For over four years, Barack Obama has shown his contempt for half the people of this country, yet the Washington Post still claims that it’s Romney who insults voters, mostly because Romney hasn’t given enough details about his various plans. But what should we expect from the Post? The primary occupation of those working at MSM publications is to serve as propagandists for liberal candidates, often by claiming as truth that which is the exact opposite.

Given the nature of the fiscal problems facing America, it’s not really desirable that the candidates provide specific details about where they would cut the budget or which tax deductions they would eliminate, etc. Anyone who speaks about the economy truthfully (i.e., that things aren’t free after all) will be rejected by voters who still hold out hope for, and even insist on, free things. Rather than making unrealistic demands for specificity, it would be better for voters to identify and consider the general principles and governing philosophy of each candidate in order to understand how they would approach the problems facing us.

Understanding Obama is easy because, as the Post points out, Obama has a record and “voters know his priorities.” Indeed, Obama has shown that his preference is to place as many of the 315 million people in this country as he can under the thumb of the federal government. For example, healthcare is a local activity (most people go to doctors and hospitals located within a few miles of where they live), yet Obama wants the central government to control all aspects of it. Obama is also inclined to ignore the rule of law (e.g., auto bailout, immigration policy, EPA issues), which is the absolute bedrock of a free society. And we all understand that dependency is Obama’s priority, not freedom.

Of course, as a former governor of the bluest state in the union, Romney may end up being not much less of an authoritarian than Obama. But there would be some hope because Romney at least understands how wealth is created and that central planning and dependency will only insure continued stagnation followed by decline. Romney drew negative attention for saying he cannot win the support of 47% of voters, but Obama is in exactly the same position with respect to an equivalent percentage of voters. So liberals’ criticism and distortions of Romney’s statement are unjustified. In fact, Romney’s approach to government is more likely to help the 47% than is Obama’s.

It would not be unjustified to think that Obama is the one who is contemptuous of almost half the people in this country. Over the last four years, we’ve seen Obama’s disdain in a number of instances:  his statement in 2008 about voters who “cling to their guns and religion” or the statement in 2010 about voters who don’t “think clearly” when they’re scared about the economy. Again in 2010, Obama told a group of Latinos to be sure to vote in order to punish their enemies, and by enemies, he didn’t mean Al Qaeda or Iran’s mullahs. No, he meant Republicans, and by extension, anyone who votes for Republicans.

Obama’s condescension has continued nonstop right on into the 2012 campaign season. His nastiness and resentment of success perhaps hit a high point last summer with his “you didn’t build that” speech in which he mocked people who have created successful businesses. And last week in Ohio, Obama revised his vote-to-punish exhortation to one where he encouraged the crowd to vote for “revenge.” Surely America would be better served by someone who actually respects and likes Americans, such as Romney. The editors at the Washington Post think voters want a condescending central planner; hopefully the results Tuesday prove them wrong.