Yes, Terry McAuliffe has a sleazy as hell financial history.

[cali]

Yesterday, lots of DUers had a fit about my pointing out the TRUE story about Sleazeball Terry's investment in a shady scheme to defraud dying people.

Prefer Terry over Cuccianelli? So do I. But I'm not willing to erase his background just because of that. He's the worst kind of corporate dem. Better than Cuccianelli? Yeah, just about anyone is better.

So yes, McAuliffe fucking damn well did make that investment and he accepted big campaign bucks from Caramadre.

The facts about McAuliffe can be denied from now until the end of time and they will still be facts.

I NEVER made the phony AP claims. I simply said he was an investor in this vile scheme and I caught holy hell for that with people demanding I take down the FACTS.

Here:

<snip>

Even after the AP retraction, the scheme is one that no political hopeful would want their name associated with. Caramadre and Radhakrishnan were accused of aiming to make money by signing up terminally ill and elderly people for annuities and bonds, paid out to investors after the people’s deaths to the tune of millions of dollars, according to an indictment and news reports.

McAuliffe has tried to repair some of the damage. “The allegations are horrible and he never would have invested if he knew he was being deceived,” spokesman Josh Schwerin said in a statement. McAuliffe and his campaign donated $74,000 to the American Cancer Society, Schwerin said. That amount is intended to offset the sum of campaign contributions McAuliffe received from Caramadre plus returns the candidate made from the investment, Schwerin said.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/10/terry-mcauliffe-investment-virginia-governors-race-2013-98152.html#ixzz2hPKHr72d

And here:

<snip>

In 1985, McAuliffe helped found the Federal City National Bank, a small bank based in Washington, D.C.[5] In January 1988, when he was 30 years old, the bank’s board elected McAuliffe chairman, making him the youngest elected chairman of a federally chartered bank in the history of the United States.[6]

The bank loaned $125,000 to a political action committee that supported Richard Gephardt's presidential campaign. McAuliffe told The New York Times that he abstained from voting on the loan because he was also the Gephardt campaign's finance chairman.[7] The bank also provided loans to former U.S. Representative Tony Coelho and the then-Speaker of the United States House of Representatives, Jim Wright.[8]

In 1991, the bank was cited by federal regulators for unsafe or unsound business practices. McAuliffe helped to negotiate a merger with Credit International Bank (then under the management of Republican Richard V. Allen), which he called his "greatest business experience".[8] McAuliffe went on to become vice chairman of the newly merged bank, leading to questions from shareholders that he was given special treatment, which Allen denied.[8][9]

In 1979, McAuliffe met Richard Swann, a lawyer who was in charge of fundraising for Jimmy Carter's presidential campaign in Florida. In 1988, McAuliffe married Swann's daughter, Dorothy.

In the late 1980s, Swann's finances collapsed, entangling McAuliffe, who then used his political contacts to help Swann.[8] In 1990, federal regulators seized Swann's American Pioneer Savings Bank, causing Swann to file for bankruptcy and McAuliffe to lose $800,000 he had invested in American Pioneer.[8] The Resolution Trust Corporation, a federal agency, took over American Pioneer's assets and liabilities and sued McAuliffe and a former unit of the bank foreclose on a real estate loan.[8] Under the guidance of Swann, McAuliffe partnered with a pension fund controlled by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers and the National Electrical Contractors Association to buy some American Pioneer real estate, valued at $50 million, for $38.7 million from the Resolution Trust Corporation.[8][10] Of the purchase amount, McAuliffe paid $100, while the pension fund paid $38.7 million;[8] McAuliffe still received a 50% equity stake.[10] The deal was arranged by pension fund trustee Jack Moore, who was an acquaintance of McAuliffe from the Gephardt presidential campaign.[8][10] McAuliffe used some of the proceeds from the deal to purchase Jefferson National Title Insurance, a Florida company, and sold back some of McAuliffe's shares to the pension fund.[8] The Department of Labor then filed a lawsuit against McAuliffe and Moore, accusing them of imprudent business practices in the deal and also in a $6 million loan the fund made to a real estate company controlled by McAuliffe, which McAuliffe used to clear up his father-in-law's debt but soon defaulted on the loan.[8] With the help of a fundraising contact, McAuliffe bought a troubled house-building company that had been buying some of the land formerly held by Swann's bank and became its chairman.[8] After his bankruptcy, McAuliffe paid Swann to "help with the management" of his companies.[

In 2009, McAuliffe founded GreenTech Automotive, a holding company he then used to purchase the Chinese electric car company EU Auto MyCar for $20 million in May 2010.[18][19] McAuliffe moved the company headquarters to McLean, Virginia and built its manufacturing plant in Mississippi.[20][21]

McAuliffe resigned from GreenTech sometime before December 1, 2012. McAuliffe did not announce the resignation until several months later, and continued touting the company on the campaign trail.[22] McAuliffe's gubernatorial campaign spokesman said McAuliffe had "verbally" announced his intention to resign before running for governor.[22] McAuliffe still has a significant ownership stake in GreenTech.[23]

In December 2012, McAuliffe was questioned as to why he chose to locate the factory in Mississippi as opposed to Virginia. McAuliffe claimed that he wanted to bring the factory to Virginia but the Virginia Economic Development Partnership, the state's business recruitment agency, chose not to bid on it.[24] However, in January 2013, PolitiFact declared McAuliffe's claim to be false, reporting from emails obtained from VEDP under the Freedom of Information Act that VEDP was interested in building the factory in Virginia, and its representatives toured potential sites with GreenTech representatives, but GreenTech went ahead with the Mississippi plant before VEDP could complete its due diligence.[24] McAuliffe said he disagreed with PolitiFact's report, and said other GreenTech executives made the decision, but did not offer specifics as to how the report was mistaken.[25]

In April 2013, Watchdog.org obtained more emails and in a series of reports on GreenTech and McAuliffe revealed that VEDP was wary of GreenTech's financing because it relied heavily on the EB-5 visa program which provides green cards to foreign nationals who invest money in the United States. On April 12, 2013, GreenTech filed an $85 million lawsuit against Watchdog.org, alleging libel and saying the site's reports jeopardized millions of dollars in investments.[18][26] Watchdog.org has denied that it committed libel and McAuliffe's campaign has declined to comment and referred questions to GreenTech.[18] In July 2013, President Barack Obama's nominee for Deputy Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security came under investigation by the department's inspector general for mismanaging the EB-5 program and was accused of giving special treatment to McAuliffe and GreenTech,[27] while in August 2013, it was revealed that GreenTech had been under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission since May 2013 for the EB-5 program.[28] On August 16, 2013, McAuliffe wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post and said he had learned of the SEC investigation two weeks prior, and that the document in question was prepared for potential investors, which he wrote was not something he was responsible for as chairman.[29]

In October 2013, Watchdog.org obtained emails that showed McAuliffe pressured Homeland Security officials to grant visas for GreenTech's foreign investors, and warned that the company's Mississippi plant would close immediately if the visas were not granted within days.[30][31][32]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_McAuliffe

It's dangerous to deny reality and to pretend someone is something they aren't. I'm sorry VA dems aren't running a better candidate. That he's better than the vile, crazy religiously insane wingnut he's running against is faint praise indeed.

