Don't you hate it when you feel conned after having your emotions tickled?

Let me put this in context. I'm reading this article titled "Serious and Frugal, Far From Flashy, Davis Sees Himself as a Regular Guy" by Lloyd Dunkelberger on the life of Tampa's Jim Davis. The article starts out by portraying a man who having wealth, power and influence decides to steer his life without them. It's a picture we don't rarely see. In fact, it's a picture that seems to be too good to be true. But, we follow the ensuing detail imagining a man who is about to achieve some incredible humanitarian task - like offloading his family wealth to some poor third world nation.

Instead, three paragraphs in, we're slammed to the ground with;

That background, Davis says, gives him a connection to most Florida voters who are also struggling to pay for insurance, are worried about rising property tax bills and want better schools for their children.

Aaarghh! What happened? One minute I'm envisioning a man about to change the course of the world through some benevolent action and the next I'm brought to the ground with a "Vote for me" thud. But wait! Surely the editorial of some reputable news service would dig deeper to reveal why this comment needed to be made.

Alas, the article continues along the new chartered course without any mention for its deviation. We've been conned by a journalist playing with our emotions again and to think they didn't even disclose the sponsorship of the editorial. Please tell me it wasn't a paid article?