McDonnell's Thesis

[Brittain33]

Yeah, it's hard to see that this doesn't cut into his vaunted strength in NoVa. The ads write themselves.

We've got a race again.

[Brittain33]

It's important to note that McDonnell was 34 when he wrote this too.

True, but it is also important to remember that this was an academic assignment and not a campaign platform or speech, hence the reason why I was comparing it to Sotomayor's speeches.

First, I'm not sure if academic assignment is meant to let him off the hook; he clearly felt strongly about the subject and chose the topic himself. The only thing "assigned" was to draw up an action plan, but that does not excuse his assessment of the problem, such as it was.

Second, did Sotomayor give any full-length speeches that outlined such an out-of-the-mainstream view in such length? I've heard a few quips given in the context of larger speeches that were otherwise boring--the "making policy" and "wise Latina" lines--but nothing like a 93-page dissertation about how the courts can redefine U.S. society in a way most people would find sinister or, to complete your analogy, how minority judges are inherently superior and here are 15 ways that is true, 12 ways white judges are destroying society, and my 10-step plan to make the whole judiciary like me.

Let's be objective about what counts as "outside the mainstream" here, too. Defending affirmative action is controversial, but it isn't outside the mainstream; what McDonnell wrote, is.

[Brittain33]

Plus, McDonnell was the one who addressed the thesis, rather than Democratic opposition research (sorry Mr. Moderate), so he must not feel that it is a liability.

More likely he was trying to inoculate himself against something he thought could blow up his campaign later.

(To be clear, I can't predict the outcome of this; maybe it's a minor blip. I think it has the potential to be a game-changer in a state where Republicans have a high floor but can't take a win for granted and Deeds seemed unable to break through.)

[Brittain33]

The part about fornicators, cohabiters, and working women seems a little bit controversial, no? Even if you think many people would agree with it? It's kind of like how opposing gay marriage is a majority view, but using really ugly anti-gay rhetoric can turn some people off because it's a signifier of a form of political leadership that they wouldn't like in other areas of government. Eugene DelGaudio's(?) and Dick Black's views on gay marriage were identical to Virginia law, I believe, but they personally made themselves look out of step.

We can all draw our own conclusions as to how far out of the mainstream it is. I stand by my assessment. You live in Virginia, and I don't, so there's that. I also don't doubt there is a large number of people in the state who share the views expressed in the thesis and that it is politically popular in many states, as you pointed out. The Virginia GOP did choose Gilmore over Davis on the basis of his socially conservative views, and no doubt this may make conservatives more apt to support him if their support was in question. 

I'm pretty sure the substance of the Washington Post article and the attitudes McDonnell demonstrated will cause him problems among many moderate voters in Virginia who have recently backed Democrats but were up until now appearing to back him. Let's see how the polls go. Maybe you're right, and moderates will see this the same way conservatives do, and it's smooth sailing for McDonnell.

Honestly, I've been surprised at how well McDonnell has been doing because I didn't think the Republican brand in Virginia had bottomed out yet. There's no reason for the state to elect a Republican governor yet based on recent voting and the issues; the state's finances are still troubled and there isn't a huge call for bigger tax cuts. I think McDonnell's support has always been soft for that reason, and that's why a reassessment of his moderate image has potential to harm him. But Deeds is simply not as strong a candidate as Kaine or Warner were...

[Brittain33]

If that is the case then, I don't see where an issue is here for McDonnell.  If she was wilfully breaking the law, it would be difficult to accept her rulings in a legal capacity.  The gay community was probably going to vote against him any way, so there isn't a net loss.  Has Deeds come out saying he would abolish the Sodomy laws in Virginia?  He's been in office for almost two decades, so he must have some sort of legislation on this topic.  If not, then that implies Deeds is also in favor of maintaining the Sodomy laws.

The sodomy laws were invalidated by Lawrence v. Texas between then and now.

The issue isn't whether gay judges should be impeached or allowed to serve. It's that McDonnell felt so strongly about this issue for so much of his career, and now that he's running for the top statewide office in a different political environment, he feels the need to disown his past activism. He was happy to make it an issue in 2002, but in no way, shape, or form does he want to talk about it in 2009. Having to obscure political behavior that was once acceptable, but is now controversial, is a common dynamic and it's still new to see it apply to Republicans instead of to Democrats.

[Brittain33]

But that's true with any business.  The lower the teir you are in the pecking order, the more "black and white" you can be.  As you progress, you have to interject more "gray" into the equation.  For example, you call some business to question a fee.  The person that answers will say "I'm sorry, but that's our policy."  So you ask to speak to the manager.  The manager says, "Yes, that is our policy, but I think we have some room to negotiate."  Obama did it, and Bush before him, and so on.  I don't think that is such a bad thing.

I agree with you in general. In the specific example here, though, I think McDonnell is facing a real dilemma. Virginia Republicans could basically do no wrong until about seven years ago, and that was an environment that favored much behavior that doesn't stand up well to the light of day today. It's the same problem House Democrats had pre-1994.

[Brittain33]

Many more excerpts to read about here.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/in_thesis_mcdonnell_slammed_gays_unwed_mothers_and.php?ref=fpblg

I'm not going to repost it on this site; people who are interested in learning more can read it there. I don't think this can be hand-waved away by saying most of the issues are uncontroversial or a question of settled state law, or that only "covenant marriage" is the problem. There are some dramatic declarations of his views in there that simply don't wear well.