This article suggests it did.
The backlash against Robertson started even as the first reports surfaced that he was backing a candidate at odds with core evangelical beliefs.
The blogs lit up.
â€œPat Robertson has sold his soul for 30 pieces of silver,â€ said one blogger. â€œShame on Pat Robertson,â€ wrote another.
The Web site RFFM.org blasted Robertson for sacrificing â€œmany of the issues he claimed to fight for in his attempt to, once again, bask in the public limelight. Robertson seems willing to overlook all of these â€˜flawsâ€™ within the former New York Mayorâ€™s political character, in order to do what?â€
Robertson insisted his endorsement was aimed at a movement among some evangelicals to support a third-party candidate if Giuliani becomes the Republican nominee. But that rationale only deepened the ire of many.
Did Robertson insist his endorsement was aimed at evangelicals threatening a third party or is that just the author’s interpretation? I haven’t read that he said that in so many words. It seemed to me a straight forward endorsement of Giuliani as someone who will vigorously prosecute “the war on terror,” and be able to beat Hillary.
I am not sure which is worse, a straight forward endorsement of Rudy or an attempt to subvert fellow Christians.