[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Jim, a more succinct way of getting at the difference between Hillary and Jeb insofar as it would affect the way we are governed (the process), is to examine what you claimed as differences important to you:

"Depends on what your priorities are. Personally, abortion is huge for me. So are good old fashioned family values and Christian values. Through those lenses, Jeb couldn't be more different than Hilary...If all I cared about was immigration, maybe Jeb looks more like Hilary...but when I line them up side-by-side on the issues I care about, no comparison."

Abortion, family values, Christian values, are not issues for which the constitution empowers the President to politically act. Nor do they even constitutionally fall into the purview of Federal authority--in spite of some progressive SCOTUS judgments such as Roe v Wade.

So the important differences for you between Hillary and Jeb are not constitutionally valid political differences on which either could act as President.

On the other hand, on immigration policy, even though the President constitutionally is only given the power to execute congressional legislation, but not to create his own, there is that limited scope of power. But it is precisely in that constitutional empowerment that you admit that Hillary and Jeb appear to be similar. So politically there is more similarity rather than difference.

Granting that there are, for you, great non-governmental differences between them, the difference in how they govern as President may not be as great as you think. Especially insofar as they both tend toward the progressive view of presidential power, Hillary perhaps a bit more than Jeb. So, given that we have evolved into a progressive process of administrative government, and establishment politicians such as Bush and Clinton tend not to devolve that process toward first principles, it would be reasonable to assume that there would not be an essential political difference.

In fact, it seems that you may be caught up, as most now are, in the progressive mode of governance. Those personal things that most importantly distinguish differences between Jeb and Hillary, are the very type of things that the original progressives, and even more so by those that have followed, have wished to control at the Federal level. Constitutionally, those things were to be matters concerning mostly personal, individual rights with some local state control.

If, by being concerned that those non-political differences should somehow affect how the President executes his duties, if by that you assume a President, or even a Federal Congress, should have any say in regulating behaviors which are unalienable rights, then you are far more progressive than you think.

Again, the limitation of process, whether constitutional or progressive, will dictate or steer the direction in which you govern. One who would politically impose his personal views on the rest of society against the unalienable rights of others, is no better than those who would in reverse impose their views on him. Those who seek to so impose subscribe to the progressive notion that they know better than the rest and so are morally, even socially empowered to exercise power without bounds.

"Abortion, family values, Christian values, are not issues for which the constitution empowers the President to politically act."

True, I guess, to a point. I'm not saying I want a Preident who will make it a federal law that we all watch "Leave It To Beaver". I'm saying I'd like a President, unlike the incumbent, who won't go out of his way to undermine those values. I don't want to pay for anyone else's birth control or abortion. Also, it woul dbe nice to have a President whose chracter, whose essence, didn't make me want to vomit.

Per abortion, i don't want a President to make it illegal, since as you say, that's not granted as a power to the feds. I want a President who recognizes that, and who will appoint Supreme Court justices who recognize that, and who will therefore let that question be decided by the states, which is exactly where it belongs.

I don't want Bush to instill his beliefs at the federal level. I want him to leave these decisions where they belong, at the state level. I think he's way more likely to do that, than Hilary.

If the choice is Bush or Hilary...if I'm an unborn baby, I want Bush. If I'm a terrorist, I want Hilary. If I own a business, I want Bush. That's about the end of the story with me. I'm not saying that Jeb Bush would reduce the scope of the federal government to a smaller level than any other GOP candidate. But I like his stance on the things that are most important to me.

We aren't getting a libertarian elected President in the next 25 years, it simply will not happen. While Bush isn't my dream candidate, I believe that in this country, for the office of President, at this time in history, just about any Republican is better than just about any Democrat.