There's so much being written these days about Bob McDonnell and his extreme, Dominionist, Pat Robertson theocratic thesis - as well as his subsequent legislative record, during which time he worked systematically to implement the goals laid out in said thesis - it's hard to keep track. For now, I'd like to draw your attention to two editorials, one by the Roanoke Times and one by Ruth Marcus in the Washington Post. First, the Roanoke Times.McDonnell, today, flees his earlier writing lest Virginians see through the carefully crafted mask of moderation he wears while campaigning for governor.The Roanoke Times then lists a series of questions that Bob McDonnell should be asked, over and over, until he responds with something that approaches coherence. Even better, it would great if Bob McDonnell - who, after all, wants us to elect him to the highest office in Virginia - would be specific in telling us:
[...]
If he changed his mind on these and other things, it was only recently, perhaps as recently as the day he declared his run for governor.
McDonnell owes Virginians a more detailed explanation. He might start by answering some lingering questions based on his thesis, explaining where his views have changed, when and why.
*"Should abortion be illegal? In all cases, including rape and incest?"
*"Do political leaders and the Supreme Court still need to 'correct the conventional folklore about the separation of church and state'?"
*"Will you oppose 'special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers'? Which rights are special? Which are not?"
*"Do your Democratic friends and colleagues 'seek to shepherd a nation of powerless incompetents'?"
*"Do all your Republican friends and colleagues share a philosophy that "embraces the talents and worth of all people?" Do you?"
There are many other questions that could, and probably should, be asked of Bob McDonnell. For instance, "Do you believe that a pharmacist should have the right not to fill a prescription for birth control?" Or, how about, "Do you agree with your thesis advisor, Herbert W. Titus, that the "blueprint" for "the so-called women's liberation movement" was " written by Lenin in 1920?" Do you agree with Titus that "no human law is law at all if it contradicts 'the law of nature or the law of revelation?'" How about with Titus' view that "the "female sex" exists "to meet the need of the male sex?" We could go on and on, but you get the idea.
Which brings us to Ruth Marcus, who calls McDonnell's CBN/Regent paper his "Macaca Thesis" and asserts that McDonnell's "efforts to dismiss the thesis as the idle musings of a callow youth" are "simply insulting to the voters of Virginia." Furthemore, Marcus argues, given McDonnell's long history focusing on (obsessed with?) sexual and other matters pertaining to how we should all live our lives, "[h]is professions of relative disinterest in social issues are unconvincing." And the bottom line question remains what Chris Matthews posed on last night's Hardball: "You have to ask yourself as a citizen, what do they really believe, what they write when nobody's watching except their teachers, or what they say when they're trying to get elected?" I know which one I'd tend to believe. How about you?