[seveneyes]

1. Blind loyalty to McAuliffe

I thought your comments on McAuliffe were spot on. Even if the shovel full of dirt that was thrown at him is removed, he is still up to his neck in filth. Those that piled on you were likely frustrated from trying to polish this turd.

[cali]

2. thanks and yes. he is up to his neck in filth and he always has been.

he's dirty and crooked. And I'll be damned if I pretend he's otherwise.

[Puzzledtraveller]

89. He's got a (D) by his name

for many that is enough.

[BlueCaliDem]

127. When it comes to growing our majority in the Senate

and to teach the Republicans a lesson, yeah, it's enough.

[karynnj]

137. He's running for governor

[BlueCaliDem]

140. Yeah, just found out. So, I'll change that to growing our majority in STATES, then. eom

[sabrina 1]

195. Did you really say that? That we Dems should not care how sleazy a person

is so long as they slap a D after their names?

Well, you may be fine with that, but a whole lot of other people want HONEST people in positions of power.

There are plenty of Dems who could have run for that position who are not up to their necks in sleazy, crooked deals. It is SHAMEFUL that anyone with his record is still part of the Dem Party.

He spent a whole lot of time on Fox airc, they loved him there.

Dragging down the party with these kinds of candidates is NOT going to accomplish what you think it will. It will have the opposite effect.

[BlueCaliDem]

199. We can't be putting purity tests on politicians. If you do that, Republicans will continue to win

more and more power, and how will that help our agenda? And have you forgotten that this is Virginia? Not exactly Vermont, is it?

As I've stated in a previous post, I don't care for McAuliff. Never have. But he'll be FAR better of a governor than the Cooch. At least with a Dem governor, there'll be no voter suppression laws, anti-woman laws, and anti-Obama laws being passed and signed into law.

Just like California. I don't care for Jerry Brown. He's too conservative for California. But he was the only candidate strong enough to keep Whitman out of the governor's mansion, and California is better for it.

[RichGirl]

187. As a Virginian....

The D is enough...since the R wants to own my uterus.

Cuccinelli is a religious nut job who thinks he speaks for God...which to me I way more dangerous. If a candidate has messed up financially in the past...that doesn't effect me. If he thinks he can tell me what to do with my body...that effects me.

AND...Cuccinelli has his own questionable financial dealing. They probably all do.

[reddread]

3. dont back down

[cali]

4. thank you and sorry about misinterpreting your posts yesterday

[reddread]

5. not a problem

I have a lot of bad habits when it comes to communicating.
But that doesnt mean I cant spot a snow job in a blizzard.

[FSogol]

6. Once apon a time on DU you couldn't bash Democratic candidates right before an election.

Election day is about 25 days away in Virginia. WTF?

Admins?

[B Calm]

7. I agree, wtf!

[cali]

8. Alert away, friend. I have clearly said that I support McAuliffe

in the upcoming election but I'll be fucking goddamned if I let the lies stand and people have denied and LIED about his investments in the Caramadre investment scheme and his background.

[dotymed]

39. Thank You Cali.

It is a shame that some "dems" do not want the truth.
How about the non-democrat Bernie Sanders? He is an Independent but he is for the people.
Not for party or money, for the people.
Should we smear him for being the great (non-dem) that he is?

[Pretzel_Warrior]

182. I alerted and was APPALLED to find it was 5-1 to leave it.

bullshit parameters for posting here if this kind of Dem-attacking thread can stay.

[cali]

205. lol. what a pity.

[reddread]

9. so the sun rises in the West?

and good news is the only kind allowed?
that aint the way America used to be,
once upon a time.
no wonder people seem so eager and happy to lap up the
unregulated garbage on cable noise wetworks.
I remember the sort of behavior you are exhibiting
from back in pre-school.
pretty sure it wasnt tolerated much after
kindergarten.

[trumad]

10. Cali don't give a shit...

She's just pissed that the fake AP story was wrong... She pimped it big time the other day and now she's trying to dig her way out.

Oh and on edit: Relying on a Politco story is pretty laughable.

[B Calm]

11. WOW!

[joshcryer]

12. just feeding Cuccinelli's narrative

[cali]

17. No. Posting facts, dear. Yes, fact. Trumad is making up

this story that I posted anything about the AP lie about McAuliffe being questioned by investigators.

I did not. Nothing. Zip. Nada.

That's just false Trumad stuff.

[joshcryer]

21. Sorry, honey, your article invokes his narrative.

Ain't my fault a good quarter of the article exposes that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

31. "Honey"?

Talk about feeding narratives.

[joshcryer]

32. "Dear" "honey" "darling" same difference.

How about that Bush's resumption of hostilities in Iraq being legal, again?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

41. What makes you think you're allowed to speak to women in condescending sexual tones?

Suddenly the need to deliberately distort becomes so clear. Someone who has to rely on sexist, chauvinistic tripe can't handle women who forget their place; the proper masculine order is threatened, apparently. You just gotta exert that dominance so whatever it takes.

How revealing. It all makes sense now.

[B Calm]

42. Probably because Cali used the word Dear?

[Nuclear Unicorn]

48. And the term "cracker" is license to respond with the n-word, right?

[B Calm]

49. No, but I think you are getting a little carried away here!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

58. I've no doubt you do.

In fact, it was predictable.

[B Calm]

61. Anybody that would make a big deal out of the word honey and not have

a problem with the word dear, well is getting a little carried away, and I'm sure I'm not alone in my view!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

68. I'm sure a lot of guys would think that.

Question -- would you call a restaurant server "honey"?

[B Calm]

70. Depends on what the server called me!

[Ellipsis]

142. It's what she does... check her transparency

She's a professional shit stirrer.

