PERSPECTIVE: Deeds doing whatever it takes to beat McDonnell ...
Published: September 24, 2009
Updated: September 24, 2009
» ... even if it includes distorting his opponent’s record and painting him as a repressive social crusader.
Replicating his great awakening in the Democratic gubernatorial primary, R. Creigh Deeds has arisen from slumber in his run for Richmond against Republican Robert F. McDonnell.
In so doing, he’s demonstrated that a position in which he’d once appeared only casually interested he now wants at almost any price. Honesty is precious, but like an heirloom for a family in sudden financial straits, it’s among the first things to go when a politician sees within grasp the seat he covets.
Casting aside probity’s shackles, Deeds has launched a series of ads exposing McDonnell’s social conservatism as though it were a string of bodies left in a serial killer’s wake. “He opposes a woman’s right to choose, even in cases of rape and incest,” one ad declares. Gasp! “Bob McDonnell introduced 35 bills restricting a woman’s right to choose,” declares another.
The horror! “And McDonnell opposed birth control for married adults.”
And he supports dunking gossips, hanging witches and requiring that adulterous women wear scarlet A’s on their frocks. All right. We added that one. From the perspective of Deeds, why not? He’s closed a gap in the polls that once was as wide as 15 percentage points to as few as two. Depict McDonnell wearing a wide-brimmed hat with a large buckle in the front and calling himself Cotton Mather, and maybe Deeds finally can take the lead.
It’s true, McDonnell opposes abortion, even in cases of rape and incest. It’s not true that McDonnell, during 14 years as a state delegate, introduced 35 anti-abortion bills. In fact, just eight of almost 400 bills he introduced opposed abortion.
The claim that McDonnell voted against contraceptives for married adults is also false. He voted in favor of 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. He also opposed initiatives favoring the morning-after pill, which pro-lifers consider to be an alternative means of abortion.
A veteran lawmaker, Deeds knows the difference between reality and what his ads claim.
(Waynesboro) News-Virginian
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
Caveman -
Mr Beck later explained “If I am wrong about Obama, then McCain would be worse for the country.“
His reasoning is that Obama has casued a ground swell of people opposing this or that or something else to do with the Obama administration. When combined into one large force, he thinks there will be a return to grass roots common sense of the Thomas Payne type.
Acording to @katiecouric, Glen Beck agrees with Quetzalmom. Can you believe? When interviewed by Katie Couric, Glen Beck said “I think John McCain would have been worse for the country than Barack Obama.“
rjma, I suppose I am an Obama supporter. I think he was the best choice in the recent election, and has many positions which I support. I’m sick and tired of having folk tell me that because a politician has my support, that I consider him a messiah (small m), or the Messiah (capital M). He’s just a man, fallable as have been all our leaders, as are we ourselves. I know where my salvation comes from, and it is not a mere mortal. Now, if you want to try identify the antichrist, I think Dick Cheney is in the running.
Perhaps the News-Virginian should have done more research, and perhaps the Star-Exponent should have investigated things for themselves before reprinting this editorial.
Yes, McDonnell has “introduced,“ in the sense of “sponsored” rather than “co-sponsored,“ fewer than 35 bills. The remaining bills were co-sponsored by McDonnell, including bills that would force teenage victims of incest to get permission from their parents (the same parents that raped them) in order to terminate a pregnancy that resulted. See, for instance, http://www.nvdaily.com/politics/2009/09/mcdonnell-on-abortion.php .
Had the News-Virginian done even the slightest amount of research on reproductive medicine, they would know that the “morning-after pill” is categorically not an “alternative means of abortion” - it prevents ovulation, which is a contraceptive effect, not an abortifacient. See, for instance, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11747872 .
Finally, as RJMA points out, the ad does not claim that McDonnell voted against contraceptives for married adults, just that he is in favor of restricting access. It is incontrovertibly true that McDonnell has argued in favor of such restrictions for his thesis from then-unaccredited “Christian Broadcasting Network School of Law.“
As for the rest of the commenters, your attacks are roughly a year and a half too late: Obama went through this in February 2008. When Farrakhan became an issue during the Democratic Primary, Obama both rejected and denounced him. In those exact terms. See http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/26/obama-denounces-farrakhan-endorsement/ .
Way to step up to the challenge Sandalwood!!!!!!!
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=77539
RJMA<
Can you name one Obama hater that we all might know?
QM- In my dictionary “Messiah” with a capital “M” refers to a particular person, usually Jesus. But in common English usage “messiah” with a small “m” simply means any liberator or savior (with a small “s”. Incidentally, Islam refers to Jesus as the “Messiah” with a capital “M”, although they don’t believe he is the son of God.
I’ve never heard of a Obama supporter refer to him as a messiah. Only Obama haters. But feel free to find one exception.
There has only been one “Messiah”. Every Christian should be offended.
No governing body can “legislate morality.“ What it can attempt to do is discourage immoral behavior through legislation. There’s a difference. There are laws against murder, theft, and perjury, to name a few. Those are distinctly moral issues and I, for one, am glad laws against them exist. The law does not - nor should it - care if I want to kill someone. But it definitely cares if I actually do it.
Problems arise when there’s a difference of opinion as to the morality of an action. In the case of birth control, I think it’s pretty clear that the Catholic Church lost that argument a long time ago. Now in its place we have such hotly contended issues as gay marriage, something unthinkable a few decades ago. Is it morality or just popular groupthink? I’m not sure. Legislators have a tendency to watch the way people are going, jump in front of them, and then call themselves leaders.
Advertisement