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?
ping...
Hannity Speak... Is that a bit like "border fence" = "fleece the gullible?"
Another DarwinAwardCentral member speaks...
Nice attempt at a thread hijack. Folks, don't rise to his bait.
Very nice catch (and release) on your part, as Hannity did not deal too well with the (whistling) trout, he had on the line. Hannity can come across as conservative (perhaps Neo-) occasionally, but he can get frightfully far away from conservatism at other times.
The conservative talking heads better be asking the hard questions of the GOP candidates, because, certainly, the MSM talking heads will.
And if the conservatives don't weed out their own, they can bet that Hillary and the Clinton Machine will drag out any skeletons.
If the conservative talking heads to soft pedal the GOP candidates, they can't complain about the MSM leftist talking heads soft pedalling to Edwards or Obama or Hillary Clinton.
Hannity can't even bring himself to record his own "get off the phone, ya big dope!" vocal. He has to borrow one from another radio talk host.
Sure, lets leave this alone exclusively as a rendering of republicans with the alienating of some of the few in the media who are with us. Fifth columnists can't get enough hate and dissent within the republican party.
Good article...but not to worry. Rudi isn't anywhere near strong enough to carry the baggage following him around...all the gushing and pandering to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sean Hannity always rubbed me as the least informed conservative radio talking head.
So is he supporting leftist Giuliani in the republican primary or what?
Hey troll. How are ya?
I'm fine, how are you, fifth columnist disruptor?
I hope we have set the bar higher than "It depends on the meaning of 'is.'"
Got a comment on this very accurate article that rises above the level of a schoolyard taunt? Or is Carville not letting you do more than grunt today?
Wonder why ole Helen here keeps referring to Giuliani as "Rudi," when he himself has always spelled it "Rudy."
Is she trying to be cute, or make a point, or what?
He tried, but Alan kept hanging up his cell phone.
What are you talking about? That comment makes no sense.
It would appear that the bar is pretty much laying flat on the ground for many around here now.
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.