Tag: hillary clinton

It’s Time to Replace the Electoral College

Jack Shields | United States

The 2016 election was a showdown between Donald J. Trump and Hillary Clinton. The fact that the leader of the free world was going to be one of these individuals, both of whom were under FBI investigation, shows that our electoral system is in need of reform. Further compounding this need is the fact that Donald Trump received 2.8 million votes fewer than the loser, Hillary Clinton. The Electoral College is clearly a disaster which does not do an adequate job in achieving any of the noble goals presented by its supporters. However, the solution of going to a popular vote, by far the most popular idea, would be even worse. The Electoral College must be repealed and replaced with a ranked choice voting system, rather than relying on the popular vote.

The Failure of the Electoral College

The Electoral College was a disaster from the start. The system went unnoticed during the first two elections as George Washington was running, so it was really more of a formality than an actual election. Its flaws, however, became apparent in the election of 1796 between Federalist John Adams and Democratic-Republican Thomas Jefferson. At the time, the Electoral College operated under the rules prescribed in Article II Section 1 Clause 3, which gave each elector two votes for President. Whoever had the majority of votes became President, and whoever had the second most became Vice President. Adams won, becoming President, but rather than fellow Federalist, Thomas Pinckney, receiving the second most to become Vice President, Jefferson of the opposite party did. This made the Executive branch split ideologically for the only time in American history, causing tension and inefficiency. Problems continued in the election of 1800 when Democratic-Republicans Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr each received 73 electoral votes and the outcome of the election went to the House of Representatives. It was a brutal political battle that took 35 deadlocked votes before Alexander Hamilton convinced a minority of Federalist Representatives to back Jefferson in the 36th vote, making him the third President of the United States (a decision that would help lead to Burr killing Hamilton in a duel). Both sides understood our electoral system was a mess, so to remedy this the Twelfth Amendment was ratified in 1804, making each elector now have only one vote for President and one for Vice President.

While certainly an improvement, ratifying Twelfth Amendment was like applying a band-aid when surgery is required. Many more problems have surfaced since regarding Presidential elections and more and more band-aids have been added.

With electoral votes being what matters and not the votes of the people, the right to vote in a Presidential election was not and is still not guaranteed. The Fifteenth, Nineteenth, Twenty-fourth, and Twenty-sixth Amendments had to be ratified, along with the passage of countless laws, to at least clarify which characteristics can’t be used to prevent Americans from voting.

The Twenty-third Amendment was ratified in order to actually let American citizens in our country’s capital have any say in who would be running the nation. For 172 years they were spectators in their own country. Today, millions of Americans are unable to vote for who should be their Commander in Chief simply due to the fact they live in territories rather than states.

There have been five elections in which the winner of the popular vote was defeated. Additionally, small states are disproportionately represented in the Electoral College. Both of these are hailed by supporters of the Electoral College as its benefits. Small states should be represented and the tyranny of the majority should be kept at bay. The problem is that neither of those has really happened. When is the last time you saw a presidential candidate visit Wyoming or Vermont? Small states have not been represented, while swing states receive large amounts of media and campaign attention. Rather than a national election, the Presidential election is an election of Florida, Ohio, and Virginia. This is not how it should be. While power should be decentralized and overall, states should have more powers and influence in the lives of the American people, when we are holding an election for the head of the national executive the entire nation should be involved. The idea that we need a system that checks the tyranny of the majority is absolutely true. The Electoral College just isn’t the way to do it. Checks and balances, a small list of enumerated federal powers, decentralization of power, and state legislatures picking Senators were effective ways to check the majority. We have abandoned many of these ideas as government has grown bigger while our rights have shrunk, and the Electoral College hasn’t been able to stop any of this. The way to change course and keep small states powerful and the tyranny of the majority in check is to stick to checks and balances and decentralization of power, not have a terrible electoral system where someone can become President with only 27% of the popular vote. We should keep powers limited to protect the states. We should keep the amount of positions people get to elect limited to check the tyranny of the majority. But once we’ve decided to allow the people to vote, as we should do when deciding who gets to be the powerful man in the world, we should treat it as any other vote: winning 51% of the vote means winning the election.

