Suppose there was a middle-aged politician, and a former very popular governor of a large Midwestern State who was running to primary Obama in the Democratic nomination contest this year. He is generally a good speaker and debater and resembles in many ways Harry Truman of two generations ago. He is a very faithful Catholic and this shows in his political views which are in general very liberal especially for America. On health care he advocates single-payer UHC, criticizes the stimulus bill as not going far enough, favours more regulations on companies, and is economically protectionist. He is sympathetic to illegal immigrants and favours a path to citizenship to them and advocates a concilatory foreign policy and opposes Obama’s wars in Afghanistan and Libya. However in keeping with his Catholic views, however he is opposed to abortion and favours banning it and opposes gay marriage although he supports civil unions. On the other hand he is fairly socially liberal on other issues and opposes the death penalty and favours drug legalization.
So once again you’re given the choice of either making him be the next President of the United States or you flip a coin between a second term for Obama and a President Mitt Romney. What do you choose?
Other Guy isn’t going to get single-payer UHC, a larger stimulus or comprehensive immigration reform through Congress without a bona fide act of God. I’m not as much of a dove as this guy seems to be and have no real interest in drug legalization. I’m more worried about abortion and gay rights than who gets to smoke pot. Since the next president will probably be filling several SCotUS seats, I’d be best off taking my chances with the current guy.
There is quite literally no person in the United States of America that would make a better candidate for the Democratic Party than the sitting President of the United States. All those who say otherwise need to be carefully observed to see what their agenda might be for his defeat.
Listen, I’m not a single-issue voter, so I can’t say I would never, ever vote for someone who is anti choice, although it is unlikely in the extreme, but I do know I would never knowingly vote for a bigot and a homophobe, regardless of what ever other virtues he or she may have.
Barack Obama is also technically opposed to gay marriage. And I don’t think this needs to be elaborated but this hypothetical candidate is not a Rick Santorum style “homosexuals are comparable to pedophiles” type of person.
Whatever he believes is different from what he can get through Congress. I remember the fight over the health care bill, it was only 2 years ago. It was brutal, nasty, and dirty. A sitting Senator openly prayed to god that Byrd would die before he makes it to the floor to vote.
On the other hand, I don’t believe for a second that Obama’s truly against gay marriage. He needs to play the political game. Gay marriage support may have increased incrementally since 2008, but it can still be a drag. The Iowa judges who decide to allow it were voted out. Prop 8 was passed in California. Obama sees this and knows that it would be much easier for him to give lip service to civil unions and push for gay marriage in a 2nd term than risk it all by openly accepting it now.
Anyone who is truly against gay marriage has some underlying mental deficiency, in my opinion. There is so little reason to be against gay marriage that I would look at a person funny if they said that and really believed it.
I could not support a candidate who is in favor of forced pregnancy.
Obama didn’t go to war in Libya. He assisted NATO in air strikes against the Libyan military in order to prevent a slaughter of the rebels. He got rid of Khadaffi for a pittance and avoided nation-building. Pretty good deal, in my opinion. It isn’t Obama’s war in Afghanistan. He’s merely the pooper-scooper following Chimpy.
Yet another of these “I have a great idea for the Dems (but I’m a card carrying Republican that would do anything to get a Pubbie elected” what ifs.
How about throwing into your mix that Obama would be a second term president if re-elected, and just might throw big ol’ hunks of arugula to the left base. (As opposed to a first term Democratic President who would be up against the Republicans who for the last few years have opposed everything just to be obstreperous regardless of how much short and long term damage it does to the US. IMHO the Republicans will not work with any Dem President, regardless of their skin color, gender or sexual orientation.)
I could support a mildly pro-life candidate but I would have to alugh at one who thinks Obama has had a flawed foreign policy. He is getting us out of shooting wars and using bombing wars to great effect.
I still remember Bush Sr.'s invasion of Iraq and I thought. THIS is how we should conduct wars in the post cold war era. We have noone who will prevent us from conducting wars from airfields, while we can prevent anyone else from doing so. We can bomb countries with impunity and that is how we should conduct wars from now on.
I for one favor Obama’s decision to get out of the “boots on the ground” game and get into the “death from above” game
Libya > Iraq.
Coming soon to theatres near you:
Syria > Iraq
Iran > Iraq
Of course this doesn’t work on nuclearized countries so we should get moving on thsi pretty soon.
Why do you bother with this, Qin? You’re never going to get liberals on the side of any candidate acceptable to you – or to the “Non-GOP Right” – that’s just how it is. Too many deal-breakers. If your candidate is pro-life, that ends the discussion.
I’m going to go against the grain for selfish reasons and vote for the new guy as long as his election is guaranteed. Given that my wife has a pre-existing condition that would prevent her from getting any sort of health insurance on the open market, I am very concerned about what would happen to her if something happened to me or my job. So it is very important to me to have someone in the white house who will be able to keep the current healthcare reform bill alive, even it the possibility of single payer is unrealistic. Gay marriage will come in time, and Row v. Wade isn’t going to be over turned not matter who is in the white house so I’m going to be a selfish single issue voter.
That said I don’t think that such a candidate could exist. No Democrat has a better chance to defeat Romney than Obama.
Yeah, I think I would actually consider the mystery candidate here. The tradeoff is basically ensuring Obamacare’s survival (pending SCOTUS decisions) and perhaps even expanding it or adding a public option at the cost of perhaps one more conservative justice. There is of course the fear of a Roe v. Wade reversal involved in that… but I’m with Buck in thinking that is unlikely.
So yeah, I might go ahead and sign up for the ultra-liberal except pro-choice guy.
I also have to throw in a chuckle at Qin for calling it “Obama’s war in Afghanistan”…
If we follow the terms of the hypothetical, and I can actually guarantee that this guy gets in, then I’d choose him. I’m not a big fan of drug legalization, but that’s not a big priority for me. And I’m more pro-gay-rights than him, but his position there isn’t actually that different from Obama’s, and you take what you can get. On other issues, I mostly agree with him.
Of course, in the real world, you have to deal with things like electability. Someone trying to primary out a sitting President from their own party is just plain not going to succeed, no matter what their platform, and I think that out of the set of electable candidates, Obama is about the best we can do.