Bill Berkowitz
October 2, 2005

Rev. Pat Robertson: Dead End or No End in Sight?

Criticism that Robertson received after advocating the assassination of Venezuela's democratically elected president hurt the feisty multi-millionaire televangelist, but will it mark the end of his political influence?

Stunned by his "700 Club" commentary advocating the assassination of Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, several of the Rev. Pat Robertson's evangelical brethren quickly, and publicly, condemned him for it. Since in their estimation, the Rev. Robertson now plays a diminished role in national politics, some conservative commentators thought the "liberal" media blew the story out of proportion. Meanwhile, Senator Jim Inhofe (R-OK), Chairman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was looking out for Robertson's business interests.

After more than two decades of getting a pass from his religious and political colleagues for his sometimes provocative, often offensive and frequently ridiculous "700 Club" commentaries, the Rev. Pat Robertson finally felt the verbal wrath of some of them after advocating the assassination of Chavez, the democratically elected President of Venezuela.

While several evangelical leaders maintained that Robertson's comments had nothing to do with the teachings of Jesus, and some speculated that the remarks might endanger Christian missionaries working abroad, the Heritage Foundation's Joseph Loconte appeared chiefly concerned with the domestic political fallout.

In a recent op-ed piece for the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Loconte -- who specializes in faith-based issues as a William E. Simon Fellow in Religion and a Free Society at the Heritage Foundation -- expressed concern that Robertson, who "can be counted on to mouth an offensive or bizarre political opinion" on a regular basis, is alienating a large segment of the American people already suspicious about "the role of religion in public life."

Some on the right claimed that given Robertson's diminished political influence, the liberal media made too big a deal of his comments: "Despite Pat Robertson's waning role in national politics, the broadcast and cable networks ... jumped on his" comments," Brent Baker, the Vice President for Research and Publications at L. Brent Bozell's Media Research Center (website), wrote in a posting at NewsBusters -- a website dedicated to "Exposing and Combating Liberal Media Bias."

In his on-air commentary, the Fox News Channel's conservative newscaster, Brit Hume, claimed that Robertson has "no clout with the Bush Administration."

Assassinate the Dictator

On the August 22 edition of "The 700 Club" Robertson said:

"There was a popular coup that overthrew him [Chavez]. And what did the United States State Department do about it? Virtually nothing. And as a result, within about 48 hours that coup was broken; Chavez was back in power, but we had a chance to move in. He has destroyed the Venezuelan economy, and he's going to make that a launching pad for communist infiltration and Muslim extremism all over the continent.

"You know, I don't know about this doctrine of assassination, but if he thinks we're trying to assassinate him, I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war. And I don't think any oil shipments will stop. But this man is a terrific danger and the United ... This is in our sphere of influence, so we can't let this happen. We have the Monroe Doctrine, we have other doctrines that we have announced. And without question, this is a dangerous enemy to our south, controlling a huge pool of oil, that could hurt us very badly. We have the ability to take him out, and I think the time has come that we exercise that ability. We don't need another $200 billion war to get rid of one, you know, strong-arm dictator. It's a whole lot easier to have some of the covert operatives do the job and then get it over with."

Robertson first claimed he was misquoted, however, the transcript of the program proved that incorrect. Later, he issued one of his half-hearted Robertsonian apologies.

But, as Ted Olsen, the editor of Christianity Today's invaluable weblog pointed out two days after the initial incident, in a story entitled "Why You Can't Stop Pat Robertson," the controversial televangelist had gone down the assassination road several times over the past few years.

"I know it sounds somewhat Machiavellian and evil, to think that you could send a squad in to take out somebody like Osama bin Laden, or to take out the head of North Korea," Robertson said in 1999. "But isn't it better to do something like that, to take out Milosevic, to take out Saddam Hussein, rather than to spend billions of dollars on a war that harms innocent civilians and destroys the infrastructure of a country?" And in 2004, Robertson reiterated his support for assassinating Saddam Hussein. "Our forces are going to war, and we support them," he said. "But if I had been doing it, I think I would have much preferred the assassination route."