The final supposed benefit of the Electoral College was it would protect us from the ignorance of the masses. It did this through the Electors, which are in no way constitutionally bound to vote for who the people of their state picked, although many states have laws requiring them too. But has it at all checked the people’s ignorance? The reality TV star who cheated on his wife with a porn star is President right now. President Wilson (re-segregated the federal government), President Roosevelt (put Japanese people in camps and appointed a former KKK member to the Supreme Court), and President Johnson (helped filibuster civil rights legislation) all were elected without any opposition from Electors. In fact, the only time the Electors have had any significant impact was during the election of 1872 when the Democratic nominee for President, Horace Greeley, died after the popular vote but before the electors cast their votes, causing them to split their votes between four other Democrats. Just like the tyranny of the majority, the ignorance of the majority should not be checked by the way we hold our elections. The way to check it is to limit the power of the federal government and what positions we get to vote for.

With the Electoral College being the disaster it is, many have proposed we move to a popular vote. In this system, whichever candidate receives the most votes becomes the next President. But this cure is worse than the disease. There have been eight elections in which the winner won with a plurality of votes, and this system exasperates this problem. It requires there to always only be two candidates, stifling many viewpoints and competition. The clearest example is with Bill Clinton’s election in 1992. Clinton won with an electoral landslide despite winning only 43.01% of the vote. This was because the third-party candidate, Ross Perot split President George H. W. Bush’s base. A Democrat won the election despite the fact that 56.36% of the electorate chose a conservative-leaning candidate. This is a problem that will continue to occur with a popular vote. A different solution is clearly needed.

Ranked Choice Voting

A Ranked Choice Voting System is the best way to elect the President. In this system, rather than picking just one candidate, a voter ranks his or her favorite candidate 1st, the second 2nd, and so on. If when the votes are tallied in the first round, none of the candidates received above 50% of the popular vote, then the candidate in last place is eliminated and the votes for those who voted for the now-eliminated candidate go to their highest ranked, non-eliminated choice. This process continues until one candidate has above 50% of the vote, making them the next President of the United States. President Bush would’ve been able to win in dominant fashion in the second round of the election under this system; giving the American people a President most closely aligned to the wishes of the electorate. That should be the most important goal of any electoral system, and none do it better than ranked choice voting.

While ensuring the majority of the American people actually voted for the next President is the most important goal, there are many other goals that are achieved by Ranked Choice Voting.

The candidates will be less radical. Primaries allow radical bases to select candidates not in line with mainstream America, causing most Americans to choose between the lesser of two evils as seen best by the 2016 election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Under this system primaries are weakened and may even become totally irrelevant and eliminated as multiple people from each party would be able to run without destroying any chance of victory as with the elections of 1912 and 1992.

With more candidates being viable the American people will have more options and more opinions will be represented. With votes transferring, the idea of ‘wasting your vote’ will be a thing of the past. All voters will get to vote with their conscience for the candidate most representative of their values without having to pick the least worst option.

The presidential candidates will have to campaign everywhere. Democrats in Texas and Republicans in California will finally have their votes matter and the need to campaign nationwide rather than Florida-wide will be the new path to victory.

Millions of American citizens living in territories such as Puerto Rico will be able to have a say in who their President will be. All Americans will have their votes matter now that we will have a system which ensures citizens do get to vote for President and there is no Elector who can go against the will of the people.

