Letterman Rips McCain Over Phony Cancellation

Via Huffington Post, Sen. John McCain canceled his taped appearance on Dave Letterman's show today as part of his announcement he was suspending his campaign, but instead went down the street to be interviewed by Katie Couric.

< Bush Meeting Was Requested by McCain | Time/CNN Swing States Poll: Women Prefer Obama >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Poor Dave (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:51:08 PM EST
    McCain would rather talk to the news media than a late-night comedian.

    Poor McCain (4.50 / 6) (#2)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:53:35 PM EST
    He'd rather flip off the American people than face the music Friday night.

    No, he's not the one flipping us off. (4.25 / 4) (#7)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:01:47 PM EST
    McCain is taking care of business like he was elected to do.

    He's been challenging Obama to debates for months.  It's Obama that's been ducking them.

    Leaders lead


    What? (4.33 / 3) (#34)
    by cal1942 on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:58:55 PM EST
    McCain challenging Obama to debates for months?

    Apparently you've missed the fact that there are three scheduled debates. How in he!!, may I ask, is that ducking debates?

    This latest McCain gambit is strictly grandstanding. Like his economy guru Phil Gramm whose antics were often regered to as Grammstanding.

    For McCain it's a twofer. Make it appear that he's riding his charger into the fray to save the day and jacking the debate schedule to prevent Sarah Palin from being eviserated by Joe Biden.


    A question (none / 0) (#60)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:45:29 AM EST
    Was McCain's bright idea of speeding off to Washington preceded by some b.s. from Obama about the two of them issuing some "joint statement"?

    If so, McCain is moving his chess pieces in response to a tactical and deceptively aggressive move by Obama.


    Talk about b.s. n/t (none / 0) (#70)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:25:53 PM EST
    n/t and how (none / 0) (#73)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:45:52 PM EST
    Washington Post, Sept. 24

    "McCain's surprise announcement caught the Obama campaign off-guard -- officials were still waiting for McCain to return a call Obama had placed this morning seeking a joint statement on the bailout plan.

    "At 8:30 this morning, Senator Obama called Senator McCain to ask him if he would join in issuing a joint statement outlining their shared principles and conditions for the Treasury proposal and urging Congress and the White House to act in a bipartisan manner to pass such a proposal," Obama spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement. "At 2:30 this afternoon, Senator McCain returned Senator Obama's call and agreed to join him in issuing such a statement. The two campaigns are currently working together on the details."

    The McCain version: "Sen. Obama phoned Sen. McCain at 8:30 am this morning but did not reach him. The topic of Sen. Obama's call to Sen. McCain was never discussed. Sen. McCain was meeting with economic advisers and talking to leaders in Congress throughout the day prior to calling Sen. Obama. At 2:30 pm, Sen. McCain phoned Sen. Obama and expressed deep concern that the plan on the table would not pass as it currently stands. He asked Sen. Obama to join him in returning to Washington to lead a bipartisan effort to solve this problem.


    Were you ever really a Democrat? (4.25 / 4) (#8)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:04:56 PM EST
    I honestly have my doubts.

    I have been a Democrat for over 20 years (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by myiq2xu on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:09:05 PM EST
    Nation before party

    A McCain Democrat (4.25 / 4) (#15)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:13:04 PM EST
    Is that anything like a "Connecticut for Lieberman"?

    you are also over limit in your (4.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:13:56 PM EST
    anti-Obama comments. Please find another site.

    If that's what you believe you're doing, (3.66 / 6) (#16)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:13:14 PM EST
    then you're even more delusional than I originally thought.

    Better to just let us think you're a Republican.


    Same Here (none / 0) (#62)
    by supertroopers on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:07:41 AM EST
    Ardent Bill, Gore, Hillary supporter.

    Sadly, their party is gone. Now it's the left wing media party.

    That's fine.


    That's so uncalled for andgarden (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by angie on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:44:24 PM EST
    Considering that the Dem. candidate is on a "Faith, Family and Values Tour" with none other then Prop. 8 supporter Douglas Kmiec and that he actually said today that the cram down provisions in the bailout  bill (which would help keep homes from going into foreclosure in the first place thereby being as important as anything else in that bill to save the economy with the added bonus of helping "the little guy)"aren't needed" I wouldn't be throwing stones at who is or isn't a Democrat these days. I'm confused myself.

