No one I know is surprised that the New York Times neglected to publish McCain’s editorial on Iraq, even though it published a piece written by Obama on the same topic just one week ago. Not even the McCain campaign, which will no doubt raise funds from conservative stalwarts in retribution, are troubled by the editorial board decision.

By email, the Times notified the McCain campaign that they would re-consider publishing his article, if McCain writes a piece that “mirrors” the Obama one. There is no need at this point because McCain’s editorial is front page news for two reasons: (1) McCain is the presumptive Republican candidate for President and his opinions regarding Iraq mean something, and (2) the Times’ comes off as biased towards Obama whereby fueling anger among conservative journalists.

In all fairness, the Times did not always reject McCain’s views. One time fans of McCain, the “darling” of the media, they described him as a “maverick” for being a politician that acts independently. The Times have not used that term as of late, but that will change, as soon as McCain flips back to his more liberal side. Then the editorial board would have reason to define him as a maverick again, but also, they could agree with his opinion. Agreeing with one’s opinion is the litmus test the editorial board at the Times is looking for.

But that is how the Times operates, no revelation here. They are liberals with a liberal-minded agenda, and legally there is nothing wrong with producing a publication servicing a liberal readership. After all, conservatives have their publications too. The problem here lies in the fact that the Times are given too much credit for being a news reporting agency. People read the Times trusting that it contains objective news writing, when in fact it does not. It especially hurts how Americans are viewed worldwide. With the Times being such a popular international newspaper, unfortunately, Americans and non-Americans get a distorted view of the world.

It is crystal clear to me that the Times does not trust the American people, or anyone else for that matter, to fully understand why electing a Republican president is equivalent to electing a capitalist, war mongering, racist bully. An article by McCain that makes sense on Iraq policy, would just mislead the American people into believing that Republicans are not capitalist, war mongering, racist bullies, an opinion that the Times desperately wants us to believe.

Thank God not everyone believes the nonsensical and unfair characterizations of Republicans put forth by the Times, otherwise we would not have elected President Bush twice. In addition, let us not forget the scathing editorial by the Times, the day after President Bush beat John Kerry in 04, it identified Americans who voted for Bush as stupid, bible-thumping buffoons. Their arrogance alone is mind boggling, and enough for me to stop reading their paper, but their meddling in the war against terrorists is enough to have them arrested and put in jail, in my humble opinion.

A couple of years ago, I attended a rally at the Times building. A large group of us were protesting the Times for leaking military secrets to the world, going so far as to reveal the names of banking institutions that were the target of a federal investigation for funneling funds to terrorists. Giving our country’s enemies a “heads-up” during a time of war is not my idea of news reporting. One could easily conclude their actions constitute treason.

Finally, as you can see, I am no fan of the Times. I think they are too busy promoting the well spoken, Harvard-grad lawyer and liberal, Obama for President, coupled with their hatred for all things President Bush, makes it impossible for them to remain objective reporters of news. Otherwise, they would have gladly published McCain’s editorial, leaving it to their readers to decide who has the best plan for Iraq.