The AP is too fair and balanced

The lefty blogosphere has been irritated with the Associated Press for sometime. It seems that the AP really is becoming more and more biased by the day. An article cover the last Democratic primary debate was titled "Democrats go adrift on taxes and trade in debate", which sounds a lot more like a press release from the RNC than the work of a real news service.

Here are some choice quotes:

For a brief time in their debate Sunday, Democrats seemed to be hewing to a New Year's resolution to stick more carefully to the facts on taxes, the budget and more. But old habits die hard.

The reporter decides to open the article by accusing all the Democrats of being pathological liars. I guess that is now a matter of fact rather than opinion thanks to constant repetition by huh-huh conservatives.

This, despite the fact he [Dean] has not worked out his plans for middle-class tax relief, a crucial chunk of any balanced budget plan.

I see, cutting taxes is essential to balancing the budget, just like increased food consumption is crucial for an effective weight loss program.


He said 60 percent of Americans got a tax cut of $304 from Bush -- revising a statement in an earlier debate that 60 percent saved $325.

Those cuts appear to be in the ballpark when it comes to the poorest 60 percent of Americans -- many of whom pay little federal income tax to begin with.

But the independent Tax Policy Center has calculated much larger tax cuts for middle income earners -- $1,012, for example, for someone making $40,000 to $50,000. Even people making $20,000 to $30,000 saved $638 on average, the center found.

So, even when Dean tells the truth (that 60% of Americans got around $300 from the Bush tax cut), he's is in fact lying because he didn't mention what other taxpayers recieved.

I can't believe this nonsense is a News Article for a respected news service. This is completely insane! If my writing was this biased I'd fail my journalism class and be hounded out of my third rate school paper! Damn it, this piece could have been written by a partisan hack from the National Review or the Weekly Standard. Burhmmmm.