Liberal big-city daily with incredibly shrinking circulation can’t get enough articles detailing why Tim Pawlenty is too conservative:

Pawlenty hasn’t learned from Romney’s mistakes

But the misstep was not the first questionable decision by Pawlenty.

In September, he jumped into the controversy over President Obama’s speech to schoolchildren, questioning the wisdom of the address in a way that provided some cover to those who claimed that the presidential talk was an overtly political move designed to indoctrinate young people.

In another interview on MSNBC, Pawlenty appeared reluctant to get on the wrong side of those who claimed that there were “death panels” in some versions of the health-care legislation on Capitol Hill. He eventually acknowledged that there were no such panels but said the concerns of those who believed so were justifiable.

It’s all about “reaching out” and “inclusiveness” if you’re inclined to be conservative. If you’re a liberal, such actions are likely to be labeled simply as “being a chump”.

It’s evidenced at the Washington Post, but also in all of Big Media: when you’re a conservative, the only way you can earn respect and admiration of the 20% of America (and 99% of MSM editorial boards) is to abandon conservative principles. It’s a the MSM’s version of the Brezhnev Doctrine.

According to the Doctrine, the largest problem a conservative will have in getting elected is having conservative principles. Of course, history, Bob Dole and John McCain are proof otherwise. But when did the Washington Post ever let the facts get in the way of Doctrine?

NOTE: We’re referring to the part of the Brezhnev Doctrine that can be summed up as “What’s mine is mine and what’s your’s is in play.”