Lastly, this system has the potential to make elections more civil and unifying, something badly needed in this country. Most Americans disapprove of negative campaign ads, but their use is increasing. It is much easier to prove someone else wrong than to prove yourself right. A ranked-choice system creates negative consequences for disparaging your opponent and incentives to be civil; voters aren’t just voting once, they are now ranking candidates, so every detail of a campaign matters. And while not everyone is going to make a candidate their first choice, the candidate will want them to rank him or her second. A voter is not likely to rank a candidate anywhere on their list if the candidate is in a calling the other candidate’s supporters deplorables who are racist, sexist, bigoted, homophobic, and xenophobic. Candidates will now have to play nice if they hope to stand a chance should the election go to round two.

With an electoral system that has failed us from the beginning, many Americans are turning away from the Electoral College and looking for alternatives. While this is a necessary first step we must be careful not to stumble upon the first alternative and end up with an even worse electoral system. Ranked Choice Voting is by far the most efficient and beneficial system, making it the obvious choice for the Presidential electoral system of the future.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

Featured Image Source

Advertisements

Post Malone- Unlikely Libertarian Figure?​

By Ian Brzeski | United States

Post Malone is a rapper, singer, and songwriter who recently blew up in the past few years. His song “Rockstar,” released in 2017, marked his first number one song on the Billboard Hot 100 as a solo artist. The song is considered his most successful song, but he also has numerous other songs that have been just as successful, such as “Congratulations” or “Psycho.” The album which “Rockstar” featured in, “Beerbongs & Bentleys,” broke several records on its way to the Billboard 200 and went platinum in just four days after the album’s release which is a massive achievement in the world of music.

Despite Post Malone being on record that he supported Bernie Sanders in the 2016 presidential election, the gun-loving government skeptic makes it reasonably safe to say that he is a libertarian. During his time in Canada, he sat down for an interview. The interview was light-hearted in the sense that the questions were about his favorite video games or his plans for the future. However, when asked about what the biggest lie in the world was he said, “The biggest lie in the world the U.S. government.” He does not believe that the government is the same as it used to be in the sense that it is not about freedom anymore and that it has become some massive reality show. The questioning of the government in the way portrayed by Post Malone here really encapsulates the libertarian view on the role of government.

He also believes that the United States government killed president John F. Kennedy for telling the truth. He reasons that just days before Kennedy died, Kennedy had a grand speech explaining how our government focuses solely on being corrupt instead of going around trying to find the truth in all things. Post, who has a JFK tattoo on his arm, is a big fan of his and states that he was “the only President to speak out against the crazy corruption stuff that’s going on in our government nowadays.”

Although he says how the United States government is practically a giant screw-up, he has not once said where he exactly falls on the political spectrum. He did go on to say that he did support Bernie Sanders for president as he was “the realest one.” It is interesting that a man with such a distrust of the United States government would be an advocate for Bernie, as his policies suggest a stronger and more powerful government. One could infer that the reason as to why he would support Bernie is not because of his policies but because he believed that he cared about the country and wanted the best for the people of the United States, unlike Trump and Clinton.

In another interview after the election, he stated that he would not mind performing at Donald Trump’s inauguration for a fixed amount of money despite not supporting Trump and not voting in the election at all. Because he said this, he got much hate from the fans and later said that he was kidding. However, he still didn’t understand why he got so much stick for saying that. He feels that at the end of the day he would just be doing the same job he has always been doing regardless of he was to perform at Trump’s inauguration or any other venue or concert.

“If I do his show, does that mean I’m a supporter of him?” -Post Malone

To answer the question as to why he did not vote in the presidential election is that he feels our votes do not count and are just suggestions to the electoral college. According to Malone, the Electoral College could practically vote for whomever they want, and there is nothing that we [the people] can do about it. It is unclear to say if Post would have voted for Bernie if Bernie did win the primary, but it is safe to say that he would have supported and backed him throughout the entirety of the election process.

