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?
I think she exposes Giuliani's liberal social views, and his equivocation on others. I think there are people clinging to any straw they can find to save them from the Krakken Hillary. And I think they see a loss to the Democrats as the worst thing that can happen to them.
You got it.
On top of that, the writer is a "just a housewife", a phrase used by some here to disparage some FR posters.
Fire refines ore. The current unpleasantness is testing the commitment of many. Some will be surprised at what ends up being dross...
-PJ
-PJ
Actually, the only time I've seen the "just a housewife" thing is as a self-descriptive from a couple of the harpies, who use that as some sort of a strange excuse for their extreme unpleasantness. I don't get it, but there it is.
I've been through a few fires ...
The current unpleasantness is testing the commitment of many.
Agreed. I thought the Bush candidacy was an infighter's wet dream. Giuliani will make Bush seem like a uniter, not a divider.
Some will be surprised at what ends up being dross...
The leftward shift has to stop somewhere, sometime. If that means this dinosaur's time has come, then so be it. But I have no intention of caving to another milquetoast Republican.
Is this thread trashing Hannity because he had Rudy on?
In most other parts of the country they'd be laughed out of the room as liberal pansies.
Well said peach. It seems though that the only candidate who has this capacity to both unite Americans and defeat Hillary in 2008 is Rudy. Yet many here on FR are handing the Dems every conceivable shred of campaign material Hillery will ever need. But they are doing the same to most of the other Repubs who may have a chance at the nomination.
The Dems will only need to worry about funds for the ads; FR will provide all the material for them....
And whats the point? After my 7+ years around this forum, its obvious what your agenda is. Its personal. You're purposely confrontational and argumentative to the extreme. The viewpoint of others means nothing to you. All that matters is your opinion..... 200K-300K times is more then enough.
That "11th Commandment" nonsense is particularly idiotic in light of any discussion related to Rudy Giuliani, seeing as he's had quite a long career in supporting liberal causes and even endorsing Democratic candidates in elections.
Basically, but is was written by a harpy housewife who looks like Meryl Streep, but since it is anti Rudy, it's okay.
"With Republicans like these, who needs Democrats?"
A Harpy? Interesting.
Thanks Race.
Speaking for myself, I won't be voting for Rudy unless I had a vote to excommunicate him just like every other pro abortion Catholic politician. Which I don't of course.
Guiliani fell into the Hannity trap: What is your definition of freedom to choose? Slam, the trap closes, and the man rollerskating on the razor blade fell, leaving one heck of a skid mark.
Rudi is a moderate, always has been, and always will be.
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.