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 post facts to counter the mythographication of certain people. I don't post lies, I don't post propaganda, I don't post "GEORGE WASHINGTION CUT DOWN THE CHERRYTREE" kind of fluff. Great men shouldn't be deified and turned into some figurative lars and pennants of any political party/ideology; their actual achievements should be good enough.
Jim responded to my posts. I did not attack him in any way, shape, manner, nor form, when I replied to him, or "go after him". If I had done so, I would not now be posting to this thread. But since you do nothing but dissemble, your latest mendacity is so noted.
My health is excellent; worry about your own.
And we all know where THAT term comes from; don't we. :-)
And my health is fine. :-)
"I guess those fifty million dead babies since Roe don't count as "us," eh? In your book, and to leftwing politicians like Rudy McRomney, they're "them," not worthy of a thought, much less any sort of protection."
Yes, they count very much to me and don't put words in my mouth.
According to your logic, the only way abortions will be stopped is if the President believes that they should.
Rudy very cogently explained that he is personally opposed to abortion.
The only way the question will be settled is in the SCOTUS and Rudy said that he will appoint strict constructionists to the court.
I am quite satisfied with that. You obviously aren't.
Please keep in mind that regardless of the Presidents personal opinion, if he doesn't appoint the right persons to the court it won't matter one bit.
Remember Reagan and Bush 1's appointments and tell me you are satisfied with them. They both were Pro Life Presidents.
Most importantly, if we don't win the War on Islamic Fascism, every other issue will rendered moot. Your cavalier attitude regarding the War is not the attitude of a true conservative.
Your willingess to accept Shillary as President to send some sort of message about conservatism and abortion is perverse to say the least.
Perhaps you might want to go back and rethink your position.
JW, I'm sure you speak for quite a few here from what I've seen. Republicans are almost as self-destructive as Democrats have been. Both extremes have enough power to make their respective parties permanent minorities. Problem is the RR is the extreme with the money and the organization. Extremes on the left are disjointed, with little in common. The majority of Americans don't want the narrow agendas proffered by the two extremes. But which extreme will succeed? Because whichever succeeds in its quest to force a nominee on its Party....will ultimately be responsible for losing the election.
My bet is that Hillary will benefit greatly in '08 as the Republican Party, the Party of Lincoln, the Party that ended slavery, saved the Union, and implemented the 14th and 15th Amendments, will try and make America forget the pathetic performance of the 109th and extricate itself from the stranglehold of the extreme right...but to no avail.
Like him coming out to Sacramento to fund-raise for the west coast king of RINO's... Arnold "RINO" Schwartzenegger?
Give me a break. Hillary uses the same mealy-mouthed deceptive rhetoric.
Giuliani's record is as a 100% hardcore supporter of abortion.
Horsefeathers!
You just told me the other day, you don't post links. If you can't back up your assertions, then its nothing more then your opinion. Unless of course, its a fairly well known fact. Otherwise, you posts are meaningless.
Your accusation that Newt was working with Hillary in 2006 to nationalize America's healthcare ---- HillaryCare II as you called it ---- was a falsehood of the first order. That was the last in a long line of falsehoods you post on a constant basis around this forum. Few people hold you accountable and that drives you bonkers. It would be amusing, if it wasn't so pathetic.
You're attacks on Reagan, Newt and even old JimRob, ALL come from the same liberal political mindset. Confront and argue, and obfuscate issues whenever possible.
You have to be a fool to believe him. As the Mayor of NY, he had the chance to appoint 60 members of the local courts. Exactly NONE of them were even REPUBLICANS, much less conservatives.
Right. So your suggested solution is to pick someone far to the Left of either of them. It's utterly nonsensical, verging on insane.
*shrug* You just seem to have that "problem" with many posters. Maybe they're just all confrontational...
American babies in the womb are in far more danger from the NARAL ghouls and their enablers in politics like Rudy Giuliani than they are from Islamic terrorists. To the fifty million that have been slaughtered, nothing else matters. All of your fears and arguments, to them, are completely moot.
Take your own advice. I'm never going to support a candidate for the most powerful office in the world who is against everything I believe in. Never. Take it to the vote bank.
Giulani MUST not get the Republican nomination! He is a FReaking LIEberal!
What the country really needs in '08 is a clear choice between a LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist Bastard (or Bitch, as the case may be) and a Real Conservative.
But, I'm not holding my breath. The FReaking Pubbies will "Go Wobbly" and nominate a FReaking RINO, and then lose the election.
After all, why elect a pseudo LIEberal when you can elect the Real Deal?
Exactly.
Well, a year is a very, very long time in politics, my friend.
You'd never set me off. I glanced at your 'in forum' and saw nothing disruptive. What sets my rankles are those who dis-invite people from the party. By dis-invite I mean encourage to leave. By party I mean us, whether we be conservative or republican, politically like-minded or FReepers. We've seen rino's dis-invited, and moderates, and not conservative enough, and libertarians, Christians and atheists, heck, even conservatives and others, all told to leave if they don't like it. They have and we lost. I say enough division and those that encourage it need to be called.
"Right. So your suggested solution is to pick someone far to the Left of either of them. It's utterly nonsensical, verging on insane."
You obviously are not able to comprehend that picking a strict constructionist in the mold of Scalia and Roberts is crucial to the abortion issue.
Rudy has said on more than one occasion that he will pick strict constructionists like them for the SCOTUS. Get it?
Shillary and her putrid ilk will thank you for your support.
I stand awed!
Oh, the irony of that statement.
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.