Caffeinated Thoughts: Pragmatism or Principle?

The recent endorsement of Rudy Giuliani by Pat Robertson has me fired up. There was nothing in his endorsement that led me to believe that he was basing his decision on a Christian worldview. Rather it seemed that fiscal conservatism and the war on terror seemed to be his main reasons for the endorsement.

And Giuliani's "bold vision". What bold vision? What has Guiliani said or done that would make him better in the war on terror than any of the other GOP candidates (with the exception of Ron Paul)? It seems that Robertson cares more about advancing the GOP than his principles.

Jim Wallis of Sojourners wrote a blistering critique of this endorsement. I don't agree on much with Wallis, but this I do:

Remember Robertson's merciless attacks on President Bill Clinton's lapses of sexual morality with Monica Lewinsky? Or his comments about how the 9/11 attacks were the result of America's tolerance for homosexuals and abortion?

Now Robertson is for Rudy, a thrice married adulterous husband, who is estranged from his own children and is both pro-choice and pro-gay rights. According to Pat Robertson's twisted moral logic, forgiving the social conservative shortcomings of Republicans is a Christian virtue, so long as the same virtue is never applied to Democrats. But Pat thinks Rudy can beat Hillary, and Pat really cares about winning for the Republicans.....

Pat Robertson clearly has taken another position. His endorsement of Rudy Giuliani will seem to many to be unprincipled hypocrisy (emphasis mine).

Where I would part ways with Wallis is that I don't see any Democrats that would be worthy of my vote. I'm not sure that a caucus or primary vote or endorsement for Giuliani is a pragmatic one anyway... I'm not convinced that he will win the GOP nomination. I believe that I as a believer in being salt in the political process (Matthew 5:13) need to vote for the very best candidate. It needs to be a principled vote. It should be a vote that is reflective of values I hold near and dear. Especially in the nomination process. The thought of a Giuliani-Clinton race is troubling for me. I don't want to vote against a certain candidate, I want to vote for in support of one. That is why Mike Huckabee has my support. I believe he is the candidate that best represents my values. By the way, I do not believe that a vote for Huckabee is not pragmatic. Some believe he can win in Iowa giving him further momentum.

Principles before pragmatism and principles should come even before party (yes I would vote for a pro-life, pro-family values Democrat before a pro-choice Republican).

Update - listen to Michelle Malkin and Laura Ingraham discuss this endorsement.

Update #2 - I just read this blog post by Jonathan Garthwaite. Huckabee's statement contained within is a thoughtful warning about what power can do.