Back in 2006, the Post decided it needed to take down Sen. George Allen (R-VA) by bestowing on him more than 100 articles excoriating his (admittedly stupid) use of the word “macaca” when addressing one of his Democrat opponent’s campaign volunteers. Newsworthy, to be sure, but their excessive coverage of the matter showed their rather obvious bias against conservatives.  Now, they’ve set their sights on Bob McDonnell, conservative Republican candidate for governor in Virginia. His crime? Being a long-time conservative.

Over twenty years ago, Mr. McDonnell wrote an academic thesis in which, unsurprisingly, his solid conservative principles figured prominently. Many of these same conservative principles are the cornerstone of his current gubernatorial campaign, a campaign with a message that is resonating very well with the electorate. It is absolutely appropriate for the Post to look at a candidate’s past writings (though they appear quite selective in which candidates they choose) and present the facts to their readers. Where they go extremely wide of mark is their presentation of opinion as fact. The piece in Sunday’s edition was far better suited for the op-ed page than the news section. Author Amy Gardner has one goal: to scare voters by offering opinion rather than a factual dissection of Mr. McDonnell’s thesis.

Why would they do this? Well, quite simply, they think you’re dumb and that you’ll fall prey to their scare tactics. They are an organization with an agenda, and they attempt to influence the voting behavior of their readers by presenting articles short on fact, yet strong on invective aimed squarely at conservatives. They think you are far too intellectually feeble to do your research into Mr. McDonnell by, say, going to his website, reading his Twitter stream, checking out his Facebook page, or simply Googling his name. You may agree with McDonnell, you may not, but reaching your own conclusion based on fact is what the Washington Post absolutely does not want you to do.