Olsen's August 24 weblog also catalogued responses to Robertson's comments from several evangelical leaders: They varied from outright condemnation to "Pat will be Pat" type rationales. Some maintained his remarks were blown out of proportion, while some were particularly concerned about the safety of evangelicals doing missionary work outside the U.S.

Trying to put it in perspective, Ted Haggard, the president of the National Association of Evangelicals, intimated that Robertson's remarks were less egregious than Janet Jackson breast-exposure at the Super Bowl.

"This kind of statement, by this well known American Christian leader, is in complete contradiction to the teachings of Jesus Christ who evangelical Christians believe and seek to demonstrate," Geoff Tunnicliffe, International Director of the World Evangelical Alliance, said in a press release. "Robertson does not speak for evangelical Christians. We believe in justice and the protection of human rights of all people, including the life of President Chavez."

"Jesus called for nothing like this, and Pat Robertson sounded more like one of the radical imams," Os Guinness, a Senior Fellow at the McLean, VA-based Trinity Forum, "seminar-style forum for senior executives and political leaders that engages the leading ideas of our day in the context of faith" said on ABC's World News Tonight.

"The Southern Baptist Convention does not support or endorse public statements concerning assassinations of persons, even if they are despicable despots of foreign countries, and neither do I," Southern Baptist Convention president Bobby Welch said in a Baptist Press story.

"He has brought embarrassment upon us all," Al Mohler, dean of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said on his blog, "With so much at stake, Pat Robertson bears responsibility to retract, rethink, repent, and restate his position on this issue. Otherwise, what could have been a temporary lapse of judgment can become an enduring obstacle to the Gospel."

World magazine senior editor Marvin Olasky, who is often credited with coining the phrase, "compassionate conservatism," told MSNBC:

"Well Pat's 75, he's had a live television show for decades, and sometimes he blurts things out. He doesn't represent evangelicals, and I hope that people in Venezuela don't think that he represents the United States...

"Biblically, assassination may be used in times of war, last time I looked we were not at war with Venezuela. We're supposed to pray for those in government and those around the world in positions of leadership, not assassinate them. So he doesn't represent a Christian view as far as his interpretation of Scripture, and I'm not sure he represents how many people he represents in the evangelical community. He ran for President 17 years ago, and at the peak of his popularity he didn't get a whole lot of votes, so I'm not sure what clout he really these days either...

"Oh sure there's concern about Chavez, from everything I've read, he's a dictator, he probably rigged the last election, and so should really not be in office. But that still doesn't give you a rationale for going and assassinating him...There are particular ways to act, pray for those in that situation, hope God will change that situation, but not take the law into our own hands in a vigilante style like that. Or, asking our government to do things when we're not at war with a country.

On CNN, Ted Haggard, president of the National Association of Evangelicals, criticized the remarks, but said the criticism was overblown:

"I think you have to understand the context of it. You know his program has one section of it that's a Christian exhortation, and then another section where he's a political pundit. And I think what he was saying was, we have a looming problem down south, and there are several bad options there. And he's saying maybe the least of the bad options is to do something about the dictator...

"The First Amendment is wonderful. People have free speech privileges. He wasn't writing a memo to the White House recommending a public policy decision. He was not recommending something to the State Department. He was not exposing himself sexually on the platform the way Janet Jackson did. Instead, he was having a political discussion, where they were randomly working with some ideas. For Jesse Jackson [who called for the FCC to investigate the remarks] to exaggerate it this way is just as appalling as what Pat Robertson said, I think. ... We're addressing it, we're not taking it lightly. Nobody is taking it seriously as a policy issue. So the system is working. Everything is fine. Nobody's going to assassinate this man. But we do realize he is a major problem. ... Pat Robertson was wrong in recommending this. He was wrong in saying it. But he was not wrong in being able to just openly discuss it the way political pundits do all the time. Now, if you take his words as from a religious Christian leader, as a recommendation, then we have a problem. But I don't think that's what he did.

