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?
Alan Colmes is rather boring, but I'd rather watch him than Rosie.
Now look at Rudy's positions on abortion. Personally opposed to it but doesn't think the government has the right to say a woman can't have one. How does that position get us one step closer to overturning Roe? He's taking the populist view on this. I know, because I used to believe as he does.
His stand on assault weapons... he believes in the right to bear arms but he voted for restrictions to help curb crime? How does that not restrict the 2nd amendment? Does he not believe that guns don't kill people, people kill people?
His positions on these things are simply avenues to further erode the core values of the GOP. Yes, I know we will never find one candidate that we agree with 100%. And yes, I know a man can change his views. Ronald Reagan is proof of that. But what I've heard of Rudy in the past 24 hours doesn't show me a changed man. It shows a purposeful drive to move the Republican party closer to the center.
And there is no way you can advance conservatism by moving closer to liberalism.
At this point, I don't know who I'd vote for. But I do know it won't be McCain. Even if it means Hillary in the White House.
And just how is that going to advance conservatism?
ROFL...
That's all I need to know about you. Thanks.
You're the one who's shown you can't hold your foul tongue.
Not voting for McCain would have no affect on advancing conservatism. Because he isn't conservative. And I simply don't trust a single thing that comes out of his mouth.
As for who I vote for, it will be the person who I, as a Republican and conservative, can identify with the most. Maybe that will be Rudy.
But it will NEVER be McCain.
I am fully confident that I will be corrected, even if my memory is right...I believe Rudy said last night that he expected Roe to be overturned (with the current makeup of the court) and moved back to the states. I didn't sense that he opposed that outcome.
I don't think it will be McCain because I think he's sick again; he just doesn't have the spark in him, IMO.
This election is going to be about the WOT; and I am not ever going to do anything to help another Democrat move one space closer to the prize.
Having Democrats in power moves conservatism backwards.
Perhaps. But what will his view be when a state government says abortion is illegal. Isn't that directly opposite of his view that government shouldn't get a say? How would a state government be any different than the federal government, in his view?
"That's all I need to know about you. Thanks."
And you would rather see Hillary win.
That's all I need to know about you.
Wow, what a great "conservative" you are.
Thanks.
But again, even if McCain were healthy (and I think he's more unstable mentally than physically) and closed the borders, bombed Iran back to the stone age, and hired Jack Bauer as Sec. of Defense, I still wouldn't vote for him.
Honest to goodness, is that the best you can do?
So even if he did all the things you wanted him to, you still wouldn't vote for him?
Doesn't make sense to me.
That would mean something if it had any truth to it. But of course it doesn't. Unlike you, I don't support liberals of any party, or even give them a moment's consideration.
What?
You're missing my point. He is a two-faced, back-stabbing whiner who puts his OWN interest in front of this country. I could never vote for anyone like that. Period.
I know that; I'm still not going to vote for her.
Ok, if it is indeed as he says, a disagreement of conscience, then why turn it back to the States? If he believes in the right of a woman to choose, then why does he support letting States decide that? Isn't he contradicting himself? How do you say you personally hate abortion, support the right to choose, but then support turning that decision over to the States? It's completely confusing to me.
"Republicans compose a sizable percentage of voters in New York City and in the call for diversity on the bench, it should be remembered that the 462,525 New Yorkers who are enrolled Republicans are entitled to some representation of their peers on the judicial bench," said Senator Maltese. "It currently appears they have almost none." - Senator Serphin R. Maltese (Queens)
The following statistics analyze the appointments listed on Mayor Bloomberg’s Advisory Committee on the Judiciary web site. N.B. - As this lists all appointments and reappointments, it would include original appointments of all recent New York City Mayors.
There are a total of 53 judicial appointments. Of these 53, thus far 23 names are unable to be identified as to political party. The 30 which can be identified break down as follows: 26 Democrats, 1 Blank, 3 No record found. Of the 28 where home residence can be identified they are as follows: Brooklyn - 6; Bronx - 1; Staten Island - 2; Queens - 9; and New York - 10. We are in the process of attempting to verify the enrollment of the remaining 23 names.
There are 10 new appointments out of the 52; the remaining are reappointments. There are 29 with some kind of prosecutorial background (with 14 of them from the NY County DA’s office), 20 with a defense, Legal Aid or court background and 4 with general legal qualifications before judicial appointment. In addition, there are 20 Females and 33 Males.
http://www.senatorserfmaltese.com/press_archive_story.asp?id=6990
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.