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?
Rudy has a strong 84% conservative approval rating. (Battle ground poll as of Jan.11, '07)
You think that rating is comprised by people who are RINO's? For crying out loud, I don't think you could buy a clue.
Bait?
Everything he said was true.
While we were freping for Rudi, all his actual views came out, it was almost a relief when Lazio took over.
I no longer felt a hippocrite.
Rudy is a nice guy, possibly smart on defense, but he is NO conservative, he is just a terror centered liberal
Heck, Joe Lieberman votes like Ted Kennedy 99% of the time, and some peole here think he is a hero because he 'gets' it about the war!
Been that way for years.
So when the general election comes around and you go into the booth and possibly see one of the 3 more moderate candidates there with an "R" and Hillary or Edwards or Obama with their "D"...what do you do? If you choose some 3rd party candidate, history shows you what happens with enough of that response. Last time some of us foolishly chose the 3rd party option in great numbers we ended up with 8 years of deterioration of ALL we believe in with the Clintons. Is that what you want, just so you don't support truly "the lesser of 2 evils" (from your perspective)?
68 Grunt is no troll.
The real enemy to conservatives is the Democrats, of course. Fair and honest criticism of fellow Republicans is fine by me. But when people come onto a conservative political forum preaching the politics of liberalism, I draw the line. Sorry. I've done my homework and extensive research on Rudy Giuliani. Rudy is a conservative ONLY by NYCity standards. In the majority of America, Rudy is viewed as another run of the mill northeast liberal. Which is what he is.
Who's "we"? Trolls have a candidate?
He's ALWAYS acted like one towards me. Always. Take a look at this thread. If that ain't trolling, I don't know what is.
ROTFLMBO!
Amen.
Good questions.
If the GOP abandons the Reagan prolife platform and/or nominates a pro-abort liberal, I will be working as hard against them as I do against Democrats. It's as simple as that.
Replies, single, different replies, aren't SPAM. I suggest that you find out the definition of the word.
A liberal is a liberal is a liberal. A conservative should be able to see that.
The far-right is to the Republican party what the far-left is to the Democrat party. Extremists rarely agree with anyone other than their fellow extremists. LOL
LOL! :)
This is another example of selective outrage.
This was first brought up back on September 20, 2006 in reference to Condileeza Rice in the Best of the Web, fourth item down "Stung by 'Articulate'."
It was repeated again on October 9, 2006 in the Best of the Web in reference to Tavis Smiley (last item).
And let's not forget December 6, 2004, when Harry Reid denounced Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas' opinions as "poorly written" and being "an embarrassment to the Supreme Court."
There were plenty of excuses for Reid back then.
So why the outrage now? Because media favorite Barak Obama was the target.
-PJ
New tagline...
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.