The Swift-Boating of Terry McAuliffe

[lowkell]

Excellent article by my Blue Virginia colleague kindler on Chris LaCivita bringing his Swift Boating road show to Virginia's 2013 Governor's race. Here's the conclusion:

"The bottom line is this: If you want to allege "scandals", then lay out precisely what the allegations are -- who allegedly did what by when and why it's a crime -- and then provide at least a few scraps of evidence to prove your point. Just yelling that somebody is a crook or whatever, and airing lots of commercials or full length movies with disturbing-sounding voice-overs and ominous music ain't gonna cut it.

And it's time for the press to dig in and do some actual reporting on these matters, and get to the truth, rather than just repeating the talking points that Chris "Swift Boat" LaCivita hands them every day on a silver platter. There's too much at stake in Virginia this year for that kind of hack work."

continued at http://bluevirginia.us/diary/9884/the-swiftboating-of-terry-mcauliffe

[clydefrand]

1. Even a really big crook

would still be much better than cuci cuci.
(I'm Virginia resident)

[Nay]

2. Yeah, the choices here are abysmal, but Cooch is a total misogynistic horror, in addition

to being a general RW asshole and a 'gift' grubbing grifter. And his lt governor, a crazy RW preacher! What a combo! Jesus weeps!

[Heather MC]

5. VA Residents from Central Va currently in NOVA

Central VA voters are ummm special enough to fall for it

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Same thing with the Kerry swiftboating

and the Clinton/Obama rumor/scandal mongering. But then the press wouldn't have anything "fun" to report on and they'd have to endure RWNJs endlessly accusing them of having a "liberal bias" (not that they don't anyway), right? It would be nice though if, instead of everybody getting their knickers into a twist and demanding that heads roll on the mere basis of an allegation(s) that our leaders would start demanding a real inquiries and thorough investigation of facts whenever something is alleged before throwing good, decent people out of jobs and ruining peoples' reputations. Too much to ask for?

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

4. O.K.,

This is interesting, however, McAuliffe can't be another "John Kerry"! He needs to respond forcefully and "swiftly"!!!!!!

[karynnj]

7. Maybe because he is not half the man John Kerry is and was

Kerry DID respond, but the media that gave time to the SBVT did not cover it. The other thing that was different was that the times in journalism were changing - even 4 years before the media itself would have pointed out that the SBVT were challenging the NAVY's account of his service and they were doing it with not one scintilla of proof -- and the Kerry campaign proved the link between their funding and the Bush campaign and the fact that the SBVT lawyer also worked for Bush/Cheney.

It is no surprise that having success with Kerry's real war heroism that they went on to challenge Obama's birth certificate. It is no coincidence that there are STILL a significant number of people who believe both of these lies. In Obama's case, it is true even though he had the platform of the Presidency to dispute it.

I resent that the word swiftboating is being used in this context.

[Hippo_Tron]

9. Kerry got screwed by having the convention 4 weeks before the GOP convention

It's not that the Kerry campaign didn't respond quickly, it's that they didn't quickly respond with their own TV ads. They were between a rock and a hard place trying to decide whether to spend the money to fend off the attacks or to save it for the fall.

[karynnj]

13. Which was the decision of one Terry McAuliffe - the date was set well before the nominee was known

Kerry floated a brilliant solution - to promise at the convention to officially accept the nomination the day before the Republican convention - meaning his ge money would start then. (This was the first year of McCain Feingold - and this was the first time this mattered.)

In fairness to TM, no one knew the Democrats could raise that much money.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

10. I agree with you, and some of that blame--I'm sorry--lies squarely

at the feet of Bill Clinton if we're being honest. When he deregulated the telecommunications industry, that's when things began to go downhill. Faux News and the rise of the cable network corporations meant that we got sensationalized, pro-wingnut, conservative "news". I felt so sorry for John Kerry. I still believe that he and his wife got the short end of the stick. And, in my view, Democrats simply were not enthusiastic in their support of Kerry. The party establishment consisted of a bunch of weak-kneed jerks who allowed Bush and the Republicans to run with this pro-war, pro-terrorism narrative and were simply too cowardly to fight back--and fight back HARD. Yes, much of this was the corporate media's fault, but the Democratic Party establishment must also take some of that blame as well.

