I keep reading, with some disgust, the continued ranting and raving over Senator Jesse Helms' departure from the U.S. Senate. The prejudiced bile flows from the eponymous node Jesse Helms to the blatantly hostile title Why Won't Jesse Helms Just Hurry Up And Die?

Senator Helms may have done more than any other Senator currently in office to fight the Communist encroachment on the Free World, starting from his election to the Senate in 1972. His personal sources of information in the Latin American political realm and nations, coupled with his unswerving opposition to Communist activity, have perhaps done more to keep the Central American battleground of the Cold War active and our defense at the forefront. While some may decry this, I would point out that without media scrutiny, the U.S. would be unable to continue the fight. The creep of liberal policy and anti-Conservative threads through the media and polity alike made if difficult for even the greatest recent President, to continue this most crucial defense against a violation of the Monroe Doctrine by the United States' worst enemy.

His very longevity in the Senate should speak for him! If the liberals are so completely assured that he is a marginalized aberration, why, then, has he been re-elected in democratic contests time and time again? Are they thus telling us that the majority of North Carolina's voting populace is composed of reactionary, conservative, ignorant dullards unable to see what's good for them? A more condescending attitude I have rarely seen. It is one thing to discuss the proclivities and leanings of individuals, especially individuals whose lives (for better or worse) are on the public record; it is another for so many Americans to continue blindly believing that the entire population of a state is deficient.

In any case, whatever you may feel about Mr. Helms, you cannot say he is ineffective! In fact, this is probably the thing that infuriates the left most; their biggest bugaboo is, despite being obviously 'evil,' nonetheless able to command an enormous amount of power and influence in the Senate. This is true to the point where even their most treasured left-leaning home Senators and Representatives find themselves acquiescing with his views, and supporting his initiatives. The recent Clinton administration, the darlings of the liberals (in the initial years, at least) was no different; their own Secretary of State was forced to call upon Mr. Helms, and ended up proclaiming him her 'friend and colleague.'

If even the most powerful of appointed officials from that administration are forced to admit this, there must be either a degree of truth to the statements or evidence that these liberal 'powerhouses' are in much deeper than their reach, and must rely on their 'enemies' for support.

So, when Mr. Helms departs, whether you celebrate or mourn, remember him as a man who served more than twenty years in service to his State, his Nation, and his Creed. In these troubling times, such constancy can only be held up as a virtue.


I'd like to thank Psychonaut for being willing to engage in reasoned argument based on my statements, as opposed to the furious sniping what has gone on via /msging. Not that you folks don't have the right to do so - and that's one of the things the fight against Communism gives you - but why not have the fight in the open? That's how good comes of it. I understand many of you may not feel that I'm an exemplary American, just because of my political values. That saddens me, because if you're willing to debate it reasonably with me, I think you are an outstanding American for your tolerance and willingness to stand up for your beliefs/ideals/philosophy.

Psychonaut- I will point out re: your position on the Cold War that it was, in fact, a two-person Tango; through actions numerous and blatant the USSR showed that it was willing and in some cases eager to defy us and convention in support of their goals. Hungary, 1956; Afghanistan, East Berlin, Prague. The list goes on, as does ours. While I may not be proud of all we did during that period, I am proud that we stayed the course.

As for his claims - given that many gay 'rights' groups did, in fact, offer vocal and financial support to his opponents, I can't see your point. :-)

All in all, while I suppose we'll have to agree to disagree, I thank you again for your engagement.