How to prevent McDonnell, Cooch bait & switch on Virginia? Vote. Just vote.

Bob McDonnell and Ken Cuccinelli are pulling a bait and switch on Virginia.

These two guys have been cultural warriors their entire public lives. How can anyone believe that once they find themselves in power that they are going to change their stripes?

Indeed, no sooner did they feel assured of victory than they began to show their true colors. As this article clearly demonstrates. Bob McDonnell contradicted a promise he made at a debate within 48 hours concerning both protecting a woman’s constitutional right to choose and non-discrimination against homosexuals. And in the last week, McDonnell has simply reaffirmed these positions.

Bob McDonnell is spitting in all of our faces. In the faces of all Virginians.

The only question is whether we will let them get away with it.

Democrats and moderates in the Commonwealth have the power to stop them.

All we need to do is vote.

That’s it. Just vote.

Vote.

McDonnell promises to defund planned parenthood

So much for Bob McDonnell's promises that he will not impose his exreme, Conservative, Pat Robertson social values on the entire Commonwealth.

From Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia:

On Tuesday, Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell revealed plans to single out and de-fund Planned Parenthood upon entering office as Governor of Virginia.

Speaking to conservative radio host Laura Ingraham, McDonnell was asked, "Can you promise that as Governor you'll use the veto pen to ensure that Virginians' tax dollars are not used to fund Planned Parenthood or abortion?" McDonnell responded by saying, "Yeah, I've said that I would do that...that'll be part of what we'll get done." (Watch here)

"McDonnell has tried to hide his ideological background throughout this campaign. However, with the polls favoring him to win the Governor's race, he reveals his true colors on conservative talk radio," said Jessica Honke, Director of Public Policy for Planned Parenthood Advocates of Virginia (PPAV). "The fact is Bob McDonnell is out of step and out of touch with voters and the wrong choice for Virginia. As Governor, he will continue the anti-choice and anti-women's health policies he's pushed since his first day in public office."

McDonnell's plan to defund Planned Parenthood is an attack on basic, preventative health care. If Planned Parenthood were defunded, tens of thousands of women and families would lose access to prevention services, including pap smears, cancer screenings, gynecological exams, family planning counseling and services, HIV and sexually transmitted infection testing and treatment and a host of community education programs emphasizing healthy relationships and lifestyles. Furthermore, McDonnell's statement is factually inaccurate; no state funding goes to the provision of abortion-related services. In 2008 and 2009, an amendment to defund Planned Parenthood was defeated.

As a legislator, McDonnell sponsored over 35 pieces of legislation designed to chip away at a woman's right to choose. He is opposed to reproductive choice, even in cases of rape or incest, voted to allow pharmacist to refuse Emergency Contraception and supports Bush-era abstinence-only policies that are medically inaccurate and dangerous to teens.

Additionally, he voted against common-sense legislation that would help ensure women could access contraception at their local pharmacy, voted against a bill declaring that contraception was not a form of abortion, voted against allowing public universities to distribute Emergency Contraception, and voted against requiring discussion in schools of the importance of post-rape medical help.

"McDonnell has repeatedly jeopardized women's health through divisive attacks on Planned Parenthood," said Honke, "At a time when more and more families in Virginia are uninsured and under financial strain, we can't afford to elect a Governor who will create more barriers to affordable health care. Virginians are looking for solutions, not politics as usual."

McDonnell Campaign Running Scared

Internal e-mails from Bob McDonnell's campaign reveal that they are worried about the impact of his Chistian Broadcasting Network master's degree thesis (Hat Tip: NLS).

Aznew and the Hokie Guru have written extensively about Taliban Bob's extreme views on gays, lesbians, women, and several other topics from his thesis here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here. and here.

McDonnell campaign spokersperson, Taylor Thornley, actually gives 30 talking points to supporters to use when writing letters to the editor on behalf of McDonnell. Apparently, Taliban Bob is worried that the thesis he wrote (when he was 34 effin' years old) might have an impact on women, independent, and moderate voters. Duh?!?!?

The Sublime Deceptions Of Bob McDonnell

Bob McDonnell’s strategy for responding to Thesis-caca, like his overall campaign, is steeped in deception and dishonesty. It has also been effective.

Quite honestly, I have to admit it is somewhat frustrating, but fascinating, to watch this all unfold. While I can see and describe what McDonnell is doing, and I can divine the mechanics that allow it to operate, I can’t for the life of me figure out how he is getting away with it with respect to voters, although if a recent poll is to be believed, getting away with it he is.

Well, I can figure it out, sort of. Bob McDonnell is unusually gifted and skillful at deception. And I mean that as a compliment.

McDonnell’s goal is to maintain the moderate image he has built for himself on social issues like choice, homosexuality, discrimination, etc., because otherwise he cannot win the election. The blog Coarse Cracked Corn deftly explains how McDonnell built this image:

Earlier this summer Bob McDonnell spent several hundred thousand dollars on TV ads designed to reshape his image, to rebrand himself, to mislead Virginia voters. In those slick commercials, McDonnell was portrayed as a moderate consensus builder, open to all ideas, and willing to work across party lines. Using shades of blue, Taliban Bob seemingly attempted to paint himself almost as a Democrat. In June, with the Democrats focused on their primary, McDonnell was able to use the power of TV to fabricate an image of him as a moderate that gave him a midsummer bump in some polls.

The disclosure of the thesis, and the specificity with which McDonnell described his extreme views on social issues and his belief in a theocratic government to foist his conservative views on everyone, has obviously complicated this strategy tremendously. At the same time that McDonnell must maintain his moderate image, generally, he must also signal his Conservative base that Bob McDonnell believes deeply in each and everyone of the draconian principles that he laid down in the thesis.