[karynnj]

12. I agree

It and that party blame probably extended to Bill Clinton, who with Kerry as the defacto nominee, chose to release his book in summer 2004 - when the coverage should have been on Kerry. To make matters worse, in various interviews he blasted those "on his side" who were speaking against what Bush was doing in Iraq - even criticism of how the war was being fought was decried as wrong. This was, given Kerry's words a direct attack on him by the man who was the previous titular head of the party! (For many in the middle, this led many, who were uneasy about things like Abu Ghraib etc but uneasy about opposing the President in scary times, to reject Kerry rather than to reject Bush.

In addition, I think nearly every interview started with Bill Clinton addressing questions on Lewinsky - something that I doubt the Kerry camp wanted revisited less than 2 months before his convention.

Then there were the Clinton allies - people like Carville, who well after Kerry had the nomination was STILL fantasizing about delegates and superdelegates deserting him for a better candidate --- ie Hillary. While Carville and Begala mocked Bush and attacked him, they spent absolutely no time working to educate people on the accomplishments of both Kerrys. (This was most effective against Teresa. Over the years since the election, I have constantly learned more of the incredible things she did before 2004. Things like being the philanthropist who in the mid 1990s engaged her fellow Pittsburgh philanthropists and led a coordinated rebuilding of the city that both revived it and made it among the greenest cities in the country. When she was ill recently, I learned that she and her foundation prototyped the prescription drug program that is now used by Massachusetts. In fact, the Kerrys may have deserved the two for the price of one label as much as the Clintons did in 1992! Even the fact that GHWB appointed her a delegate to the Rio summit was not widely known -- even if that is where she and Kerry got to know each other. )

It is particularly hard as Kerry was extremely loyal to his party through the years - even defending Clinton when his patriotism was questioned over the way he dealt with Vietnam.

[Still Waters]

6. Terry Mc is getting hammered

I hardly see any Terry Mc commercials. I am seeing a lot of these swiftboat style attack commercials against him, for outsourcing jobs, some kind of interference in a visa situation (I think--I really don't watch too much tv), and for giving money to the Clintons. Gov McDonnell has recently been scandal plagued by a gifting situation, so this is very troubling to now be able to ensnare Terry Mc in something similar. Throw in anti-Obamacare commercials by "concerned" doctors (puke) and it looks to me like this stuff could really do some damage. I keep hoping to see some kind of fighting back commercials and I'm not seeing them. I sure hope Terry Mc has got some strategy for this!

[karynnj]

8. Attacks are not all "swiftboating"

He definitely did give money to the Clintons - Bill Clinton made him head of the DNC and raising money for the party was his job. As to the other charges, I do not know the accusations or the real story. Not all negative stories (and I do not see how giving money to Clinton can be called a smear) are the same as swiftboating, where Kerry's sacrifice as a young man was held against him by people who simply lied.

The 2004 swiftboating was a campaign that disputed the official Navy record - and that record itself was considered by the media to not have any bearing on the accuracy of the SBVT lies. In addition, even as the SBVT were caught in lies, the media just moved to other claims in their book. The reason defense was impossible was that the book was like a cluster bomb of lies - and the media expected the Kerry campaign to disprove each and every one instead of asking the ones in disagreement with the Navy record for proof.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

11. I just don't understand why the Democratic Party establishment

insists on continuing to put these weak-ass Clintonistas in the public limelight. Terry McAuliffe is a weak Democrat. He brings so much baggage to this race. He is a loser and is ineffective. I simply don't get it. I don't understand. We are giving away Virginia and for what? Honestly, the Democratic Party couldn't ANY good Democrats to run against an extremist like Cuccinelli?