The continued admiration of President Barack Obama by liberals remains a baffling and somewhat frustrating topic to me.

Despite being a continuation of the George Bush Presidency, President Obama has received far less criticism from the left than the Republican he succeeded in 2008.

While having presented himself as anti-war and pro-civil liberties, President Obama has had multiple shortcomings in both realms of those campaign promises.

Firstly, President Obama continued and expanded the War on Terrorism. Yes, he claims war in Iraq has concluded but in reality, it hasn’t.

Actually, there will still be roughly 5,000 security contractors (a nice word for mercenary) staying put.

While this is far lower than the current number of contractors in Iraq and U.S troops are indeed leaving, it’s deceptive to assert the war is actually over.

Even if you buy the argument that the war is over, at least be aware President Obama attempted to extend it and America is merely leaving on the date President Bush had previously assigned.

But the continued Iraqi occupation is not all liberals should be upset about. President Obama extended the Patriot Act, ramped up the Transportation Security Administration (an agency established by President Bush), continues drone bombing Pakistan, signed the National Defense Authorization Act – which has a key passage allowing the indefinite detention of American citizens without Habeas Corpus – and has bailed out corporations and banks with American taxpayer money.

Overturning “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” a provision which prevented homosexuals from openly serving in the armed forces, was fantastic and to be applauded, but ignoring his failures would be too costly.

The one shining hope liberals can cling to in defense of their candidate is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, also known as ObamaCare.

Yet, even this key legislation should not be heralded as the saving grace of President Obama’s first term.

It was drafted by health insurance lobbyists for the benefit of the health insurance industry. Perhaps those on the margin have benefitted by receiving coverage they otherwise wouldn’t have in a more free market setting, but for the rest of us, the cost of said coverage has increased substantially.

Just as free market economists predicted and just like the health insurance industry wanted.

So why, then, do liberals continue to support the current administration?

We’ve gotten more war, more debt, higher health care costs and fewer civil liberties.

Before you argue, “Now Brandon, we both know that the President can’t claim the whole burden of these bad policies. He’s just one man and Congress is responsible as well.”

That claim may be true, but how many times did President Obama exercise the veto option on any of those bills?

In fact, the President has been one of the sole proponents on almost every single policy that has been enacted under his term.

That’s not to suggest Congress shouldn’t receive any of the blame, because they absolutely should, and we all need to vote the Congressmen who have supported those awful policies out of office.

However, people pay the most attention to presidential elections.

Who we elect president sets the tone for what will and will not be permissible by the federal government.

The only other logical argument, a liberal can put forth in defense of his or her support of President Obama is that he is the lesser of two evils; that the Republican nominee will be invariably worse than what we currently have and can’t be allowed to assume office.

Well, that’s a sham of an argument in and of itself.

If the past two Presidents are any indicator, the next person to assume the Oval Office will continue, and in some cases expand, the same policies that have been brought forward by Presidents Bush and Obama.

But it’s not all doom and gloom for the liberal vote.

There is an unlikely alternative for those who do not wish to see the same policies continued.

There is a true anti-war, pro-civil liberties candidate running in this election, and his name is Ron Paul. His record suggests he is as good as his word, unlike the current holder of the office of the President.

While I have long supported Ron Paul for President and written articles in support of his campaign, this is not an article plugging his candidacy. After all, what’s the use in trying to tear down President Obama without offering a solution?

There are very real and alarming issues liberals should have with the current administration, and I’m simply suggesting an alternative to the disenfranchised.

Liberals can either support a candidate who will continue taking their civil liberties and fight endless wars, but keep the various social programs which they deem as necessary and valuable. Or, they can vote for a candidate who will fight for their civil liberties and take going to war far more seriously than the current administration, but risk losing funding for certain social programs.

I’m not trying to create a false dichotomy because option one includes everyone but Ron Paul.

You can support the status quo or vote for real change.