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?
Remember Ronald Reagan's 11th Commandment...Thou shalt not trash a fellow Republican. Many seem to have forgotten that wisdom lately. We can disagree without destroying other candidates. ONE of them will be our nominee a year or so from now. Will we unite then, and how much will we have lost in this rather vicious process?
I'm thinkin' that Mrs. Valois hit 'em right in the solar plexis, how 'bout you?
Just as your career here at FR has been one divisive effort.
Yes ma'am, reasonably stated. I hope we can unite, but with the fifth columnists so comfortably muckraking I'm not certain we can. The fifth columnists want complete republican defeat. The fringe element of the right gives advice which would accomplish this. The fringe element seems to think neo-slavery will be their eternal salvation or some nonsense.
The 11th commandment is a fallacy. A slogan created for Reagan by Gaylord Parkinson in 1966, to defend against attacks from his GOP primary opponent fo Governor, George Christopher. In the 1976 GOP primaries, Reagan went after Ford with some serious criticism. Those attacks on Ford by Reagan basically ended the so-called 11th commandment rule. Bogus BULLoney!
I don't really understand what you're saying. I don't think EVie's stands are principled. I think hgis stands are purposely extreme so that any candidate can be a target of his 'principles', or any subject can be fodder for conflict.
Conservatives will never "unite" around a Leftist like Giuliani or Romney. We oppose liberals and the destruction they are bringing on our country. Is that too complicated for you?
I know you fifth columnists hate it.
Opra is on, away with you.
the bar is pretty much laying flat on the ground for many on the heads of many Liberal cheerleaders
Since you are Reagan Man you most likely know, but it does seem like a smart approach...to keep the attacks focused toward the real target, the Democrats.
Then we'll lose. That is what you want.
By trying to get Rudy the nomination that's exactly what you're doing...splitting the party and playing into the hands of the dims. That's what Rudy supporters can't seem to grasp. Many of us will never support the leftist media's darling. He and hillery have have the same agenda. Even he has said that, yet, rudy supporters can't see the forest for the trees. She has a d behind her name, he has an r, but, that makes it ok with some. You're blinded by the R behind his name.
No thanks, but you seem more familiar with the schedule.
Hannity gets 90% of his material ripped from the FR. If you ever hear him, check it out.
Gosh, Rudy campaigned for other Republicans and worked like a dog. And, in case you haven't noticed the polls, they are polls of registered Republicans.
I hope he ain't the nominee, thanks very much.
You wouldn't believe how often I hear that!
Also, since Rudy took on the environmental whackjobs, the mob, and Arafat, I don't think he'll have ANY problem taking on the media. And I'd cash in my Roth IRA to see that!!
I don't go running to the Mods, every time someone disagrees with me; perhaps you do........I don't. That's also there for people to see.
You don't read many threads here, do you. LOL
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.