Standard dog whistle politics don’t cut it here – too many people are paying attention. To accomplish this requires sophistry of the first order supported by brazen dishonesty uncomplicated by shame, morality or ethics.

First, there is McDonnell’s position that the very discussion of these social issues is either illegitimate or irrelevant in the campaign because they spring from a twenty-year old thesis. Of course, these issues are both legitimate and relevant, and they spring not from the thesis, but from a desire to know who Bob McDonnell is today. In truth, McDonnell discusses social issues all the time -- when he wants to -- but defaulting to this argument and sticking to his guns permits McDonnell to refuse to take questions at will, or dance around answering an uncomfortable one.

That basic position, which the MSM has yet to crack, has afforded McDonnell control over the coverage, and left him free to rhetorically negotiate the seemingly inconsistent goals before him -- establishing at the same time that he is a both a moderate and a batshit crazy Conservative. (This, BTW, is not a knock on the MSM. Amy Gardner and the Washington Post deserve praise for their work.)

How does McDonnell use this freedom? Cleverly. He doesn't quite hit you over the head with dishonesty, but it is there nonetheless, and it isn't buried too deep. If it wasn't close to the surface, it would not have its desired effect.

Early on, for example, McDonnell absurdly and implausibly denied his own seriousness of purpose and hard work in producing the 93-page thesis by derisively calling it a “term paper” and an “academic exercise,” and something he hadn’t read in twenty years. Of course, this was false, but left unchallenged McDonnell managed at the same time to deny the document contains any serious content (maintaining moderate cred), without disavowing any of its substance (and risking backlash from his base).

Or consider how McDonnell has addressed the hot button issue of his denigration of women who choose to work outside the home. McDonnell argues his opinion has changed, but he doesn’t state how or what prompted the change. Rather, he “proves” his opinion has changed by a non sequitor -- pointing to the fact that his wife worked outside the home and the fact that he has three daughters, one of whom served in Iraq.

Again, the argument allows McDonnell to create a moderate impression (my wife works outside the home) without actually addressing the substance of the issue, namely, whether government ought to promote policies to make it more difficult for women to work outside the home. Those are not exclusive concepts -- Bob McDonnell would not be the first nor the last politician to think one policy is good for his constituents while another works better for him and his.

In fact, the available evidence shows that McDonnell has not changed his opinions on women in the workplace at all, such as his vote against requiring equal pay for women for equal work.

And while the media has challenged McDonnell on this one, he has defaulted to his refusal to discuss it (except when he wants to) because the issue of a twenty-year old thesis is illegitimate and irrelevant to a campaign today. Then he hilariously took offence at anyone even suggesting he might think it is inappropriate for women to work outside the home.

That's the kind of touch only a true maestro could pull off.

Now consider McDonnell’s appearance on Sean Hannity’s radio show Thursday, where he was speaking exclusively to his base. In that appearance, he vigorously defended that very same thesis that only days before he dismissed as a mere term paper and academic exercise, and asserted he had not thought about in twenty years and, anyway, contained opinions from which he has evolved:

Well, the thesis was about something that I think was very important and that is that marriage and family are the bedrock of our society then and that’s been true in quotes from John Kennedy to Ronald Reagan to Barack Obama to Governor Kaine to Bob McDonnell. People believe that--what I was doing in the late eighties was looking at sort of what happened after the Great Society vision of President Johnson and the AFDC program and some other things that had undermined the traditional family to say what are these government policies that are causing the impact on women and children and families and are there some things that we can do better?

While the words seem somewhat benign -- I mean, who is anti-family? Who doesn't want to do "better"? -- in McDonnell's thesis everything derives from his core belief about the "traditional" family as a sacred unit. In other words, Bob McDonnell still strongly believes in his thesis, namely that government should be able to tell you how to live your personal life – who to marry, who to love, how and when to bear children and, ultimately, how and what deity you worship -- as long as those dictates are based on Bob McDonnell’s particular Biblical interpretation.

Again, the deception is clearly there, just below the surface. Not express, but certainly much bolder that the usual winks, nudges and code words of traditional dog whistles.

So far, at least, McDonnell's deception is working, i.e., moderates do not seem to be seeing BSC Bob yet, at least according to some of the data in Friday’s SUSA poll, which has McDonnell ahead 54-42. The poll was taken after Thesis-caca broke.

McDonnell is pulling 42% of the self-described moderate voters in the poll, 15% of the self-described liberals, and 31% of self-described pro-choice voters. At the same time, McDonnell is getting 89% of self-described Conservatives. Similarly, McDonnell is attracting 19% of Democrats and 88% of Republicans, not to mention 13% of Obama voters at the same time he is garnering 90% of McCain voters.

In short, these numbers show McDonnell is attracting considerable support from people diametrically opposed to his positions, without sacrificing any of his base.

His accomplishment is even more impressive when one considers that he has been entirely upfront about the fact that his strategy is based on deception. McDonnell wrote on page 55 of his thesis (h/t Daily Kos):

It is also becoming clear in modern culture that the voting American mainstream is not willing to accept a true pro-family ideologue because as then-Representative Trent Lott (R-MS) observed, "Americans think of themselves as conservatives; they want government reduced. But in their hearts they are liberals, they want all the goodies coming in. Leadership, however, does not require giving voters what they want, for whimsical and capricious government would result. Republican legislators must exercise independent professional judgment as statesman, to make decisions that are objectively right, and proved effective."