On the issue of guns, Post Malone is entirely pro 2nd amendment. He believes that it is an American’s right to own a gun and he is indeed taking advantage of that right. He owns:

  • an M14 – used by the Navy SEALs
  • “James Bond’s gun.”
  • a .44 Desert Eagle hand cannon
  • an M1911 pistol
  • two gold-plated Glocks -used for decoration, not for shooting
  • a Cobalt AR-15 -modified to pass California regulations, his most prized possession
  • a pump-action Mossberg shotgun -“great for home defense.”
  • an FN Five-Seven pistol with a laser sight -to disorient home invaders
  • a Glock 19

He has these because “They’re fun, they’re practical, and bad sh*t happens. If you hurt me, I’m gonna hurt you back.” He has a lot of valuable items, and he wants to protect those along with his friends and family. He acknowledges that it is dreadful that people have to be fearful of going to a concert, but he maintains that there will always be sick people, and if they want to go shoot-up a concert, then they will get the weapons necessary to shoot-up that concert no matter what. He also admits that he does not have all the solutions went it comes to these horrible mass shootings, but that he just believes in what he thinks is right.

“The world is going to shit. They’re taking away a lot of our rights.” -Post Malone

This quote suggests that Post believes we are continuously falling deeper into a tyrannical state, which is another reason as to why he maintains the right to bear arms is just as a necessity now as it ever was. He does not believe that Trump is solely the reason as to why we are going deeper into a tyrannical state, but that there is a much bigger problem going on behind the scenes of our government. Post thinks that the worst of the United States government is yet to come and that it is going to arise after Trump.

From his extensive gun collection to his complete and intrinsic distrust of the government, Post Malone could be a man easily converted to the libertarian movement.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Voting Outside the Box

By FritzCast | United States

If you followed the primary elections of the past week (the day of August 07, namely), we saw a truly lackluster performance for a primary series that is leading up to what the news has hyped as a “pivotal” mid-term election for 2018. Some immediate key takeaways are how many “Trump Approved” candidates easily walked away with a win, almost every candidate that “Social Democrat” hopeful Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez endorsed lost, but the real nail-biter was Ohio District 12 Special Election, where even at the moment of this writing, news agencies are reporting that it is too close to call.

Despite those reports, many flocked to Twitter with the hashtag #OH12 ready to lay the blame for the Democratic loss on Green Party voters (A total of 1,127 people according to NYTimes). Leading that charge was Actor Alyssa Milano, who tweeted out the following:

Now, we live in a crazy world where Alex Jones can get kicked to the curbside by various Social Media platforms, and granted private entities like them are allowed to develop their own rules and policies and enforce them as they see fit, but for some reason, nobody will call out Alyssa Milano for this complete fabrication. In this single tweet, she: Alleges Russian collusion; completely devalued the votes of 1,127 people; blames it all on inaction against voter protection.

For some godforsaken reason, independent voters come under scrutiny when a side loses an election. You will hear people screaming from the mountain tops that the third party voters royally screwed everything up, as if the votes were owned by the other candidate and them casting a protest vote proves how selfish they are.

Why is it that people are so quick to devalue a person’s vote? I thought, after all, that voting was one of the quintessential pillars of our society, yet people are so willing to condemn those outside the box.

The same theory was applicable to the 2016 Presidential Election, where I had to face more than a handful of “friends” willing to tell me I was selfish for casting my vote for Gary Johnson, thus somehow costing Hillary Clinton her guaranteed win. I was told my vote was no better than simply casting a vote for Trump, and the hilarious angle in all of that was the fact that my state of Delaware and its low number of 3 Electoral Votes went to Hillary Clinton.

Some may say that our voting system is a little flawed, but more and more I find that the collective philosophy is flawed. Whether you look at Ohio District 12 or the Presidential Election of 2016, the argument always comes to numbers and comes back to that lovely term we float around, Democracy.

Despite the fact that we are not a democracy, everyone so desperately wants to cry out about how our very democracy is under threat while ignoring the fatal fallacy of democracy: just because 51% say Yea doesn’t mean that what they are saying Yea to is moral, just, right, or fair.