"And so you have to sort through that just a little bit, but I think what he was saying was, if our choice is a major war or the some way to deal with this military dictator, then we need to deal with the military dictator rather than have another Islam on our hands...What [Robertson] said was not illegal. What he recommended was illegal."

The Heritage Foundation's Joe Loconte thinks Robertson's critics have not gone far enough; in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, Loconte suggested that "evangelical leaders would be wise to marginalize Robertson and his media empire -- publicly and decisively. They should editorialize against his excesses, refuse to appear on his television program and deny him advertising space in their magazines. Board members should threaten to resign unless he steps down from his public platform."

This was a reversal of sort for Loconte; throughout the 1990s, he did not appear troubled about Robertson's loopy commentaries when his Christian Coalition was organizing hundred of thousands of ground troops to support the Republican Party's political agenda. And he didn't raise a fuss when Robertson's operations routinely raised millions of dollars with fundraising appeals that bashed gays, demonized feminists, and whacked just about anyone else opposed to the Reverend's vision.

Waning Political Influence?

While the Media Research Center's Brent Baker claimed that Robertson's political clout is "waning," and Fox News' Brit Hume maintained that Robertson had "no clout with the Bush Administration," Senator James M. Inhofe, the Republican from Oklahoma who heads up the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, was looking out for the televangelist's business interests. In August, Sen. Inhofe inserted $10.8 million into the $286 billion transportation bill, money that will directly enhance the Reverend's bottom line. The funds -- $5.8 million of which came through Sen. Inhofe's initiative -- was earmarked "to help build an interchange along Interstate 64 near the Christian Broadcasting Network [CBN]," the Virginian-Pilot reported in mid-September.

"Building the interchange would help a project planned by CBN to build homes, shops and commercial space on about 430 acres of undeveloped land in Chesapeake and Virginia Beach that the network owns adjacent to the interstate," the Virginian-Pilot reported. "Lowell W. Morse, president of Morse and Associates Inc., a firm hired by CBN to help develop the project, has said the investment could hit $300 million."

According to the newspaper, Sen. Inhofe has been a guest on CBN's "The 700 Club." "During an appearance in April, he [Sen. Inhofe] spoke with CBN founder Pat Robertson about what he described as the infiltration of the evangelical movement by 'far-left environmental extremists.'" In the intro to the interview Sen. Inhofe is described as "one of the leading conservative voices in the Senate " and "a strong advocate of common-sense Oklahoma values, including less government, less regulation, lower taxes, fiscal responsibility, and a strong national defense."

At the conclusion of the interview, Robertson called Inhofe "a great senator."

Christian Coalition falls on hard times

While Sen. Inhofe was looking after the Rev. Robertson's financial interests, the Christian Coalition, the organization founded by Robertson in 1989, was on the edge of sinking into history. The organization is a long way from its salad days in the mid-1990s when the politically savvy Ralph Reed ran the ship as the CC's executive director.

"In 1994 alone," TheSlate.com recently reported, "the group mailed 30 million postcards opposing President Clinton's sweeping health-care proposal and made more than 20,000 phone calls to urge support for the balanced budget amendment -- two issues that helped Republicans win control of Congress that year."

Now, the organization is suffering from a series of financial blows, including a suit filed against it in June by Pitney Bowes for $13,649 in unpaid postage; the suit was recently settled out of court. The Christian Coalition is also feeling the backdraft from a racial discrimination suit filed by several of its Black employees, all of which has left it behind such powerhouse conservative Christian operations as Dr. James Dobson's Focus on the Family and Tony Perkins' Family Research Council.

It is highly unlikely that Roberta Combs, who headed the coalition's South Carolina chapter and became the CC's executive director in 1999 after Robertson resigned, can resurrect the organization.

Operation Blessing: Controversial and Prosperous

In the immediate aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) provided a list of charities to which Americans should donate, and listed Robertson's Operation Blessing second only to the American Red Cross.