As Markos Moulitsas of Daily Kos explained:

Got that? "Leadership" means hiding your "true pro-family" ideology from the voters, who don't want it and aren't willing to accept it, but then governing in that fashion once elected. It is the height of cynicism -- openly violating the trust of the voter by pretending to be something you are not, masking your true intentions from an electorate that would never endorse that agenda with their vote.

Markos then asks:

Given McDonnell's open admission of dishonesty, how can any of his "moderate" policy pronouncements be taken seriously?

How, indeed?

Silent Bob Is Speaking Loud and Clear

Bob McDonnell has gone silent when it comes to answering questions with respect to Thesispalooza. Usually, this strategy does not work too well, since the refusal to answer questions tends to feed speculation that there is something being covered up.

Despite that risk, given McDonnell’s tactical objectives in managing this mess, the Silent Bob routine would appear to be his best option at this point. On the surface, the rationale for this tact is that McDonnell wants to talk about “issues that really matter.”

Still, the strategy also reveals how weak of a hand McDonnell is actually holding. By defining McDonnell's tactical goals, and examining how the Silent Bob routine, plus other tactics, might help him achieve them, it becomes clear how circumstances have left McDonnell with little margin of error.

McDonnell’s Objective # 1

The Goal: Don't allow the thesis to turn into a media feeding frenzy. By simply refusing to feed the media beast, McDonnell hopes it will eventually stop asking for food and move on.

The Tactic: Refuse to answer questions about his thesis. Accuse the WaPo of liberal bias.

Why it Might Work: Reporters constantly need fresh copy, so unless they are finding fresh material elsewhere, they will be forced to move on.

Why It Probably Won’t: Two reasons. First, McDonnell is in an election against an opponent and a significant online opposition that will not allow this issue to simply fade away and who will try to keep aggressive coverage alive. Second, the media has a strong professional self-interest in preventing their subjects from setting the parameters of acceptable coverage. Ask Al Gore what happens when the press gets pissed at you, en masse.

McDonnell Objective #2

The Goal: Are there are more cultural shoes out there to drop, possibly even more writings, almost certainly individuals who will come forward to assert that McDonnell’s views have not really changed much over the years, as four GOP legislators did this past week? If so, McDonnell would want to avoid saying anything further, beyond the carefully word-smithed answers he has already provided, that would be directly contradicted by a subsequent disclosure.

The Tactic: Simply refuse to answer questions about the thesis so he doesn’t get caught off-message.

Why It Might Work: Someone who doesn’t speak is unlikely to say anything that is stupid. And while McDonnell has already created a general impression that he has evolved in his thinking generally since penning this thesis in a more moderate direction, he didn’t specifically address most of the more egregious statements in the thesis, giving him the benefit of plausible deniability should additional evidence arise.

Why It Probably Won’t: Voters and the MSM tend to focus on general impressions, so if further evidence surfaces that contradicts the impression McDonnell created, it seem like he was less than forthcoming, whether plausibly denied or not.

McDonnell Objective # 3

The Goal: Maintain the moderate image he has cultivated without ticking off his base.

The Tactic: Utilize the dog whistle for the base, but say as little as possible to the moderates, so as not to drown out the coded message. (VB Dems has a fascinating post up about an article stating that this was the precise reason McDonnell disclosed the existence of the thesis to the WaPo to begin with, i.e., to send a message to the faithful that he was still with them as a cultural warrior even as he presented himself as a moderate in order to attract votes. I’m not sure I buy it – as a plan it is too complicated – but a very interesting idea).

Why It Might Work: Well, the Family Foundation warned McDonnell on Tuesday not to disavow his thesis too much. That was a signal. McDonnell hasn’t said a word since then, a pressure from the right has disappeared.

Why It Probably Won’t: Two big reasons. First, all of these people are, frankly, scary and nuts when it comes to their belief that they have the divine right to tell everyone else how to live their lives, so who knows what the heck they will do. Second, additional disclosures or enough pressure from the media, will force his hand to choose one side or the other.

McDonnell can yet draw to an inside straight from all of this. The keys will be whether he is able to continue avoiding answering questions and whether any new evidence comes to light of his narrow and backwards views on social issues, and his belief that Government should impose Bob McDonnell’s particular brand of Christian morality on all of us.

Blue Virginia Blogger Roundup

Good evening, Virginia.

It's a beautiful fall evening in Alexandria, VA, which means college football is right around the corner. It is less than 48 hours until Virignia Tech takes on Alabama (in the ATL) on Saturday night at 8 PM EST on ABC.

So, here's what the Virginia progressive blogging community is talking about:

• Fake Virginia has an EXCELLENT TWEET-ATHON on that describes her thoughts on Bob McDonnell's Christian Broadcasting Network thesis. If you don't know, Bob McDonnell went to Pat Robertson's Regent University Law School in 1989 (Note to self: Pat Robertson is donating, ahem, a ton of $$$ to Bob McDonnell's campaign... Pat Robertson is not a moderate). Bob's full thesis is here.
• Lowell has a great review of the Creigh Deeds' campaign new website which clearly depicts the batshit crazy right-wing record of Bob McDonnell. The web site, in short, basically shows the whack job social stances that McDonnell has taken on a woman's role in society (stay home and make babies and food), abortion rights (In Bob McDonnell's crazy ass world, if woman is RAPED, he believes she should not have the right to an abortion), contraception, and education. Bob McDonnell is not a moderate.
• Aznew questions whether Bob McDonnell's goal is to advocacate a Christian theocracy in America. (Note to self: Bob McDonnell sounds kinda Talibanesque to me).
• Anonymous is a Woman ponders the dishonest shell game that Bob McDonnell is playing with Virginia voters (Note: Bob's can't run from those crazy ass social stances).
• Left of the Hill tells us that almost half of Virginia's likely voters are following the news headlines about Bob McDonnell's detrimental views on women (Bryan thinks there will be more momentum on this issue for Creigh Deeds as the fall campaign season moves along).
• Finally, Not Larry Sabato wonders if Bob McDonnell voted for Pat Robertson in the 1988 Virginia GOP Presidential Primary (of course he did, Ben!!).

