It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Infuriated About Tough CNN Interview, McCain Cancels Larry King Appearance

page: 1

log in


posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:00 PM

Yesterday, Sen. John McCain’s (R-AZ) campaign spokesman Tucker Bounds appeared on CNN for an interview with Campbell Brown. Brown was tough on Bounds, refusing to let him spout typical campaign talking points. She repeatedly pressed him on Palin’s foreign policy experience and qualifications, asking him to name one decision that she made as commander-in-chief of the Alaskan National Guard. Bounds was unable to do so.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:10 PM
I'm trying to find an interview between her and an Obama person to show the difference. This is the interview in question. I'm glad McCain is finally refusing to go on these propaganda networks. Its about time.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:16 PM
If he can't even handle Larry king how does he expect to convince voters that he will be able to deal with Putin, Ahmidinajad and others without sending us into the apocalypse?

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:17 PM

Originally posted by DraconianKing
If he can't even handle Larry king how does he expect to convince voters that he will be able to deal with Putin, Ahmidinajad and others without sending us into the apocalypse?

Obama refuses to go on the Fox network. Why should McCain goes on the Obama networks?

These scandals the media are creating are nothing more than smoke screen for Obama. Why should the Republicans play along with such absurd questions? Why should they deal with networks that don't apply the same standards to the Obama campaign?

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Dronetek]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:19 PM
reply to post by Dronetek

I would have cancelled as well.

Granted, Bounds was dodging the question and was not well prepared to answer it. However, as soon as she asked the question, it was pretty clear that she was playing 'gotcha'. She would hardly let him get a word in edgewise.

Let the man answer the question, Campbell. Its an interview, not an interrogation. The viewers can decide for themselves whether or not his answer rings hollow. In this case, I think it did, but its quite clear that her intent from the start was to embarass him. The look on her face made that pretty clear.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:22 PM
This is the same type of campaiging the mccain party does here on ATS

Not a single supporter of Mayor Palin can give us ONE THING she has done.

Im glad its finally gone national.

The Obama campaign would be stupid to ignore this.

Very nice thread!!

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:24 PM
reply to post by DavidU

The guy wouldn’t answer her question. He kept avoiding it, bringing up McCain’s experience and changing the subject to Obama (which is being done here in this thread and every thread about McCain or Palin). And then he tried to turn on Campbell! LOL

I don’t blame McCain for canceling. He couldn’t handle it. I have no idea how he’s going to handle sticky situations. Cancel them, I guess…

But... but... but... What about OBAMA????

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:26 PM

Originally posted by vor78
The viewers can decide for themselves whether or not his answer rings hollow.

I disagree. It's about time the reporters start asking hard questions and demanding real answers.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:27 PM
reply to post by Andrew E. Wiggin

I am not a Palin supporter but she did win two elections.

That has to count for something.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:30 PM
CNN blasted the Clinton Admin for over 200 days because of Monica.
The MAJORITY of Obama coverage is negative on CNN and MSNBC.(Proven in a study, where it turns out the McCain's coverage is mostly POSITIVE!)

But they are seen as liberal and Pro Obama networks...

Probably because they don't get memos from the White House telling them what to report and how to report it like Fox GOP Propaganda Noise does.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:32 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Maybe you're right. Maybe Barack Obama should agree to go on O'Reilly? They've been asking him to come on the show for months.

Why doesn't he do it? Because he doesn't want the same thing happening to him as just happened to Tucker Bounds with a hostile interviewer milking a stumble for all it is worth.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by vor78]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Yeah ... like

"I'll follow him to the gates of HELL!!!!!!"

He looks awfully pleased with his answer, doesnt he? Like a child seeking his fathers approval


Lets hope, for OUR sake, that the Gates of HELL are NO WHERE NEAR Pakistan....

Unless the Gates are in Pakistan Then McCain will go after him head on.

And when questioned about this....the McCain campaign has yet to respond to my numerous emails.

He can't face up to facts.
He talks game, but not even a good one.

He's still living in the civil war era style of politics where campaigning presidential candidates would take their wagon to a church in Oklahoma and talk about "YES TO PUPPIES!!" and then take the wagon further on down to Kentucky and scream "KILL THE PUPPIES"

Maybe someone should introduce John McCain to Youtube.

Better yet.

Maybe they should introduce him to a pen and paper so he can write down his talking points of today

therefore he stands a better chance of not forgetting them tomorrow.

He wimped out of the CNN interview

That is hilarious!!

