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?
Okay. I agree. It's back. ;-)
There is no such thing as a "moderate." He's a liberal.
Sorry to quibble, but...
I swear, you'd rather climb up in a tree and tell a lie than stand on the ground and tell the truth.
You know full well that I used that remark in a completely different way.
I distinctly remember asking you why you spent all this time on FR when all that ever happens is that you, the big political guru, repeatedly get your head handed to you by a bunch of housewives.
Trouble is, so am I. There've been times in the past when I've tried to tell him as a fellow FReeper what I perceived as the error in his presentation techniques. His response was hostility and considering me 'an enemy'. He did the Minuteman issue great disservice with his support. As well, the California recall, the 2004 and 2000 election. I think it was 2000 that I first recognized him as always desiring conflict among FReepers. Its a long list the people who've also recognized this. Even during the latest Minuteman issue I consoled him, begged him, to let other people carry their defense, that his participation was nothing but a torch, counterproductive to his goal. Needless to say, when you can judge someone by their words you can attack them personally.
Yeah, I've heard you make that inane argument many times. What's your point?
Duncan Hunter.
Thats better. ;^)
But you can sure disrupt.
Does it come with a whiny voice?
Perhaps I'm missing most upon which you post; I certainly don't go searching for your comments. I just know that whenever I do come across a thread you've posted upon you're trading insults with someone else.
That stress can't be good for your health - for what it's worth you might want to go easy on the bickering.
That you're not to be believed.
Okey-dokey then.
Ahhh...
The beautiful sight of conservative infighting and ankle-biting... (/sarc)
She and her husband own a publishing company. "Just a housewife"? Hardly.
Rudy Giuliani is no conservative.
And if Hannity wants to empower liberals, he's going to have to do one of two things: learn not to, or be prepared to take the resulting flak.
I see youve incurred the wrath of the most liberal of FR. you must be doing something right;)
I try my harderst not to post to the rudy threads anymore.
on an earlier one (though i dont recall who posted it) they said to let the naysayers come as it gives them more posts. dont remember the exact phrasing. maybe they think it proves how "popular" rudy is?
Anyways, therefore i think they WANT us to come on over. If we ignored them, there little pro rudy threads would sink like a ton of bricks;)
(and they know it)
:-)
I agree with you. However, there are those who will never, ever support a candidate like Rudy who will not appoint SCOTUS judges who will overturn Roe v Wade and stop gay marriage as the candidate's #1 and #2 priorities. I think what Rudy did for NY will be good for what he can do for the whole country.
Well, I'm not "just a housewife", not that there's anything wrong with that. :-)
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.