What the hell? Why is the AP running a completely ridiculous, partisan opinion piece under the guise of "analysis"? Under the already ridiculous headline "Analysis: Obama chose winning over his word" we are treated to recitations of garbage Republican talking points.
For instance,
And with that, the first-term Illinois senator tarnished his carefully honed image as a different kind of politician — one who means what he says and says what he means — while undercutting his call for "a new kind of politics."
McCain, for his part, painted the issue as a character test, saying: "This election is about a lot of things. It's also about trust. It's about keeping your word."
Great, so the fact that Obama is basically choosing to replace the $80M he'd be getting from the government with small donations from his more than 1.5M donors basically means that he's just the same ol' crappy politician who lies, and we certainly can't trust him, as McCain points out.
The AP writer tries to bring "balance" to the article by pointing out some of McCain's own problems:
McCain, for instance, opposed President Bush's tax cuts in 2001 and 2003. Now, as a White House hopeful in 2008, he supports them; he says doing otherwise would amount to a tax increase. He also long advocated an eventual path to citizenship for many illegal immigrants. Then, while in the GOP primary, he emphasized securing the borders first; he says he listened to the public outcry and a defeated Senate bill.
The Republican also rails against special interests, yet he has faced criticism for having former lobbyists at his campaign's helm. And, just this week, McCain assailed Obama for proposing a windfall profits tax on oil, despite saying last month he would consider the same proposal.
Ok, so McCain switched positions on tax cuts, which apparently doesn't rise to the level of basically calling McCain a liar. As for the "special interest" thing, rather than actually report that the criticism is factually correct, the writer just says that he's been "criticized" for his position.
But no discussion of the relevant topic of public financing, which we all know McCain made a mockery of in the primary by opting in, securing a loan and ballot access according to it, and then opting out ILLEGALLY without the FEC's authorization. Nope, none of that... just random other points which basically just amount to minor criticism from someone not mentioned.
Then the AP basically makes up a whopper:
Obama blamed his decision in part on McCain and "the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups." But he failed to mention that the only outside groups running ads in earnest so far are those aligned with Obama — and running commercials against McCain.
Oh really? You mean, the guy that created the Willie Horton ad DIDN'T create a few reprehensible ads already? It's beside the point, though, since it's not whether the's 527 groups have run ads already or not (and as far as I know there's only 1 that's created ads for Obama already, which is MoveOn, funded the same way as Obama's campaign, ie, through small donors), it's whether they're GOING TO in the future. McCain has already authorized them, and not only that, the RNC is obviously going to be spending on McCain's behalf, which will have far more money than McCain's campaign.
Maybe the AP should've mentioned that. If Obama had accepted public financing, he wouldn't be on even footing with the GOP... he'd be well under it, as the RNC would probably spend double what the DNC is going to.
But no, instead we get this garbage. And how does this garbage end?
So much for being a straight shooter.
And so much for an objective news organization.