My Perfect Candidate
All voters compromise.
Sooner or later, no matter how pure our intentions, we settle for a candidate who generally represents what we believe, but with whom we also disagree on any number of policy points.
The reasons for this compromise should be rather obvious. First, perfection remains the great elusive goal of the human race. Second, no two human brains are wired exactly the same, meaning that if we really desired the perfect candidate for each of us, then each of us would be a candidate.
Combined, these self-evident realities should be a drug strong enough to euthanize the question that’s been running like a rat on a treadmill in my brain over the last week. Should be. But that rat of a question has defied its fatal medicine, refusing to go quietly into the night until I answer it. And so I will.
Among the current candidates for President, who is (or is closest to) my vision of a perfect candidate?
Easy. His name is Ron Obamacain.
He has the eagle eyes of Ron Paul: a crystal-clear vision of pervasive liberty. He has the wide-open heart of Barack Obama: the requisite character to diffuse the boiling rage that now infects our public dialogue, domestically and internationally. And backing up all of this, he has the unflinching spine of John McCain: the strength and chutzpah to stand up and fight when necessary.
Yes, I know: I cheated. I stole DNA from three candidates to create one. So be it. If the question is unanswerable, then I’m compelled to give an unrealistic answer. On the other hand, I recognize that I (probably) won’t be able to complete this Dr. Frankenstein act before election day, so how do I actually vote?
Congressman Paul definitely intrigues me. I find in his candidacy an inspiration similar to what Andrew Sullivan found, when he penned his endorsement for the good doctor from Texas. But there are limits to my Paul fealty, for reasons of perceived insanity; reasons similar to those articulated by Andrew’s co-blogger at The Atlantic.com, Megan McArdle, and also by Sean Aqui at Midtopia.
With respect to Obama, I’ll return to Sullivan for the defining word. I disagree with much of the Senator’s politics. But he thoroughly embodies the audacious hope expressed in the title of his second book. He effectively works across the aisle. He naturally snuffs out the flames of dissent. And for all of those reasons, he seems the best answer to these days of fury in which we now live; these days when restoring our international standing is as important (if not more so) than resolving our domestic squabbles.
On the other hand, I doubt a peacemakers’ disposition and talent are enough to succeed in these dangerous times. We also need a candidate with tested and vetted strength … which brings me to McCain. The fighter. The survivor. The straight-shooter. Those recent (and apparently unfounded) rumors of impropriety notwithstanding, McCain has a track record that’s impossible to ignore. (Even Sullivan flinched for McCain before endorsing Paul, as did one of his readers.) But I also worry that McCain’s temper and/or age may get the best of him before his most redeeming qualities can produce results.
So back to reality. Once again: How do I vote on election day?
Honestly … I don’t know. At this point, I’m starting to think a protest vote for Ron Obamacain might not be such a crazy idea after all.
Share This
Related Posts
-
John McCain Defends President’s Speech After Gun Vote
Posted on Apr 19, 2013
-
NRA Liars and Congressional Cowards
Posted on Apr 18, 2013
-
The Invasion of Our Nation Goes Unpunished (Al-Iraq News, Iraq)
Posted on Apr 15, 2013
-
The Medal of Honor for a Soldier Who ‘Didn’t Fire a Gun…’ – Part II
Posted on Apr 13, 2013
You’re in luck: Ron Paul also has a wide-open heart (he just doesn’t want to steal your money and spend it for you) and an unflinching spine. He can make peace without compromise or pandering. He will not back down on what he believes to be right or “change his mind” all the time.
So there you have your perfect candidate, in one simple name and one unspliced DNA: Ron Paul.
Ron Paul is not the second coming of Jesus Christ. He does not have an open heart any more than any other ideologue does. He does not believe in freedom and justice for all. He just thinks that limits belong at the state level instead of federal. Might I suggest someone do some research? Search for “Ron Paul” Lawrence texas. While he’s willing to say that laws limiting individual rights in the name of morality might be silly the state should still have the right to do it. What’s so admirable about that stance to anyone who really cares about rights as opposed to those who simply have a pathological dislike of the federal government like those who call taxation theft?
McCain is no good. Sometimes he imitates RINOs, and often he seems to be anti-conservative simply to draw attention to himself, something he seems to crave. He’s also seriously tarnished: Keating Five.
He’s a possible VP selection at best.
I agree with you, but have slightly different reasons.
The reason to vote for Ron Paul is not that he’s perfect, but just that it’s critically important to signal the Republican party that they are losing libertarian or quasi-libertarian votes by their current stance on nearly every issue under the sun.
The reasons to vote for Obama are a) to stop Hilary and b) because it would send the strongest possible signal that America has returned from its long night of insanity.
The reason to vote for McCain is that, despite his advanced years, he would probably make the best President.
