ELECTIONS 2008 EXPANDED VISION
RETURN TO TOPICAL GUIDE AMER POLITICS
THE CHOICES BEFORE US-
A CONSERVATIVE LOOKS AT 2008
2008 Elections
Note: Rasmussen focuses on likely voters, which can account for differences with other polls.
11/14/07 New York State Governor Eliot Spitzer. In the current national political climate it's a good idea to keep track of this man, a cross section of everything that is wrong with the State of New York, in addition the Rudy Giuliani, Michael Bloomberg, Charles Schumer and Hillary Rodham, aka Nurse Ratchet, and alleged enabler of one sexual predator of women in particular. For the hyper hubrised Governor, go to: http://www.nypost.com/seven/11142007/news/regionalnews/out_of_gas_eliot_putting_the_brakes_on_l_9236.htm , or http://www.nypost.com/news/p/spitzer_eliot/spitzer_eliot.htm In a race between Hillary and Rudy nationally, it will all be about Gotham. Wake up. New York State is a snake pit. JES
11/12/07 In a bizarre development this last week, evangelical leader Pat Robinson climbed onboard Rudy Giuliani's band wagon. Apparently, the underlying premise of this move was that Rudy stands the best chance of anyone in the current line-up of GOP hopefuls at defeating Hillary Rodham, aka Nurse Ratchet, and alleged enabler of one sexual predator of women in particular, in the general election.
The Mountain Observer questions this reasoning, and believes the opposite may be true. Rudy has a mountain of social baggage to carry around, which, in a race with Hillary Rodham, aka Nurse Ratchet, would essentially be taken off the table by both sides. But is it not this very social baggage that has Pat Robinson exercised in the first place? How does Pat Robinson imagine that issues arising from all the social baggage can be forced into the open and placed before the voters in a Hillary- Rudy race? Conservative values voters might as well stay home. But Rudy is better than Hillary on national security issues. Yes, but no better than several other leading GOP contenders, the hype of some east coast elite conservatives not withstanding. Is all the hype for Rudy against Hillary really about national security concerns regarding IslamicFascism, or is there an east coast bi-partisan priority in evading the discussion on the social baggage issues, with the conservative component of such a bi-partisan defacto agenda merely functioning on a premise that omits the possibility of a Conservative values voters revolt? The fact of the matter is that east coast elite conservatives tend to be more Libertarian than Conservative, an infection especially found among neo-conservatives in the values arena. Among such folks there is a severe lack of understanding that Values Conservatives really take their concerns seriously, and that many are at the end of their rope with being taken for granted. You see, among such folks there is a belief that there is a higher priority than the worldly election squabble between Hillary and Rudy which can be seen as a distinction without a difference. Can Rudy win if they all stay away from the polls?
The Mountain Observer believes that Rudy Guiliani is the weakest choice the GOP could make for a contest against Hillary Rodham, aka Nurse Ratchet, and alleged enabler of one sexual predator of women in particular. However, it goes further. A Giuliani candidacy against Hillary would foreclose any opportunity to exploit some of her greatest weaknesses, a concession that might well put her into the oval office. Pat Robinson, it is clear that you are not a politician. In the GOP field, there are better choices to be made. JES
11/08/07 The British journal The Daily Telegraph, on its website (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/exclusions/uselection/nosplit/listintro.xml) recently published a list of "the top 100 most influential US conservatives. They put Rudy Giuliani at the top of the list. Numerous additional absurdities follow, all reflecting the twin difficulties of a foreign Liberal newspaper wandering about in the dark. As we all know, Rudy is no conservative, and the truth of the matter is that in terms of influence, Rush Limbaugh is the clear leader. JES
11/04/07 It is with a sad and heavy heart that I must confess that I have been wrong about Fred Thompson. He is not a Conservative. It has just come to my attention that he has jumped into bed with the ethanol lobby, which carries with it a list of problems.
