OMG! You must have 200K-300K replies since you signed up to FR. Maybe MORE!!! LOL Your posts all run together. You're rhetoric is one BIG SPAM!
Posted on 02/06/2007 2:00:28 PM PST by EternalVigilance
Orwellian euphemism is nothing new in the realm of contemporary American political discourse. Choice, translated by the left, refers to the chopping up of unborn children. Peaceful patriotism permits the trashing of our troops. Just now in a shocking scandal for adjectives everywhere, verbal authorities have booked articulate for bearing concealed racial overtones. We shouldn't, but we do get acclimated to this kind of rank pseudo-intellectualism after a while. What is jarring is to hear linguistic engineering of mind-bending magnitude coming not from the left, but from conservative commentators themselves.
Monday night on Hannity and Colmes, RINO Rudi announced his intention of announcing his candidacy for the office of President of the United States, which is as close to making sense as the entire interview ever got. What we heard from the presumptive Republican front runner was the whole set of self-contradictions one would expect from a liberal hijacking a conservative ticket: that he is "personally opposed" to abortion while upholding a "woman's right to choose;" that he defines marriage as between a man and a woman but simultaneously supports "domestic partnerships;" that he is not for "amnesty" for undocumented workers but does believe in their "regularization," meaning that those who break immigration law should become the ones who make it. When John Kerry reverses himself over the course of several months on the subject of the war in Iraq, the right-wing talking heads never tire of highlighting it. But let the former mayor of New York thrash like a trout on a line in the course of a single interview, and everyone on our side of the aisle is supposed to nod in solemn wonder, if Hannity's handling of the whole farcical situation is any indication.
Giuliani's gymnastics would be unremarkable — they are certainly unoriginal — if not for the fact that this same man demonstrates lucidity and singularity of purpose when the terrorist threat to our nation is invoked. This, of course, is the pillar on which his "conservative" credentials are precariously teetering, the one issue alleged as trumping all the others. Pardon me. The word isn't trumping any more — a position which common sense and a moment's uninterrupted reflection will reveal as positively spurious. How can the right to liberty outrank the right to life? According to Sean Hannity's post-interview reflections, however, what Rudi has actually done isn't really waffling after all. For RINOs only, it is hereafter to be known as transcending the issues. That's what Sean said. Giuliani is succeeding, he believes, not in betraying conservative principles but in transcending them.
Judging by its context, his neologism must mean something like: "getting people to cave in about things it is positively disastrous for them to cave in about." Hannity seems to connect his inventive term with Dick Morris' revelation that three-quarters of the conservatives he talked to were ready to overlook Rudi's handicaps in the interest of defeating Hillary. (Wouldn't this be an insult to Obama, by the way, that it isn't in the interest of defeating him?) So, let's see how Hannityspeak would work out in other situations.
Bill Clinton in the waning days of his administration evidently did a bang-up job of transcending perjury (to pick a problem of his more or less at random). Who knew? I see now with the clarity of vision Sean has imparted that the trend in the European nations is towards transcending Islamofascism, not catering to it. It must also be the case that Terri Schindler Schiavo's right to life — sadly, according to just about the only high profile American journalist who truly extended himself in an effort to defend it — wasn't really violated in the end, but only transcended. And so forth.
If Rudi Giuliani or anybody like him manages to gain the support of a majority of conservatives, it will deal our cause a more serious blow than anything that Hillary or Barack or anybody else could do, from inside the White House or outside. Liberals can only set the conservative agenda back. RINOs are attempting to define it out of existence. If the handful of conservative commentators in the mainstream media decide to grease the linguistic wheels of this insidious effort, who is going to be able to stop it? Is it really a good thing, for the distinction between those who stand for what is right and just in this country, and those who do not, to be transcended at last?
Your recent posting history stands as evidence to back up my claim.
If you think I am out of line, go ahead. Ping the moderator.
I'll vote for the Republican candidate in the general election...as for the primary, I'm waiting to hear the debates, then I'll decide.
Take heart. And stand your ground. Liberty was never easy.
Hahahaha!
Have you ever experienced any thread where you didn't end up in a flame war? Every time I see you posting, you're arguing with someone.
I guess those fifty million dead babies since Roe don't count as "us," eh? In your book, and to leftwing politicians like Rudy McRomney, they're "them," not worthy of a thought, much less any sort of protection.
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
Thank God the Founders of our free republic considered unborn posterity "us."
She argues, you bully, so what?
Isn't that what the Liberals were calling Rudy when he was cracking down on crook/criminals while Mayor?
Yes, sir.
Maybe that's because the leftist media is cramming him, mcpain, and Romney down the American voters throat.
The media are looking to split the GOP vote, it's the only way they can get a dim elected. A lot of conservatives like yourself are going into overdrive to shove him down FReepers throats as well. That you would support a liberal is mind boggling.
I think so.
Well, it's a target rich environment, as they say. ;-)
he is "personally opposed" to abortion while upholding a "woman's right to choose;"
Any man who would leave his religious and moral convictions at the church doorstep, cannot be trusted. Period.
The last time I recall you with so many comments E.V. was during the Arnold/McClintock era!
Dang man, some of us aren't trying to ram him down your throats, were trying to stop the savaging and splitting of the party which you mentioned. Support whichever candidate you like, but you do him no favors when there is bile and spittle within the support.
They don't realize what their tactics are doing. Thank you for proving that what I have been saying about what they are doing, is all too true.
Hehheh...well, events in CA have certainly borne out my concerns, wouldn't you say? ;-)
This author is a perfect example of rank pseudo-intellectualism.
She hates Hannity, she even hates the evil Tony Snow, and here is why she thinks Alan Keyes, the only *saviour* to Republicans, won Illinois (back when he was a rank carpetbagger):
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/valois/041111
I heard Rudy on Sean's show this afternoon. He sounded completely reasonable and like someone I could definitely support. I think he would fight one hell of a war on terror, and that's my number one issue.
Well, to leave 'em, first ya gotta have 'em. :-(
OMG! You must have 200K-300K replies since you signed up to FR. Maybe MORE!!! LOL Your posts all run together. You're rhetoric is one BIG SPAM!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.