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:33 PM
reply to post by Dronetek

Good. Then you should have no problem with Barack Obama doing the same:

Barack Obama meets with Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes from Fox News

Just before the New York Democratic primary, when I found myself undecided between Clinton and Obama, I said to Murdoch (a little flirtation, like a little gossip, softens him), “Rupert, I don’t know who to vote for—so I’m going to give you my vote. You choose.”
He paused, considered, nodded his head slowly: “Obama—he’ll sell more papers.”
Even though his daughter Elisabeth and her husband, high-flying P.R. man Matthew Freud, have been raising money for Obama in Notting Hill, in London, where they live, and his wife has been attending fund-raisers for Obama in Los Angeles with David Geffen, this is a leap for Murdoch. Murdoch has traditionally liked politicians to come to him. His historic shift in the 1990s to Tony Blair came after Blair made a pilgrimage to Australia.
Obama, on the other hand, was snubbing Murdoch. Every time he reached out (Murdoch executives tried to get the Kennedys to help smooth the way to an introduction), nothing. The Fox stain was on Murdoch.
It wasn’t until early in the summer that Obama relented and a secret courtesy meeting was arranged. The meeting began with Murdoch sitting down, knee to knee with Obama, at the Waldorf-Astoria. The younger man was deferential—and interested in his story. Obama pursued: What was Murdoch’s relationship with his father? How had he gotten from Adelaide to the top of the world?
Murdoch, for his part, had a simple thought to share with Obama. He had known possibly as many heads of state as anyone living today—had met every American president from Harry Truman on—and this is what he understood: nobody got much time to make an impression. Leadership was about what you did in the first six months.
Then, after he said his piece, Murdoch switched places and let his special guest, Roger Ailes, sit knee to knee with Obama.
Obama lit into Ailes. He said that he didn’t want to waste his time talking to Ailes if Fox was just going to continue to abuse him and his wife, that Fox had relentlessly portrayed him as suspicious, foreign, fearsome—just short of a terrorist.
Ailes, unruffled, said it might not have been this way if Obama had more willingly come on the air instead of so often giving Fox the back of his hand.
A tentative truce, which may or may not have vast historical significance, was at that moment agreed upon.

I'm glad that we finally agree on something.

The McCain campaign got called on the experience talking points last night on more than one show last night. No one could ask a question about her national guard experience without being accused of attacking Sarah Palin for being a woman! It was pretty funny, check out how James Carville handled it:

I will let you use this to make your case, let me know if you need any more help.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:33 PM

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
reply to post by DavidU

But... but... but... What about OBAMA????

Oh please. Compare this interview, to the interview in question. This is typical style for interviewing Obama. The CNN interview is typical of the treatment Republicans get. Even the body language is a dead give away. They act like everyone is friends when they interview Obama or Biden.

Anyway, I hope you guys keep on the experience stuff. It only brings attention to your inexperienced presidential candidate.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Dronetek]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:39 PM
I saw the interview in question, and I couldn't believe the way he was avoiding the question. If he would have just answered, he wouldn't have been hounded for it. She asked a simple answer, he dodged it, so she went at it again. I don't blame her one bit...more journalists should be like that instead of smiling and letting politicians spout out their canned answers which say and mean nothing.

McCain won't go on CNN cause he's afraid he might have to actually answer a question....and he thinks he is ready to be POTUS....yeah, right.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:40 PM
Again, CNN BLASTED Clinton for Monica. Majority of MSNBC coverage of Obama is negative.

But they are seen as "liberal" because they don't literally get orders from the White House telling them what to do. Former Press Sec. Scott McClellan admitted to this. And in the Documentary Outfoxed several Memos were shown from former Fox EMployees who quit because of the White House Control of the "news".

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:44 PM
reply to post by Multiple Junkie

those two republican talking heads got destroyed

they provided ZERO straight answers
accused Carvel of sexism because he thinks Palin isnt qualified?

One woman actually said Carvel was attacking the baby

Carvel never mentioned the baby.

republicans are desperate and they're doing what they do best

lying to try and cover it up

and covering it up has nothing to do with palins family

there is a lot more to cover up about palin besides her 17 year old pregnant daughter.

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:45 PM
I think Sen. McCain is feeling the pressure of the election and recently read an interview he gave to TIME where the journalist have seen a change in Sen. McCain behaviour towards reporters.

And so when TIME's James Carney and Michael Scherer were invited to the front of McCain's plane recently for an interview, they were ushered forward, past the curtain that now separates reporters from the candidate, past the sofa that was designed for his gabfests with the press and taken straight to the candidate's seat. McCain at first seemed happy enough to do the interview. But his mood quickly soured. The McCain on display in the 24-minute interview was prickly, at times abrasive, and determined not to stray off message. An excerpt:

T:What do you want voters to know coming out of the Republican Convention — about you, about your candidacy?
JM:I'm prepared to be President of the United States, and I'll put my country first.

T:There's a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?
JM:Read it in my books.

T:I've read your books.
JM:No, I'm not going to define it.

T:But honor in politics?
JM:I defined it in five books. Read my books.

T:[Your] campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?
JM:I will do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.

T:But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of ...
JM:I think we're running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.

T: ..Do you miss the old way of doing it?
JM:I don't know what you're talking about.

T:Really? Come on, Senator.
JM:I'll provide as much access as possible ...

T:In 2000, after the primaries, you went back to South Carolina to talk about what you felt was a mistake you had made on the Confederate flag. Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you could take back or you might revisit when it's over?
JM:[Does not answer.]

