Good question, but the premise is flawed; Obama could seek re-election in 2016 if taken out of office. (highly unlikely, but possible.)
Fabian is, at least, softer and less resolved than Marxist. Mitt might yield to pushback on Fabian libertine schemes. Obama, sure as hell exists, won’t yield on his Marxism. He has to be dragged out screaming.
You know, I take the opposite stance; it is best to drag the country suddenly and drastically to the tyranny of socialism rather than slowly and comfortably; the frogs'll jump out then. (I don't want to become accustomed to evils, I want people stirred up enough to throw off even what evils they've become accustomed to.)
OK, this would have you voting a second time for Jimmy Carter, and then for Al Gore, and Skerry... in order to hasten the shock.
>> it is best to drag the country suddenly and drastically to the tyranny of socialism rather than slowly and comfortably; the frogs’ll jump out then.
“Conservative” arguments promoting a second term for Obama are simply irrational.
Nascent life will suffer a greater mortality rate with Obama at the helm.
We cannot afford another bloodletting with the expectation it will inevitably heal the Country. We’re in a state of triage, and need to consider the least damaging options.
Put aside the far-reaching theories that involve fate and destruction. We need to pull the Right levers and twist arms indefinitely.