While Republicans rip their cloaks and gnash their teeth over the executive abuses of the Obama Administration, the Hillary Campaign is doubling down on authoritarian executive power; and she isnâ€™t being shy about it. Worse even, this is exactly why Democrats still love her, scandals and all.
Hillary Clinton knows what Democrats want from their next president: someone who uses the bulked-up power of the presidency to drive a progressive agenda.
From closing the gun show loophole to tightening the â€œVolcker Ruleâ€ to cut down on risky speculative investing, Clinton is crafting plans to go it alone in major policy areas. Thatâ€™s important because in an era in which Congress canâ€™t function—particularly when power is closely divided between the parties–the executive actions a president takes unilaterally are among the most consequential policies enacted.
Sure, there are some Democrats who chew their nails when thinking about Clintonâ€™s Machiavellian side, but most are nonetheless glad to see signs that sheâ€™s not going to get rolled by a Republican Congress. The scope of what sheâ€™s promising to do by herself is unprecedented from a top candidate for the presidency.
The view from inside the campaign, said one official, is that itâ€™s important to be specific about how Clinton would use the unilateral powers of the presidency â€œbecause of the level of frustrationâ€ Democrats have felt when Obamaâ€™s priorities have been blocked by Republicans in Congress. Even if Democrats are able to elect one of their own as president in 2016, he or she is all but assured of facing a Congress in which one or two of the chambers are controlled by Republicans. – VOX
While Republicans gnaw at each other, Hillary Clinton is looking to become Lord Emperor of these United States of Government-Worship. Letâ€™s just take a few moments to recognize the threat to the Republic Hillary Clinton represents, and consider whether or not we can allow such an individual power. Is she bad enough to vote for a Republican we donâ€™t like?
The question this brings me to is whether or not Bush people can vote for Cruz, or Cruz people vote for Bush, or Bush or Cruz people vote for Trump? Sadly, Iâ€™m the problem with the Republican Party. I probably wonâ€™t vote for Jeb Bush or Donald Trump in a general election, essentially throwing away my vote in pursuit of a Hillary Clinton Presidency (if such a degrading choice even materializes). People like me need to begin taking responsibility for the conundrums we cause. The Pertinacious Right, whether Constitutionalist or Populist, have to be honest and willing to explain themselves to a nation willing to choose the lesser of two evils in an important Presidential Election.
I havenâ€™t always been this way. I voted Libertarian in 2000, not being able to discern a reasonable difference between Bush and Gore; but I voted for Bush against Kerry, McCain against Obama, and Romney against Obama. So as a principled voter, I have an embarrassing and untrustworthy track record. That said, here I am, back to my old ways, unwilling to break for the lesser of two evils. I am desperately hoping that moderate Republicans will break for a Cruz candidacy, after he overtakes the Republican field, as I predict he will. How hypocritical.
How can I want Jeb! supporters to back Cruz or Carson or Paul, if I wonâ€™t back Bush? The reality is, that I canâ€™t.
I must offer this in my defense: I canâ€™t tell the difference between Republicans and Democrats. Bush, Trump, and Hillary Clinton all use different rhetoric, but will they govern differently? Well, I donâ€™t know. I have established for myself a litmus test: does this candidate willingly abide by the Constitution—the original intent of the Constitution? See, Iâ€™m not an idealistic or democratic kind of guy. Liberty requires strict prohibitions on government, no matter how popular or persuasive that government may be.
I believe in the rule of law, the Constitution, Republican Federalism, and Liberty. I donâ€™t see how voting for Jeb Bush or Donald Trump promotes what I believe in. This is hard to say out loud, because I know what it means. It means, I expect the Republican Party to agree with me or else I wonâ€™t support their candidates. Itâ€™s a hard line, it is uncompromising, and it is pragmatically unfair. But it is true.
So here I am, pointing out that a President Hillary Clinton will be far worse than a President Obama and declaring that I will not support the lesser evil.
Hereâ€™s the thing, though. Iâ€™m not alone. Iâ€™m nowhere near alone. I voted for Bushâ€™s second term and it was devastating. I voted for McCain and he lost. I voted for Romney and he lost. I sacrificed my integrity each time for nothing. In the meantime, the Republicans in Congress have been funding every abuse of the Obama Regime. So this is a plea for help. Tell me, why should I vote for the lesser evil, when the lesser evil never wins—or when it does, does more harm than good?
Looking for comments of good sense, without actually expecting it.
Originally published on VAright.comÂ