Dear Terry:
You suck, Dean rocks!
When Kerry was calling for regime change in April 2003, where were the Clintons, where were you?
Terry exhibit A.
Then watch the debates. In fact, Kerry was one of the few Democrats speaking out against Bush, none of you pundit types did anything. You, Begala and Carville, weren't deer in the headlights, you all were roadkill.
Update -- From the AP article about Terry McAuliffe's new book:
Some of his harshest criticism are aimed at the 2004 campaign that he was once responsible for defending. McAuliffe calls the Kerry campaign gun-shy, incompetent and distracted from the mission of defeating a more organized Bush campaign.
Terry who do you blame for losing in 2000, 2002 and 2004. Yet Dean comes in and wins in 2005. What about 2006? Are you going to take credit for the campaigning and fund-raising Kerry did for Democrats in 2006?
This is what people saw, Terry:
Before the convention
05.21.04
STRATEGERY:
The Kerry campaign's brain trust is regularly mocked and second-guessed for its strategic decisions, while Karl Rove somehow retains his reputation as a genius. Maybe it's time to rethink that conventional wisdom.
We can already assess the effect of the two big strategic moves of the pre-convention period. The Bush campaign's decision was to spend some $60 million in an attempt to discredit Kerry as a viable alternative to the president before the race really started. The Kerry campaign's decision was to concentrate on fundraising and allow events in Iraq and 527 spending to parry the Bush assault. Conventional wisdom among nervous Democrats outside the Kerry campaign, as well as much of the press, was that Kerry was making a Titanic mistake and Bush was making a bold and brilliant move similar to Clinton in 1996.
But the results are in. Kerry leads Bush in almost every national poll. His fundraising is astronomical, and he is pumping up his ad campaign just as Bush is ratcheting his down. The two main assumptions of the Bush campaign--that Kerry would be seriously under-funded and that he could be crippled by advertising--have proven to be wrong.
After theconvention:
When the Swift Liars/media assault began, did the three-ring circus Democratic pundits spring into action:
By the time the Swift Boat story had played out, CNN, chasing after ratings leader Fox News, found time to mention the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth–hereafter, Swifties–in nearly 300 separate news segments, while more than one hundred New York Times articles and columns made mention of the Swifties. And during one overheated 12-day span in late August, the Washington Post mentioned the Swifties in page-one stories on Aug. 19, 20, 21 (two separate articles), 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, and 31. It was a media monsoon that washed away Kerry’s momentum coming out of the Democratic convention.
Where were you?
The campaign was in full swing and fired off responses.
Kerry TV ads outpace Bush's
By Mark Memmott, USA TODAY
Sen. John Kerry's campaign and groups opposed to President Bush have run almost twice as many TV ads in closely contested states as the Bush-Cheney campaign. That is the opposite of what many political experts predicted before March, when Kerry emerged as the likely Democratic candidate for president.
The gap could grow by the July 26 start of the Democratic National Convention. This month, the Kerry campaign plans to spend $18 million on TV ads, outpacing the Bush campaign by about $10 million. Kerry's ads include the first one spotlighting his running mate, Sen. John Edwards, D-N.C. (Graphic: Ad spending)
"It was su pposed to be 'poor John Kerry,' or 'poor Democrats, they'll be overwhelmed by a Bush money machine' " that would saturate 16 to 20 competitive states with TV ads, says Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
USA TODAY obtained data collected by TNS Media Intelligence/Campaign Media Analysis Group, which tracks political ads. The data, covering 17 closely contested states from March 3 through June 26, show:
• The Kerry campaign's ads were shown 72,908 times, 3.1% more than the Bush-Cheney campaign's 70,688 showings.
link
A few visual reminders for you Terry: here, here, here and here.
No single measure captures the extent of a presidential victory. The sheer number of voters that Bush inspired to turn out demonstrated impressive strength. But on several key indicators, Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.
Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.
The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.
In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.
link
What did you, Begala and Carville contribute?
From the AP article:
[McAuliffe] said Bush called President Clinton while he was recovering from his heart attack in September 2004 and said, "The Kerry campaign is the most inept group I have ever seen in politics. Don't let them ruin your reputation."
To borrow a comment posted by Beachmon at Democratic Underground, Terry you were: wrecking the Dem infrastructure, then blasting everyone else for the losses, using BUSH, yes BUSH, to trump your case.
More Beachmon:
Seems to me that Mr. McAuliffe should look in the mirror for incompetence and malpractice. When your ENEMY says something, you don't take it as wisdom, idiot!!
The Democrats were sworn in yesterday, and I'm ready for you Terry: See.
You disgust me,
AllDemsonBoard
Update from JohnKerry.com:
McAuliffe lavished praise on Kerry himself. "John Kerry ran a great race," he said. "We had every player on the field. We had more money. We had the largest field operation. We got close. We got to the 1-yard line. But we didn't win. John Kerry gave it all he had."
Seems McAwful has two faces.