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 have other things to do other than just tend to your demands for information.
I don't have to; I didn't make the claim.
I've asked FR liberals for days
You're a complete psychotic asshole; I'm sick to death of slimey posters like you calling anybody who doesn't agree with you liberals.
But, as we all know, you have such an identify crisis you have to attack others to make yourself feel important, while playing political guru.
You're one of the main reasons that people are turned off to the GOP.
If Dems get their hands on all branches of government .. they will shut down folks like Ann
Good to see you!
And you obivously haven't been able to find anything to confirm it, or we would have seen that.
Meanwhile you're been quoting it as if Moses himself brought it down off the Mount.
You're no different than any politician in the world; how do you know they're lying? Their lips are moving or their fingers are typing.
There is much more money in this for Ann Coulter if Hillary wins.
I thought the same thing!
"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."
You have yet to explain how your above perverted statement
coincides with a CONSERVATIVES view of the War on Islamic Fascism.
You say that "it will deal our cause a more serious blow than anything that Hillary or Barack or anybody else could do,".
I find it amazing that you think your so called "cause" is more important than the War, Our Troops and the security of this nation and the entire world.
Like I said previously, my number one issue is winning the War on Islamic Fascists. It's a shame that yours isn't.
THAT my friend, is not "conservative".
I just felt like seeing this again.
If by "stranglehold" you mean the inability of the Republicans to actually win an election without some meaningless pandering to the "extreme right", then, yes, you are correct.
I mean, all you sane people in the Republican party just have to mouth meaningless conservative talking points and wink at us pesky whackos on the right and we'll vote for you'uns. We're easy. We've proved that over and over. Just humor us and we'll vote for you. You don't have to actually do anything conservative. Just play one for the elections.
Our cause? What is "our cause?"
And if Rudy "manages" to gain the support of a majority of conservatives, doesn't that mean that's what CONSERVATIVES want, or are "those" conservatives stupid, sheep, quislings?
I'm fascinated with this "if you don't think abortion is THE most important issue, you're not a conservative" wing of the GOP.
And if their "cause" is different from the rest of a majority of the GOP, what in the hell is "THEIR" cause.
That gif really made me laugh out loud -- I needed that, thanks!
I find it amazing that you think the candidacy of a liberal New York Mayor is more important than the deaths of 50 million little defenseless babies.
Dallasnews.com
Giuliani's politics don't sit well with some Republicans
But his convictions could win them over
Mark Davis
Wednesday, July 5, 2006
Twenty-eight months to go, and I can't wait.
We have much to cover before this year's elections, but I can't shake my political-junkie fixation on 2008.
It doesn't get more wide open. For the first time in 80 years, neither the sitting president nor vice president will make a peep about running. While the 1952 Eisenhower-Stevenson race was the last featuring neither the incumbent president nor his second in command, President Harry Truman did run unsuccessfully in the New Hampshire primary that year, and his veep, Alben Barkley, proceeded even further before falling short.
Throw in the developing cast of characters for the race to succeed President Bush, and it's no wonder there's early buzz. Who doesn't have some sliver of opinion about the possibility of Hillary Rodham Clinton for the Democrats or Condoleezza Rice for the Republicans?
Who might challenge Hillary? A well-known but flawed John Kerry or Al Gore, or a more palatable but unknown Mark Warner or Evan Bayh?
Since Condi insists she isn't interested ? and for the moment I believe her ? speculation ranges from base-pleasing Republicans like Sens. Bill Frist, Sam Brownback and my current favorite, George Allen, to the intriguing prospects of envelope-pushers like John McCain and Rudy Giuliani.
And these two intriguing figures constitute my point of the day. There are two things I have stopped saying: first, Mr. McCain can't win, and second, Rudy won't run.
I still don't believe Mr. McCain will be the '08 nominee, but his loyal support for the war has healed some distaste that the GOP base has had for him since he challenged Mr. Bush six years ago. His disconnect with many Republicans on overhauling campaign finance is still an anvil around his prospects, but I can no longer write him off.
