The Deeds campaign of small discrepancies and tall tales

» 9 Comments | Post a Comment

One of Creigh Deeds’ ads says that a college paper Bob McDonnell wrote in 1989 shows McDonnell wants to take Virginia “back to the Dark Ages.”

A CNN report points out a relatively small Deeds’ discrepancy: “The ad, however, makes a misleading claim: That McDonnell wrote the thesis when he was ‘months away’ from serving in office. In reality, he wrote it two years before his first election to the House of Delegates in 1991.”

The Washington Post had earlier reported that Joe Abbey, Creigh Deeds’ campaign manager, sent out an alert on Aug. 11, 2009, stating: “Breaking News: McDonnell Has Confederate Flag Posted In His Booth At Gun Show In Richmond.”

That would have been a great story for the Deeds camp except that The Washington Post pointed out it wasn’t true.

The Post interviewed Hugh Crittenden, manager of the Virginia Outdoor Sportsman Show, who agreed that the Confederate flag was at the adjoining booth. Crittenden said that he had invited both candidates to the show, McDonnell’s campaign accepted and was assigned the last booth available, right next to Down Home T-Shirts, which sold “Confederate T-shirts and more.”

Besides being false, the attempt to cast McDonnell as a bigot also boomeranged on the Deeds camp when the Post pointed out that in 1999 Deeds had urged fellow legislators to allow the Sons of Confederate Veterans to have a specialty license plate, saying: “I grew up in a house with a portrait of the Confederate flag on the wall. I grew up in a house with a portrait of Robert E. Lee on the wall over my bed.”

In another Deeds ad, the narrator scoffs: “In tough times, what kind of politician sides with Appalachian Power? Bob McDonnell. He recommended $180 million in rate increases that would cost $360 for each of us. McDonnell even said the utility companies were entitled to it.”

The Washington Post Factchecker points out, however, that while he was attorney general, Bob McDonnell’s “Office of Consumer Counsel actually supported the increases because it was legally obligated to weigh in by state law. And the recommendations from McDonnell’s office were in line with the final numbers eventually approved by independent state regulators.”

Under the headline “Deeds, Teller of Tall Tales,” the Waynesboro News Virginian took issue with Deeds’ claim that: “Bob McDonnell introduced 35 bills restricting a woman’s right to choose.” Not true, the News Virginian says. During McDonnell’s 14 years as a state legislator, “just eight of almost 400 bills he introduced opposed abortion.”

The Deeds campaign ads state that Bob McDonnell supports “no birth control for married adults.” The News Virginian says that’s another tall tale: “The claim that McDonnell voted against contraceptives for married adults is also false. He favored a bill allowing pharmacists to refuse to dispense contraceptives under a so-called conscience clause. The point was to support pharmacists — not target married adults.”

And The Washington Post pointed out that it was Deeds, not McDonnell, who tended to vote with the minority fringe on social issues. McDonnell voted with the majority who favored parental consent before an underage girl could get an abortion, and a ban on partial birth abortions. Deeds, the Post reported, did not support parental consent, and though he first voted for a ban on partial birth abortions, he later reversed himself.

Between the small discrepancies and the tall tales, the Deeds’ campaign deceits are adding up.

Sharman’s column appears Tuesdays on the editorial page.

Advertisement

 
View More: No tags are associated with this article
Not what you're looking for? Try our quick search:
 

Advertisement

Reader Reactions

Flag Comment Posted by El Debibble on October 05, 2009 at 6:25 am

Waynes, you DID imply that the owners of the pharmacies were the one’s being protected and that has generally NOT been the goal of the proposed legislations.

The “need” for the new law generally arises when someone feels their religious convictions amd morals are being trampled on by a requirement that they do what their employer is legally allowed to require of them. 

That is exactly what McConnel was looking to do with the legislation he was supporting. Quit trying to wiggle.

Flag Comment Posted by WayneS on October 02, 2009 at 1:22 pm

ElDebibble:

What do “religious convictions” have to do with this?

Not only did I NOT say anything in my post about “religious convictions”,  I also did not state, nor did I imply, that pharmacists own pharmacies.

Flag Comment Posted by El Debibble on October 01, 2009 at 6:16 am

BTW - Waynes, the pharmacist usually does NOT own the pharmacy. According to Sharman McDonnell was supporting the pharmacist.

Flag Comment Posted by El Debibble on October 01, 2009 at 6:12 am

Waynes, I will not do your homework for you.  If you think I’m wrong then prove it.  Here’s a hint: start in Arizona, Arkansas. Georgia, Mississippi. and South Dakota…wait, that won’t help you, that helps me.

Now, tell me which states allow you to ask about a persons religious convictions and morals during an interview for a job.  I think you will find that except in a few rare instances as soon as you pin them down they get to cry to the governement.

Flag Comment Posted by WayneS on September 30, 2009 at 2:04 pm

Examples please.

Flag Comment Posted by El Debibble on September 30, 2009 at 6:13 am

Waynes, so far what you say has NOT been the case anywhere a law like this was proposed.  If the pharmacist can refuse on religious/moral grounds guess what you are not allowed to ask them on the application?

Flag Comment Posted by WayneS on September 29, 2009 at 2:51 pm

El Debibble,

If you own a store then it is your decision who you hire to work as your pharmacist.  You could ascertain an applicant’s position on distributing birth control pills before you hire them.

Flag Comment Posted by rjma on September 29, 2009 at 7:28 am

I could be wrong but I thought the ad said “ran for office”.  He was elected in Nov 1991.  The only date I see for the thesis is May 1989.  That would be about 17 months from his election, 19 months before serving. 

If the words were “Run for” rather than “served in” then that would 6 to 12 months before that.

But even if the time frame Mr. Sharman uses (2 years) is also 24 months, that is still technically “months”. 

But rather than get bogged down in details about numbers, suffice to say that he was 34, and that he wrote it not long before (or while) he started seriously thinking about running for office and presumably intending to put those thoughts into action.

Got anything nice to say about your candidate, Mr. Sharman.

Flag Comment Posted by El Debibble on September 29, 2009 at 6:01 am

Wow, two whole years?

Now, is Mike going to point out the discrepancies with McDonnell’s campaign?

Did McDonnell basically tellthe gov’t to stay out of the school business, but get heavily into other parts of me personal business?

So McDonnell is in favor of letting a pharmacist in MY store tell me which drugs he is willing to dispense?

Did Mike bother to find out why Deed’s reversed imself on partial birth abortion?  He certainly pointed out the reasons for McDonnell’s “questionable” decisions.

Post a Comment(Requires free registration)

The commenting period has ended or commenting has been deactivated for this article.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Online Features
Blogs
DataCenter
Restaurant Guide
Movie Times
 
Video
Breaking News

Advertisement