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?
Are you really this dumb?
Do I have to even say it?
Because Giuliani has already specifically stated that abortion should be a state issue. How can it be a state issue if the Feds trump it? Thus when Roe is overturned he'll leave it to the states. Since MA, NY, and a few other states will never 100% outlaw abortion every adult woman will still have access, it just will require travel. Not perfect, but far better than if the Dems repack the court (guaranteed if the Dems win in '08) and postpone Roe's demise for a minimum of another generation.
While I strongly disagree with your premise that a Giuliani presidency would be a move to the center (other than in some areas of social conservatism) in some situations the best possible outcome is simply to minimize the losses. Life and politics can be like a game of poker, and you just have to make do with the cards dealt until the next game. Gamble too much on a losing hand and you may not have any more chips left to win anything back.
Show me one. You haven't proved the information wrong. If you can, I'll do a mea culpa. I've searched for information that debunked it for days, unsuccessfully. Everything I've found supports it.
It's not MY assertion; it's YOURS.
Everything I've found supports it.
Well, then, why don't you post THAT here and prove what you said is true?
No. It's your assertion that it is inaccurate. But you've provided not one scintilla of evidence for your position. Shoot, I've done the work of trying to prove my own position wrong, and can't do it. As I said, prove it wrong, and I'll do a mea culpa.
This is why people hate politicians.
Nice try, though.
You've been proven wrong twice on this thread.
Some day you're learn that we're not as dumb as you need us to be for your hogwash to work.
I just did. But you ignored it, as you are wont to do with information you don't like.
Senator Maltese, who also serves as Chairman of the Queens County Republican Party, stated, "This exclusion of Republicans from active consideration and appointment seems to belie any claim that appointment would remedy the inequities of the electoral system as to the monopoly of the Democratic party in the City of New York," said Senator Maltese.
"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."
Hey, all you have to do is provide the name of one Republican that Rudy appointed to the courts in NYC when he was Mayor.
No, you tried to foist off some article from 2003 as proof.
Hey! I'm not going to do the research for you.
The article goes straight to the point being discussed, whether you will admit it or not. The head of the GOP in Queens says that there are virtually no Republicans on the bench in NYC. And 2003 was immediately after Rudy left office, by the way.
Ralph Porzio is a Republican. Was appointed by Giuliani in 1996.
You won't even do research to back up your own position. Not surprising, since I'm highly doubtful that you'd find anything to back up your assertions at this point.
Thank you!
Pontificate all you want, but it doesn't mention Rudy and it doesn't say how many he appointed or what their political affiliation one.
And it was two years after he left office. You can't even add and subtract.
Bluster away!!
In the case of Rudy...there are some who would argue that as mayor of New York he was the most effective example of conservative governance in the last 50 years. I understand having questions on certain issues with him but there are other conservative positions that he would be as good an advocate as we have had.
I'm sure there are. Like I said, I want to hear more.
Thank you for what, proving you're a liar?
Oh, I get it completely. I'll say it again. Rudy had 60 opportunities to pick judges as Mayor, and NOT ONCE did he pick a Republican, much less a conservative. Not once.
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.