Go back to those Republican policies in Virginia? So soon?
Published: October 22, 2009
Updated: October 22, 2009
Virginia voters have long been kind to gubernatorial candidates who were not members of the party of the sitting president.
Voters whose candidate lost in the previous election are often in a sour mood, and those kinds of voters apparently tend to vote more often. And what better way to “send a message” that they are not happy with the current president, than to vote for the opposing party in the next statewide election?
And that dynamic will probably come into play once again. And that plays into the hands of Republican Bob McDonnell.
And that’s too bad. Because the election for the next Virginia governor is not about national health care, stimulus spending, Afghanistan or the Nobel Peace Prize.
It’s about Virginia.
And thoughtful voters will closely examine the proposals and probably more importantly the records of the two candidates for governor.
Bob McDonnell has sought to portray himself as a centrist, but his legislative record is clearly one primarily focused on social issues.
Creigh Deeds has been far more likely to have worked across the board on a wide variety of issues important to everyday Virginians.
And while it is not unusual, once again scant attention is paid to the attorney general’s race, even though the AG position is enormously powerful in Virginia and is often a stepping stone to the governor’s mansion.
But unlike McDonnell, Republican AG candidate Ken Cuccinelli is not pretending to play the centrist card. He may be one of the most stridently conservative, no, let’s make that right-wing extremist, members of the Virginia General Assembly.
Cuccinelli has been largely focused on abortion, guns, same-sex marriage and all the favorite right-wing priorities.
OK, here’s a quote from the first paragraph of a recent fundraising letter: “I believe that life deserves protection at every stage of development, from conception to natural death, and that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. Liberal activists, however, have laid siege on our families and our nation’s fundamental values.”
Even down at the bottom of the letter there’s nothing about jobs, transportation, education or the economy.
Cuccinelli is anxiously awaiting being able to single-handedly determine the constitutionality of state laws — read “ignore” — passed by our elected legislature.
Unabashed tea-bagger Cuccinelli likes to tell audiences that he “will protect Virginia’s sovereignty under the 10th Amendment.”
Sounds like seccession. Didn’t we go through that?
But plenty of people like that sort of thing, and if that’s the kind of person you want to be the state’s top lawyer, then by all means vote for him.
Not surprisingly, his opponent, former prosecutor Steve Shannon, is more moderate. To Shannon, social issues are protecting kids from online predators and helping start Virginia’s Amber Alert system.
But if history is any guide, thousands of Virginia voters will vote against the party in the White House. It is understandable that many people are not happy with government. But it was less than a year ago that a clear majority of Virginians voted against the Republican Party policies of George Bush.
Bob McDonnell and especially Ken Cuccinelli are both culture warriors, well to the right of former President Bush. Virginians repudiated those policies last November. Why, after only 10 months, would we want to go right back there again?
Legge’s column runs every other Thursday.
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Cuccinelli is playing the “Politics of Fear” card. Y’all remember that right? None of his statements in his letter have anything to do with anything on a state level. It is too bad that people focus on national issues when state issues are the concern. Or non issues, such as abortion for petesake. And, it’s the legislature that ultimately makes the AG, Gov, etc, pass or fail. I will vote for the less eloquent Deeds. I dislike slick Willys. imho
No I mean negative campaigning period. I will be back in country to vote but have already said my piece to both candidates in person. On the 4th of July I met Mr. Deeds in person and then again at my church the following Sunday and I advised I liked what he stood for and the only way he would lose my vote was negative campaigning. To his credit he didn’t commit to not do it. Similar experience with Mr.McDonnell in August. I won’t vote for either…. How about you?
Negative campaigning? You mean by quoting Cuccinelli. A better definition of negative campaigning is the $7800 lie (factcheck.org) ad about Deeds seen on this very page.
I love party-centric thinking with a bit of negative campaigning thrown on top just for good effect.


Advertisement