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... so now Hannity (best drinking buddies of CAL) is suspect????? do these nutjobs understand how crazy they sound?
I'm just wondering if it's someone posting on FR.
Thank you. *blush*
Oh, yes, I do remember that; I think hissy fit is a good characterization of that night; and I believe that poster demanded that some of us leave FR.
That crossed my mind.
Giuliani-Thompson '08!
That would be a neat trick, wouldn't it? Post a blog and use it as proof on FR.
And when I have posted about that, nobody cares or I just get yelled at.
Ah. He's transcending them.
That makes all the difference.
To stoopid people . . . .
Did you hear Ann Coulter on H&C, saying she wouldn't vote for Rudy if he's the nominee against Hillary? I do NOT understand that approach, we let the Clintons back in the White House (with Hollywood buddies, Chinese connections, over-night renters in the Lincoln Bedroom, ignoring or coddling terrorists, selling out to the U.N, raised taxes, judges and justices who are TOTALLY to the left, ETC) over the one issue of abortion...which will be a law forever with them in power. They will fill up the Supreme Court with R.B. Ginsberg types and set us back in every way AGAIN for decades. Over a couple of issues that are lost causes anyway with a Democrat Congress and President in power. I do not understand this...no compromise at all I guess... All or nothing, and I do mean NOTHING.
No idea about Idaho. Yes, in the gubanator state Rudy is viable. Am I gonna get enthused? No. Can I think of any reason to support Rudy? No. Does that mean I can savage FReepers who support Rudy? Absolutely not. I hope we need them in the future. I hope all of our candidates are treated respectfully.
I don't understand it either. Never have, never will.
EVie's fibbin', just can't stop. While I'm certain you've been dis-invited beaucoup times, not by me. I will admit to suggesting certain zealots find a mountaintop to defend, but that was outrageous analogy, attempting to suggest that eventually the mountaintop was overcome, that if we had no unity there would be no escape.
Okay.
One.
Fifty-nine to go.
While I'm at it, why don't you provide one name of a Republican that Giuliani appointed to the courts. I've asked FR liberals for days, and not one has come up with a single one yet.
BTW, it took your over an hour to find that one, never mind that everybody already knew about HER because of the ferry accident.
I don't understand it, either. Maybe its a good thing for a moderate type to have the fringe, (Archie Bunker) whackjobs, frothing at their mouths? It proves to the great unwashed that he isn't among them and they feel safer. Shoot, works for Arnie in California. Think of the irony, all their bitterness and bile actually strengthens their opponent's position.
I've searched diligently to find one Republican, and haven't succeeded. Can you help?
Great. Prove the information wrong. I first saw it on FR, and haven't been able to find a single thing to debunk it.
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.