Just give the man a chance

How often have you heard this from people in the weeks after Barack Obama’s election as President of the United States? I don’t know about you, but I’ve been hearing it ad nauseam.
The Obama faithful are calling for an end to divisive politics—notably from the right but conveniently not from the left—arguing that he should be given a chance to prove himself before he is criticized.
Granted, Obama has not done anything yet, even as a junior U.S. Senator. So, how can we possibly criticize him?
That’s easy.
All we have to do is follow the example made by the left, including many of today’s Obama supporters, who began criticizing George W. Bush before he had even secured the Republican nomination in 2000.
Are our memories so short term that we forget how the left was comparing candidate Dubya to his father, Bush XLI, during the primary season? Remember how critical the left was of his speaking abilities and articulation during the general election campaign? He was called everything from a village idiot to a dunce and an illiterate, simply because his speech and word choices were not as sophisticated or as sound as Al Gore’s or the Rhodes Scholar, President Bill Clinton.
And, of course, who could forget the days following election night with the Florida recount. Bush was accused of trying to steal and buy the election. His opposition was trying to argue that because Dubya’s brother, Jeb, was the Governor of Florida at the time, he had influence on the election process, and, in particular, republican Secretary of State Katharine Harris, who eventually invoked state election law to halt the re-re-re-counting of votes already cast. And when Al Gore took the matter to the state supreme court, which ruled in his favor, the matter was referred to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled that Florida election law should prevail and the results of the current re-re-re-count ought to stand.
Because the election did not go in the left’s favor, it threw an absolute fit, claiming that Bush bought off the U.S. Supreme Court, bought off Secretary of State Harris, and summarily stole the election from Al Gore, who should have been the rightful president by virtue of the popular vote.
All of a sudden, the livid left began to demand that the U.S. Constitution be amended and the Electoral College discarded, claiming it was a broken and corrupted system that belonged in another time and had lived out its usefulness. Funny, isn’t it, how nothing was ever said when Bill Clinton won in 1992 and 1996, or with Obama’s victory this year. Not a chirp about the Electoral College.
Nonetheless, all we heard from the left was how Bush was an illegitimate president, selected by the Supreme Court and not the people. I distinctly recall hearing and reading liberal comments that Bush was not their president.
He was written off, dismissed by the left before he was even sworn in to take office.
Strange that the same people who condemned Bush before he ever had a chance are now calling for the rest of us to give Barack Obama the chance that Bush never got.
Let me state on the record that I will give Barack Obama the chance that his side did not give Bush, because I don’t wish to stoop to the same level as the left. But just because I am giving him a chance to preside, govern and lead does not mean I should not continue to be critical of his politics.
In essence, the left is telling the right to shut up and keep its mouth shut during Obama’s tenure in office. That’s what it ultimately wants, and the appeal to give him a chance is really code for “sit down, shut up and hold on.”
Well, I don’t believe in free rides…especially for the President of the United States. He needs to be held to account for his views, his philosophies and his politics with regard to how they will influence and affect his policies for the country. I see little evidence that President-elect Obama is the free-market fiscal and/or social conservative that I am. As such, it is my responsibility as a citizen to petition my government—the executive, legislative and judicial branches—for a redress of grievances.
That along with the freedom of speech and of assembly, are my Constitutional rights, which I intend to exercise to the fullest extent. If this means being critical of my leaders for the views they hold and intend to apply, then the last thing I should do is give a student of Karl Marx, like Barack Obama, a free pass and a chance to turn his philosophies into public policy or law.
So sue me.
I will give Obama the chance to make right where he went wrong with me. But that does not mean I will stand aside and let him do whatever the heck he wants to do. That does not mean I will let liberalism run roughshod over me on its way to reforming this country into its utopian image. And that certainly does not mean I will keep my mouth shut, when I ought to be standing up and speaking out for what I believe in.
If Obama attempts to implement the kind of social and economic reforms that he campaigned on, then I will oppose him, because I did not believe then, I do not believe now and I probably will not believe six months from now that his proposals are the best things for this country.
He shall have my respect as the President of the United States, the respect deserving of the office. He shall have my support when challenged by foreign powers or if threatened by enemies both foreign and domestic. He is the President, after all.
But he will not have my cooperation to make the kind of changes he wants to make, because I remain opposed to them.
If that is what the left wants from me and others on the right, then it knows where it can stick it.