As I float from comment board to comment board on various places on the web, I am astonished at the arguments being used by the left and the Obama supporters through the various ranges of topics they are commenting on. It does not seem to matter if the poll deals with Obama’s approval rating, or his handling of the economic crisis, or his handling of foreign affairs…the left leaning crowd have three basic arguments that they resort to when cornered in an argument they simply cannot win based on any solid facts.

The first, and my personal favorite, is that somehow my opposition is because I am some sort of racist. To borrow a phrase from President Obama himself, “Let me be clear on this…” My disagreements from how he handles the economy, to how he handles healthcare, to how he handles foreign matters, do not have a thing to do with the man’s color, creed, or ethnicity. I fundamentally disagree with the man’s philosophy, period. What more fitting tribute to Dr. King’s dream of “judging a man by the content of his character” can one pay than by looking past race not only to agree, but even more importantly, to disagree with someone? Placating on the basis of race, which is the idea the left puts forth here, is just as dangerous as opposition for the same reason. So to summarize, I oppose the man on a purely philosophical level and to me that is not in the least bit racist.

The second argument states that it took us eight years (i.e. the Bush years) to get into this mess, how can Obama be expected to solve this overnight? This argument is flawed in two ways.

One, this is a situation that is 30 years in the making, starting with President Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act.

(See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_Reinvestment_Act .)

Please pay close attention to the part of Regulatory changes 2005 as well as Relation to 2008 financial crisis. Please also take note that both George W. Bush and John McCain tried unsuccessfully to get Congress to look into the now infamous Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac disaster three years before it happened.

Two, the idea that solving the so called “runaway spending” from the Bush years with even more runaway spending is downright unsound. Look at it this way, if you were $30,000 in debt, would running up $30,000 more debt help or hurt your family? If this were President Bush recommending this, you would no doubt hear everyone from MSNBC to the Huffington Post banging the gong loudly for his resignation.

The third, and last, argument you hear every single time is what ideas have the Republicans come up with that are so much better? You guys are the party of “No”. I will submit that while the GOP has sent some mixed messages and needs to get their act together and speak with one clear voice, their underlying message has always been the same and is one that the nation was founded on…that you, and by “you” I mean the everyday average Joe or Jane Q. Citizen, you should be entrusted to decide what is best to do with your hard earned money. That it is not the government’s role to take your money and decide winners and losers in life. The most misused phrase by the left is the Constitution’s “promote the general welfare” statement. Promoting and supporting are two highly different concepts. To promote is to encourage success by creating an environment in which one can succeed. It is incumbent on the individual to do what is necessary to succeed. This is often called the “profit motive”…people work for money.

To support is to discourage success inasmuch that after a period of time, the supported group gains a sense of entitlement to this support rather than gaining any desire to create success for his or her self. I liken it to the out of work brother-in-law that comes to sleep on your couch. Your wife says it is only until he gets back on his feet, but after three years he is still on your couch and complaining that you are buying the generic chips as he has grown accustomed to the major brand.