    The conservatives do not want (none / 0) (#45)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:46:03 AM EST
    the "cram down" provisions that were used in the depression.it takes the control away from the financiers and puts control into the hands of the government and the consumers. The Wall Streeters want to be rescued on their terms and even Kmeic wants to cozy up to Obama to try to twist him to his point of view.  Kmeic is not about to change to fit Obama's point of view.  It is all a sham.

    I don't understand your point (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by angie on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:04:11 AM EST
    You point out that conservatives don't want the cram down provisions but don't address the fact that neither does Obama, as he said today -- or Biden for that matter. The debtor's bar lobbied hard for cram down provisions during the so-called bankruptcy reform, and they were in the act initially, but Biden was a leading force in cutting them out of the final act. If they are not in the bailout bill they will never get passed -- so Obama's statement that they can be "taken care of later" is horse pucky. The fact is if the mortgage companies knew that the court could force a reduction in the value of the mortgage and/or a reduction of the interest rates to keep a house out of foreclosure, the mortgage companies would bend over backwards to work with the homeowners without the court's "help." Now, even I, as an attorney can't get the mortgage companies to return my call to renegotiate the terms of my clients' loans.

    It sounds like Obama has finally spoken (none / 0) (#72)
    by hairspray on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 02:44:00 PM EST
    on what the bill should look like.  I was under the impression that the Democrats were moving to the HOLC like solutions as championed by an economist named Roubini.  Also I have heard Bill Clinton come out loud and clear on this solution. I am not happy with Obama's  or Biden's position as it sounds too cozy with the Paulson plan to give the financial giants control of the deal.  Am I gettintg this right?

    No, you are mischaracterizing what (none / 0) (#53)
    by litigatormom on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:09:23 AM EST
    Obama said.

    He said that they didn't have to be part of the initial bill. He didn't say they weren't "needed" as part of the overall solution.


    You know, it would be fair to ask (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by echinopsia on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:01:03 AM EST
    whether being for Obama with his faith-based campaign, pro-FISA vote, pro-drilling stance, etc. etc., makes someone a real Democrat.

    Was HE ever really a Democrat? I have more doubts than you do.


    Fair but very silly (3.33 / 3) (#40)
    by rilkefan on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:10:33 AM EST
    He's reluctantly taken some bad but very popular stances while running for national office.  Your standard would rule out almost every single elected Democrat in the country.

    I'd like Obama so much more (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:03:06 AM EST
    if he ran to the left.  It's really that simple.  

    It's incredibly frustrating.  We have the perfect environment to push progressive principles and yet our leaders hem and haw.  Maybe I should have sent out engraved gilt invitations.


    I'm sure most of us in the prog blogosphere would (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:21:00 AM EST
    prefer all Dem candidates to run on a more left, progressive platform.  Problem is, if they did, they would alienate mainstream America and they wouldn't be elected.

    It's the campaign two step that's been ubiquitous in politics for decades.  Appeal to the left to secure the nomination from your party, then appeal to the center for the GE.  Appear too extreme and you're sunk.  

    Towing the party line.  Yuck.  I really think we need a multi-party system so politicians could be more open about what they really believe.

    I do think that the public is more open to conservative extremism, which is sad.  Liberalism is a bad word now and I think the DNC needs to start a marketing campaign to turn that around.


    Start a marketing campaign now? (none / 0) (#68)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 10:27:58 AM EST
    Isn't that about two years too late?  The DNC had their big chance in 2006 and their even bigger chance this year.  It's not going to get any better than this for a long, long time unless the GOP disintegrates completely.

    I was contacted by a nice couple of canvassers.  I said I didn't much like Obama, but I'd vote for them.  They got my name as an undecided because I basically told the DNC to go jump off a cliff.  I don't like Obama much, but I don't like the DNC at all.  


    better late than never! n/t (none / 0) (#71)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:58:03 PM EST
    Such bullsh!t (none / 0) (#74)
    by echinopsia on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:35:45 PM EST
    Problem is, if they did, they would alienate mainstream America and they wouldn't be elected.

    Mainstream America is liberal.


    it's more fluid than that (none / 0) (#76)
    by Iris on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 07:59:36 PM EST
    I agree that Americans in general are more liberal than we sometimes acknowledge, but many, many see themselves as conservatives and right now think of liberalism as something they do not want to be associated with.  Part of that is that they don't know what liberalism is, as they've been receiving their definitions from Republicans.