Oh, and Sarah Palin hearts MF crazy Bob McDonnell to the tune of $2500.

I wonder if Bob McDonnell thinks we live in Fake Virginia (that's what McCain and Palin's advisor basically said below):

Massively good times.

Does Bob's Thesis Advocate A Christian Theocracy in America?

It was interesting that Bob McDonnell’s view on women, particularly women working outside of the home, seemed to draw the most visceral reaction from the news media. As offensive as those statements are, however, the part of McDonnell Thesis that should be of the most concern to Virginia’s voters is McDonnell’s view on government and the ultimate source of governmental power.

McDonnell seems to interpret the Declaration of Independence as ordaining the creation of a Christian theocracy. It is truly frightening that someone that thinks like this can get so close to a significant position of executive power in the United States.

McDonnell’s Thesis states: “The civil government was ordained to secure the inalienable rights of individuals created in the image and likeness of [G-d.]” This is drawn, one assumes, from Jefferson’s assertion in the Declaration that “all men … are created equal and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.”

One can see right off the bat that the Declaration does not specifically refer to G-d, i.e., the G-d of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob from the Old Testament, for the document speaks solely of a “Creator.” McDonnell, however, clearly interprets it as a reference to the Bible’s deity by asserting that only individuals created in G-d’s image (See Genesis 1:26) are endowed with the magical unalienable rights.

McDonnell next asserts that the reason government protects these inalienable rights is to “facilitate a society in which other institutions are free to perform their convenantal duties to [G-d] and others.” In other words, government provides services to us in order to free us up to … well, live our lives according to the rules set forth in the Bible (presumably as interpreted by McDonnell).

With respect to the purpose of forming governments, the Declaration advises us to do it in a way that “shall seem must likely to protect [our] safety and happiness.’ Nothing in there, however, about “covenantal duties to [G-d].”

Finally, McDonnell concludes as follows: “The state alone, with the exception of parental discipline of children, bears the authority to punish wrongdoers, for the civil ruler is a minister of God to execute judgment and encourage good.”

The Declaration of Independence, however, directly contradicts this statement. Government, i.e., the “civil ruler,” does not derive power from G-d or any external force. Nor is its purpose to “execute judgment” or “encourage good.” TJ was quite clear on this point. The Declaration states: “That to secure these rights [i.e., the unalienable rights which include life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness], governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

(NOTE: McDonnell does allow that governmental “authority” is limited by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, laws, etc., but this somewhat meaningless jurisdictional statement does not change the core assertion that the legitimacy and powers of government derive from G-d, and should be executed to serve His purpose.)

What McDonnell appears to be envisioning here is nothing less than a Christian theocracy.

In case there is any doubt about McDonnell’s vision of American government, consider the following statement from his Thesis (pp. 13-14), drawn from Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 13: 1-4:

“Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which [G-d] has established. The authorities that exist have been established by [G-d]. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what [G-d] has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.”

Similarly, on page 62, McDonnell asserts that Republicans must "correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state. Historically, the religious liberty guarantees of the First Amendment were intended to prevent government encroachment upon the free church, not eliminate the impact of religion on society."

As for specific policies a Governor McDonnell might impose, in his eyes, “Every level of government should statutorily and procedurally prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals, or fornicators. The cost of sin should fall on the sinner, not the taxpayer.”

Nor is this merely an academic exercise that has not had real-life consequences. After becoming Attorney General, McDonnell has a chance to pursue his vision, and he did so. Demonstrating how government could show preference to “married couples” over homosexuals, for instance, McDonnell did the following:

Immediately after becoming AG, Mr. McDonnell issued an opinion to countermand the executive order by both Governors Warner and Kaine to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, basically ruling that discrimination based on sexual orientation was lawful in state hiring.

In early 2007, after The Christopher Newport University board banned discrimination in matters of admissions and employment based on sexual orientation, Bob McDonnell took the time to write the school to tell them, as the publication Inside Higher Ed put it, “it would not be legal for the university (or other public institutions in the state, which have done the same thing) to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.”

Bob McDonnell intervened in a private lawsuit among members of the Episcopal Church in a dispute that had gay rights at its core. In a protest over gay priests, dissident members left the church, but filed suit seeking to retain church property. Mr. McDonnell, needless to say, sought to intervene in the case on the side of the anti-gay dissidents, ostensibly in defense of a state statute. But the dispute was a religious and social one, above all else, not a Constitutional one. A real estate attorney told the Washington Post that McDonnell’s intervention in the case “was a little out of the ordinary.”

So, while McDonnell’s ridiculous and offensive comments about women are interesting, and make for a good soundbyte, McDonnell’s views on the origins and legitimacy of government power, the purpose of government, the belief that government is an agent of the G-d of Abraham in implementing policy and the role such a government ought to play in the private lives of its citizens are much more dangerous, and are more critical questions for the voters of Virginia.

As we can see from McDonnell’s time as AG, these are not merely abstract questions; rather, McDonnell has clearly demonstrated that once in power, he is not afraid to implement his vision.

Hopefully, as this news story makes its way through the news cycle, the MSM media will find a way, consistent with the objectives of its news coverage, to place this critical consideration before the public.