You want to blame third party voters for the fact that we demand better of our system? You want to scream in our face that it is so selfish and petty of us?

Shame on you. Shame on you all. You don’t value us, our mind, our opinion or our vote and stop at nothing to try to legitimize our voice, all the while there are thousands more simply not voting at all, either because they do not care or are unwilling to participate because they feel dejected.

Let’s just play your numbers game for a minute, with the Ohio District 12 results (numbers according to Politico:

50.2% Troy Balderson GOP 101,574
49.3% Danny O’Connor DEM 99,820
0.6% Joe Manchik GP 1,127

Let’s assume all the Green Party voters magically belonged to the Democratic Party (it obviously makes sense! That’s why they voted for the Green party guy!). Do the basic math, add those votes to Danny O’Connor…you’ve still lost the election, because it only takes him to 100,947 votes. Even then, we fall back to my argument (which actually works in your favor here): the difference is 627 votes.

Do the same thing with the 2016 Presidential results, if you want:

Candidate / Party Popular / Votes

  Donald J. Trump, Republican – 62,980,160

Hillary R. Clinton, Democratic – 65,845,063

Gary Johnson, Libertarian – 4,488,931

Jill Stein, Green – 1, 457,050

Evan McMullin, Independent – 728,830

How do you even begin to guess where McMullin’s, Johnson’s and Stein’s votes would fall, and split them evenly among Trump and Clinton and you’ve still got what I see as rather measly numbers.

This very thing is what turned me into a Libertarian individual. I don’t want the Government, myself nor the mob dictating aspects of the lives of everyone else on this fallacy. Thomas Jefferson warned us against it:

Democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%

America, its time to do away with this toxic line of thinking…we as people can trample a person’s rights as easily as the king did, as easily as a dictator does, we just somehow find comfort in our moral justification that because we had one more person agree with our side, we’re the winners and they are the losers. Now is the time to reiterate our true principles of liberty, independence, and individualism before they are sacrificed.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.

Ripple And Bill Clinton Are A Match Made In Heaven

By Spencer Kellogg | @TheNewTreasury

This week, the cryptocurrency Ripple (XRP) announced plans to host former President Bill Clinton as its keynote speaker at this year’s “Swell: The Future is Here.” The conference, which will feature “the world’s leaders in policy, payments, and technology connect” is scheduled for Toronto in October.

Touting Clinton as a forward-thinking politician who “helped usher in a period of extreme growth and adoption of the Internet,” Ripple also pointed to the former President’s track record in bridging the ‘digital divide’ to bring new technologies to underprivileged people around the world. If you turn your brain off for just long enough, this is the sort of dimwitted stuff you start believing because someone parades it as truth.

I can already here that old rickety Arkansas drawl counting off the merits of Ripple in between poorly timed anecdotes about inhaling marijuana before it was cool. Anything to steer the conversation clear of the women, the lies & the obvious ties to the sort of people who wish to regulate crypto currency into another rudderless weapon of the state.

Mr. Clinton, who oversaw continued war, used the oval office as a private brothel, expanded the for-profit prison model, and consistently represented the interests of big, centralized banking and wall street cronyism, is exactly the type of post-American figure that Ripple would crown as their champion. Why would Ripple want Bill Clinton as its keynote speaker? In the still simmering #metoo era, The Democratic Party can’t distance itself quickly enough from the Clinton’s. What does it say about the corporatist ideology of the lab coats in charge of Ripple that they would believe Clinton to be an appropriate “thought leader in the blockchain space” as suggested in Swell’s marketing campaign? If cryptocurrency was initially built with an inherent distrust of modern banking and with the hopes of promoting a decentralization of power, money, and culture, then what kind of cryptocurrency makes the living symbol of neoliberal globalism the keynote speaker of their convention?