[B Calm]

179. I have seen her do this shit before!

[joshcryer]

56. You're alleging "honey" is equlivent to the "n-word"?

Really?

honey
1 a : a sweet viscid material elaborated out of the nectar of flowers in the honey sac of various bees
b : a sweet fluid resembling honey that is collected or elaborated by various insects
2
a : a loved one : sweetheart, dear

It's a damn synonym for "dear" for crying out loud!

[joshcryer]

44. Herm? Those are genderless terms.

I was referred to as "dear." I responded in kind. I'm not sure what's so controversial. I could've said "dear," back, I suppose.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

53. Spoken with the ease of born privilege.

Now tell us how "boy" is a raceless term.

[joshcryer]

57. I used a synonym for "dear" and you're calling privilege?

OK, you're beyond hope. Enjoy believing the Iraq war was a "legal resumption of hostilities."

[Nuclear Unicorn]

65. Your so born to privilege you don't/won't recognize it.

But since you have a history of deliberately misrepresenting facts perhaps you're OK with that.

[joshcryer]

66. "you're"

[reddread]

69. hahahaha

nice comeback, boss.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

71. You got me! The thread is yours! Oh cruel fate.

[11 Bravo]

174. Much of her shtick is "honey", "sweetie", "dearie". Pick another fight, because this one ...

makes you appear to be either screamingly desperate to establish some sort of feminist cred, or simply somewhat out of touch.
And this is from someone who occasionally AGREES with cali and has developed a grudging respect for her. (Although the "sweetie", "honey", "dearie" shit still grates on me.)

[Whisp]

117. cali frequently uses the honey, dear, cupcake

to her adversaries so accusing that poster of something misogynist by doing the same is wrong. You new here and didn't notice?

[cali]

40. It does not. that's flatly untrue.

[joshcryer]

46. Oops, 30% of the paragraphs in that article support Cuccinelli.

Not 25%.

[cali]

52. baloney. you love making stuff up.

[joshcryer]

60. I counted.

6 paragraphs for him, 20 paragraphs total.

[cali]

77. post 'em. post those paragraphs that you claim are pro-Cuccianelli

post the ones you claim are anti-McAuliffe.

Man, you have no idea how partisan loony this claim sounds, do you?

If anything that story is pro McAuliffe in the sense that it asserts that no harm has been done or is likely to be done by this investment/acceptance of campaign donations and it points out that Cuccianelli has a similar history.

Yikes. Please hold on to some semblance of reason.

[Orrex]

114. You've been Ackbarred

The intent of calling you "dear" was to goad you into responding in kind so that you could then be criticized for using a belittling, gender-loaded affectation.

[cali]

13. that is a Flat Fucking LIE. I NEVER POSTED THAT STORY. I never

endorsed it. I specifically stipulated that it was false in post after post after post.

Find one post of mine that backs up your lie. You won't because no post of mine like that exists.

I posted a WaPo story about his investment in Caramadre's scheme to defraud and McAulffe's campaign reaction. All true.

Your disingenuous nonsense is so old. How the hell do you live with yourself when you push falsehoods?

Oh, and it's hardly just Politico. It's every news outlet that has confirmed McAuliffe's investment, acceptance of campaign funds and subsequent donations of his investment returns and the campaign donations. AND THAT's ALL I EVER POSTED.

I never posted word one on the phony story.

I'm honest. YOU? bwahahahahah.

[Whisp]

118. yelp! yelp!

[BlueCaliDem]

135. Heh...

[reddread]

20. honey badger

your story is fake. boldly untruthful.
this behavior demands rebuttal.
if the spin doctors werent so over the top with
their desperate dirt throwing, this would be over.
I'm awfully glad I dont live in Virginia.
or downwind from you.

[trumad]

22. Look Pal...

It is against DU rules to go after a Democratic Nominee weeks before the election. Although you keep trying.

[joshcryer]

25. Hasn't really been a hard rule since DU3.0

"Community standards," and all.

[Pretzel_Warrior]

183. why not? It shouldn't be allowed.

[cali]

29. It is against DU rules to not support a dem candidate. It is NOT against the rules

to post the FACTS about a given candidate even if the likes of YOU, don't like it.

[trumad]

36. Please

you have been bashing this guy non-stop.

[reddread]

30. not at all

I responded to the jiggling bait of a pulled story.
whats this?, says I
Then a load of assertion that the whole story was false/discredited.
really?, says I
if only the circumstances werent so disturbing,
and the truth mattered.
not big on lies or liars.
its bad for Democratic rule.
you want to be the cancer?
go ahead.

[quinnox]

173. I gotta say, cali really got to you on this one, trumad

damn, it appears you have blown a gasket over this.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. It's a wiki article.

[cali]

19. yeah, and one with citations and there are thousands of news stories

easily found verifying everything in the Wiki piece.

this isn't rocket science and it's hardly a secret that Terry has a sleazy financial history. It's been written about for a couple of decades.

Denial is a powerful force.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

23. Denial or realpolitik?

Denialism is at least innocent in nature. This seems more like angry heel-digging for "our guy."

[dotymed]

51. Do "these" people not want to clean-up our party?

The truth is mighty helpful in doing that.
Cali did say that Terry's opponent was even worse.

Aren't they used to the "lesser of two evils."

We need to clean our once people-first party into that role again. If we allow it to stay corporate as usual, we are fucked.
Again, thank you Cali.

[cali]

55. thank you so much, dotymed.

yes, McAuliffe is clearly the better choice- and just as clearly he's a "lesser of two evils" choice.

Corporate dems with histories like his, are not the democratic party that I want.

[FSogol]

78. The election is in less than a month. That's your choice: Cuccinelli or McAuliffe.

Wanna make changes? Start making them for the next election. VA law prohibits McAuliffe from running again. Find your pure candidate that can win and start helping him or her.

Advocating against McAuliffe right before the election is not changing anything besides helping the other side.

[dotymed]

109. Really?

That sounds like neo-con talking points.
Americans should be informed about their candidates.
Most Americans are Progressive...I just don't have the strength today...

[FSogol]

111. So, if you lived in VA, you wouldn't vote for McAulliife?

[dotymed]

115. I would probably do as I have done

for years. Hold my nose and vote for the lesser of two evils. Despite McAuliffe's greed, it sounds like the tea party clown is more dangerous.
However since I do not live there, the point is moot.
I want the democratic party to become the Democratic party again. To accomplish this, "our" people must be held to standards
that reflect a party that is for the people, not for the corporations or their own enrichment.
The current repug party (mostly) is full of insane, anti-Progressives who seem willing and eager to destroy America for greed and misplaced idealism.

