It seems obvious that the new owners of the MaineToday Media newspapers are intent on promoting a conservative, pro-business (and, yes, Republican) editorial agenda.

While I do not share their views, I do not object either — hey, they put up the money and they are entitled to promote their point of view.

I do take exception to nakedly partisan, unsubstantiated editorials like the one in the July 18 Telegram (“Financial Services bill wraps system in red tape”) that parrots the rhetoric of the “Party of No” without any discussion of the actual merits or failings of the bill.

In attacking the legislation, the writer first had to brush aside the embarrassing fact that Maine’s GOP senators Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe supported the bill.

With that out of the way, he gets into the meat of his argument, which is that it’s a bad bill because it’s named after Barney Frank and Chris Dodd and, you know, everybody says they’re bad guys and most likely responsible for the mess in the first place. (“Everybody” being Republicans, the Fox News propaganda machine, the bought-and-paid-for Heritage Foundation, etc.)

Secondly, it’s a bad bill because, “For Obama, it’s a transparent attempt to give the voters what they want — retribution against the financial services industry — and to give Democrats political cover in the November elections.” (It couldn’t possibly be because we have a flawed regulatory framework that needs reform to hopefully prevent future meltdowns.)

Last, we are treated to the now-familiar bromide about how “economic growth depends on the free flow of capital, entrepreneurship and aggressive creative investment blah, blah, blah” and how government meddling is the worst thing that could possibly befall such a beautiful, organic process.

Sounds to me like the same simplistic drivel we were force-fed all through the Bush-Greenspan years. During that period the government pretty much stepped aside and let “The Market” rule. The result was the worst financial crisis since The Great Depression.

I would suggest that your readers would be better served in the future if you resist the temptation to write about complex topics like financial regulatory reform on your editorial page.

Let’s face it, neither you nor I are remotely equipped to really understand the implications of this bill. The difference is that I know it and, apparently, you don’t.