The conservative social agenda outlined in a graduate thesis two decades ago by Republican Bob McDonnell is no surprise to those who know the gubernatorial candidate and have followed his career.
More troubling is the document's hostile tone toward those who do not share his beliefs and those who have struggled with life challenges far removed from McDonnell's experiences.
On Monday, the candidate repudiated several of the things he wrote in 1989. That will provide comfort to Virginia's moderate middle, but voters will still be left to reconcile that rejection with McDonnell's record in the 20 years since.
Over that time, McDonnell has diversified his interests and taken on issues unrelated to his treatise. But a common philosophical thread remains, which raises unavoidable questions about whether the antipathy he once expressed toward working women, unwed mothers and gay people would color McDonnell's goals as the state's chief executive.
In his thesis, McDonnell criticized U.S. Supreme Court rulings in 1965 and 1972 that recognized the rights of married and unmarried couples to use contraceptives. In various sections, he decried the "new trend of working women and feminists that is ultimately detrimental to the family" causing "psychological, physical and moral harm" to children, and attributed the trend in part to "increased appetite for the materialistic components of the American Dream."
He asserted that "every 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." He urged Republican politicians to oppose "special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers."
McDonnell was not a college undergraduate regurgitating the words of his professor in order to get a grade. He was a 34-year-old graduate student attending CBN University, now Regent, a year after founder Pat Robertson's failed run for the presidency. The campus was a hotbed of conservative Christian fervor, and McDonnell was an enthusiastic participant.
As a lawmaker, McDonnell pursued many of the 15 goals listed in his paper. Some proposals had broad support, including tougher pornography laws and abolition of the estate tax. Others were more divisive, including school vouchers, limits on no-fault divorce and restrictions on abortions. He voted against a 2001 resolution opposing wage discrimination.
McDonnell spent 80 minutes Monday fielding questions about his thesis and taking responsibility for his words.
"Any of the language in there that in any way denigrates the basic dignity or worth of any human being, I very much regret that," he said.
He did not pretend that his fundamental world view has changed, but he said some of his opinions have evolved. He said he now supports equal pay for men and women and has encouraged his two oldest daughters to pursue master's degrees to improve their job prospects. He said he opposes government discrimination based on sexual orientation, no longer wants to repeal no-fault divorce laws and would not attempt to ban contraceptives if he were governor.
Critics say some of those shifts are an accommodation to his political ambitions, but that too easily dismisses two decades' worth of influence by people with different perspectives.
McDonnell has spent much of his political career balancing roles as a bipartisan problem-solver and a culture warrior. In his campaign for governor, he has sought to keep the latter under wraps, even as his opponent, Creigh Deeds, has sought to focus on that history.
A campaign solely about divisive social issues will result in an election unlikely to solve Virginia's substantive problems. Even so, voters should understand what each man believes in order to judge his qualifications as a leader.
All of us mature and adapt to our changing world, and we should expect our leaders to do the same. The question is not whether Bob McDonnell is the same person he was 20 years ago, but whether he has changed enough that he truly wants to be the governor of all Virginians.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Enough is enough
The Pilot has put at the top of the web page for the past four days now. I think that you have drawn more than enough attention to it. I hope that when someone uncovers something about Deeds that you display it as prominantly and as long as this story. I think that most everyone who has had a chance to has read and commented on it. I am not sure who I will vote for as Governor but this is making me thinking less positive of Deeds if this is how you want to support him.
sad....
sad is watching someone who read this paper, for 60 years with his morning coffee, call and cancel because it's just become so awful....
he might want to be governor
He might want to be governor of ALL Virginia, but he will never be my governor. I don't want a 20th Century governor in the 21 Century.
Post completion..
Gee 20 years ago, cell phones didn’t exist, few homes had personal computers (and of course Al Gore hadn’t invented the Internet yet), there were no DVD players, and the Washington Redskins were a perennial power in the NFL. Things CHANGE, or they’re supposed to. We haven’t seen anything other than the ‘business as usual’ way of doing things in Washington, but individuals views can change on some things..
People should read the thesis. Many of the more negative items of what McDonnell predicted have come to pass. His assessments about gays are probably the things most out of step in today’s world, but most of the rest, he’s ‘spot on’!
