Why Won't McDonnell Condemn the "Birthers" and Other Crazies in His Party?

Star City Harbinger has the scoop:

Tucker Martin, Director of Communications for Bob McDonnell’s campaign, tells SCH that the former Attorney General has no doubts about the legitimacy of Mr. Obama’s presidency and thinks the issue is a frivolous one:

Bob McDonnell believes this matter is a distraction. The President is a United States citizen. In this difficult time of rising unemployment and economic uncertainty we need to focus on the important issues at hand. That is what Bob McDonnell is doing in his positive campaign to bring new jobs and more opportunities to every part of Virginia.”

Well, gee, it's great that Bob McDonnell in his generosity admits that our president is a natural-born citizen of the United States, which the state of Hawaii and every other sane person has proven/known beyond a shadow of a doubt for many months now. Congratulations! Now, what about condemning Bob Goodlatte and the other "birthers" in your party, since you are now the de facto head of the Virginia Republicans (as their nominee for governor)? How about, while you're at it, condemning the calls by Catherine Crabill - running downballot for you on the same Republican ticket! - for violent, armed revolution against the U.S. government? How about condemning all the other insane conspiracy theories and wild rhetoric floating around out there, like accusing the president of being a "terrorist," "socialist," "racist," etc., etc? In short, how about being a leader for a change, not just someone who says that serious issues within his own party are a mere "distraction." Lame.

So, why won't Bob McDonnell condemn the "birthers" and other crazies - like Catherine Crabill - in his own party? There are three main possibilities. First, he might actually agree with these people. Second, he might disagree with them privately - at least to some extent - but have made the cold, political calculation that it helps him to be seen by the right-wing fringe as a potential ally and/or soulmate. Or third, he might privately disagree - at least to some extent - but is simply terrified of his "base" and the possibility that they'll turn on him with a vengeance if he condemns their crazed rhetoric (and the candidates who spew it). Which is the correct answer? Only Bob McDonnell knows, and he's not telling.