[FSogol]

116. McAuliffe's greed? Reminds me of the WAPO article that accussed Hilary Clinton of being

ambitious.

[Enrique]

26. not true

expectation of loyalty to hacks like McAuliffe is a new phenomenon, it started around January 2009

[Walk away]

103. I agree. Posts get alerted and shut down for personal slights but tearing a Democratic...

candidate apart during an election and NOTHING happens? Why am I supporting this site?

[FSogol]

105. I'm asking myself the same question. n/t

[DontTreadOnMe]

185. Totally agree.

So tired of bullshit being posted by "dearest"...

[BlueCaliDem]

130. I agree.

But a rule without teeth and without consequences isn't a rule anymore. It becomes a proposition.

[Logical]

171. Quit whining and alert! Define "bash"! Nt

[FSogol]

172. It is pointless to alert on anything less that someone calling someone else Hilter.

bash definition

to criticize; to join in the destructive criticism of someone or something.

From the Dictionary of American Slang and Colloquial Expressions by Richard A. Spears.Fourth Edition.

[OldRedneck]

14. Eat much sour grapes????

As I recall, a few days ago you were pimping the AP story.

Now you're caught because AP has retracted their claims and you're caught with your ass hanging out.

[cali]

33. and YOU recall fucking wrong. I NEVER POSTED a thing about that story

nothing, dear. Zip. Zilch and fucking nada.

I'm tired of that disgusting LIE. You can search from now until the end of time for a post of mine about that false story and you won't find a thing except for my saying it isn't true.

I posted a WaPo story yesterday about McAuliffes investment in that vile shady scheme and his taking campaign donations from the architect of that scheme. I never posted the AP story. I never endorsed it as true.

I hate lies and I have nothing but contempt for those peddling them. Disgusting.

[littlewolf]

15. Did any of this change Terry McAuliffe poll numbers

as I recall he had a pretty good lead.

[cali]

18. no, and it's unlikely too. I'm glad of that. As I've said, I'll take a sleazy corrupt, corporate

dem over a religiously insane rightwing nut, any day of the week.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

27. That's a sorry menu if those are the only 2 choices to order from.

[cali]

34. It is indeed. And also sorry are all these lies being peddled that I endorsed

or posted the false AP story.

Sick to push lies about a DUer. I expect nothing more from certain people.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

43. With demeaning sexist undertones.

Lest you truly forget your place.

Get back in line, cupcake.

[BlueCheese]

163. Reminds me of the Louisiana governor election...

between Known Corrupt Pol, aka Edwin Edwards (D) and David Duke (R).

As I recall, the Louisiana GOP disowned Duke and endorsed the Dem candidate. There were bumper stickers saying things like "Vote for the crook. It's important." Edwards won in a landslide, but to the surprise of nobody, he ended up going to jail for corruption later.

[countingbluecars]

24. As a Virginian

I say give it a rest until after the election. I have to live here and certainly don't want the far right in power. This election will be close. The wingnuts around here always come out to vote. Your need to prove yourself right is tiring.

[B Calm]

28. +1

[Neurotica]

35. Also a Virginian and in complete agreement with you

I will happily vote for McAuliffe in November because the alternative is too frightening to contemplate.

[bigtree]

37. +

[cali]

38. I understand your point and I would have if people weren't pushing the flat out lie

that I posted or endorsed the false AP story and if they hadn't denied the facts about Terry's investment with Caramadre.

Furthermore, I think it's a bit daft to believe that anything I post here will make the slightest difference in the election. Oh, and whitewashing corrupt politicians just doesn't sit right with me.

[sammytko]

45. True, nothing you post here will make a difference

[reddread]

50. other than defending oneself from lies and attacks that occur here

when your veracity or intentions are questioned, and/or misrepresented
who would allow those things to go unchallenged?
the over the top liars and spin soldiers make it necessary to respond.
if they were a little smarter, they could avoid prolonging the
discussion and making themselves less "trustworthy".

[cali]

59. I know I'm a bit of a martinet when it comes to being honest

and yeah, I really resent people telling flat out lies about me.

thanks again.

[jeff47]

120. So....your online reputation is more important than keeping VA from getting a right-wing governor.

Good to know.

[BlueCheese]

164. I doubt very much that cali's posts will end up getting the Republican elected.

Especially as she's repeatedly made her preference for McAuliffe known.

[jeff47]

165. For every Cali posting, there's several dozen Calis talking with their friends and neighbors.

Which is why Team Cooch decided to make this issue appear just before the election.

[WCLinolVir]

86. I most heartily concur. What we need to do is turn out in large numbers and

hold his feet to the fire. We don't just elect someone and sit back while they *&^* us. This has been going on too long. Take Janet Yellen for example.

[Blue_Tires]

101. +1000

[frylock]

156. how many of your fellow Virginians get their opinions from DU?

are people in VA talking about this post on DU, and how it will effect their vote?

[leveymg]

47. As a Virginia Dem and local committee member, I think we need to acknowledge facts.

Many of us were uncomfortable with this candidate from the beginning but no realistic challenger within the Party had the money and organization to oppose his candidacy. This is a classic "hold your nose" case.

DU is a Democratic site that has a purpose of electing more and better Democrats. We need to be aware of and acknowledge facts about our candidates, good and bad, and work harder to nominate better ones.

Cali is telling the hard facts, and in this case, they are hard to swallow. That's not a role I think the OP relishes. This isn't a Democratic candidate bashing post. It is an instructive one, and we all need to know these facts and discuss their implications without attacking the bearer of bad news. The GOP surely hasn't been shy about publicizing them.

[cali]

64. thanks so much, leverymg.

You're right. I don't relish it. I'm not posting these facts with any agenda other than that I believe keeping honest is vital.

I wish you guys had a better choice. I get that you don't. If I were a Virginian, I wouldn't sit out this election. I'd vote for McAuliffe, but I'd do so, as you are- acknowledging the reality of who he is.

[MannyGoldstein]

54. Better Believe It!

Or some such thing: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023826958

[cali]

62. evidently, facts are inconvenient for some people and some don't give a shit

about corporate dems.

[B Calm]

63. Did you even click on the link?

[cali]

73. the link to the story I posted? Yes. read the whole piece.

what specifically do you dispute? Post those excerpts that you claim are lies.