More of post..
“Others were more divisive, including school vouchers, limits on no-fault divorce and restrictions on abortions. He voted against a 2001 resolution opposing wage discrimination.”
Yeppers, advocated school vouchers to give mostly minority kids a chance to escape failing schools, which the Dems want to keep them in for their own purposes. And Heaven forbid there be ANY restrictions on abortions, even Obama’s own science czar advocated forced abortions as an option if circumstances warranted them, so how dare someone like McDonnell oopose things like late term abortions!
I applaud his voting against meaningless non-issues like supposed ‘wage discrimination’, the law has been quite clear for years now that such discrimination is illegal, and every study conducted shows quite clearly WHY women may earn less than men over the course of their careers (the overwhelming number of women CHOOSE to opt out of working life for some amount of years to have children. Other factors proven involve aspects like negotiating skills when wages/salaries are not specifically spelled out).
Much to comment on here..
First off, by virtue of McDonnell being a Republican, we knew an editorial was coming from the Pilot, and here it is. That said, there's not much that McDonnell has to hide from here..
“…to oppose "special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers."
I agree that no group should have special rights by virtue of the demographic they represent. To achieve the left’s agenda of a truly ‘fair and equal society’, how can any particular group(s) be bestowed with such rights and priviliges?
I wonder if when he mentioned ‘fornicators’, he was referring to the govt, and the Congress in particular, screwing the country so lustily via their policies?
Special rights?
I think you entirely missed the tone of "opposed to special rights." Special rights is such a ridiculous, made-up term. Gay people have never asked for "special rights" above and beyond what everyone else gets, but only demanded to be treated equally as an equal citizen under the law. The problem with McD's thesis is that he advocated active discrimination against gay people. It's hardly a conservative position for government to discriminate against a group in tax policy, hiring, or any other area. It's the most interventionist, in your face form of government meddling for the state to pick its ideal type of citizen (married heterosexuals) and deny equal treatment to those who are different.
No, I did NOT miss ANY tone..
Certain entities, in their zeal to pander to particular groups, denote a status on those groups that others do not received from them. That is undeniable. proof? So-called 'hate crimes legislation'. Are they applied to everyone? No they are not!
McDonnell's views are certainly subject to reporting and interpreting. I know it's not always easy to take a politician, especially if he/she represents an ideology or party that someone opposes, at face value if and when they say they have changed on a subject or issue. I use my own viewpoint as a guide. My views about gays were much in line with his AT THAT TIME. But things have changed to change my views.
I agree that anyone who claims to view govt suspiciously and then want the govt to be the agent of denial for some citizens ought to have their views questioned, to say the least. I think he has satisfactorally answered those in recent days.
Intentional?
Most commentators chide the Pilot for covering this story, yet there is only a story because McDonnell brought the topic up and referred to his thesis when he was interviewed by the Washington Post. So why would a media savy politician bring it up? He brought it up because as he moves to the center in his campaign for Governor, he had to provide some more red meat for his conservative base. What better way than to remind his base that his evangelical, far right, anti government views are still at the foundation of his view of his role as Governor. Even his subsequent explanations have allowed him to assure the right wing that he is still with them, while at the same time he can assure the middle that his views have moderated over the last twenty years. So stop chiding the Pilot and other news media for covering this story, and start evaluating his lack of action on education, economic development, and transportation. That's the real story.
Bias
"Most commentators chide the Pilot for covering this story" When most commentators consistently claim bias then maybe there is bias. Name one negative op ed about anything that has to do with the D running for office. One sided reporting makes for one sided readership. Voters are smarter than that. They will decide in November, and it wont be on the basis of writings made over 20 years ago.
It will be in reaction to our governments recent overreach into every aspect of our lives.
I think he brought it up
I think he brought it up becuase he is so smug and narrow-minded that he STILL didn't/doesn't see anything wrong with his views and feels most Virginians are so politically naive that his charm will win the day.
It probably never occurred to him that someone might do a little more research and actually read the thing. Or he's an idiot.
As I have said, I have seen him in action and he is arrogant and self-absorbed.
