted, "Mr
|> Gorbachev, tear down this wall."

I missed the new coverage on this.  He also blames the Democrats for
for the debt, forgetting that his party's military budget grew even
more rapidly than the budget as a whole.  He blaims all dumb and 
wasteful legislation on the Democrats, when nothing they wanted 
happened unless Reagan or Bush signed it.  And if you for a moment
think that the Democrats could do what they wanted, Pat reminds you
that Bush was in complete control of the budget.

|>     President Bush has vetoed their anti-family, pork-barrel bills 31
|> times--and 31 times he has made his veto stick!  That's why the
|> liberals on Capitol Hill want Bill Clinton in the White House to
|> rubber-stamp their big spending ways.
|> 
There are certainly more examples, but the original question about Pat
Robertson's agenda is certainly one of sexism and the use of government
to promote his specific agenda.  There are no examples of racism in
this speech.  Since the Republican party only officially condones
sexism, homophobia, and religious agendas, I sure he needed to leave
it out for the occasion.

-- 
These opinions are usually my own, sometimes my dog's,
occasionaly my (grown) children's, never my employer's.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.activism,alt.politics.usa.misc