The designation "could be worth tens of millions of dollars" Richard Walden, president and founder of Operation USA, a non-governmental organization specializing in disaster relief, told ABC's Brian Ross. Walden added that he was "shocked" considering some "of Pat Robertson's activities over the years."

Operation Blessing International (OBI), according to its website, aims to "demonstrate God's love by alleviating human need and suffering in the United States and around the world." It was established in 1978 by Robertson "to help struggling individuals and families by matching their needs for items such as clothing, appliances, vehicles with donated items from viewers of The 700 Club." Less than 10 years later, Operation Blessing International Relief and Development Corporation formed as a 501(c) (3) non-profit organization to handle international relief projects. In 1993, all Operation Blessing activities were transferred to OBI.

OBI has had a controversial history: In 1996, the Norfolk, Va.-based Virginia-Pilot reported that two pilots hired by OBI to fly humanitarian aid to Zaire two years earlier were used to benefit Robertson's diamond mining operations. Chief pilot Robert Hinkle, maintained that during his six months tenure flying for Operation Blessing, only one or two of more than 40 flights were for humanitarian purposes-- the rest carried mining equipment. OBI resources were being diverted to support the African Development Co., a private corporation run by Robertson. At the time, Robertson also had a special relationship with Zaire's late dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko.

Robertson's relationship with Sese Seko grew out of an Operation Blessing-sponsored "corn-cultivation project on a 50,000-acre farm outside the capital, Kinshasa," went awry, Time magazine reported in February 1995.

During the Rwandan refugee crisis, according to Time, Operation Blessing "was criticized for spending too much money on transportation, pulling its workers out too soon and proselytizing. 'They were laying on hands,'" an American aid worker said. They were "'speaking in tongues and holding services while people were dying all around,'" she added. Time points out that although "many relief agencies are notorious for mismanagement and backbiting ...Operation Blessing drew a considerable volume of negative reviews from fellow good Samaritans."

According to the Chronicle for Philanthropy, the Virginia Beach, Va.-based group has thus far received more than $500,000 in online donations.

In addition, while the Rev. Robertson was an early critic of President Bush's faith-based initiative -- concerned that groups such as the Nation of Islam, the Church of Scientology, or Hare Krishnas would receive government support -- Operation Blessing has thus far received well over $1 million from Bush's faith-based initiative during the past few years.

According to the organization's 2003 Tax return, out of $192 million in total revenues, nearly $10 million came from the government.

Dead End or No End in Sight?

There is no question that the criticism Robertson received after advocating the assassination of Hugo Chavez hurt him. Does it signal the end of his political influence?

Christianity Today's Ted Olsen recently wrote that Robertson's political power and influence within the evangelical movement is largely dependent on his perpetual presence on television and in that regard, there is no end in sight. Olsen explained: "In 1988, Robertson sold the Family Network to Fox for $1.9 billion," eleven years after he "launched" the channel "through the donations of viewers who had been promised a Christian alternative to 'secular' television." According to Olsen, the Christian Broadcasting Network received $136 million, Robertson's Regent University got $148 million, Robertson "personally received $19 million, and the rest went to the Robertson Charitable Remainder Trust, which will fund CBN after Robertson and his wife die."

The kicker in the deal: "Fox Family was required to air The 700 Club three times a day--and, if Fox sold the network, the obligation to air The 700 Club had to be part of that deal, too." (The Walt Disney Company bought the network from Fox in 2001 for $3 billion and $2.3 billion in debt, Olsen reported.)

In recent years, with The 700 Club airing as many as five times a day, "Donations have increased from $84 million in 1998, the year of the sale, to $132.1 million in 2004." The Viriginian Pilot's religion writer Steven Vegh recently reported that donations had risen from only a third of CBN's 1997 revenue, to 71 percent of its 2004 total.

Despite the fact that some of Robertson's business interests have taken a financial hit, the Reverend still has an impressive portfolio. With friends like Sen. Inhofe, it is likely that he will continue to prosper. While Robertson clearly is not the political powerhouse he once was, it would be a mistake to sell the feisty televangelist short.

Thanks to Laura Ross for her research assistance.