McDonnell's Thesis

[Lunar]

Sotomayor's "wise latina" comments WOULD have hurt her if she were running for elected office

[Dan the Roman]

Plus, McDonnell was the one who addressed the thesis, rather than Democratic opposition research (sorry Mr. Moderate), so he must not feel that it is a liability.

Ohhh, interesting.

Thankfully, peoples' views change over time. I expect most of the 14-year-old crazies who post here to have relatively rational and thoughtful views about the world by the time they turn 30.

McDonnell wrote the thesis when he was 34.

Anyway, I know you have sympathy towards moderate Republicans running in blue states, I do as well, and vote mostly GOP in MA. That said, McDonnell is not a nice guy and not worthy of support. He introduced a bill in the state legislature to ban private companies from offering domestic partnership benefits, not the state, but private companies. He argued that a lesbian judge should be impeached under the grounds she was violating the state sodomy law, and once in office, went to court against corporations that provided partnership benefits under the argument they were violating VA's marriage amendment despite arguing it would have nothing to do with private companies while campaigning for the act. He is probably one of the most anti-Gay politicians in the country and definitely one of the top ones in VA.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

I'm not defending McDonnell, and I don't otherwise support him. I really don't care much who wins the race down there in Virginia, but I can guess I'd be voting Democratic if I had the chance.

I'm just saying that I don't generally believe that you can judge a person based on what they wrote in an academic paper.

[Stampever]

Dan,

Reading the article, it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think your comment regarding that she should be impeached under sodomy laws is wrong, at least according to the Post.  Do you have a source for further study on the issue?

[Lunar]

Dan,

Reading the article, it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/virginia/vanews99.htm

McDonnell was quoted in a published news report this week suggesting that a person who commits sodomy, which is illegal in Virginia, might not be qualified to be a judge. McDonnell said Thursday his comments were "mischaracterized."

I think your comment regarding that she should be impeached under sodomy laws is wrong, at least according to the Post.  Do you have a source for further study on the issue?

[Stampever]

If that is the case then, I don't see where an issue is here for McDonnell.  If she was wilfully breaking the law, it would be difficult to accept her rulings in a legal capacity.  The gay community was probably going to vote against him any way, so there isn't a net loss.  Has Deeds come out saying he would abolish the Sodomy laws in Virginia?  He's been in office for almost two decades, so he must have some sort of legislation on this topic.  If not, then that implies Deeds is also in favor of maintaining the Sodomy laws.

[Dan the Roman]

Dan,

Reading the article, it says:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/virginia/vanews99.htm

McDonnell was quoted in a published news report this week suggesting that a person who commits sodomy, which is illegal in Virginia, might not be qualified to be a judge. McDonnell said Thursday his comments were "mischaracterized."

I think your comment regarding that she should be impeached under sodomy laws is wrong, at least according to the Post.  Do you have a source for further study on the issue?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.glapn.org/sodomylaws/usa/virginia/vanews98.htm

To be fair, this was my source and it is a bit questionably worded in hindsight.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://www.washblade.com/2005/11-4/news/localnews/anti-gay.cfm

It seems to suggest that the sodomy issue was the reason for his opposition, and I will grant that may not have been the entire story.

[Brittain33]

If that is the case then, I don't see where an issue is here for McDonnell.  If she was wilfully breaking the law, it would be difficult to accept her rulings in a legal capacity.  The gay community was probably going to vote against him any way, so there isn't a net loss.  Has Deeds come out saying he would abolish the Sodomy laws in Virginia?  He's been in office for almost two decades, so he must have some sort of legislation on this topic.  If not, then that implies Deeds is also in favor of maintaining the Sodomy laws.

The sodomy laws were invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas between then and now.

The issue isn't whether gay judges should be impeached or allowed to serve. It's that McDonnell felt so strongly about this issue for so much of his career, and now that he's running for the top statewide office in a different political environment, he feels the need to disown his past activism. He was happy to make it an issue in 2002, but in no way, shape, or form does he want to talk about it in 2009. Having to obscure political behavior that was once acceptable, but is now controversial, is a common dynamic and it's still new to see it apply to Republicans instead of to Democrats.