    This is one instance where Hillary supporters who thought Obama didn't run a progressive enough campaign (and I was one of them) need to admit we were wrong.  Obama's been running to the center in terms of basic rhetoric, and it's working.  Look at Virginia, Colorado, North Carolina, Florida, Ohio, Indiana and Missouri.  We never thought he had a shot at winning those states, and yet it's close in every case!


    I saw no reluctance. (none / 0) (#75)
    by echinopsia on Sat Sep 27, 2008 at 05:52:32 PM EST
    He didn't express any reluctance, and according to him, he believes in every stance he took.

    What's silly is saying my standard would rule out every single elected Democrat. Obama is farther to the right than most elected Democrats in the stances he's taken since he became the nominee.


    I didn't know... (4.00 / 3) (#9)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:07:04 PM EST
    anyone could drink that much Kool-Aid.

    McCain has already admitted he knows very little about the economy. What in the world could he possibly add to the debate when he admits up front he has no knowledge. Hell, just last week he said the economy was strong.


    Taking care of business? (3.75 / 4) (#13)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:11:17 PM EST
    He's trying to save his own sorry a$$. He's playing stunts becuase his poll numbers are starting to tank. He's a liar and a fake. What has he done in the Senate for the last six months? What has he be doing to promote responsibilty, regulation and oversight of the banking and securities industry?

    At least now we know for certain you're a Republican. Whew. Had me fooled for a minute there.


    lol (3.50 / 2) (#32)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:52:48 PM EST

    Well, to be fair, is it really "saving the country" if you dont give a news interview to announce it first, during and after.  

    And next week he'll confess his desperate struggle with heroin on Oprah.

    Gimmick, gimmick, gimmick.


    McCain's deregulation fanatsies got us into (3.25 / 4) (#11)
    by WillBFair on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:09:16 PM EST
    this mess. Dodd and Frank and Clinton don't need any dingbat republicans to figure this out. Compare the economic records of the dems and repubs. But I forget, sloganeers don't bother with facts. Your leaders have led us into the ditch.

    He's been taking care of big business too much n/t (none / 0) (#14)
    by rilkefan on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:12:22 PM EST
    I guess (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Steve M on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:54:10 PM EST
    it's not very smart to tell someone you're flying right back to Washington because of an emergency when you're actually heading to another appearance on their network that they're sure to find out about.  At least, it's not smart if the person you're lying to has a large TV audience to tell about it.

    This is the 'new' Straight Talk Express: (3.66 / 3) (#4)
    by byteb on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 10:59:02 PM EST
    McCain lies through his teeth. Palin lies through her teeth. Mavericks both.

    Having late night comics thinking (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST
    that you're a liar. . .not electorally smart.

    And it cost Karl Rove a lot of money and effort (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:01:16 PM EST
    to make that happen in 2000.

    Wonder how Leno et al. will cover this n/t (none / 0) (#17)
    by rilkefan on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:13:54 PM EST
    Not to mention, Stewart and Colbert (4.00 / 3) (#20)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    who will really give it to him.

    By the time this week is over McCain is gonna need a pound of smelling salts at the ready.


    In defense of McCain (ready to get flamed) (none / 0) (#66)
    by stefystef on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:27:32 AM EST
    perhaps he and his camp changed their mind after Bush gave him and Obama the invitation to meet up today (Thursday), so there was no rush to head back to Washington.

    I still say Letterman is a whiny b**tch and needs to get over himself.  McCain didn't come on my show... WaaaaWaaaa... McCain went to a REAL news show, Katie Couric, instead of mine... Waaaa Waaaa.  Geez, no wonder no one is watching TV anymore, no men on there anymore.

    Isn't time for him to retire????  


    How can anyone defend McCain's (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Howard Zinn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 09:52:12 AM EST
    idiotic political posturing, when there's no logical defense?  McCain asked Bush to "summon" them to Washington.  Cheap stunt.

    No, there's no reason why they can't meet with Bush and get to the debate.  Don't they have jets?

    McCain said he had to get to Washington to work on the crisis, but instead high tails it to another interview.  It was blatant political posturing -- Super McCain needs to fly back to DC! (A candidate who is admittedly ignorant on the economy, who doesn't sit on any relevant committee, needs to fix the problem he created?  REally? How, exactly?).  But he lied and didn't go to DC, he did another interview.  Yet again, deceit!