[B Calm]

67. Was Terry McAuliffe found guilty in a court of law for fraud?

[cali]

72. did I ever make that claim? and my but you set the bar about as low as

possible.

[B Calm]

74. In this country we are Innocent until proven guilty!

[reddread]

76. and free from unreasonable search and seizure

and one other-
your check is in the mail.

[cali]

82. bzzzt. at least learn something. No, that is NOT true

In a court of law, there is a presumption of innocence. That does not apply anywhere else.

By your exceedingly low standards, W, Cheney, Trump, the Koch brothers and numerous others are all little white lambs.

Fucking absurd.

[Union Scribe]

191. I take it, then, that you have/will

never accuse Bush and his cohorts of anything he wasn't convicted of in a courtroom right?

[B Calm]

202. If you can charge Terry McAuliffe for a crime, why don't you go for it!

[FSogol]

80. You keep claiming he is corrupt. That's language straight from Cuccinelli's campaign.

I see no corruption in his history. Investing in something that later turns out to be bogus is a mistake, not corruption unless you are involved in its management.

[cali]

88. I hate to break this to you but that's language that's been applied to him for close

to two decades- and the wiki article is full of citations for his dubious financial history. Here's a story from 2009 from our own leveymg.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/06/10/740841/-Over-Before-It-Began-Terry-McAuliffe-s-Folly#

More from dk:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/22/1112555/-Terry-McAuliffe-everything-that-s-wrong-with-America

I suggest reading these pieces.

[leveymg]

100. I was wrong about one thing when I posted that the day after TM lost the nomination to Deeds

http://www.dailykos.com/comments/740841/29171015#c9
But, Terry isn't the candidate. (9+ / 0-)

What the hell difference does it make what I say about him now? Fortunately, now he's unlikely to ever run for public office again.

Would it possibly occur to you that is precisely why I held off on this until now?

Or is that too subtle for a spit-ball?

by leveymg on Wed Jun 10, 2009 at 11:54:45 AM PDT

Craig Deeds also wasn't much of a candidate, and went on to lose in the general election. By a lot. So much for better choices and better candidates.

[reddread]

75. definitely not, did anyone say such a thing?

this guy

http://www.providencejournal.com/breaking-news/content/20130810-federal-judge-refuses-cranston-estate-planner-caramadres-bid-to-be-released-from-prison-while-awaiting-sentencing.ece

that he passively invested 45k (is that right?)
and accepted 28k from.
he may be who you are thinking of.

[FSogol]

81. You keep posting a link to the source story that AP pulled.

I'm sure Karl Rove wrote that.

[scheming daemons]

79. cali, bashing a Dem nominee weeks before an election is a nono

The only possible end is to make someone less likely to vote for him.

During the primaries, it is one thing.

But there can be no positive end to this.

Once nomniation is secured, and before the election, bashing serves no purpose but to aid the GOP.

Even if a jury didn't agree... this is a terms of service violation .... and you know it.

[B Calm]

83. +1

[cali]

84. I've said I support him over Cuccianelli and I do, but I will not fucking whitewash him.

Facts are facts.

I'm sorry this is an election where dems again have to hold their noses.

I hate revisionist history and whitewashing and I won't engage in it.

All this began because yesterday I posted a WaPo story that had zip to do with the AP lie story and people went batshit claiming that the story I posted had been retracted. It sure as shit had not been.

I won't go along with lies. And people lied their fucking asses off in that thread- just as they're doing in this one.

[scheming daemons]

85. your "facts" can wait until after the election

You're enabling the GOP.

[B Calm]

87. Exactly!

[cali]

91. those aren't "facts" and they aren't "mine". They fucking FACTS

and I'm sorry you don't like them or consider them important.

[Walk away]

106. And I'm sorry you couldn't support our candidate in PA

Saying you prefer him to a republican and then ripping him apart in public is not support.

[reddread]

113. which candidate is that?

whats happening in Pennsylvania?

[Walk away]

138. Sorry, Va.

[Beacool]

214. Well, aren't we self-righteous.............

Who left you in charge of the purity police?

[ProSense]

90. Remember when people use to call him Terry McAwful?

What does this have to do with the fact that the AP story was retracted?

Instead of acknowledging that you decided to dig up his past to prove you don't like him?

[cali]

93. I never posted that AP story. I sure as shit did not endorse it. Ever.

and I've posted NOTHING WHATSOEVER that isn't factual.

Unlike YOU yesterday in post after post after post.

[ProSense]

94. You seemed

"never posted that AP story. I sure as shit did not endorse it. Ever."

...determined to use it to smear him, and you didn't respond:

Post the crime or unethical behavior engaged in by McAuliffe
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10023820852#post15

[cali]

99. False. In that thread I post repeatedly that the story was bullshit, pro

and now it's that I didn't condemn it vigorously enough for the witchhunter YOU?


disturbing McCarthy like crap.

No surprise from the PRO.

[leveymg]

102. That wasn't a smear and this isn't either, PS.

A smear is a false and malicious accusation or rumour. If there's something false in Cali's statements, I'd like to here what that is. As far as I can see, there's no malice here either. So, please, don't make smear accusations without proof of either - that, in itself, is a smear.

[ProSense]

92. VA-Gov: Howard Dean Fundraises For Terry McAuliffe (D)

VA-Gov: Howard Dean Fundraises For Terry McAuliffe (D)
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/09/28/1242060/-VA-Gov-Howard-Dean-Fundraises-For-Terry-McAuliffe-D

Maybe you could send this post to Dean to tell him to stay away from this guy.

[cali]

97. Uh, I've said I support him, pro. which you know.

duh.

[WCLinolVir]

95. I am not into whitewashing, but I think a more constructive post

would have been what to do after the election. How do we keep him on path for what benefits the state and the people who voted him in. This is a done deal, I hope, and
even though every election I have ever voted in has been a lesser of evils, and I am 54, the candidates seem a little more evil, or I am just a little more jaundiced.
Really tired of the bashing without focusing on how to make lemonade with a lemon.
I mean what on earth was Douchi thinking to suggest we outlaw oral sex? That was the no-brainer benchmark. It just boggled my brain at the thought of wasting state resources to enforce such a law. Isn't it a national past time? What next, preventing oral fixation in our youth?

[ehrnst]

96. Sometimes you hold your nose and vote. This is one of those times. (nt)

[MineralMan]

98. This is at the top of that Wikipedia article, which is being disputed, Cali:

The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (June 2013)

You know how Wikipedia works. People can edit articles on that website at any time. It's quite easy for someone to edit a Wikipedia page to cast aspersions on someone, especially someone running for office.

