Talking points are simply summaries for his supporters to use when discussing why HE wants to do this. Given no one can get inside of McCain's head, it's usually a good idea for a candidate to supply them to make sure those who represent them know why he's doing something.

The genius in it is calling the memo "Talking Points", which makes it seem much more insidious. Instead, if you actually read the memo, it makes McCain look very good. So, because of the scandalous title, the media will be stating that McCain was secretly hoping to "suspend advertising and fundraising" to instead try to help with this crisis.

Sure paints him in a bad light, doesn't it?

And what in the world do you think that you are any different??? I see no difference between you and JonInMiddleGA.

"Daaaahahhhhh... I heard that!"



(hope this site doesn't have an anti-hotlinking policy)

Now THAT is funny.

Hey Jon! Joo hear that? I wasnt even talking about choo. LOL

Oh and BTW, McCain told a bold faced lie when he told Letterman he wasnt in NY and Letterman showed the feed of Johnny Mac taping his interview with Couric. So perhaps he just forgot he was in NY or he told a bold faced lie. y'know....I dont like lying, nope, not at all.

McCain hasn't made a vote since April, suddenly he's all about the business of the Senate?

So, stating that McCain is "spinning" the media and this thread shows how "spun" I am. I am not sure that even makes sense, but I'll repost what Kodos linked to earlier to help explain all this:

Yep, but he'll keep insisting that he's seeing both sides, blah, blah.

He had plenty of time today to meet with Rothschild and plenty of time tomorrow to give a speech at Clinton's global warming event.

Would you agree with the premise that the banking crisis is slightly more important than whether or not spotted owls need protection in northwestern Oregon?

yes

Would you admit that McCain lied about his location today?

BTW, this may be a fun game.

I did read it. And several of the points brought up in it are wrong. Obama contacted the McCain campaign that morning, not the other way around. And it was the Bush administration that invited Obama to the discussions, not the McCain campaign.

Take into account that McCain hasn't voted on a Senate measure since April Votes by John McCain | Congress votes database | washingtonpost.com , it seems a little bit of a stretch that now all of a sudden nothing can get done on the bailout unless he drops everything and heads back to Washington.

Or is his lack of voting yet another master plan that is playing the public and the media like a fiddle?

YouTube - David Letterman Reacts to John McCain Suspending Campaign

For anyone who doesn't feel like waiting/staying up lateish.

Letterman was on fire.

Well it's just a Hollywood type. him speaking out is probably good for McCain, sympathy wise, i mean. right? Well Letterman's just full of shit. That CBS feed was from a few days ago and the Senator wasn't ever scheduled to be on. It's just a vast Liberal Media bias playing out. And that wasn't even the real McCain over there on Couric's show because we all know that Johnny wouldve never let someone apply makeup, that makeup tech wouldve walked away with 2 broken arms and a limp....bloody.

Mizzou Basketball, Arles, and JoninGA make no bones about what side they are on. Only Mizzou even tries to act like he has no bias. You are clearly a Democratic schill but think the rest of us don't realize it because you end every post with "I would be pissed at Democrats too". So either you are a complete fool and really think we believe you or you are in complete denial yourself and really don't see how slanted your posts are. You are 100% Democrat and your posts never show anything otherwise. That's not a bad thing, but you make it bad by claiming you are fair and balanced.

k

Hell, Andrew Sullivan mocked McCain for saying he was locked up with his advisors all morning, when it came out that he spent most of the morning with Lady Rothschild...

Today has not been a good day for the truth.

SurveyUSA has put up a "snap reaction" poll to the whole debate postponement controversy.


link to all questions and data

(No idea if what he says is right - it probably is,) but Andrew Sullivan has been anti-Republican for about 4 years if you're trying to imply some intra-Party mockery.

He's kinda the opposite of Christopher Hitchens in that their current positions and fetishes are completely at odds with the labels they're popularly known as. (With the caveat that Hitchens is a complete badass who could outdrink Sullivan (and all of FOFC) and probably does most nights before debating his opponents.)

I have to admit, my interest in Friday's debate is about triple it was before. It looks like something will get done tomorrow (something very doubtful 24 hours ago) and that should help McCain. It will be "spun" (for Flasch) that McCain's ultimatum on the debates may very well have increased the willingness to get the bill done.