The question of who to actually vote for turns on the situation at the time you vote.
Yes, they are. Not merely the more anarchic, childish types who vie with radical leftists when it comes to personal behavior (using the libertarian political philosophy as the fake excuse for such behavior), but more importantly, the many more of us normal Americans, who have libertarianism in their blood (a gift from England). Government should not be the first means sought to solve our problems, and in the American case the federal government should always be the last, not the first, resort. (It has nothing to do with lies and slander directed at those of us who still honor as well as understand constitutional federalism.)
2006′s election results were not only a thumbs-down on Bush and Iraq, but on the Dem Lite GOP.
While I like Obama and to a certain extent I admire Paul, the correct choice for me is John McCain.
Ron Paul might have made a decent President in 1790. By 1812, the world was more complex than Paul’s model could handle. I also wonder if Ron could get anything done domestically with a Democratic Congress (the GOP would not be loyal to him either most likely). And some of his domestic proposals are well a bit too radical–for example, I don’t think returning to the gold standard is such a great idea.
I’d feel more comfortable with Obama except that I believe his comments regarding foreign affairs demonstrate a certain naivety regarding our antagonists on the world stage. Perhaps after 8 years of McCain as POTUS, he will have garnered the necessary foreign policy wisdom to be POTUS. Also I believe McCain will be more fiscally conservative than Obama, and I would like to see our spending deficit shrink without raising taxes–I don’t think Obama shares that view.
I believe the last 15 years (8 Clintons + 7 Bush) have placed a heavy toll on American credibility abroad. McCain as POTUS in 2003 would *not* have blundered us into Iraq and he will *not* blunder us out of Iraq the way Obama and Paul will. These are dangerous times, and while we should not shirk our freedom for safety, I do believe that we can have our cake and eat it too with John McCain behind the desk at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I’ll also mention that McCain’s health proposal is the only one that strikes at the root cause of our health care crisis: the rising cost. LIving in Belgium the last two years taught me that the way the Belgians afford their healthcare is *not* that the state pays for it, but that they *can’t* sue for malpractice. I’m now a big believer in tort reform.
No love for Bill Richardson? Sure, the guy has little to no chance of winning the nomination, but he has strong international and domestic policy credentials, can and has worked across party lines, and seems to stand up for what he believes.
It’s a shame he doesn’t get more press. I think he would appeal to plenty of people if they only knew more about him (and he had better/equal coverage).
The candidate you’re looking for is not a myth and not a composite.
The candidate you’re looking for is Chris Dodd.
You’re looking for “the strength and chutzpah to stand up and fight when necessary.” That’s Dodd. And he’ll stand against his own party’s spineless leadership when necessary.
Just last week, Dodd almost single-handedly blocked Harry Reid’s attempt to give the White House their most wished-for Christmas present – retroactive immunity for telecommunications companies that have been abetting the Bush administration in their illegal domestic spying program for years.
There were two potential FISA revision bills, one that included immunity and one that did not. Reid incomprehensibly brought to the floor the one that included the immunity deal that the majority of Americans oppose. When Dodd put a hold on the bill, Reid – who has honored every single hold put on a bill by Republicans – inexplicably and for the first time refused to honor Dodd’s hold.
So Dodd declared his intent to filibuster.
When Republicans ‘filibuster’, all they have to do is say that ‘I’m going to filibuster’, and the bill they’ve magically filibustered dies. Dodd was going to have to do it the old-fashioned way – by standing in the Senate and talking for hours.
He had several other supporters of the Constitution on the floor ready to back him up – but none of the other presidential candidates who’d earlier professed to ‘support’ Dodd’s filibuster bothered to show up. Their ‘support’ consisted of flabby statements of support issued from Iowa, rather than supporting where it really counted, on the Senate floor.
After eight hours, Reid pulled the bill, but has promised to bring it back in January. And Dodd has pledged to filibuster any bill that contains retroactive immunity.
Clinton, Obama, and Biden talk a lot about their leadership and what they’re going to do in 2009. Dodd is SHOWING us leadership, and he’s doing it right now.
I would look more realistically at who you can vote for. First off the primaries, you probably don’t need to worry about Obama here, so its really a toss up between Paul and McCain. I’m in PA so I can’t vote til the race is pretty much over with, but I would go with McCain if he had a shot of winning, but since i think he’ll either have won or lost by then I’m mostly likely going with Paul in the Republican Primary, with hopes to move the party in a more libertarian direction.
I hope that Obama wins the democratic primary so I have the chance to vote for him in the general election as I think he is the best democratic candidate, (though i hope Bill Richardson is the winning democrat’s VP). Also I have a feeling we’ll have the option of a Bloomberg/Hagel ticket by next November. I’ll be very happy with our political system if my choices are between McCain, Obama, and Bloomberg as I think they would all make excellent Presidents.