Sick of innuendo, slant and slime

[suffragette]

So, this morning I see an article titled "Passage of Senate funding bill sets up battle" in my local paper. It's an AP article. The subtitle to it is "House leaders, White House want $14 billion worth of add-ons cut"
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/269190_spend05.html

It begins with:
"The Senate on Thursday passed a $109 billion bill to pay for the war in Iraq and hurricane relief at home, knowing it would ignite a battle with the White House and House conservatives determined to shear it of $14 billion in election-year add-ons."

So, right away I'm smacked in the face with the slant and the hypocrisy. Excuse me, the Senate and the Administration are both controlled by the same party. Are they battling themselves? What is the distinction between the Senate on one side and the White House and conservatives on the other in terms of control?

I keep reading, then start fuming:
The Senate bill reflects the freewheeling nature of the body, where it takes just a few Republicans to cross party lines to join with Democrats for more spending. That happened again and again, both in the Appropriations Committee and on the floor.


So, who is singled out for fault here?
Who gets the words "more spending" appended right next to their name?
Yep, Democrats.

Even though Democrats are the minority party.

Even though Republicans control the Administration, the Senate and the House.

Even though that same control is what has put and kept us in the quagmire that is Iraq.

Even though it is Republicans who squandered the budget surplus and turned it into the largest damned deficit we've ever had.

Even though Republicans consciously set out to destroy previously competent agencies like FEMA, which has led to humanitarian crises and spending gaffes like purchasing trailers and leaving them to slowly sink in a state far from where they are needed or driving ice all over the country at large expense rather than sending it to the people desperate for the help.

Even though who knows what is being spent to finance illegeal endeavors like domestic wiretapping.

Even though the listing of the main spending items at the bottom of the article are pertinent to the purpose of the bill.

Even though the one provision mentioned with a Democratic Senator's name anywhere near it is actually something that would manage cost more sensibly along with promoting fair practices:
One little-noticed provision added by Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., on the floor would block the government from entering into no-bid contracts in excess of $500,000.

Even though the one provision given as an example of an "add-on" is from a Republican, then is disingenuously used both to show to make the point of the article that the add-ons aren't getting cut and that it is the conservatives trying to reduce these:
Except for a single vote last week, to kill $15 million for seafood promotion obtained by Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., conservatives failed to pare back the spending bill.

I know this is far from the most blatant example of the way that biased coverage creates false impressions of the actual issues, but it shows just how insidious and pervasive this is and I am damned sick of it and needed to rant.