Ripple, as many in the world of anonymous, peer to peer, government-free, decentralized cryptocurrency will gladly tell you, is the enemy. Clinton, stumbling around in the waning light of his former fame, is just happy to grab whatever cash comes his way and Ripple Gateways has plenty of it. Clinton will sit and smile and act interested but he is the man in the cloak. Let us not dream for a second that this exposure is ‘good’ for the crypto community or signals a coming tide of mass adoption. This has nothing to do with advancing the civil liberties of the common man. This isn’t about sticking it to the centralized banking apparatus that has paid for and instructed war after unended war. This is not a voice ringing true the concerns of an American people who have been run ragged by the Federal Reserve and its unnatural cycles of boom and bust. Clinton knows one modus operandi and it is that of a professional grifter and in Ripple he has found his cryptocurrency match.

Further cementing its legacy as perhaps the most corporate minded cryptocurrency in existence, the announcement comes after a string of high profile public outreach campaigns for Ripple that have included Ashton Kutcher gifting day talk show host Ellen DeGeneres four million dollars worth of Ripple on her show.

DeGeneres looked stunned and rightfully so. What good is a cryptocurrency to the entrenched elite? With U2 bursting through the speakers, a rockstar Hollywood celeb and his sidekick tech buddy were all smiles as they publicly endorsed Ripple with all the sort of ‘hip’ and ‘cool’ buzziness you’d expect to find plastered on a Sex Pistols T-Shirt at Hot Topic. These are the sort of James Corden, pub stunts that emaciate an already culturally bulimic American public. The ride goes on and on, each stop grinding further and further back into the cave of shadows and doubt. Before you know it, we will all happily one a few hundred XRP and not know why.

DeGeneres, the slow driving goofy clown car of never-ending post-absurdity, is right at home as she drives asleep at the wheel Americans to their safe destination of centralized, prescriptive thinking. Her mum, deer in the headlights, blank look at Kutcher upon hearing the money would be donated through XRP is exactly what you would want from the American public. The fewer questions the better.

Blockchain analysts were quick to cry foul as many pointed to the anti-crypto fundamentals of Ripple. Unlike Bitcoin & Ethereum, Ripple is a pre-mined coin that uses a centralized network to transact and verify. Many inside the crypto community have questioned how much of the total supply Ripple Gateways owns and have warned against the possibility of assets being frozen or reversed. In February, Bitmex ran a scathing critique of Ripple that suggested the cryptocurrency was unstable while questioning the long-term efficacy of the network.

Bigger issues lie at the core of how Ripple, or better yet its currency XRP, is classified by regulators in the future. Coinbase has thus far steered clear of XRP over its concerns that Ripple could be seen as a security. CEO Brad Garlinghouse is at the center of decision making and his strategy, from the start, has been a banking play that allows for banks to use XRP as a low cost, speed efficient medium for international transactions. This stated interest in working within current financial institutions has led to many critics in the crypto community to label Ripple as the “banker’s coin.”

In the world of ultra volatile cryptocurrency, it can be difficult to tell truth from fiction and hype from dust. Ripple has proven to be one of the most attractive entryways into the sector for a reason and it continues to hold its spot as one of the most reliable asset propositions in the early years of cryptocurrency. None of that changes the fact that their approach from a cultural and political standpoint that sits at glaring odds with the original intent of Satoshi Nakamoto’s whitepaper.

In Yasmina Reza‘s “Art,” a friendship is torn apart over of a blank white painting. Premiering in 1994 at Comédie des Champs-Élysées in Paris, the narrative follows Serge, a well off Dermatologist who buys a $200,000 painting that is as white and plain as the fallen snow. Serge’s friend Marc is outraged by the price tag and it eats at their every conversation. For Marc, the painting represents a false construct, a purchased hierarchy, a false letter of authentication. He knows, full well in his heart, that money does not buy the revolution. It can not buy the singing heart. It can not buy a dancing mind. It can not buy you a fulfilling wisdom or furnish you with a well kept soul.