Interesting
"More troubling is the document's hostile tone toward those who do not share his beliefs and those who have struggled with life challenges far removed from McDonnell's experiences."
This old writing to could be used today for the way the Op Ed board treats anyone who leans right.
Impartial Fourth Branch?
Will you be doing an editorial to evaluate Mr. Deeds' opinions from 20 years ago and whether he "truly wants to be the governor of all Virginians"? BOTH candidates "truly want to be the governor of all Virginians"! But neither can please "all Virginians" - that's why the majority wins - it's not unanimous!
Come on now, you can't just pick and choose whose 20-year old ideas to evaluate, unless you do it for ALL candidates. Show some integrity across the board: the "Fourth Branch" is SUPPOSED to be IMPARTIAL.
Actions speak louder than words
I did not know of McDonnell's thesis, but I have observed him closely as a politician. He is of the radical right, an evangelical, for whom those with more liberal or moderate political opinions are to be tolerated at best, dismissed most of the time. The combination of evangelicalism and the Grover Norquist inspired anti tax mantra means that a politician like McDonnell dismisses the appropriate role of government in creating a civil society and in creating the conditions for the private sector to create jobs and prosperity. While he may have moderated his expressed views to win this election, his core philosophy remains intact. Good for him. Frankly, I have judged his actions, not his philosophy, and in doing so, have concluded that I do not want him to be our next Governor. I will support Deeds, but I want him to be more assertive about the need for Virginia to redress its deficiencies in transportation, education, mental health, and medicaid. Let's get on with it.
Fair and Balanced
While I usually take issue with this paper, I have to admit this once, that you got fairly neutral reporting.
Us liberals and conservatives will never be happy till there are two papers furthering our agendas. Till then this wasn't bad, no matter what the extremes say.
Where was your Op Ed on
Where was your Op Ed on Obama and his past relationships? You can't be taken seriously until you critique those you support as well as those you oppose. The editors of this paper are so transparent and biased.
McDonnell vs. Deeds
McDonnell has the better job experiences, training and leadership skills to be Governor, having worked as a leader and manager in government, business, and the military. Deeds is a career senator/legislator who has never been individually responsible for managing any large staff or organization or budget. His whole career has been spent as 1 of 40 state senators or as 1 of 100 state delegates. McDonnell’s plans for job creation, education, and transportation are clear, concise, realistic, and backed up with achievable performance metrics. Deeds’ plans are vague, skimpy and amateurish. McDonnell has by far the better temperament and public speaking skills as he demonstrated in the first debate and under the pressure of a press onslaught this past week.
Bob McDonnell promoted his thesis as an example
of his work for "welfare" during an interview with a writer for the Washington Post. If he didn't want this dredged up, he shouldn't have mentioned it. So, the writer read the thesis, and the article in the Post began this discussion. Deeds isn't stupid-when the ultra right wing guy has a paper that is an example of the extreme views, you have to use it.
So McDonnell wanted the paper to represent his views-but not too much? Now it is too old?
Really, The Va Pilot has bent over backwards promoting McDonnell all summer-front pages, etc. Now their hope: local guy is new Gov. have been damaged-by that guy.
This is why...
"The cost of sin should fall on the sinner not the taxpayer."
Taking the over all thesis into context, this is why McDonnell will win. Most of it I agree with. Your socialist democrats have already shown their true colors so give it a rest. Besides I just can't believe all of the hypocrites that try to feed off of this when less than a year ago they "overlooked" the extremist, racially charged writings, terrorist associations and past/current illegal activities of the current democratic party. We desparately need a breather and check/balance from the socialists.
Very selective in drudging up the past
I am not a Democrat or Republican but there seems to be a little bias here. When there were stories going around about Barrack Obama's writings and speeches back 15-20 years ago there seemed to be little if any interest in how it projected an extreme liberal outlook. Yes, talk radio brought out some interesting things but the main stream media ignored it all. Well, now that it is a Republican they can't get enough of what he wrote about 20 years ago. If the standard is that the media is going to drudge up everything that a candadate ever said or wrote about in their life then put the standard equally on all candidates of all parties instead of just being selective. I wonder what Mr Deeds may have said or wtrote about in his past that should be brought up. I am not holding my breath waiting for the main stream press to do that.