[Stampever]

But that's true with any business.  The lower the teir you are in the pecking order, the more "black and white" you can be.  As you progress, you have to interject more "gray" into the equation.  For example, you call some business to question a fee.  The person that answers will say "I'm sorry, but that's our policy."  So you ask to speak to the manager.  The manager says, "Yes, that is our policy, but I think we have some room to negotiate."  Obama did it, and Bush before him, and so on.  I don't think that is such a bad thing.

[Brittain33]

But that's true with any business.  The lower the teir you are in the pecking order, the more "black and white" you can be.  As you progress, you have to interject more "gray" into the equation.  For example, you call some business to question a fee.  The person that answers will say "I'm sorry, but that's our policy."  So you ask to speak to the manager.  The manager says, "Yes, that is our policy, but I think we have some room to negotiate."  Obama did it, and Bush before him, and so on.  I don't think that is such a bad thing.

I agree with you in general. In the specific example here, though, I think McDonnell is facing a real dilemma. Virginia Republicans could basically do no wrong until about seven years ago, and that was an environment that favored much behavior that doesn't stand up well to the light of day today. It's the same problem House Democrats had pre-1994.

[Brittain33]

Many more excerpts to read about here.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/in_thesis_mcdonnell_slammed_gays_unwed_mothers_and.php?ref=fpblg

I'm not going to repost it on this site; people who are interested in learning more can read it there. I don't think this can be hand-waved away by saying most of the issues are uncontroversial or a question of settled state law, or that only "covenant marriage" is the problem. There are some dramatic declarations of his views in there that simply don't wear well.

[Lunar]

Soon after calling the Supreme Court's decision on contraceptives "illogical," McDonnell blasts "the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state" (pg. 15).

McDonnell goes on to refer to family as a "God-ordained government," and asserts that there's no need for government policy to treat "alternative lifestyle living arrangements" equally to the traditional family (pg. 19).

McDonnell adds: "[W]hen the exercise of liberty takes the shape of pornography, drug abuse, or homosexuality, the government must restrain, punish, and deter" (pg. 26).

And he blasts efforts to "redefine family by allowing special rights," not just for "homosexuals," but for "single-parent unwed mothers" (pgs. 72-73).

McDonnell also criticizes the prevalence of "no-fault divorce," referring to the "pain for women and children when the [marriage] covenant can be so easily discarded" (pg. 73).

And he attacks the phenomenon of women working outside the home, writing that the proliferation in the day care industry was caused by the desire of some women "to break their perceived stereotypical role bonds and seek workplace equality and individual self-actualization." Asks McDonnell: "Must government subsidize the choices of a generation with an increased appetite for the materialistic components of the American Dream?" (pg. 45)

"Further expenditures" on child care, he wrote "would be used to subsidize a dynamic new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family by entrenching status-quo (sic) of non parental primary nurture of children" (pg. 46).

McDonnell also comes across as a zealous, ideologically driven opponent of the New Deal and the welfare state, utterly unreconciled to the principle of using government to provide a safety net for the neediest -- calling it a socialist plot to destroy the family. He writes:

[E]very totalitarian movement of the twentieth century has tried to destroy the family. The modern American experience can be seen as an ideological battle between the forces of democratic capitalism and socialism, with the latter's attempt to "substitute the power of the state for the rights, responsibilities, and authority of the family." (pg. 10)
And later he writes that one proposed bill's intention to target funds to low-income families "seems to perpetuate the income redistribution philosophy of the Great Society which has already produced its harvest of dependency, anomie and irresponsibility."

Lest there be any mistake, he adds: "Once differential tax rates and benefit distributions are accepted in principle, there is but an arbitrary legislative line that inhibits the slide to socialism" (pgs. 46-47).

Of course, that puts him right in line with the contemporary Republican party.

McDonnell seemed to understand this stuff was political dynamite -- and as such, he said that Republicans should act on this agenda regardless of whether the people wanted it:

It is also becoming clear in modern culture that the voting American mainstream is not willing to accept a true pro-family ideologue...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 statesmen, to make decisions that are objectively right, and proved effective. (pg. 61)

[Alexander Hamilton]

Is Obama still a cokehead? Probably not. Is McDonnell still an idiot? Probably not.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I find it amusing that Stampever is trying to make excuses for this theocrat.