    McCain's the whiner: It's just too tough on lil' baby McCain to work on the mean ol' economy and do a debate!  WAAAAWAAA!  And poor little Palin needs to postpone her debate too (for no real reason). Then they'll be another reason to postpone, and another.  Palin/McCain knows they're through if they meets Obama/Biden fairly, so they'll cry until he gets his way.  Pathetic.


    Suspend the campaign? I get (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Blowback on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:04:36 AM EST
    it. Trick to get the Moose "debate" canceled.

    Of course he had to cancel ... (4.00 / 4) (#19)
    by vector on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:16:56 PM EST
    Haven't you heard?  The sky is falling, and there will be another Great Depression by Monday.

    No, really ...

    From  MSNBC

    http://tinyurl.com/4hp7f5 -

    "McCain advisors say they will do all the debates but the schedule is up in the air. They also deny that there is a political calculation in this and say without action the country could slide into a Depression by Monday, and added 'we'll see 12 percent unemployment' if congressional action is not completed."

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:41:47 PM EST
    Democrats have been shopping pretty much the same idea. Obama called it the "worst financial crisis since the great depression".

    Either getting this legislation passed is important or it's not. Can anyone out there really tell us the truth?


    well (none / 0) (#33)
    by connecticut yankee on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:57:00 PM EST
    Of course its a crisis but he doesnt need to be so odd and dramatic about it.  David Gergen tonight said he thought it would seem weird to people.  I agree, I think it's weird.

    George Will won't like this one bit. McCain just gets flakier and flakier.

    Even if you don't like Obama you have to admit that he seems a lot more calm and reassuring than McCain.


    No (none / 0) (#50)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 05:28:44 AM EST
    I wish he did seem more calming but he does not. He just comes off as so inept it worries me. He is like the "absent minded professor" imo.

    They really want to (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by cal1942 on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    rush this through with little actual consideration.

    Something on the order of the Patriot Act; ram it through before anyone has a chance to read the details.

    The economy isn't going to blow up if this matter isn't handled in the next few days.

    It's the height of folly to rush this along.


    To summarize (3.50 / 4) (#12)
    by rilkefan on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:10:24 PM EST
    McCain is old and not in control of his campaign.  He was a hero back in Vietnam but now you can't trust his word.  The suspend-the-campaign decision is a response to the polls tanking.  The McCain-Palin ticket isn't ready for the campaign, it's not ready for a crisis, it's not ready for the WH.  McCain will lie to your face.

    All the above said genially, respectfully, and clearly.  I can't recall ever seeing something so withering in a popular medium.

    another straw on the ass's back ... (none / 0) (#21)
    by Howard Zinn on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:17:58 PM EST
    camel's back, whatever: blatant dishonest politicking, making a public statement that he must go do the patriotic thing and save the economy, then running off to do another interview.  Here's an idea, talk to Dave about the economy.  Be a reliable, respectable person for once.

    The weight of all those straws must be adding up on the Palin/McCain ticket.

    So was McCain scheduled to tape... (none / 0) (#22)
    by EL seattle on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:21:27 PM EST
    ... his Letterman appearance in the same 'window' of a few hours that same day when he taped his interview for Katie Couric?  I'm asssuming that neither of these were live broadcasts.

    same time (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:38:33 PM EST
    Dave actually has a live video feed of McCain getting his makeup done for the Couric interview while Dave is doing his show. He is showing no mercy

    Obviously no Media Darling he! (none / 0) (#54)
    by Fabian on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:10:46 AM EST

    I think this may be the harshest treatment any pol has gotten by the media.


    The late night shows (none / 0) (#25)
    by shoephone on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:26:06 PM EST
    are usually taped around 5:30 p.m. each weekday.

    Staying calm, for one thing (none / 0) (#26)
    by rilkefan on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:37:21 PM EST
    unlike McCain, who's busy fear-mongering.  And advocating for a sensible approach to the problem, which is due in large part to McCain-approved deregulation.

    exactly (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by kempis on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:36:00 AM EST
    Look, I'm no Obama-fan, though I will vote for him. I will vote for him not because I'm a Democrat--because I'm now an Independent thanks to the Obama wing of the party--but because McCain and the GOP are dangerous for this country. The Dems aren't saviors, but at least they do have some economic and foreign policy experts aboard who are not ideological kooks.

    McCain's stunt is irresponsible and insulting. I'm distressed to see that some really bright people don't see this and seem to believe that this is a reasonable response to the financial crisis.

