The editors of the Washington Post, yesterday, published their closing editorial argument as to why people should vote for Barack Obama.

Ok. That’s not true. In fact, in the parlance of this campaign, “That’s a LIE!”

The editorial, titled, “Mitt Romney’s Campaign Insults Voters” in the on-line version and “Contempt for Voters” in the print edition, was a 640 word essay on why Americans should not vote for Mitt Romney.

That approach was, at a minimum, terribly defensive if not a sign of outright despair on the part of the hometown newspaper in a city that is about 92.5 percent Democrat, according to that same publication.

There is a link to the WaPo editorial on the Secret Decoder Ring page, but suffice it to say this was the best the editors could say about why to vote for their guy – and it’s in the next-to-last graf:

“Mr. Obama has a record; voters know his priorities. His budget plan is inadequate, but it wouldn’t make things worse.”

Yeah. That was it. Rousing endorsement. Almost made me want to run down to City Hall and get back my early vote for Romney.

Unafraid and unbowed, I am happy to leap, as Shakespeare’s Henry V said, “unto the breach” and provide the reasons that the Washington Post could – or would – not as to why you should vote for Barack Obama.

If you agree with Barack Obama’s view of the future – more federal involvement (read: control) over more areas of your life; and regulating economic success and redistributing wealth by confiscating the earnings of those who have been successful, then you should vote for Barack Obama.

If you believe that the success of a federal program should be measured by the amount of money put in, not the value of the results, then you should vote for Barack Obama.

If you believe that the federal government should make you whole for a reversal or failure of any kind, whether or not the product of your own decisions, or forces beyond your control – and I’m not talking about major man-made or natural disasters – then you should vote for Barack Obama.

If you believe that the real enemies of human kind are oil and natural gas and that the federal government should continue to subsidize so-called alternative energy sources in spite of the evidence that there is no economic reason to do so, then you should vote for Barack Obama.

If you believe that an increasingly shrinking group of people around the President are having an increasingly growing influence over all sectors of the Executive Branch and that Department heads being answerable to Congress is an outdated concept, then you should vote for Barack Obama.

Similarly, if you believe that the Congress itself is an outdated concept; that the President should be able to dictate to the Congress and to the Supreme Court what he wants them to do (with the word “dictate” here used advisedly) rather than adhere to the Constitutional principle that there are three co-equal branches of government, then you should vote for Barack Obama.

If you believe in ceding influence over international events to the Russians, the Chinese and/or the European Union then you should vote for Barack Obama.

If you believe that national policy should be set by an amalgam of Hollywood actors, environmental extremists, and public union bosses, then you should vote for Barack Obama.

And, finally, if you believe, as the Washington Post does that:

“Mr. Obama has a record; voters know his priorities. His budget plan is inadequate, but it wouldn’t make things worse.”

… is a working definition of a successful four years, then you should vote for Barack Obama.

On the Secret Decoder Ring page today: A link to the Washington Post’s editorial and a Mullfoto showing a view of Hurricane Sandy you may not have seen.

Copyright ©2012 Barrington Worldwide, LLC | Mullings.com