T: ..Do I know you? [Says with a laugh.]
JM:[Long pause.] I'm very happy with the way our campaign has been conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of the Republican Party.

T:You do acknowledge there was a change in the campaign, in the way you had run the campaign?
JM[Shakes his head.]

T:You don't acknowledge that? O.K., when your aides came to you and you decided, having been attacked by Barack Obama, to run some of those ads, was there a debate?
JM:The campaign responded as planned.

T:Jumping around a bit: in your books, you've talked about what it was like to go through the Keating Five experience, and you've been quoted as saying it was one of the worst experiences of your life. Someone else quoted you as saying it was even worse than being a POW ...

JM:That's another one of those statements made 17 or 18 years ago which was out of the context of the conversation I was having. Of course the worst, the toughest experience of my life was being imprisoned, so people can pluck phrases from 17 or 18 years ago ...

T:I wasn't suggesting it as a negative thing. I was just saying that ...
JM:I'm just suggesting it was taken out of context. I understand how comments are taken out of context from time to time. But obviously, the toughest time of my life, physically and [in] every other way, would be the time that I almost died in prison camp. And I think most Americans understand that.

T:How different are you from President Bush? Are you in step with your party? Are you independent from your party?
JM:My record shows that I have put my country first and I follow the philosophy and traditions of Abraham Lincoln and Theodore Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan. Sometimes that is not in keeping with the present Administration or my colleagues, but I've always put my country first, whether it's saying I didn't support the decision to go to Lebanon or my fighting against the corruption in Washington or out-of-control pork-barrel spending, which has led to members of Congress residing in federal prison. So I've always stood up for a set of principles and a philosophy that I think have been pretty consistent over the years.

T:Your tougher line on Russia, which predated [the Russian invasion of Georgia], now to many looks prescient. Others say it's indicative of a belligerent approach to foreign policy that would perhaps further exacerbate the tensions being created with our allies and others around the world under the Bush Administration. How do you respond to that critique?
JM:Well, it reminds me of some of the arguments we went through when Ronald Reagan became President of the United States. I think Russian behavior has been very clear, and I've pointed it out for quite a period of time, and the chronicle of their actions has been well known since President [Vladimir] Putin came to power, and I believe that it's very important that Russia behave in a manner befitting a very strong nation. They're not doing so at this time, so therefore I will criticize and in some cases — in the case of the aggression against Georgia — condemn them.

T:You were a very enthusiastic supporter of the invasion of Iraq and, in the early stages, of the Bush Administration's handling of the war. Are those judgments you'd like to revisit?
JM:Well, my record is clear. I believe that the world is better off without Saddam Hussein. I believe it's clear that he had every intention to acquire and use weapons of mass destruction. I can only imagine what Saddam Hussein would be doing with the wealth he would acquire with oil at $110 and $120 a barrel. I was one of the first to point out the failure of strategy in Iraq under [former Defense Secretary Donald] Rumsfeld. I was criticized for being disloyal to the Republicans and the President. I was the first to say I would lose a campaign rather than lose a war. I supported the surge. No observer over the last two years would say the surge hasn't succeeded. I believe we did the right thing.

T:A lot of people know about your service from your books, but most people don't know that you have two sons currently in the military. Can you describe what it means to have Jack and Jimmy in uniform?
JM:We don't discuss our sons.

And let me remind you that this is coming from journalists that have been covering McCain now for decades.

A couple of things that quickly caught my attention are:

1.Sen. McCain didnt acknowledge that he is in charge of the negative ads against Obama, so he is basically acknowledging that its not his way of doing business but at this point he would do anything to get elected.

2.When the journalist ask him if he miss the old way of doing bussiness his response was : "I dont know what you talking about"...I mean COMMON JOHN... that response confirms my suspicions about point 1

3. When the journalist ask him sarcartically: Do I know you? his response: "I'm very happy with the way our campaign has been conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of the Republican Party. "

Once again he makes no referance as him been in charge of his campaign, basically distancing himself to a degree from his campaign staff.

Overall I read the interview and I felt sadness, because Sen.MCain is now what he use to detest, it a sad sign of the times we living when a person has to forgo his morals and ideas in order to accomplish his ultimate ambition. In Sen. McCain case all he wanted to do was to lead the great nation which he has already given a lot.

I wont vote for him but Im sure as hell wont be mad if he gets elected, he deserves it, and hopefully he would revert back to the McCain of old. That with a Democratic Congress in place could that could leave the hawks on the sideline could spell good news for this country.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Bunch]

[edit on 2-9-2008 by Bunch]

posted on Sep, 2 2008 @ 07:47 PM
reply to post by Dronetek

Watch the entire interview, which I've linked below. She was on the attack from the 2nd question in the interview, basically asking Bounds what kind of mother would subject her daughter to a political campaign under these circumstances.

The Full 8 minute interview

I don't blame them at all. Bounds screwed that foreign policy answer up, I will not argue that with anyone, but this interview was basically just a hatchet job.

[edit on 2-9-2008 by vor78]

new topics

top topics


log in