Now, do I believe that? I think it's a stretch. But, I think McCain is better off for pulling this stunt today which might be what matters in the campaign. In the end, I don't think it will matter much but it's been fun to watch.

As I suspected, there wasn't a peep from most of the news outlets on this today. Can you imagine what would have happened if Sarah Palin had said the exact same thing that Biden said? It would have been hammered ad nauseum for days on CNN, MSNBC, "The View", Letterman, Jay Leno and SNL.

I am dying to ask Biden to spell "potatoes".

The only person I saw hammer it was Jon Stewart.

Yup. It is really a pretty sad statement. FDR went on TV during the Great Depression? Wow. So much wrong in one little statement.

Good article on how this whole bail-out is a bit of a catch-22 for McCain:

First thoughts on McCain’s call to delay presidential debates

Wednesday, September 24, 2008, 03:17 PM
The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Republican John McCain says he’s directed his staff to work with Barack Obama’s campaign and the presidential debate commission to delay Friday’s debate — because of the economic crisis.
Read the building story here.
“It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration’s proposal,” McCain said. “I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time,” McCain said.
Not to be too cynical, but here’s McCain’s dilemma:
Yes, the topic of Friday’s debate is national security, as many of you have pointed out. But given the attention that the Wall Street situation has earned, it would be unrealistic not to expect the two candidates to be questioned about it. At some point, the economy is a national security issue.
Opposition is building among conservative Republicans to a federal bailout. Newt Gingrich is among the leaders. See a previous post here.
Remember that Vice President Dick Cheney was given an earful by the House GOP caucus on Tuesday when he tried to sell the Bush package. Georgia GOP members are among the skeptical.
Presume that Democrats, because they control Congress, will get the protections they deem necessary to earn their approval. For instance, the New York Times is reporting that the Bush Administration is now willing to concede the issue of limits on executive pay.
But Republican qualms are ideologically based, and unlikely to be satisfied.
Should McCain endorse the package — as U.S. senators, both he and Obama will be asked to vote on it — then the Republican risks alienating a GOP base that was just won back by the nomination of Sarah Palin as vice president.
Vote against it, and McCain chances giving Obama the most important issue of the campaign.
CNN and ABC News is reporting that Obama is less than inclined to postpone the debate.

I'm sure that's all they've voted on since April. Good argument.

Because give or take at least half the country is too f'n stupid to tie their own shoes? And believe me, "half" is being far more generous than I really believe. You want to get an idea across to the masses, you better be able to boil it down to a few points on about a 3rd to 5th grade level or you're SOL.

Along with that cheery thought, re: the USA Today poll on debategate reaction, it'll be interesting to see what the final combined rating for the debate turns out to be. And then of that number, how many do you believe will actually have their vote influenced by anything that happens in the debate?

How about the G.I. Bill?

Besides, McCain's a self-professed non-expert on the economy. He holds no positions on the relevant committees. What, exactly, is he going to add to the drafting of such a bill?

It makes Biden look more like a regular joe, you know, somebody you could have a beer with. Contrast that to an elitist rock star celebrity candidate like Sarah Palin who would probably be too busy traveling around the country meeting the likes of Bono. That just doesn't connect to my small-town, blue-collar values.

Palin being interviewed by Katie Couric: Cringeworthy.

Just... wow.

Heh, just watched the SNL Tina Fey-as-Sarah Palin skit. I'd bet good money Fey would have done better in that interview than Palin. :D

I agree with you but like Obama, when you get an aura of being a 'rock star' youre treated differently. Biden and McCain arent thought of in that way, IMO.

Indeed he was:

Joe Versus the Volcano | The Daily Show | Comedy Central

Uhhhhh, I've stated that I'm a moderate Republican (read: don't believe a word of the moral right, but I'm very conservative on economic policy) and have said that I'm probably going to vote McCain. I think that's a pretty clear indication of where my bias lies.

I think that continues to be one of the main differences between the two sides. The general conservatives don't try to hide in any way what their leanings are, whereas posters like Flasch and JPhillips who have obvious leanings indirectly talk out of one side of their mouth about the virtues of liberal policy while preaching an 'unbias' search for the truth out of the other side. Someone needs to tell them that "Don't ask, don't tell" applies to gays, not liberals. It's OK to come out of the closet.

