A Fishy Story Gets Fishier [Schiavo]

Power Line ^ | March 23, 2005

[blues_guitarist]

Paging Buckhead!

[SE Mom]

Holy @#%&!!!! Calling Buckhead...yooohooooooo.

[SE Mom]

Check this out- regardless of where ANYONE stands on Terri Schiavo...this is worth reading.

[irishtenor]

The Dems use talking points all the time. What's wrong with it?

[TomGuy]

ABC News and the Washington Post have described--but not actually produced--a memorandum relating to the Terri Schiavo case

It's not the memo that is important, it is the intent of the alleged contents!!!! Have you learned nothing from Dan????

[Look at the header on the memo. It very well could have been faxed from the same Kinko's location of Dan's infamous memo.]

[cricket]

This is the desperation of the Left. . .lying frauds; even 'memogate' is not enough to shame them into lying straight up. . .

[eureka!]

I smell a rat. Desperate times for the desperate rats calling for desperate measures...

[Argus]

The official Democrat talking points memo, of course, hopes that the party's base of dead voters will be excited at the prospect of Terri joining their ranks.

[expatguy]

How about this for "talking points" - If you want to say the GOP did it for political reasons.

The World's Superpower and Champion of Human Rights around the globe is starving and dehydrating a disabled woman to death and underage children who bring her water are being handcuffed and arrested.

Does that sum it up? Did I miss anything?

If China decides to put a bullet in the brain of all their retarded school children tomorrow, what can we say or do?

Next time we want to whine because Libya or Egypt is on the United Nations human rights council we better learn to bite our lip.

There is your perspective from overseas.

An American Expat in Southeast Asia

[mass55th]

I guess the Dems didn't learn their lesson with Rathergate.

[ravingnutter]

Nothing wrong with Dem or Republican talking points...except when the Dems distribute a fake copy of Republican talking points trying to insinuate that the Republicans were doing this for political gain only. Despicable...the Dems learned nothing from Rathergate.

[Mr Ramsbotham]

If they think this is some kind of Republican conspiracy, they'd better think again. This issue can't help the Republicans. Not only does it divide them, it will erode support for George W. Bush and negate the notion that Republicans are willing to actually do anything to facilitate their supposed "pro-life" position.

[irishtenor]

You obviously misunderstand me. I agree that what is being done is wrong. I am just wondering why anyone is concerned that the Republican are using talking points.

[expatguy]

I understood you - - sorry I was being sarcastic

[The Other Harry]

The memo is unsigned and blatantly inflamatory. I think it's a trick. If ABC and / or the Post want to contend otherwise, perhaps they would like to prove that with some evidence.

[The Ghost of FReepers Past]

There is nothing wrong with talking points, only these so-called talking points are fake. There is a problem with that, especially when they are being used by the left to somehow prove that Republicans are only motivated by poltiics.

Talking points, as other powerline points pointed out in earlier postings, are about sharing with all the best arguments to make before the media and the public, and perhaps even the Senate. But who would make such talking points that say things like it will make our pro-life base happy etc.? What kind of persuasive talking point is that? That might be a strategy, but it is certainly not a talking point. The whole thing is a farce.

[ketchikan]

Remember the two memos the Dems sent to their members on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee and the Judiciary Committee back in 2003? These memos were only for the Dems, but the Republicans found them on the Senate computer. Instead of admitting they were talking points on how to shoot down Bush's efforts the Dems made a big fuss as to how the Republicans came about them.

Sorry I don't have the time to research, but maybe someone could find them and compare the language with this current memo.

PS: Didn't Freerepublic set up a site for the 2003 memos?

[Peach]

Have you seen this? Good analysis, I think.

[Mo1]

But in the scanned version of the memo itself, as now leaked to the web, three of the four typographical errors have been corrected. So, what is going on? Is the memo now being presented as authentic one that was fabricated or, more likely, cleaned up after the fact?

Very intersting