[Joe Republic]

Sotomayor's "wise latina" comments WOULD have hurt her if she were running for elected office

She was, but it was an elected office with a very small electorate.

[Stampever]

I find it amusing that Stampever is trying to make excuses for this theocrat.

No, just trying to inject some logic into the discussion.  People are acting like if this has been some closet secret and a deal breaker, when much of it is public knowledge already.  I give everyone the benefit of the doubt rather than jumping into partisan talking points.

[nhmagic]

Anything done in the past by a Republican candidate can now be explained away by the fact that Barack Obama used and sold crack cocaine.  

All candidates have to say is: All of us have done things when we were young, (Insert republican youth folly here), (insert Obama crack cocaine past here).  I ask that voters look at how I have served this (insert jurisdiction here) and judge me on the basis of that performance.

Obama set the standard - no matter what any politician has done in their past, they can now be elected.

This includes:

Writings
Friendly visits with a terrorist of the US
Corrupt dealings
Affairs (as long as they were young when it happened, and no longer married)
Crazy preachers
College experimentation

Because

If Obama can do it, we can too.  Yes we can!

[Lunar]

I find it amusing that Stampever is trying to make excuses for this theocrat.

No, just trying to inject some logic into the discussion.

notice the post after yours.  the universe has a way of counter-balancing all forces.

[Rowan]

If anybody thinks a college thesis will cause Deeds to win this race, they need to get a reality check.

[You kip if you want to...]

If anybody thinks a college thesis will cause Deeds to win this race, they need to get a reality check.

Thinking this will suddenly catapult Deeds into the lead is grasping at straws, plain and simple.

[cinyc]

Yawn.  Much ado about nothing.

Soon after calling the Supreme Court's decision on contraceptives "illogical," McDonnell blasts "the perverted notion of liberty that each individual should be able to live out his sexual life in any way he chooses without interference from the state" (pg. 15).

It's VIRGINIA.  The Supreme Court's decisions on abortion and contraceptives (one pretty much followed the other) is illogical to many voters there.  It's also illogical to someone writing a thesis for an evangelical school twenty years ago - if he wants to get a good grade on his thesis project.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's VIRGINIA.  Outside of the Liberal Northeast (including NoVa to some extent) and Left Coast, the idea that the traditional nuclear family is the building block for society and should be encouraged by government policy to the detriment of alternative arrangements isn't all that controversial.   Nor was it as controversial 20 years ago, when this thesis was written.  Heck, it's written into our tax code.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's VIRGINIA.  How many Virginia politicians lose votes over plans to fight pornography, drug abuse and, 20 years ago when this thesis was written, homosexuality?  This isn't Massachusetts or California.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's VIRGINIA.  Traditional family values still resonate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's VIRGINIA.  And please tell me how many politicians lose elections because they criticized no-fault divorce.

BTW - as far as I know, there's only one state left without no-fault divorce.  Care to guess which ultra-red state that is?  New York.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

It's VIRGINIA.  Family values matter.  And, believe it or not, these policy questions ARE debatable, without a clear-cut answer outside of the liberal bubble many posters here live in - especially 20 years ago, when this thesis was written.

The rest is more of the same.

[JohnnyLongtorso]

Virginia today is not the Virginia of 20 years ago. This is the kind of thing that turns off moderate Northern Virginia voters -- the voters that McDonnell has been spending all his time appealing to (NoVa is apparently filled with signs that call McDonnell "Fairfax's own", despite the fact that he's lived in Virginia Beach for decades). The conservatives who would eat this stuff up are already behind McDonnell.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Traditional nuclear family is an oxymoron.

[Lunar]

Cynic, there's a reason why McDonnell held an hour long defensive press conference, is distributing talking points, is walking back on some of the more controversial things in the essay, and a lot of smart partisans on both sides are generally either trumpeting it or trying to halt the damage, simply railing against 20 year old liberal Democrats not understanding that IT'S VIRGINIA is hackneyed and boring.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

(NoVa is apparently filled with signs that call McDonnell "Fairfax's own", despite the fact that he's lived in Virginia Beach for decades).

Those signs really piss me off.