Anyone else can dispute that article. When that happens, Wikipedia posts the message above, which is intended to inform users that the article may not be accurate as it currently appears.

Right now, Terry McAuliffe is nearing the end of a campaign. Posting a negative Wikipedia article is a common strategy by a candidate's opponent or supporters of that opponent.

While Wikipedia is useful for doing research, when a Wikipedia article is being disputed, it's pretty poor practice to post such an article without noting the dispute.

Your post is not particularly useful, just before an election. You posted a disputed Wikipedia article that contains content detrimental to a Democratic candidate for office, but did not disclose that Wikipedia itself says that the article is in dispute.

I wish you wouldn't do that. I wish you would not post articles trashing Democratic candidates on DU close to an election. I really do wish you wouldn't do that.

[cali]

104. I'm sorry, MM, but anyone paying attention to McAuliffe over the past

couple of decades knows that his financial history is, to put it kindly, dubious. There have been hundreds of articles about that.

The sections I posted from wiki have citations. I didn't post the parts that are in dispute.

[BlueCaliDem]

139. I do not care for McAuliffe, but I refuse to post disparaging articles about him

on any message board only 25 days of the election. I'll save those for *after* the election. You should, too, IF you don't want Cuccinelli to win, that is.

[leveymg]

107. MM. If you can dispute any facts presented in the OP, please do so. Otherwise, you too know how

Wiki works - in a political campaign, the partisans will always dispute the facts. So, that really doesn't mean anything.

Also, I object to your term "trashing" in this regard. It's synonymous with "smearing", and this is not a smear -- a false and malicious accusation or rumour -- as far as I can tell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this subject came up because of specific reporting made in an AP story that was carried initially in the Washington Post, which was shown to be in error and withdrawn. The other facts reported in Wiki (which Cali reposts here) have not been withdrawn or shown to be false. We need to be aware of them, and discuss them here, because the GOP will repeat them until Election Day.

[Blue_Tires]

108. Well done, cali

While you're in a researching mood, please post the entire financial histories of current Governor Bob McDonnell and Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli...You know, for the sake of consistency....

[trumad]

112. LOL

And there you have it--- wrapped in a nice bow for all to see. Thing is--some do not want to see.

I would fall over dead if said poster ever posted something like that.

[cali]

121. why? I've made it quite clear what I think of Cuccianelli.

and as McDonnell isn't running, why should I post anything about him.

I almost invariably post the word vile in front of Cucianelli. and I've made it quite clear- even for the deeply stupid, that I support the sleazy McAuliffe over the sleazy, corrupt and religiously insane Cuccianelli.

try reading for comprehension, bluewhatever. if you can.

[Blue_Tires]

133. I just thought it would be convenient to have all their financial histories in one thread

So DUers could compare and contrast them or whatever...Not sure why that warrants an attack from you...

I don't know if you live in Virginia or keep up with the news here, but McDonnell's (and by extension Cuccinelli's) financial histories have been subject to much discussion...

And yes, McDonnell is prevented by state law from seeking a consecutive term, but like pretty much every Virginia governor of recent memory, he is being groomed for a senate seat so his financial history is still very relevant...

[geek tragedy]

110. Incredibly helpful post, right before the election. nt

[B Calm]

119. +1

[leveymg]

122. Don't you think the wider DU readership needs to know what we in VA are already painfully aware of?

Not like Cali is giving the Repugs any new tunes they aren't already harping on.

[cali]

123. I am forced to come to the conclusion that partisanship trumps reason and facts

that doesn't bode well.

[geek tragedy]

125. Partisanship is not irrational in zero-sum elections.

Going scorched -earth against a Democrat opposing a Tea Party fanatic weeks before an election is what is irrational, as it serves absolutely no purpose other than boosting one's own sense of righteousness.

[cali]

129. what a crock. I've said repeatedly that I support Terry M, but I will NOT

fucking deny what he is.

It has nothing to do with righteousness, but everything to do with facts and reality. try it. at least once.

[geek tragedy]

131. Calling McAuliffe corrupt and sleazy, echoing the Cucincelli's attacks on him, is not rational

for someone who wants him to defeat Cucinelli.

[leveymg]

143. I don't see any intent to echochamber Cuc's campaign here.

Some context for those approaching this for the first time. Those who have opposed TM for elected office here in VA concluded four or five years ago when McAuliffe first indicated his intent to run for state-wide office that the integrity issue would be difficult to deal with.

We might as well talk about the details among ourselves so we know what we're dealing with.

[geek tragedy]

144. intent is irrelevant--that which reinforces the Cuch's message reinforces it regardless

of the subjective intent behind it.

[leveymg]

146. That we're having this argument is an indication of how

deeply flawed this candidate is and how the Party machines seem to perpetuate the worst that is among us. Same on the other side of the isle. The political system is broken in half, and each is fucked up beyond belief.

[geek tragedy]

147. False equivalence. Mcauliffe is not perfect, but he's sane and holds the right position

on the vast majority of issues.

Cucinelli is American Taliban.

[leveymg]

148. The issue isn't positions. Nobody here is arguing there is any equivalence there.

The difference seems to be between those who would rather ignore the integrity issues being brought up against "our guy" ("speak no evil, see no evil, say no evil&quot versus those who want other DUers to appreciate how screwed up the party nominating process is in this case, lest anyone fails to comprehend why this race is as close as it is.

On the basis of the issues, alone, the Democrat should be 15% ahead, even in this very purple state.

[trumad]

134. then blast his opponants with Ops.

[leveymg]

145. The campaign on both sides has been almost entirely negative. The concern is that if we go any

further negative on Cuc that it will turn off potential Dem-leaning voters.

I fine thread to sow.

[cali]

162. learn how to spell, tru.

the word, for pity's sake, is opponent not opponant.

and no, I'm under no obligation to do what the likes of YOU demand.

forget it.

[trumad]

166. awww the old spelling comeback

Weak for such a seasoned wordsmith.

[leveymg]

126. Partisanship is healthy and necessary in politics. Hiding your head in the sand isn't.

Denial of facts and continued embrace of a failed centrist agenda (and candidates) is a good way to lose elections, over and over again, which is part of the BlueDog legacy that TM helped create as DNC Chair from 2001-2004, which coincided with one of the worst periods of Democratic electoral setbacks in history.