Given the many questions still hanging about from the revelation of this Thesis, it is simply not acceptable for Bob McDonnell to travel around the state talking about his plan to appoint Bill Bolling Chief Jobs Creation Officer for the Commonwealth, while refusing to answer questions about his vision for what he wants Virginia to be in the future.

Note: My thanks to Cvillelaw at Blue Comonwealth for the research he did on the McDonnell thesis, which I drew on heavily for this.

Bill Maher on Bob McDonnell and Pat Robertson's Law School

Ode to Bob McDonnell (LSU alma mater lyrics edited for my enjoyment):

Where stately oaks and broad magnolias
shade inspiring halls,
There stands our dear Old Alma Mater
who to us recalls
Fond memories that waken in our hearts
a tender glow,
And make us happy for the love
that we have learned to know.

All hail to thee our Alma Mater,
molder of mankind,
May greater glory, love unending
be forever thine.
Our worth in life will be thy worth
we pray to keep it true,
And may thy spirit live in us, forever Regent U

Would you send your daughter to Maury Povich University?

Massively good times.

Righty Blog Roundup: Surprise -- "L'Affair Thesis" is Liberal Media's Fault

As Day 3 of L’Affair Thesis came to a close, Bob McDonnell’s supporters regressed to the default position Conservatives regress to when they get exposed as BCEs (Batshit Crazy Extremists).

It is all the media’s fault for letting people know about them.

But even as they trot out the tired and true staple, the several Conservative blogs I looked at seem to know this is not really the problem, and in their hearts do not really seem to believe in the arguments they are putting forth.

Over at Too Conservative, for example, VA Blogger in a post entitled “Too Unbelievable To Be True,” can only complain that the Washington Post did not equally criticize Gov. Kaine for being partisan when he took his job at the DNC. The cases are not equivalent, however -- the WaPo did not criticize McDonnell for being partisan; it criticized him for being divisive and out of touch -- and VA Blogger’s actual argument fails to live up to the hype of the headline.

Similarly, at Bearing Drift, JR Hoeft claims the WaPo is acting hypocritically, but he notably fails to cite a single instance of hypocrisy on the part of the paper. Reading Mr. Hoeft’s post, it is clear that the real source of his annoyance is that the WaPo is reporting the story, and not simply parroting McDonnell’s spin on it. Mr. Hoeft seems equally annoyed with the RTD’s Jeff Schapiro for the same thing. In the Conservative view of the world, of course, reporting facts instead of right-wing spin is evidence of bias.

In any event, I don’t think blaming the media will work here. For one thing, it is a tactic that rarely works over time – hence the aphorism about not picking a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel. “Working the refs” like this does sometimes result in reporters and editors bending over backwards in the short-term to criticize the other guy to show they are being equally tough on all candidates, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see some “negative” reporting on Creigh from the WaPo in the next couple of weeks, to the extent that there is any fodder to work with.

More importantly, the argument of media bias in this case is pretty weak. Where, exactly, is the bias? Can McDonnell’s defenders seriously believe that his thesis is not newsworthy? Virtually every media outlet in the country disagrees. Can they seriously believe he put all questions to rest with a single conference call? Do they seriously think the voters of Virginia would rather hear about McDonnell’s plans to name Bill Bolling Chief Job Creation Officer than watch him twist himself into a pretzel trying to explain his 18th Century vision for 21st Century Virginia?

The critical issue for Virginia, and one that as far as I can see Mr. McDonnell has not addressed at all, is whether he still believes that government should be an instrument of imposing an extreme Christian Fundamentalist moral code on all the citizens of Virginia against their will. In that sense, I guess, I agree with my Conservative friends that the issue is not so much how Bob McDonnell felt about working women twenty years ago; rather, the issue is how would he, were he to be elected to lead the Commonwealth, treat decent, law-abiding Virginians today who choose a different lifestyle than what he thinks is morally appropriate.

The people of Virginia have a right to know whether their Governor thinks they ought to be punished by their own government -- not for breaking the law, but rather for not adhering to the same moral and religious code under which their Governor chooses to live, because in the final analysis that is what McDonnell’s thesis is all about.

As a 34-year old graduate student, McDonnell clearly believed the government ought to force Fundamentalist morality on all people, whether they want it or not. As a member of the General Assembly, he repeatedly sought to do so legislatively to the greatest degree possible, even to the point of limiting access to contraceptives. He admits that on the issue of reproductive choice, he would force his beliefs on all of us if he could, i.e., if Roe v. Wade were overturned. Finally, he has a long history of – and I apologize if any find this offensive, but there is no nice way to say it – hostility and discrimination against homosexuals and lesbians.

So far, McDonnell’s response to questions about his view of government’s role in imposing his religious morality on all citizens has been to change the subject to economic issues, claiming that is what people care about. The fact is, people care about both issues.

McDonnell’s supporters can rant against the Washington Post and Jeff Schapiro all they want, but this problem will not go away until McDonnell addresses the more important issue of what he will do as Governor with respect to social issues in an honest, specific and convincing manner – which he has not yet done -- and let the chips fall where they may.

His supporters would better serve their candidate by urging him to pursue this course, instead of propagating the same old victimization canard that the media is at fault for this mess.

2009 McDonnell same as 1989 McDonnell?

Apparently, there are several Virginia Republicans that agree with that premise and they are bucking their party and supporting Creigh Deeds. According to the Shad Plank, Senators Marty Williams and Russ Potts and Delegate Jim Dillard all think McDonnell's 1989 master's thesis (from Pat Roberson's Regent University, formerly Christan Broadcasting Network University, yep, CBN University... 700 Club University... geez) depicts a very similar social agenda that he pursued in the Virginia House of Delegates...

