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?
Gee whiz, if you go back far enough ( that would be a bit over three decades ), I am my extended family would have been on the those voting rolls as Republicans and nary a one of us would be candidates for judgeships. I still have a little bit of family there and friends, all GOPers and ALL Conservative, and still not a one to be put up for a election to be a judge.
But nice straw man you threw out there. Now go back to your search for other, decades old, Rudy appointments. LOL
Out of 400,000+? Probably a few.
One would, intuitively, nominate benign civil servants with sparing legal credentials.
I have no idea how NYC vets its judicial positions, however, further reinforcing your point. Obviously, yes, there are likely municipal court appointments to make, to adjudicate traffic and misdemeanor violations, and so forth.
Well, if we're down to city-court-level judicial nominees (assuming they aren't popularly voted upon), I would just guess outright that the Donkeys and 700-clubbers don't have much hay to crap in.
Just sayin'...
They're voted on...so your guess is as good a mine, what the totals are now. I admit to not knowing and neither do I care to be the bean counter here; my green eyeshade got retired a while back. LOL
In retrospect, you guys sure did look like idiots over that whole episode.
Yes, the Republican Party has become subservient to the RR to the point now where legitimate legislative issues are shoved aside in favor of dealing with those issues of importance to only a small segment of society. Look at the 109th. Could they manage to put together a comprehensive immigration bill? How about energy independence? Social Security reform? Tax reform? Balancing the budget?
But they had time to debate and vote on ridiculous constitutional amendments having no real meaning or need at all. They spent substantial time debating stem cell research; they even met in a special session called by the President to direct the judiciary to "investigate" the Terri Schiavo situation. They complained about the Democrats filibustering the President's nominations but one of the RR favorites, Brownback managed two holds himself for nothing but religious concerns. Oh, and let's not forget the prayer in school debates and the current debate over creationism and evolution. And while I'm not in favor of cloning, it hardly requires anywhere near the congressional attention it got...at the expense of real issues. There's more, but you get the idea.
These issues and more kept the Republicans from achieving anything meaningful, and that, I would classify as a stranglehold.
Nor is it just pandering. Yes, congress-critters do a lot of that, but when it became the sum total of their work, they needed the beating they took in November.
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.
Yes, we tend to need you, but the fact is you need us a lot more than we need you. If we get a reasonable ticket next year that reflects a solid conservative philosophy of a strong national defense, a balanced budget, a willingness to include the other side in major legislative initiatives, turning around the size of government, and a recognition that the social makeup of society has changed and that all Americans are welcomed into the Republican Party, then you go ahead and vote for Hillary...or some meaningless minor party candidate. It will make no difference.
But if those here like you can recognize that most of the issues of importance to you have little to do with the presidency, but a lot to do with the judiciary, then you will put these petty concerns aside and realize that our Country will be far better off with a mainstream candidate than it will with Hillary as president.
Minor difference of opinion - no big deal, I was just trying to be nice about it. Hey, but if you feel like slammin' the guy, slam him. He needs it.
SS
It is the Media's fault that no one you would support can produce higher poll numbers than Guiliani, McCain and Romney? So the fact that these men are DOERS who DO things of note and actually attract attention is just another eviil plot? And you guys wonder why your candidates lose. LoL
This shot appears to be misdirected.
You're right :-)
I got as far as the above sentence in this article. I'm not wasting my time reading an idiots 'opinion'.
Kiss my ass, shutup. Those three are the leftist media darlings. They know the only way to split the GOP vote is to put jerks like them in, and having jerks like you supporting them. How much do they pay you to do their dirty work for them?
Good post.
One qualifier: Bush didn't ask them to hold a special session for Terri Schiavo; that was all there pander.....er, doing.
If only one word of that were true...............ROFLMAO.
Thanks for the correction. I do get carried away at times.
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.