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?
Well, that's the real question and one I can't answer for certain although all so far (based on other comments he's made) I believe he would respect their right to decide. Regardless, to me, that is the better and more significant question. And there is enough good things about him right now that I'm willing to hear him out and make a decision accordingly.
Clinton/McCain is my dream ticket. It would ignite conservatives like nothing else.
Except McCain. :) He can shut up and go away now.
Because it's the law of the land. He's suppose to uphold the law of the land.
People can actually have one belief and follow the laws.
That's his personal opinion, I suppose.
I"m surprised you can't see that.
And you would rather see Hillary win.
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.
NO TRUTH TO IT?
Here are your exact words:
"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."
That sounds like you would want Hillary to win over Rudy to me!
Rudy wasn't the mayor then.
One down, 59 to go.
ROTFLOL!
Clinton IS igniting conservatives. They're all over this board, regardless of whether some of you all think they're liberals.
Fair enough. My vested interest in these Rudy threads is just that, I want to hear more from him and I tire of those who recklessly misrepresent him. And we are in complete agreement on hearing anything more from McCain :)
Personally, I don't think Roe will ever be overturned. Until we foster a culture that values and respects all life, it will never happen.
Actually, those are the words of the author of the piece that heads up this thread.
But you haven't provided a scrap of evidence that she's wrong, either. All you've done is made stupid untrue charges.
Who else but a "Republican" like Romney could have presided over the instituion of gay marriage and socialized medicine? No Democrat could have pulled it off, even in MA.
Be very careful, Howlin. Don't include me in a group you know darn well I am not a part of.
You need to read better. The Senator was talking about the last four administrations.
Well he should have been. What a loser. :)
rin, the country is in the middle; they're riding the fence.
What I see some of the people demanding in candidates around here right now is never going to win in this next election.
And everything we've gained will be lost; and regardless of what people say about "people will see the light and put the conservatives back in," it's not going to happen that way.
Once the Democrats get it all, we'll never get it back for decades.
I read it word for word because I knew you'd try to twist it to suit yourself.
Nowhere in there does it MENTION Rudy, nor does it say he nominated 60 judges and none of them were Republicans; and nowhere in there does it say who appointed who; for all we know, Bloomberg appointed them all.
One down, 59 to go.
So far, I've seen nothing to contradict the assertions about Giuliani's picks, and lots to confirm it.
The info has been around FR for days, and not a single Rudyphile has provided any proof that it's wrong.
Shouldn't be that hard to come up with the names of the Republicans he appointed, if there are any.
of course, your problem is, if you do find one or two or even ten (doubtful at this point), the fact will still remain that Giuliani (and Romney in MA) appointed more Dems than Republicans to the bench when they had the power to do so. This makes their current effort to lie about what they would do re: judicial appointments as POTUS ridiculous on their face.
Show me one Republican he appointed to the bench, Howlin.
Ok, but if the country is riding the fence, how will electing a Populist Republican advance conservatism? If the answer is, 'because it won't be a democrat', I'm afraid that's not good enough.
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.