    When our admiration of/hatred for a politician clouds our vision so that we can't see blatant pandering and fearmongering and avoidance of real responsibility when it happens right before us, then I'm afraid we're no better than those who burned Dixie Chicks records and cheered Dubya and Rummy on to war in Iraq. When folks argue that McCain's suspension of his campaign is admirable, it's time to step away from the blogs and get some fresh air and perspective.

    And I'm not meaning to be snarky. I'm honestly alarmed. A lot of posters who seem to be giving McCain a pass are people I've admired--and still agree with on many other points. But this is kinda scary...


    Watching Letterman Now (none / 0) (#29)
    by CoralGables on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:42:28 PM EST
    The 9 minute video above really doesn't do justice to the drubbing he is giving the GOP ticket tonight. Even Keith Olbermann who fills in as a guest is merely a spectator as Letterman lobs hand grenades at McCain.

    Funniest stuff I've seen in a long time (none / 0) (#31)
    by vj on Wed Sep 24, 2008 at 11:50:32 PM EST
    Thanks, I needed the laugh.

    Man (none / 0) (#35)
    by Steve M on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:00:27 AM EST
    Dave is done and now Craig Ferguson is continuing to beat up McCain over this.  Both of his viewers are going to be shocked!

    I wonder how many undecided insomniacs there are? (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:13:16 AM EST
    Given the conditions downtown (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:51:37 AM EST
    at the moment, I'd say a heck of a lot of people are lying awake nights wondering what to do.

    Here's the latest poll from LAT/Bloomberg (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:26:26 AM EST
    but I don't see anything about undecided insomniacs:


    It is interesting the percentage of respondents who acknowledge they may still change their minds.


    That Number never interests me (none / 0) (#44)
    by andgarden on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:40:20 AM EST
    Most people who say they could change their minds are lying.

    That was hilarious ... (none / 0) (#46)
    by Robot Porter on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 12:57:24 AM EST
    and Letterman has that Cronkite thing working for him, because he rarely takes politics.

    I think these clips are going to get a lot of play over the next few days.

    Even Paul got in a zinger or two.

    This video is (none / 0) (#48)
    by Blowback on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:09:57 AM EST
    urls must be in html format or they (none / 0) (#49)
    by Jeralyn on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 01:40:37 AM EST
    skew the site and I have to delete the comment (I cannot edit, only delete comments.) Use the link button at the top of the comment box or get a short link at tinyurl.com. Thanks.

    Do we need... (none / 0) (#51)
    by lentinel on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:01:16 AM EST
    Do we need to keep hearing about McCain's hero-ness?
    Especially from "liberals".

    It annoys me for two reasons.

    First - the Vietnam war is an enduring stain on our country.
    There is an ongoing campaign to rewrite history. But we were lied into it by people with an agenda. It was the blueprint used successfully by those leading us into the invasion of Iraq.
    I will never get over feeling for those young people sent to Vietnam for no reason. 50,000 young Americans killed. Countless Vietnamese killed. Young Americans made to do unspeakable things against civilians. Then they return to a country whose government abandoned them and their needs.

    Secondly - it is not genuine. It is a preamble to, "but the guy is a real a-shole now".

    Letterman whining like a b&%ch (none / 0) (#56)
    by stefystef on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 06:52:45 AM EST
    Letterman is a second rate late night talkshow host (Leno crushes him every time in the ratings) who is whining because McCain cancelled on him???

    Guests have cancelled on him before, he needs to get over it.

    whiny or not (none / 0) (#57)
    by mpBBagain on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:20:31 AM EST
    he still ripped McCain a new one.   wow

    Actually (none / 0) (#63)
    by cannondaddy on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 08:16:33 AM EST
    I think he ripped McCain about five new ones.

    To be fair Letterman is an Obama supporter (none / 0) (#59)
    by Saul on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:45:14 AM EST
    The other night Bill Cinton was on he had nothing but praises for Biden when he had tons of gaffe ammunition in the news to ridicule Biden and make a complete monologue  of Biden.  Letterman chose to use the monologue on Palin.  It is obvious he is for Obama so you could not expect anything else.

    didnt know (none / 0) (#61)
    by mpBBagain on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 07:57:43 AM EST
    i didnt know BIDEN blew dave off for Couric then lied about it?

    John McCain and the Transparently Political Ploy (none / 0) (#69)
    by faseidl on Thu Sep 25, 2008 at 11:40:44 AM EST
    This is a transparent ploy, but it just might work.  I wrote more about this:

    John McCain and the Transparently Political Ploy