It makes sense that Bill Clinton will headline the Swell event. A politician like him and a cryptocurrency like Ripple were made for each other.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source

Hawley, Missouri GOP Rip Page From Failed Clinton Playbook

By Francis Folz | United States

38 percent. That is the percentage of the Missouri electorate Hillary Clinton garnered in her failed bid for president in 2016. You would think the Missouri GOP would be smart enough not to use a page from Ms. Clinton’s shoddy playbook, especially since Mr. Donald Trump defeated Ms. Clinton by 19 points in the Show Me State. However, this is not the case.

The Missouri GOP voted on July 3, 2018, to suspend a rule that prohibits the National Republican Party (the establishment) to spend money on a particular candidate in a contested primary. Instead of leaving the race between the candidates and the voters, the Missouri GOP thought it would be a fantastic idea to act like there is not a primary by concerting with the national party to elect Josh Hawley. Sound familiar?

Ms. Clinton colluded with the DNC to rig her primary election against Bernie Sanders only two years ago. And to add insult to injury, the DNC decided to further isolate the Sanders wing of the party by barring his supporters from the party’s convention the same year. Common sense would suggest not to repeat the same mistake of snubbing the grassroots, especially in such a close race. Polls show Mr. Hawley either trailing Claire McCaskill or narrowly leading her within the margin of error.

However, the grassroots’ liberty candidate in the race, Austin Petersen, is determined to fire Claire in November. In a matchup between Mr. Petersen and Ms. McCaskill, Austin bests Claire 56% to 40%. In light of that recent poll, it should be common knowledge not to interfere in a heated race between a weak, establishment candidate and an electrifying grassroots firebrand. 

But to make matters worse, in an out-of-touch move, President Trump and Vice-President Pence have weighed in for Mitch McConnell’s Josh Hawley. This shows disdain for the vast amount of Missouri voters reluctant to support Mr. Hawley. After all, it was Mr. Hawley who aired campaign ads not even two years ago that promised not to use the Attorney General’s office to climb the political ladder. Such promises have long since vanished.

However, attempts to shut out the grassroots have not weathered Austin’s spirits, and why should they? Mr. Hawley has modeled his entire campaign after Ms. Clinton up to this point. For example, Mr. Hawley decided meeting with voters and debating his primary opponents is beneath him. So, Josh skipped the vast majority of Lincoln Days hosted by local Republicans. He was also missing the night Congresswoman Ann Wagner flew from D.C. to St. Louis to host the Republican senatorial debate. To make up for his blunders, Josh thought he could score a few political points by throwing former-governor Eric Greitens under the bus. Publicly alluding to impeachment before even filling charges, he effectively denied Mr. Greitens due process.

Furthermore, Mr. Hawley has been spotted lifting weights at the gym and buying wine during business hours (you know, while he’s supposed to be performing the duties of Attorney General). This is all part of a pattern.

Back in March, while Mr. Petersen and other primary candidates were out shaking hands with voters, Mr. Hawley chose to stay home and talk about his NCAA bracket on Twitter. And just when you thought Mr. Hawley couldn’t be more distant to voters? His official senatorial website doesn’t even have an “issues” section to let Missourians know how the Attorney General feels about crucial topics. To this day, Mr. Hawley refuses to rule out voting for Mitch McConnell for Majority/Minority Leader.

Mr. Hawley has even admitted in one of his few interviews that he was not interested in running for senator at first. Comparatively, Austin Petersen, Mr. Hawley’s most formidable primary opponent, has been attending countless local events and speaking with a myriad of voters on the campaign trail. It appears that the West/East Coast educated Attorney General believes the GOP establishment’s blessing will be able to carry him across the finish line in August. Judging by the Missouri GOP’s recent, unconventional actions, however, it may be harder than Mr. Hawley and company imagined.


To support 71 Republic, please donate to our Patreon, which you can find here.

Featured Image Source.