AP Begs Readers to Put More Democrats in Office Next Year

As 2007 comes to a close, one has to wonder just how much further the press are willing to go printing Democrat talking points in order to get the candidates of their choice elected next year.

Throughout 2006, the biased media told the citizenry that all their problems would be solved if they kicked Republicans out of office, and elected enough Democrats to take over the Senate and the House.

Now that the first year of the 110th Congress has ended with key Democrat campaign promises not having been fulfilled, it's all the Republicans' fault.

Despite the absurdity of such a claim, that's exactly how the Associated Press depicted the situation in an article published moments ago, while making the case that if readers want Congress to accomplish more in the future, they had better vote for Democrats in 2008 (emphasis added throughout):

Democrats running Congress for the first time in more than a decade faltered at key points this year as they grudgingly passed important bills opposed by many, or even most, of their House members. When Republicans were in charge, they generally avoided a similar fate.

Republican solidarity also forced House Democrats to abandon a campaign promise to avoid new deficit spending by paying for new programs with tax increases or budget cuts.

In the Senate, Republicans repeatedly used their filibuster powers to block or weaken Democratic proposals. Backed by President Bush's veto threats, the minority party managed to sharply limit the Democrats' influence on a range of issues throughout the year.

How disgraceful. When the Democrats used similar tactics during the 108th and 109th Congresses, such strategies were applauded when the press liked the results, and ignored when they didn't. Isn't that convenient?

Yet, that was only the beginning of the AP mimicking Democrat talking points:

The Democrats' dilemma was clear in two House votes this past week just before Congress went on vacation.

The House voted 352-64 on Wednesday to delay an expansion of the alternative minimum tax. All 64 "no" votes came from Democrats who wanted the $50 billion cut in anticipated revenues to be offset, either with spending cuts or tax increases on wealthy groups. They were dismayed that the party had abandoned its no-deficit-spending pledge.

This is a farce, and should be immediately retracted. First off, as there are currently 233 Democrats in the House, this means that this vote was largely bipartisan with far more Democrats voting for this AMT "patch" than against it. The AP chose to ignore this.

More importantly, the absence of an AMT "patch," and the resulting tax revenues, was never part of a budget that required either offsetting tax hikes or spending reductions to neutralize if the situation was once again rectified. As such, the AP completely misrepresented this issue.

But that was just the beginning:

The House then voted 272-142 to set aside $70 billion for the military in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nearly twice as many Democrats voted against the spending as voted for it, because the measure imposed no restrictions on Bush's war policies.

Amazing. Just paragraphs before, when more than twice as many Democrats voted with Republicans versus against them to accomplish the AMT "patch," this fact was ignored. Sadly, that wasn't the only arithmetic sleight of hand employed in this piece:

Democratic majorities in previous Congresses made similar concessions. The North American Free Trade Agreement passed in 1993 despite opposition from most House and Senate Democrats, who then held power. That trade deal was backed by President Clinton, a Democrat.

What a joke. The NAFTA vote in 1993 was 234-200 in the House (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor, 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against). In the Senate, the vote was 61-38-1, with 27 out of 56 Democrats (or almost half) voting for it.

As such, it appears that bipartisanship to the AP is only important when it agrees with the legislation, for when it doesn't, its own agenda will carry the day as emphasized with this final sycophantic exclamation point:

Nothing has helped the minority party influence legislation this year more than Senate Republicans' liberal use of the filibuster. The obstructionist tactic can be overcome only with 60 votes in the 100-member chamber, where Democrats hold 51 seats.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., says little can be done until and unless more Democrats replace Republicans in the Senate.

"We need to do more" on numerous fronts, he said in his party's weekly radio address Saturday, "but time after time, when Democrats have fought for change, President Bush and Republicans in Congress have stood in the way."

Could these folks be any more obvious? Much like a Democrat talking points letter of memorandum, this was actually how this AP article ended -- with a distinct call for more Democrats to be put in office next year.

No matter how much folks on the left and their media minions point fingers at the Fox News Channel for being conservative, even it doesn't have the gall to be so out in the open with its political proclivities.

Liberal media bias? What liberal media bias?