1). Fred, you are either an economic ignoramus, or are baldly guilty of politically pandering to the corn lobby, or both. Anyone who has spent any time and effort looking into this issue knows that this whole matter of pouring corn into our cars is an economic bust, and survives today only on the thread of enormous subsidies on the backs of taxpayers. Any real solution to our energy shortage problems must hang on free market solutions, which largely means getting the government the hell out of the way. I notice that the "evil" oil companies, for instance, are hedging their own investment bets with windmills, not groundwater sucking over subsidized corporate corn growers and processors. The economics of this whole matter is a long and tangled trail, and you have jumped into the middle of a mess obviously without any research which we have a right to expect of a serious presidential candidate, especially one who promised to come down hard on exactly this sort of nonsense.
2). You have bought the so-called "national security" line, again which is nonsense. The economic framework of any energy "solution" that hangs on massive market distorting subsidies is counter productive to our national security interests, and you ought to know that. Released from politically motivated and arbitrary environmental constraint and regulation we have, under our own American jurisdiction, massive coal, oil and gas reserves, in addition to our ability to build safe and efficient nuclear generation. Nothing stands in the way of the development of any additional so-called alternative energy options except a distorted tax code on several levels. We need to get off this national habit, first acquired in 1932, of looking to the government to solve all our problems. I thought you knew better. I am deeply disappointed in you. JES
09/05/07 Fred's in the race: "I'm running for President of the United States of America". Fred has been criticized by some who contend he has waited too long to announce. Actually, the timing is early by historical standards. I would wonder at the timing of the announcements of other candidates, Democrat and Republican; way, way early. All this early activity reflects the depth of polarization of politics today in the United States. You will hear Fred speak much of "security, unity and prosperity" in the months ahead, as he addresses a key concern about the threat to the United States occasioned by international IslamicFacism. He will also take on the difficult task of directly addressing the brick wall of entitlement spending towards which the nation is racing. His calculation is that the ordinary voter is better prepared to consider the problems of terrorism and big government entitlements than the politicians. For more, got to http://www.fred08.com. The Mountain Observer supports this candidacy as representing the best ELECTABLE option for Conservatives in 2008. We shall see. JES
The United States has been at a crossroads in history many times; we are once again at such a crossroad. In the mission statement to this website I speak of American Nationalist Conservatism American Nationalist Conservatism, by my definition, and as I have always intended, can only be understood in the context of American Exceptionalism, Judeo-Christian divinely inspired at its founding. I accept this as historical fact, such as I recognize Mosaic Law. It is by this standard that the Mountain Observer today assesses the words and actions of those who claim credentials, either as an American, or a Conservative. Accordingly, so is our Lord an Observer, and our teacher, when we set ourselves aside, long enough to listen and follow. From time to time we all fall short, most certainly including the Mountain Observer.
So it is that today, as a nation, we are confronted with, what is best termed in this Secularist age, IslamicFascism, i.e. Islam actively engaging in its own embedded political pretensions thought to be transcendent. This theological malady, at odds with the Judeo-Christian message from its beginning, has been in the throws of a dark response to the "modern" western world, at least the second time around, for a century, give or take; pick your date. It is the determination of IslamicFascism to eliminate western culture, including the United States, and to replace it all with a worldwide Caliphate by force and terror. I take them at their word, and their ability to realize great progress to that end, framed on western intellectual and moral collapse. Their ability to succeed in that direction will be determined by the outcome of another challenge within our own borders which has to do with the very real struggle between the dominate Materialist Secular Elite and true Conservatives over the rejection or acceptance of the Judeo-Christian instruction on the right to life. This is the foundational choice to be made, and it is our national equivocation about this matter, and a constellation of related issues, that will determine the road map to the future in our struggle with IslamicFascism, and Material Secularism itself. As I look about me, I am not confident in the ability of the United States, as a nation or civilization, to survive this discussion. A culture indifferent to the killing of millions of innocent lives for the convenience of "mothers" and sperm donors; such a culture cannot long survive.