[geek tragedy]

124. They need to know there's an election within weeks where a far-right wing homophobe

anti-gubmint Teahadist nutjob has a chance to win, with national implications.

[B Calm]

132. I'm forced to believe some on DU smear Innocent people that

never was convicted or even arrested for the crime.

[cali]

161. so, by your way of "thinking", George W bush is pure as the driven snow

along with Cheney, Rumsfeld, Paul Ryan, Ted Cruz, and thousands of other fuckwads.

wow.


gad.

[B Calm]

177. If you can charge Terry McAuliffe for crime, why don't you go for it!

WOW!!!

[cali]

206. wow. that was impressively lame.

congratulations. for the umpteenth time, I never claimed he'd been convicted of a crime.

thank the dogs that I can actually think and argue. You can't.

[B Calm]

207. and so was your orignal post!

[cali]

208. bwahahahaha.

trying to attempt a discussion with someone who "thinks" as you do, is an illustration of an exercise in futility.

My op, made the case persuasively that McAuliffe embodies what's wrong with politics, the impact of big money and the Democratic Party, by posting facts demonstrating that McAuliffe is a corporate dem with a shady financial history. In addition, I pointed out that despite that he is still the better choice.

As the Magistrate said: Vote for the crook, not the kook.

[B Calm]

209. Your original post was to try to depress the turnout

just before an important election, even if you don't realize it!

[cali]

210. no, it wasn't. not even close. but it's cute of you to fake

that you, can mind read or that you could possibly know what my unconscious motivation is.

and grab a tiny wittle clue: What I post here is exceedingly unlikely to have any impact whatsoever on that election.

duh.

critical thinking. try it.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

128. Is he from Chicago? Or ever been to Chicago? If so, he's OK and better than Repubs.

[ecstatic]

136. Is this an attempt to surpress VA turnout? You do realize Medicaid expansion is on the line, right?

If the repub wins, Medicaid won't be expanded and hundreds of thousands of Virginians will still be uninsured.

Is McAuliffe the best option in the country? Probably not, but he beats a teabagger any day.

Your timing couldn't be worse. People who already are unlikely voters might happen across your post and use it as an excuse to stay home.

[stevenleser]

151. Good point. Another potential unintended consequence of this OP.

The OP could actually cause people to not be able to obtain healthcare with all of the potential consequences of that.

[reddread]

152. and kittens

kittens will be crushed

[stevenleser]

153. Really? Link? nt

[reddread]

154. fixed n/t

[frylock]

157. how will this supress VA turnout? how many Virginians are even aware of DU's existance?

this line of argument is fucking ridiculous!

[ecstatic]

160. Trickle down effect. Believe it or not, all kinds of people come to DU for talking

points, which then get dispersed into TV shows, newspapers, and blogs.

[frylock]

167. so the prevailing progressive view here does not reflect the Reality-Based Real World Realists..

and progressives will never effect change through actively posting on DU, yet anything posted here that can be interpreted as negative will jeopardize entire elections? have I got that correct?

[TheKentuckian]

176. I think it may well even be more convoluted and inane than that but that seems to be the gist.

What goes unexplained is why the "viable" people the very same people push over and over need cones of silence and all matter of whitewash come general election time against even the most absurd yahoos when they are only put up to supposedly attract the folks that will stay home or vote for the loon if they hear shit like say the truth about them and not a truth that we approve of but the very shit we are supposed to oppose.

This is the strategy? C'mon man!

A game where we seriously nominate candidates that we don't want to attract voters that won't like them either for the exact same reasons should they hear tell that that is how they are.

This is supposed to be our "game theory"??? Who buys this shit?

This is preposterous. Let's ignore "viable" from now on until Kingdom come. This people are delusional or beyond crooked.

[frylock]

186. it's a whole lot of eating and keeping of cake..

progressives are either the weakest, or the most powerful group here, dependent upon the particular situation. they laugh at us, and our "idealism," but boy are the Real World Realists quick to assign blame when shit goes sideways and people reject their flavor of centrism.

[reddread]

188. more truth in this one thread

than most pages of posts.
this cant be good.

[stevenleser]

141. This is an extremely ill-considered OP

Aside from the obvious fact that it attacks the Democratic nominee for Governor and in doing so repeats dubious information that has partially been debunked, there are unintended consequences here that the OP and those cheering her on have not considered.

Whichever party's nominee captures the governorship is going to likely be able to help move the state's electorate in the direction of their party by a few points in 2016. Hurting McCauliffe here could be the difference in 2016 to Virginia being red or blue.

If I were part of Cucinelli's campaign team, I would be all over the fact that on the most prominent Democratic discussion forum on the web, they are talking about how dirty McCauliffe is. I would grab screenshots and make posters, placards and TV commercials out of it. It's a potential goldmine for Cucinelli's campaign.

[TheKentuckian]

149. A whole thread of whining about, in essence, telling the truth about our awful corporate candidate.

By the same folks that are dedicated to fielding awful, corporate candidates.

The Turd Way needs and loves Teabaggers. Only Teabaggers offer enough scary contrast to force decent folks to swallow their awful compromised corporate assholes who when elected will work to advance to previously unacceptable non-Teabagger right wing agenda.

The Teabaggers just allow the former right wing to play "moderate", the former center/right to be liberal, the center/left to be "socialist", and for the former left to be "fringe".

I'm sure that more than a few are hoping for new lows from the reactionary right so that a more multi-cultural Reagnisim can be the new left and that anything more liberal than that can be swept away. That is the whole game.

They aren't running away from crazy teabaggers but toward them in a non-stop effort to move the functional political spectrum to the right and kill liberalism. That is the Turd Way agenda and woe be unto anyone who breaks the illusion needed to sell this shit.

Never is the answer not to run crooks and corporate footpads, the answer is to whitewash and point out how scary the Teabagger is, get elected, and then spin and rationalize the stink rather than actually holding feet to fire which is just something to say to get over the hump rather than in any seriousness. Any and all shit is defended by "what..would you rather have (insert nutbar here)?" or "are you trying to make sure a Teabagger is elected next cycle?" and the immediate push for another compromised asshole and/or crook for the next go around.

Fuck em. You keep on keeping on. The gnashing of teeth because you won't be blindly be triangulated is hilarious. It isn't good enough that you accept it, that acceptance must be blind and silent, if not enthusiastic. Fuck em. Let them whine.