Selected excerpts of the Shad Plank blog post are below:

A handful of Virginia Republicans, including former Sen. Marty Williams of Newport News, are taking on Republican Bob McDonnell's 1989 thesis and saying that it matches his ensuing legislative record.

Williams and Sen. Russ Potts and Del. Jim Dillard all served in the General Assembly for the GOP, but they have been willing to break with their party leadership especially during this campaign. After McDonnell released a transportation plan that relied on off shore drilling, future port growth and tolls on drivers coming in from North Carolina - the three men stepped away from the GOP to back Democrat Creigh Deeds.

Now Williams, Potts and Dillard are stepping out to take on McDonnell's Regent University thesis which was penned when McDonnell was a 34-year-old graduate student at the Pat Robertson-led university in Virginia Beach.

The 93-page paper including some unflattering references to women in the workplace, calling them "detrimental" to the family. The paper also takes on "cohabitators, fornicators and homosexuals." McDonnell has disavowed and repudiated the things he wrote about working women and said that the paper doesn't reflect his views, but rather was an "academic exercise" and part of a 20-year-old assignment that he has not considered or read in two decades.

.....

McDonnell said that voters should focus on his record in the General Assembly.

Williams, Potts, Dillard and Del. Katherine Waddell, an Independent, all said that the thesis and McDonnell's record are playing the same tune.

"My biggest surprise is that he's running away from it," Williams said of the thesis. "I really do think that's who he is."

....

"Anybody who thinks I jump off the shelf and support every Democrat is mistaken," Williams said. "This is the first Democrat I've supported and it might be the last."

Potts said that the best political leaders govern from the center.

"Bob has never been about governing from the middle," Potts said. "He wants to govern from the far right. He believes that passionately and I respect him for that."

Potts noted that McDonnell carried 35 bills that would have restricted abortion rights.

"He was out of the mainstream all those many years," Potts said. "The record is the record, I was there."

Dillard said that McDonnell was "always pushing social issues" in the General Assembly.

"The Bob McDonnell who is running for governor is not the Bob McDonnell who we knew and served with in the General Assembly," Dillard said. "It's a total re-invention of Bob McDonnell so he can be governor."

Waddell said that the thesis cannot be dismissed as the partisan musings of a young adult because McDonnell would enter the legislature only a few years after the paper was written.

"You can run from yourself, but you can't run far," Waddell said.

Well there you go... members of Bob McDonnell's own party think he's out of the mainstream (Note to self: Sponsoring 35 bills to restrict abortion rights access is not mainstream)... and they think he is performing "plastic surgery" on his own political career so that he can be governor.

Virginians, please don't let Pat Robertson's disciple, Bob McDonnell, become governor.

Righty Blog Roundup: Tepid Defense For McDonnell

It took the Righty Blogosphere in Virginia 24 to 48 hours to formulate a defense for Bob McDonnell. Unfortunately, it is a fairly lame defense, and therefore not particularly interesting or challenging to answer.

I will note that I do sense a change in attitude over at the blogs run by my Conservative friends. This story has really taken the wind out of their sails, and their defense of Bob McDonnell seems half-hearted and obligatory, at best. That said, I’m not under any illusion that will last.

In any event, I think there are two reasons for this. First, Bob’s Manifesto is pretty indefensible, and his explanation that he has changed his opinion is not very credible, in light of his long legislative career trying to implement many of the ideas he sets forth in the document.

Second, I’d imagine that many Conservatives cannot be happy that McDonnell is running away from some core principles. Bob Marshall hit the nail on the head – by trying to pass himself off as a moderate, McDonnell is implicitly stating that there is something wrong with strong Conservative beliefs on social issues.

I would imagine many Conservatives would prefer to hear a strong defense of why mothers working outside the home is not a desirable state of affairs, or why an employer should be free to reject someone for a job because they are gay, and so on, rather than see the ostensible leader of their state party throw their principles overboard and meekly pander to what they see as the political correctness of a liberal media.

Frankly, that’s a debate I’d rather have as well, and one that I think would be much more meaningful and interesting to all voters, rather than the current election consisting of Mr. McDonnell to pretend he is someone he is not just to get votes, and Creigh having to spend an inordinate amount of time calling McDonnell out on his BS.

Anyway, over at Too Conservative, from VA Blogger we get a post entitled Deeds Not Words:

Funny that the Deeds campaign has turned their back on this maxim. As a student in the 1980s, Bob McDonnell wrote a thesis paper using words. As a legislator and Attorney General, you can evaluate his deeds.

That, of course, is the problem. When you look at McDonnell's actions as a Delegate and as AG, it is clear they are fully informed by the ideas contained and the strategy set forth in his Manifesto.

That’s pretty much all VA Blogger offers right now. He does provide a round-up of commentary from Conservative blogs (like this one, only different) that is definitely worth a look. In it he states, "I’m still putting together my thoughts on the decades-old thesis Bob McDonnell wrote, what (if anything) it means about the candidates, and how it will affect the campaign." So, presumably we'll see more on this from him.

At Bearing Drift, where the blogging tends to be, IMHO, less thoughtful and more reflexively partisan than at Too Conservative, The defense of McDonnell is a bit more spirited, with several posts addressing the thesis flap. The result, however, is more unintentional hilarity as opposed to a convincing argument, so you can head over there for some entertainment. “Bob McDonnell is a social conservative,” one post reads, “ He has never tried to hide that. He has been straightforward about his record throughout this campaign.” The author, apparently, holds the distinction of being the only person observing the race so far who failed to notice McDonnell trying to establish himself as a moderate, which, of course, is the issue at the heart of this Manifesto flap.