FWIW.....I think the McCain move is mostly political maneuvering, but the Obama camp needs to maintain their focus on the issues. Oh, and they need to tell Harry Reid to shut the hell up before he f#@$s up Obama's plan to handle this situation. Unbelievable.

Amazing contrast in interviews by Katy Couric. She had the flamethrower out for Palin. I'd note that there's nothing inherently wrong with putting Palin's feet to the fire. Voters need to see how she handles the situation. With that said, where were the similar questions when Biden was interviewed earlier this month? It was blatently obvious what was going on to anyone who watched both of those interviews.

I don't try to hide my beliefs, I just expect people to have evidence before stating "facts" and that they hold their side to the same standard as their opponent.

As for Katie Couric, seriously when did all the Republicans become such whiny pussies? Katie Couric is too mean for an interview? All you need now is for Harry Smith to bring out the flamethrower and you'll be 0-3 with former morning show anchors. Who would be an acceptable interviewer, Mike Greenberg?

And Dan Rather thought he & his cronies represented "the center". This really isn't anything new.

I noticed you didn't address the creampuffs that she tossed Biden. There were certainly plenty of lobbying issues related to his son along with his numerous 'Biden' moment where she could have taken him to task, but that obviously wasn't in the cards.

I suppose that name-calling is now a full representation of the 'facts' in the discussion. Well done.

What were the tough questions she asked Palin? What was out of bounds? What I saw was a pretty soft interview, but one where Palin couldn't provide the boilerplate answers that should be second nature for a VP candidate. It isn't Katie Couric's fault if Palin is laughably unprepared for a simple interview.

Just so I can keep my fantasy team up to date, was Couric meaner than Gibson?

I think the expectations angle hasn't been played up enough on this. I think you hit the nail right on the head. We've been talking about this for a while (the line about Grandpa Simpson vs Denzel Washington comes to mind) and debates are all about expectations. This just lowers the bar a little more for McCain.

SI

I'm not so sure this will affect the campaign in any way, but just another perfect example of what stupid sounds like.......

Hot Air » Blog Archive » Alcee Hastings: Anyone who hunts moose “don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks”

I really like Joe Biden but he does have foot-in-mouth syndrome sometimes. And, yes, Jon Stewart did go after him last night but that's not exactly the news media.

SI

Those mean reporters are making Sarah Palin look bad!

:cry:

First, as you appear to be confused, the argument is not that the Palin interview was unfair in any way. The argument is that the quality of questions in the Biden interview wasn't even remotely as good or tough as the Palin questions. Biden got a free pass and I'm sure he was happy about it.

Here's the lists of questions that were asked of Palin and Biden. While I am certainly under no illusion that JPhillips will yield any sort of ground in admitting the obvious difference in tone between these two articles and how different the results would have been if the questions for each candidate would have been, I certainly think the comparison is worth the time for those that are interested.

First, the Palin interview.........

One-On-One With Sarah Palin, CBS Evening News Anchor Katie Couric Interviews Alaska's Governor On The Ailing Economy - CBS News


Next, the Biden interview.........

Behind The Scenes With Joe Biden, CBS News Anchor Katie Couric Spends The Day With The Democratic VP Nominee - CBS News

I'm genuinely curious as to how anyone can be very conservative on economic policy AND a Republican. I'm assuming no one who's economically conservative was ever a Democrat.

Cause they remember Dole and the Contract with America Republicans. Wasn't too long ago.

Simply put, I don't believe in government handouts or income redistribution. I'm a big fan of the flat tax with no exceptions/loopholes. That includes a full revoking of the estate tax. Most all of those issues lie on the conservative side of the line, so I generally support the Republican candidates more often than not.

So how would you classify the prescription drug benefit and current finance bailout? That's explicit income redistribution right there.

I'm not a supporter of either of them. In the long term, both of them help the wealthier class rather than the average citizen IMO.

Stereotypes are just easier and save everyone time!

OK last question :) If Republicans led and did these things that you're against (and IMO they're really BIG things), why support them with your vote? NOT arguing that the Dems are better, worse or indifferent, but if you support someone who says they believe in X and then goes and does the opposite, that seems like the worst of both worlds.

Well, if I used that logic to vote, I wouldn't vote for anyone. :)

My assumption is that most voters vote based on which candidate offers the most benefit to them as an individual. In my case, I align much more with the Republican way of thinking rather than Democrats.