Once you read her story in the Post, you knew it would have an impact.
Gardner summarizes McDonnell’s Master’s Thesis at Regent University on family policy and the Republican Party.
She also describes how a number of themes in the thesis figured prominently in McDonnell’s legislative career, but have now been downplayed in his gubernatorial run.
And the story contains extensive quotes from McDonnell, including explanations of what he thinks today about some of the deprecatory observations he made in the thesis about feminists and gays.
The reaction to the story has broken down along predictable lines.
Democrats can barely contain their glee.
In their opinion, McDonnell has been unmasked for the far right-winger he really is.
Finally!
And not a moment too soon.
For the next two months, they’ll exhume the thesis, pull out every controversial quote, examine the writings of McDonnell’s thesis advisers, and gear up the attack machine, hoping to mobilize Democrats and, most importantly, moderates against McDonnell.
They believe that Gardner’s piece is the general election equivalent of the editorial endorsement the Post gave to Deeds in the primary.
According to Republicans, that’s just what Gardner’s article is.
An editorial endorsement from the Post in the form of objective journalism.
They believe that the Post will try to do for Deeds
What he can’t do for himself.
Fight a campaign against McDonnell on the issues that really matter to voters today.
What are we to make of it?
First, I disagree with some of the GOP reaction because I think that Gardner has performed a valuable and fair piece of reporting.
It’s perfectly fair to examine the background of a candidate, to explore how he’s views have evolved over time,and what he thinks today about perspectives he may have voiced at one time.
No foul here.
It’s precisely what a good reporter should do.
In fact, McDonnell does an excellent job in the article explaining that despite what he might have said twenty years ago about feminists, you need only look to his appointments in the AG’s office to see his support for strong women today.
Or to his own family.
As he notes in the article, one of his own daughters served in Iraq.
But it is hard to imagine that the McDonnell camp really thought that the campaign would proceed without the nominee explaining to voters how his faith and his values would or would not influence the choices he’d make as Governor.
Why should he get a free pass?
But I’m wondering if the Democratic gleefulness is not overstated as well.
I’m reminded of a situation four years ago when Republicans thought that exposing Tim Kaine’s liberal background, especially his opposition to the death penalty and his support for the Million Man march, would disqualify him for Governor in the public’s mind.
Talk about miscalculation.
Kaine maintained that as Governor he fully intended to uphold death penalty laws and that attacking his personal opinion (and previous activism) was tantamount to attacking his faith.
By the end of the contest, Kaine had become known in the public’s view as the candidate of faith.
It is perfectly appropriate for Democrats to demand that McDonnell explain how his faith will inform the political choices he’ll make.
And is not’s wrong for the Dems to express concern and anxiety about how these views will play out as Governor.
After all, it is a political campaign.
But they have to be careful not to transform the race into a contest that pits secularists against believers.
Bcause in most of America, this is simply not a winning formula.
It will be interesting to see how many of McDonnell’s endorsements will stay with him after this. The
Virginia Farm Bureau, the Virginia Association of Realtors, the Virginia Chapter of the National Federation of Independent Business, and others, should reconfirm their support for Cro-Magnon Man’s belief that working women are “detrimental” to Virginia’s families. Sheila Johnson, you okay with this? BKD
On the other hand, it will also be interesting to see how many folks choose to make their endorsement and their selection based on the candidates records in the General Assembly and the here and how as opposed to an academic piece that was written 20 years ago. B
It’s all quite humorous to me. These 20 year old writings will change the race! No, they are irrelevant!
Back in 2006, it was Jim Webb’s fiction…
Vile and nasty, he’s unfit for the Senate! It’s fiction, how dare you impugn art!?
Or Michelle Obama’s decades-old thesis. This is how she really thinks! Poppycock, it’s just a youngster’s academic exercise!
And on and on.
The next step will be limited the field of candidates to those who have written nothing and said even less.
Bwana, don’t stand in front of any doors for the next few days–you’re liable to be trampled by Republican House members running for the hills, trying to put as much distance as possible between themselves and McDonnell’s view that working women are detrimental to Virginia’s families. Best. BKD
Yes, the thesis is 20 years old. But also in this article was the following:
So, if his legislative career follows the proposed actions outlined in his conclusion to this thesis, then how is this not relevant? If this was his political philosophy that shaped these decisions, we certainly need to explore it. And if he says that some of his views expressed there have changed, I think it would be helpful if he elaborated on what his philosophy is now.
How will the electorate reconcile the difference between his view that contraception should be restricted to married couples only and his view that single mothers are an evil in society?