Also at Bearing Drift, Brian Kirwin makes an argument that seems to amount to complaining that Democrats are ... uh ... criticizing Republicans?

What? How dare we do that? What is this, an election or something?

Kirwin also brings out the old canard that Creigh and Democrats have no plan to address the challenges facing Virginia. This, of course, is ridiculous, and not worthy of response.

In fact, even Kirwin knows it is absurd, because later in the same post, he states, “On issue after issue, [Deeds’] polling has undoubtedly told him that his solutions are pretty unpopular with voters.”

Wait a sec, I thought Democrats did not have any answers. Now Kirwin says we do have solutions, only they’re not popular. I’m getting a contradiction headache.

In Bearing Drift’s world, I suppose, McDonnell has the solutions Virginians want. After all, who has failed to notice the public clamor to appoint Bill Bolling Chief Job Creation Officer?

Shaun Kenney, meanwhile, has chosen to ride the storm out by refusing to acknowledge it except in passing. So he doesn’t directly address the Manifesto flap; rather, he is on the trail of the Deeds employee who stupidly called McDonnell’s office posing as a reporter to get a copy of McDonnell’s daily schedule. An excellent use of time by Shaun!

Finally, at Virginia Virtucon, Riley did a great job of note-taking during yesterday’s McDonnell call. His notes give a much fuller picture of the call than any of the articles I have read.

If McDonnell thinks he put this issue to rest yesterday, he is sadly mistaken. Looking over Riley's notes, I am struck by the vapidity of McDonnell's defense. His position basically amounts to the following argument: “If there is anything I ever believed or did in my life that a potential voter doesn’t like, please be assured that I no longer believe that. And now since I said this, my record should be off limits.”

I don't expect this will pass muster with many in the Commonwealth's press corps.

In any event, my favorite part of Riley’s notes was McDonnell’s response when he was asked how he could reconcile his promise not to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation with his actions in the Askew matter. Here are Riley’s notes on the answer:

WashPo summary of Askew case was incorrect. Documents will be sent to reporters to follow up. If complaints or issues were brought up in advance, those would be brought up in a hearing. After hearing, number of things brought to cmte. members that made them think Judge Askew should not be reappointed. Some things were not answered honestly in the questionnaire. Questions of temperment. Evidence of sexual harassment claim that Judge Askew had been accused of by an employee. Settled for $64K by City of Hampton. WashPo article said Judge was never found guilty in court — true, but only because it was settled out of court. McD never brought up sexual orientation. Vote demonstrated that Sen. Dick Saslaw voted against her. Top Cmte. Dem Sen. Janet Howell voted against Askew. Saslaw — what went on in there was as fair as can be. Quote attributed to McD was not correct. At the time, there was a law in VA before a S. Ct. decision, acts of sodomy were punishable as a felony. If someone who was a judge were convicted of a felony that would be a factor as to whether they would be reappointed. Quoted that homosexualtiy was not an issue, believe that there were already homosexuals on the bench. Only cares about whether they would follow the law. Original story was incorrect. WashPo did not do good reporting. Testimony and demeanor and settled sexual harassment claim were the issues. McD was on the same side as Saslaw and Janet Howell.

Bob McDonnell Going For The Trifecta (Snark)

That's certainly what former Virginia State GOP Chairman, Patrick M. McSweeney, thinks:

"There are three ways to lose," said Patrick M. McSweeney, a former state GOP chairman and a standard-bearer of the party's right wing. "One is you can state a position that is controversial and offend a lot of people. Second,you can not take a position and offend people who want leaders. And third, you can back away from a previously held view. But the worst thing to do is to lose votes in all three of those areas." That, McSweeney said, is what McDonnell risks.

Check out the article in the Washington Post for more. (Hat Tip: Gardner, Helderman, and Kumar)

Massively good times.

McDonnell's Stunning Lack of Honesty

For anyone who wants to fully appreciate how dishonest Bob McDonnell's campaign has been, just consider his response today to the Thesis Scandal, focusing on the issue of homosexuality.

According to the Washington Post, McDonnell said in the thesis, "Government policy should favor married couples over 'cohabitators, homosexuals or fornicators.'"

McDonnell, however, wants us to believe the opinions he expressed twenty years ago are not the opinions he holds today; that he has changed. According to a report from MSNBC, here is what Bob said today during a conference call with both Virginian and national reporters:

McDonnell said his beliefs against same-sex marriage had not changed, though "any other normal civil liberties should be fully protected" for gay couples.

Oh, okay, so since writing in 1989 at the age of 34 that government policy should discriminate in favor of married couples over homosexuals, we should be able to see McDonnell's development over the years to his current enlightened position that other civil liberties should be fully protects. Civil liberties such as being free of discrimination in hiring, or in being accepted to college, or in being able to serve as a judge or other public servant, or in being able to form a civil union recognized by law and all its attendant protections with a lifelong partner that you love -- civil liberties that most of us take for granted.

Unfortunately, Bob McDonnell's record over the years says -- no, it loudly screams -- something else entirely.

* in 2004, Mr. McDonnell sought to block the reappointment of a Newport News Circuit Judge named Verbina Askew because she was allegedly gay. McDonnell, of course, is not an idiot. He went to great pains to assert that the judge’s sexual orientation did not matter to him; rather, the fact that she may have violated Virginia anti-sodomy statute in force at the time, which prohibited oral and anal sex, was a factor to consider in her reappointment. Said McDonnell at the time, “It [possible sodomy] certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge." McDonnell also said, "There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law," McDonnell said. "I’m not telling you I would disqualify a judge per se if he said he was gay. I’m talking about their actions." (Incidentally, this was the context for the infamous incident in which Mr. McDonnell was asked whether he had ever violated the statute, and he hilariously responded, “Not that I can recall.”)

