It used to be that "talking points" were the cherry-picked facts that you wanted to get out, to paint your side, your point of view, your plans in the most favorable light possible. The Democrats changed that at some point - I think it was during the Bush-Gore election squabble in Florida, but it could have been earlier - to mean something completely different. The word "fact" has a definition. A fact is a known truth, something in reality and completely truthful, something that either exists or has existed and is known. Sure the talking points were cherry-picked, but at least they were based in reality.
Now, however, what the Democrats' talking points represent is spin. These are imaginary facts, impressions, and unfavorable interpretations of the other side that you want reported. If a fact no longer has to be based in reality it can then can simply be invented. Don't talk about Romney's actual tax plan, talk about the tax plan as you want people to believe it exists. It is even more acceptable, encouraged actually, when the entity generally responsible for holding you accountable for your statements, journalists, are so in the tank that they never challenge your assertions. Last night Mr. Obama finally got challenged on his 'facts,' and it wasn't pretty.
Here's a dramatization of Mitt Romney's response to many of Mr. Obama's talking points. (mild language warning)
Of course, Mr. Romney would never use such language, and he did go on to eviscerate the talking points with cold, hard, real, truthful facts. Winner by knockout, I'd say. A compassionate referee would have stopped the fight in the third round. That's a fact, but don't just take my word for it.