Price of Freedom Is Vigilance

Sunday, August 1, 2010

And all of a sudden it is August. I’m not sure whether we are in the final turn or the home stretch for the upcoming midterm elections, but I do know they’ll be here before we know it.

There are just three months left before conservatives get a chance to take back the House and maybe even the Senate. If that happens, our government will return to a true check-and-balance status. If the election were tomorrow, the polls indicate such an outcome would be a shoo-in.

Don’t get carried away. A lot can happen in three months, and polls can be turned upside down. Let us not forget 1948 and Harry Truman’s grinning picture holding up The Chicago Tribune’s headline that proclaimed: “Dewey Defeats Truman.” Given the polls of that year, the headline should have been true, but the voters ignored polls and Truman won.

Rest assured, the liberal press and the liberal politicians will do everything in their power to offset today’s polls. It, therefore, behooves those who oppose the direction this government has taken in the last couple of years to be on guard.

Part of the tricks used will be negative advertising. That has already started with an oil-covered man pretending to be Sen. Richard Burr being portrayed on television as a supporter of people who caused the oil spill. Another example revolves around Sarah Palin’s coining of the word “refudiate.”

No, it doesn’t scan. However, it did not warrant the outburst of the pouncers who suggested she was trying to compare herself to Shakespeare.

Debates can be fun and informative. Those of us who have been on debating teams know there are rules that must be followed. Not so in politics. The only rule there is: Do whatever it takes to bring down your opponent. Replace logic with a smirk and a sneer. Don’t attack the facts offered by the other side; get personal and simply claim your adversary is a nincompoop. You won’t find such ploys in “Robert’s Rules of Order,” but they work. That, of course, is the key phrase of both parties: whatever works.

A recent poll of presidential possibilities for 2012 names Mitt Romney, Sarah Palin, Mike Huckabee and Newt Gingrich as heading the list. Personally, I could live with any one of the four — especially when compared with our current president.

Nonetheless, I find the poll disturbing because I fear any one of them could be beaten by Hillary Clinton or (given some Chicago politics tricks) even Barack Obama. That is because three of them lost a primary to John McCain who, in turn, lost the election. And the fourth still carries some baggage that could be fodder for the pouncing spin artists. None of that makes them ineligible, but it is not too early to start building them into viable candidates — even if it means doing a bit of “refudiating.”

The next question is, are they the best? Because we need the best if we hope to elect someone to put our country back on a fiscally responsible track in 2012. That means taking a closer look at some people currently on the sidelines, like Haley Barbour, Bobby Jindal and Tim Pawlenty. And let us not overlook Condoleezza Rice.

These are just a few top-of-the-head names. I’m sure most of you can come up with others. In the meantime, we have to concern ourselves with next November. Despite strong evidence that the majority of us deplore plans, plots, bills and tactics of the current government, those in charge are determined to ram through projects that can only harm and undermine our nation. They will go to any lengths to achieve their goals.

It is up to us to thwart them, and that means eternal vigilance. Keep the fire alive until November. We can never be complacent.

Allan Jefferys, a former New York theater critic and newsman, lives in Pinehurst. Contact him at oldjeff@nc.rr.com.

More like this story

sgmartin 2 years, 9 months ago

I assure you that others who support the Obama administration and the "liberal agenda" whatever the heck that is will be working equally as hard. I am less interested in voting on party lines and much more interested in candidate with integrity - which certainly doesn't include Sen Burr - who will move this coutry forward and now back to the 1950s (McCarthy anyone?). I would say both parties seem to be doing a bang up job of negative advertising. My plan is largely anti-incumbent. Let's start seeing some statesmanship instead of "just say no." That isn't helping anyone. And what does the conservative party stand for anyway - less government? I can support that - let's start with the war.

OldSpook 2 years, 9 months ago

Thank you Mr. Jefferys, another fine piece worth reading. Prometheus, fine words also. And if I may, a mere "typo" is negligible given the context of your input.

Satch2929 2 years, 9 months ago

You can't be "on the fence" in November!! Either you clearly see the mess in Washington, or you don't. Vigilance is the key and remembering the facts versus the spin that is surely coming!

Ross 2 years, 9 months ago

Thank you Jefferys for more of the same BLAH BLAH BLAH. I am thinking you should perhaps sell your column to those who have trouble sleeping!

dustyrhoades 2 years, 9 months ago

It's all going to be about the voter turnout. I'm less worried about the Republicans than I am about the crybabies on the left who've been screaming OMG WE ARE BETRAYED I'M STAYING HOME NEXT ELECTION every time they don't get exactly what they want. It started before the inauguration when Obama had Rick Warren deliver the invocation, and it rose to a crescendo when the public option got dropped from the health care bill. At one point Jane Hamsher of the progressive blog Firedoglake made common cause with uber-wingnut Grover Norquist (he of "drown the government in the bathtub" fame).

Which is why I mock anyone who ever refers to Barack Obama as a leftist...they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

OldPilot 2 years, 9 months ago

And we should be vigilant to prevent or have prevented what? Tax cuts that turned a budget surplus into a sea of red ink? That would be good! Wars run off budget? That would be good! A war started for reasons which proved to be a lie? That would be good! A war ignored? That would be good! Victory declared when to do so is laughable? That would be teriffic! Deregulation to the point of no regulation? That would have been wonderful! All of the above? Even better! Wasn't to be, instead we had... Ah well, that was then, this is now. But our fearless writer, who apparently views anything new or significant that has occurred since about 1955 as a conspiracy to destroy life on the planet as we know it, could "live with" a short ball hitter ex-govenor who at least finished his term, a nut case ex-governor who didn't finish her term, a nut case or the father of take no prisoners, scorched earth politics as the next president? This kind of "I'm convinced, don't bother me with the facts", head-in-the-sand thinking got us into this situation and isn't going to extract us, just run us further into the hole.

leftfield 2 years, 9 months ago

"You're" right "too" lazy to work "too" lazy to serve "too" lazy to contribute "too" lazy to vote

How about "too" lazy to learn proper grammar.

MikeNC 2 years, 9 months ago

I have to ask a couple of questions to Dusty Rhoades, and I mean nothing demeaning in it. If some of the Left do not think that President Obama is not left, then how far left is some of his base? Many Conversatives, such as myself, feel the Socialist Agenda President Obama has put forth so far, is pretty darn outstanding. What is the Ultimate goal of the Left, and when would they feel content they have reached that goal? Diane McLellan

MikeNC 2 years, 9 months ago

Clarence Darrow, (famous lawyer in the Monkey Trial) once said, " Chase after the truth like hell, even if you don't touch it's coat tails." Learn the Truth. Cast your vote as though your life depended on it. Diane McLellan