- Text smaller
- Text bigger
Some day, those who chose political expediency over principle in the matter of the People vs. William Jefferson Clinton will be ashamed of their actions. That is, if they have any sense of shame left.
I guess no one should be surprised to see all the Senate Democrats stand by their man. And it’s no shocker when moral lightweights Arlen Specter, John Chafee and Jim Jeffords back a reprobate like our commander-in-chief with pseudo-legalistic interpretations of their constitutional duty that would make Clinton himself proud. But what about Pat Robertson?
When the founder of the Christian Coalition told his TV viewers that it was time to give up on the impeachment trial and move on, that was a surprise — and a disappointment to many.
After all, Robertson’s CBN News had done some of the finest television reporting on the Clinton scandals — exploring such untouchable controversies as the mysterious deaths of Ron Brown and Vincent Foster, Filegate and even the political abuse of the IRS by the White House.
So when Robertson threw in the towel in the fourth quarter, announcing it was time for the country to “move forward,” the president of the Christian Coalition, Don Hodel, and many in the rank and file of the organization were understandably shaken.
Hodel is an honest and principled man. He did what any honest and principled man would do in such a situation — he boldly told Robertson, his boss, that he should either step down as chairman of the group or quit working at cross-purposes with it.
Instead, Robertson effectively fired Hodel. Not good, Pat. Bad move. Shame on you.
If there is one organization you would think would stand tall when the nation is confronted with the arrogant lawlessness and unrepentant immorality of Bill Clinton, you would think the Christian Coalition would be that group. Instead, Pat Robertson caved in to the fleeting winds of conventional wisdom. He listened to the pundits instead of his own Good Book. He did the politick thing, rather than the constitutional thing.
One can only wonder why. But others have gone that way — whether it was out of fear of FBI files, IRS audits, FCC challenges or the secret police. What changed Robertson’s mind? Or was his heart and soul ever really in challenging a president of the United States, bucking the establishment and taking the heat?
I’m not sure. Back in 1995, while Hodel’s predecessor, Ralph Reed, served as president of the Christian Coalition, I was shocked when he personally rejected a full-page, paid ad I submitted to the group’s newspaper raising questions about the death of Foster.
The very same ad had run in The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, in fact, virtually every major newspaper in the country. Before WorldNetDaily, we were often forced to pay tens of thousands of dollars to break through the establishment media’s conspiracy of silence on such stories.
Why would Christian Coalition reject such an ad? Reed told me running it would imply endorsement of the suspicions the ad raised, and this was an issue irrelevant to the mission of the Christian Coalition.
Irrelevant? The strong likelihood that a high-ranking member of the administration and close friend of the president met with foul play was of no concern to the foremost organization concerned with morality and the ultimate issues of life and death? That decision surprised me, too.
But maybe the pragmatic Reed was more Robertson’s style than the principled Hodel.
Where will such pragmatism end? Will Robertson now rein in his news team and place certain topics off-limits? Will CBN News become little more than warmed-over CNN? Will Christian Coalition begin supporting only candidates who are assured of victory, rather than the candidates who best reflect the moral positions upon which the organization was founded? Will the Robertson political and media empire become just another cog in the establishment?
Will Christian Coalition only set out on missions that seem possible by the world’s standards?
Someone needs to remind Robertson that, with God, all things are possible, and that all things work together for good to them who love God and are called according to His purpose. His purpose, Pat — not the purpose of political expediency, not the purpose of compromise, not the purpose of following the path of least resistance.