* In 2004-2005, McDonnell helped draft the Marshall Newman amendment to the Virginia Constitution, a particularly obnoxious and offensive amendment enshrining discrimination against gay people in Virginia, effectively preventing not only marriage but legal recognition of civil union. The amendment passed in 2006.

* As Attorney General, Mr. McDonnell lost no time issuing an opinion in early 2006, shortly after assuming office, to countermand the executive order by both Governors Warner and Kaine to bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Whatever the legal effect of his opinion, McDonnell’s legal reasoning was shoddy enough that it led the Virginia ACLU to conclude, “It is distressing when clouded judgment and poor lawyering by a high government official leads him to conclusions that are clearly at odds with common sense, common decency and the law.”

* In mid 2006, McDonnell discussed with his patron and mentor, Pat Robertson, the pending Marshall-Newman Amendment. Here is what he said: "We think it is critically important to protect the institution of marriage from court attack to enshrine in the Constitution that marriage is between one man and one woman and that other forms of relationships are just not going to be recognized in Virginia."

* In early 2007, after The Christopher Newport University board banned discrimination in matters of admissions and employment based on sexual orientation, Attorney General Bob McDonnell took the time to write the school to tell them, as the publication Inside Higher Ed put it, “it would not be legal for the university (or other public institutions in the state, which have done the same thing) to bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.” Wow! So, according to Bob McDonnell, even if an institution wants to make discrimination illegal, it cannot do so.

* As Attorney General, Bob McDonnell intervened in a private lawsuit among members of the Episcopal Church in a dispute that had gay rights at its core. In a protest over gay priests, dissident members left the church, but filed suit seeking to retain church property. Mr. McDonnell, needless to say, sought to intervene in the case on the side of the anti-gay dissidents, ostensibly in defense of a state statute. But the dispute was a religious and social one, above all else, not a Constitutional one. A real estate attorney told the Washington Post that McDonnell’s intervention in the case “was a little out of the ordinary.” Perhaps more interesting, was this, as the Post reported:

McDonnell's office has another connection to this issue -- his deputy, former state senator William C. Mims (R), who has been a member of another Episcopal church that broke away from the national church over the same issues of how to understand Scripture as it pertains to homosexuality. Mims prompted controversy and much debate in 2005 when he -- as a senator -- proposed a bill that would have explicitly allowed congregants who leave their denominations to keep their land. The measure failed, and opponents said it was an inappropriate insertion of government into church affairs.

That's quite a record.

Does Bob McDonnell and his campaign really believe that a bare assertion, "I won't discriminate," somehow trumps this extensive record suggesting just the opposite? It was one thing when McDonnell was trying to pass off this canard on voters, many of whom would not have a knowledge base to know better, but it is stunning to me that he would feed this same bullshit to a conference call of the Commonwealth's political reporters and expect them to just swallow it.

Just incredible.

Further McDonnell Response: Chicks Dig Me!

Bob McDonnell just put out a response to the disclosure of his incredibly offensive comments about women working outside of the home, basically a news release featuring several of Bob's female supporters talking about what a fair and great guy he is.

Hmmm, that reminds me of something. What was it........

McDonnell Response to WaPo Article Just Doesn't Cut It

Bob McDonnell's statement yesterday in response to the disclosure of his Regent thesis is simply not sufficient.

First, Bob responds he wrote this thesis 20 years ago when he was a student. Like much of his disingenuous campaign so far, this explanation is deceptive. Bob is making out like he was a kid when he engaged in, as he repeatedly calls it, an "academic exercise." That is just not true.

Bob was a 34-year old man preparing to enter public life at the time he wrote this. Is he seriously suggesting he bears no accountability for the ideas expressed in this work?

Second, Bob repeatedly states he was simply engaged in an "academic exercise" with this thesis. Again, this is demonstrably false. The thesis is not simply ruminations of the social upheavals of the day; rather, it is a plan for and a call to action. More damning, however, is the fact that at least through 2005, McDonnell was introducing legislation aimed at implementing the policies set forth in the thesis, according to the WaPo.

Furthermore, this scenario fits in exactly with the mission of Regent. The stated mission of the school is to train and graduate students who will reach positions of influence in society for the specific purpose of implementing public policies that reflect a particular strain of extremely Conservative, Christian Fundamentalism.

So clearly, this was not simply an "academic paper he wrote during the Reagan era and haven't thought about in years." This paper is Bob McDonnell's Manifesto.

Finally, Bob says, “Like everybody, my views on many issues have changed as I have gotten older." Fair enough. But these are pretty serious ideas he expresses in this thesis/Manifest -- a 93-page thesis itself is not something one puts together casually. So a cavalier dismissal of his ideas just doesn't wash.

For one thing, his explanation that he changed his mind is at odds with his record as a legislator, discussed above.

But even looking past that, if he did indeed change his positions as he got older, McDonnell needs to explain how and why. The passage of time alone does not change us -- the salient questions are: What experience did he have since 1989, what books did he read, what did he learn, who were his mentors, that effected such a profound change in his worldview.

Interestingly, McDonnell refused to talk to the AP last night, and only issued the written statement to avoid having to answer questions.

Before this election is over, Bob will have to give a full and fair accounting of who he truly is to Virginia's voters -- if he can. I suspect, however, it is too late for him, even at this early point in the election, to do so without destroying his credibility completely, given the amount of deception and distortion that has gone into trying to paint him as a moderate.