[reddread]

150. exactly

the tea party is more important to conservative Democrats than it is to anyone else.
That is the game being played, and those are the players.
for those who would question-

[cali]

155. thanks. wish I found it more hilarious than frustratring

[Blue_Tires]

184. Sadly, I'm still a few years' planning away from starting my run in VA

and even then I'm aiming for the U.S. Senate, not the Governor's mansion...

But until then, my only concern is keeping Cuccinelli out...McAuliffe lost the primary in the upset of the year four years ago, and for the most part Deeds was hung out to dry by the party and overnight his campaign lost any sense of momentum and competence...

I agree that by and large the current political system is hopelessly fucked (even moreso after Citizens United)...But until it changes it is unfortunately the pool we all have to swim in...

[Egnever]

158. Mcauliffe is sleeze

My heart goes out to Virginia, they are screwed no matter who they pick.

[Beacool]

159. Well, the two choices in VA are McAuliffe and Cuccinelli.

Given those two choices, I would run, not walk to vote for Terry.

[quinnox]

168. I don't know much about Mcauliff, except he used to be on political talk shows

he seemed like a good guy to me, but that is just my impression from tv.

[bluestate10]

170. Oh. Such purity. Nothing in the world is pure white. nt

[cali]

203. bzzt. please note that I said McAuliffe should be supported

purity would be saying one shouldn't vote for him.

YOU and others like you want to whitewash and ignore his flaws. I don't pretend he's anything but what he is.

[Tx4obama]

175. .. no allegation of wrongdoing by McAuliffe or that he or other investors knew of efforts to defraud

-snip-

There is no allegation of wrongdoing by McAuliffe or that he or other investors knew of efforts to defraud the terminally ill. The Associated Press withdrew a story Wednesday night that said McAuliffe was accused in court documents of having lied to a federal investigator looking into the benefit scheme; those documents referred to someone by the initials "T.M.," but did not identify McAuliffe as that person.

-snip-

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_MCAULIFFE_DEATH_BENEFITS?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2013-10-10-08-39-24

[Pretzel_Warrior]

178. self delete this pile of garbage

[B Calm]

180. +1

[JI7]

181. did you just find out McAuliffe was Running for Governor ?

[Tx4obama]

190. That is BS. ALL dems in Virginia need to go and VOTE for the DEMOCRAT!

[Union Scribe]

192. And it's hilarious that it's the same people

saying you should be tarred and feathered for trying to depress turnout blah blah, who also pop up in threads to say that DU's liberals are wasting their typing fingers because no one cares what we say on DU anyway.

Which is it, swarm?

[quinnox]

194. lol, so true

The "swarm" has been on the warpath too lately, ready to strike at any posts or threads which don't reinforce the meme of the ACA being the greatest thing since slice bread.

[Liberal_in_LA]

193. if Terry loses is it forced vaginal ultrsounds for women who choose to have abortions?

[cali]

204. and where the fuck do I say he should lose?? To the contrary

I express my support.

As the Magistrate put it in another thread: Vote for the crook, not the kook- though Cuccianelli is both a kook and a crook.

[Liberal_in_LA]

211. ok ok

[JI7]

196. what i don't get is why didn't people have concerns early on before he became the Nominee

we knew he was going to run long time ago. others could have ran but they didn't.

and now just before an election against a republican is when people get their outrage out ?

[reddread]

198. they did, but not about YESTERDAYS NEWS

or is that something everyone already knew about?
dude's got his hands full with this tidbit.
emperor's new outfit looks fit for a last minute defeat snatched from the jaws of victory.
TREMENDOUSLY stupid on his part, and surely the result of incurable greed.
papering over the reality with DU pretend its not true?
lose-lose.

[2banon]

197. I never liked this sleazeball..

and now I understand why I had intuited that he is indeed a first class sleezeball.. it's like straight out of Tammany Hall.

gotta wonder why Dems couldn't find someone with some modicum of integrity to run against a raving lunatic, I mean seriously.

[steve2470]

200. eh color me jaded

If I had my way, of course all Democratic candidates would be as morally and legally pure as the driven snow. All Democratic officeholders would be of the same pure driven snow.

If I had my way, we would have the nasty goods on all Republicans and expose their filth to the light of day. If we HAD to have Republicans (I think we have to have an opposing party, whatever the name is), they would all be Eisenhower-era Republicans and all also of pure-driven-snow-moral-and-legal-qualities.

However, we live in the real world. Yes, the Democratic Party has to have a "sleaze limit" for our candidates and officeholders, but Jimmy Carter-clones are in very short supply. If there's any substantial dirt on him, I've yet to see it. He seems like a Baptist preacher (albeit a highly intelligent one) who stumbled into politics somehow.

I'll take McAuliffe over Cuccinelli any day. I'm in Florida, so my opinion doesn't really matter. If a more morally pure candidate could be substituted quickly for McAuliffe AND still win the election, I'd say yea, go for it. From what I know, not gonna happen.

[Douglas Carpenter]

201. that may be - but proper decorum requires that we cover this up or at least downplay it until after

the election because - To get dialectical about it - A Cuccianelli victory would be a large step forward for the forces of reaction - while a McAuliffe victory would be a considerably smaller step forward for the forces of reaction. The duty of the progressive is to advance progress and inhibit reaction. When advancing progress is not possible - a progressive tries to inhibit reaction. When inhibiting reaction is not possible - a progressives tries to minimize it. This may sound outrageously cynical - but given that it is not possible to fight against the flow of history - I can see no alternative but to follow its flow and respond to its flow based on those principles.

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

212. He's a total scumbag.

One of those corporatists for hire like Lanny Davis who seem to flock to the Clintons.
He's the epitome of DLC conservadems.
He oozes douchebaggery, and looks like a cross between a 'Dynasty' villain and a college frat boy.

But, that said, the Cooch is crazy and his running mate is even nuttier, so I'm in the weird position of having to root for McAulliffe.
Thankfully, with the Va. governor, they're one and done, so, hopefully, we don't have to worry about him down thw road.

Though, I swear, if I see see a Clinton/McAulliffe ticket in 2016, I'm changing my name legally to "Ralph Nader' and running as an independent.

[Cali_Democrat]

213. Hey I have an idea

Let's attack a Democratic candidate for governor days before the election in an extremely important state like VA.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

215. Cali, you must be a Republican!

[quinnox]

216. I just looked at some polls, and Mcauliffe is winning. So all the angst

about this thread seems misplaced. And please, the notion that a thread on Democratic underground is all of a sudden gonna sink Mcauliffe's chances is, well, delusional.