Western culture, originally built on the framework of Greco-Roman reason and law, Jewish history and ultimately the Catholic Church, is in a state of free fall collapse, and as such cannot stand against Muslim moral rectitude however perverted its jihadist version. However, there remains a flicker of light in America, and in the hearts and minds of observant Jews and Christians everywhere. True Conservatives need to blow gently on the embers; It is in the combined challenge of IslamicFascism and Materialist Secularism that we are being challenged to stand up. We must deal first with the subversion of the family; father, mother and children. Then we must deal with those who hate America, and to whom no apology is due. Abortion is evil. Those who would hack off peoples heads, and fly plane loads of innocent passengers into buildings full of innocent workers, and who slide political dissidents into industrial shredders are also evil persons. To turn aside and do nothing in response is not Christian, but rather complicit in evil by association. Choices must be made and acted upon. Moral relativists slide out from under accepting personal responsibility by damning "judgmentalism", preferring to ignore that civilization by definition is a set of rules that must be recognized and enforced. The real issue is whose rules, and in the United States the basic choice is between the original Judeo-Christian foundation of the nation (yes Libertarians, that is really the way it was), or the materialism of a Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his various Enlightenment buddies, including collectivists Lenin and Karl Marx. Western Conservatives generally prefer the former. Our problem today in America, is that it seems that too many are tempted by the latter.
Politicians beware. In 2008 under no circumstances will the Mountain Observer support or vote for any candidate who is not clearly "pro life", aggressive in his support of national defense, our own borders included, an unapologetic Patriot, and an originalist on the Constitution So it is that in 2008 we could face a choice between a Rudy Guiliani and Hillary Rodham. Doesn't work. In spite of attempts at a cosmetic political make over, Rudy cannot be trusted on the question of abortion, is pro gun control, doesn't "get It" about the borders, and has a checkered history concerning his personal and professional relationships. His record stands. As for Hillary Rodham, Conservatives need not be advised.
Both major parties for far too long have fallen into the trap of relying on the negatives of their opposites to win elections for themselves. I do not suggest that such points should not be made. I would suggest that any candidate, to be taken seriously, needs to advance a positive, constructive and credible agenda for himself. Furthermore, a credible candidate has to transparently explain to the electorate who he is, and not hide behind the shield of pretending to please all his constituent's pleasures. ("This is who I am and this is what I believe and stand for as a matter of principle. Accept me or reject me on that basis"). The electorate should accept or reject a candidate for his principles, if he has any, not faulty promises of pleasing everybody, always subject to change according to the polls, and money offered.
For example, we have witnessed for far too long the example of the "Catholic" supporting the "principle" of "choice" as an euphemism for abortion when that is precisely the opposite of Catholic Canon. The explanation is that he must represent "all the people", and that there is alleged to be a majority concerned about a "woman's right to choose (abort)". Horse feathers; it shouldn't matter whether there is or there isn't such a dubious poll result. To hide behind such crap is not leadership. If he was a Catholic when he ran for office, he should have been voted up or down on that basis. Hiding behind the rubric of "choice" in this instance is disingenuous and betrays a complete breakdown of intellectual honesty and moral leadership. The fact of the matter is that allegedly Catholic politicians who vote for "choice" abortion) ought to be pitched out of the Church according to Canon Law, (apparently there is a need to go after the Catholic Episcopal College as well) and out of office by Conservatives who take themselves seriously. The same is true of those who run as "Conservatives" and refuse to cut the government down to its Constitutional size. However, The Mountain Observer is not so naïve as to believe that the average politician, who is like play dough, is about to change his stripes. For President, the Mountain Observer will only vote for a qualified leader. As in all American elections, in 2008, the voters themselves must accept responsibility and answer to a Higher Authority for the consequences of their actions, or inactions.
As of this date, 06/07, my list of candidates for President worthy of consideration, in this order, includes:
Ex-Senator ,Fred Thompson, R-TN. www.imwithfred.com
Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-CA www.house.gov/hunter/
Gov. Mark Sanford, R-SC www.scgovernor.com/
The Mountain Observer fully understands the implications of this policy decision on my part. I love my country, however my love of our Creator comes first. In the long haul, a general recognition of this priority sequence is the only real way to support our troops. It appears to this observer that perhaps the country needs to be cleansed by the fires of Hell.
Keep an eye on ELECTIONS 2008 Congressional voting records on everybody: http://clerk.house.gov/
RETURN TO TOPICAL GUIDE AMER POLITICS
THE CHOICES BEFORE US- A CONSERVATIVE LOOKS AT 2008
FMOWEB 140-004- ELECTIONS 2008 EXPANDED V ISION