As for Mr. Giuliani, I used to say that he won't run and couldn't win if he did. The gay-friendly, abortion-rights-supporting ex-New York mayor whose legacy includes an embrace of gun control? It would seem highly unlikely.
Unless you were in a room with me at the Hotel Crescent Court last month as the Dallas County Republican Party welcomed Mr. Giuliani to a fundraiser also heralding local congressional candidates.
I served as master of ceremonies, and there was a thoroughly polite welcome for the GOP primary survivors who will try to unseat Reps. Eddie Bernice Johnson and Chet Edwards.
But it was Mr. Giuliani who put a room of Reagan-loving red-staters into a positive swoon.
He did it with steadfast support for the Bush war doctrine, coupled with a passion for tight borders that even the still-admired incumbent cannot muster. He did it with strong fiscal conservatism, another Bush weakness. And he did it with a passionate pitch for school choice, an issue Republicans have neglected ? mysteriously, since scads of Republicans and Democrats want it.
His content was great. His style was even better. His sharp wit and off-the-cuff comfort are miles beyond the average glazed, scripted politician. He sports a good-natured partisan streak that puts him a head above Mr. McCain, who seems to gag on any sentence suggesting that a Democrat might be wrong.
This is not my prediction that Mr. Giuliani's hand will rest on a Bible at the swearing-in on Jan. 20, 2009. But the Bible-embracing core of the GOP shows a willingness to consider him as he includes evangelical groups in his curious tour of various Republican constituencies.
He will not launch a national gun grab, leaving gun statutes to the cities. He will not push for nationwide gay marriage, happy to leave those decisions to the states, where the Constitution says they belong. He will not pound the bully pulpit for affirmative action, leaving that to the courts.
And speaking of the courts, he speaks glowingly of Mr. Bush's Supreme Court selections, Samuel Alito and John Roberts, suggesting he does not necessarily dream of packing the court with sure-fire abortion-rights opponents.
Throw in the tasty imagery of the Mayor of America wiping the debate stage floor with Mrs. Clinton or virtually anyone else, and it's the kind of thing to make a Republican heart quicken.
I don't know yet whether I can be a Rudy voter, but I'd enjoy watching him try to make me one.
The Mark Davis Show is heard weekdays on News/Talk WBAP-AM (820) and nationwide on the ABC Radio Network. WBAP airtime is 9 a.m. to noon. His column appears Wednesdays in Viewpoints, and his e-mail address is mdavis@wbap.com. Chat with Mark Davis live next Tuesday at 1 p.m. on DallasNews.com. Send advance questions to chat@ dallasnews.com.
Online at: http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/columnists/all/stories/DN-markdavis_05edi.ART.State.Edition1.24464d6.html
Opinion piece, so not authoritative, cited on a blog. Still food for thought.
"I'm fascinated with this "if you don't think abortion is THE most important issue, you're not a conservative" wing of the GOP."
These people are dillusional.
They would rather LOSE the War on Terror, Iraq, have our taxes raised and suffer through four years of Hillary.
This is not only NOT CONSERVATIVE, it's really sick.
These so called "conservatives" are no better than the left wing scum whose only issue is PRO abortion.
Both sides are willing to undermine the War on Terror, undermine our Troops and sacrifice our country to pursue their perverted agendas.
It's SICKENING.
Hannity and Colmes is The View with a lower IQ, if such a thing is even possible.
I cannot believe you've actually been passing yourself off as a "political operative" all these years.
That is just completely pathetic.
"I find it amazing that you think the candidacy of a liberal New York Mayor is more important than the deaths of 50 million little defenseless babies."
I never said that, I don't believe it and once again you lie.
I will support RUDY IF he is nominated.
If someone more socially conservative is nominated, I will vote for him.
YOU on the other hand will NOT support Rudy if he's the nominee and would rather see Hillary win.
Therein lies your perversion.
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.