My question would be; "Why". What difference would it make. The only purpose it would serve would be to alienate those who listen to him from the Republican Party, which I assume to be the reason it would be considered 'necessary' to Democrats.
As I've said before, Pat Robertson does not hold any elected or appointed position within the Republican Party. He is free to express his views, and the White House has stated that they do not agree with them. It's hardly an issue worth harping about.
Who perceives Robertson to have official clout? I don't see the Democrats rushing to denounce Al Franken or Michael Moore everytime they make a gaff or tell an outright lie. I didn't see anyone on the left condemning Cindy Sheehan for her "get the U.S. out of New Orleans" comments, although, for her fifteen minutes of fame, she had been the voice of the anti-war Democrats. How many Democrats have condemned Al Sharpton's numerous gaffs? Or Al Gore's, for that matter.
Such statements only matter to those who want it to matter. To those who believe Mr. Robertson, any words of condemnation will be considered a vicious attack. To those who oppose him, no amount of apologizing will be sufficient. He made one statement, so I think one statement made expressing disagreement should be sufficient.
P.S., Will the Democrats rush to denounce Harry Belafonte? http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,181030,00.html
<small>[ 01-09-2006, 09:51 AM: Message edited by: Shapley ]</small>