The Washington Post news pages’ attempts to “macaca” Republican governor nominee Bob McDonnell continue today, but is relegated to page B-4. The headline and the lead paragraph, as we have come to expect, focus on McDonnell’s 1989 Regent University thesis, and on the reaction to it of Democratic governor nominee Creigh Deeds. Surprise: Deeds, who has been trailing in polls, thinks it’s relevant because it “explains the social agenda that has apparently driven his legislative agenda during the years.”
Deeds’s specific criticisms, as relayed by the Post, seem like pretty thin gruel. “Deeds said that as a delegate, McDonnell sponsored legislation to establish covenant marriage in Virginia four times, an idea in the thesis. He has also backed bills restricting access to abortions and voted in 2001 against a resolution that urged equal pay for men and women.” Covenant marriage is also supported by incumbent Democratic Governor Tim Kaine, and in any case is entirely voluntary. Most voters in Virginia and nationally favor some restrictions on access to abortion.
The 2001 resolution on equal pay for men and women would not have overruled federal civil rights laws banning discrimination on the basis of sex. If this is all the raw meat that Deeds can get out of the 1989 thesis, it’s hard to see why the Post is paying so much attention to the issue.
This is the first time Deeds has been quoted in the Post since it started running stories on the thesis Sunday. This story, like previous stories, notes that Deeds was “attending fundraising events with top Democrats in California.” But was he really totally unreachable? Doesn’t he carry a cellphone, and doesn’t his campaign have the number? Or doesn’t the Post have the cellphone number of a Deeds aide who travels with him? For years I’ve had no trouble contacting people in California. Do the Post’s current financial problems prevent its reporters from making long distance calls?
Other questions occur to me. Virginia law allows unlimited contributions to candidates and requires that large contributions be disclosed at particular times. The Post has noted several times that McDonnell is supported by Black Entertainment Television multimillionaire Sheila Johnson, who in the past has supported Democrats, and has quoted Ms. Johnson, who appears to be a well-informed and intelligent person, on why she is supporting McDonnell. Who are the “top Democrats” in California who are supporting Deeds? How much are they contributing to him?
Presumably we will learn the answers to those questions by the deadline for campaign finance reports, but why not seek answers now? If it’s relevant to note the reasons Sheila Johnson is supporting McDonnell (and I think it is), what are the reasons “top Democrats” in California are supporting Deeds?
And, since we’re talking about an election for governor, whom have these “top Democrats” supported for state office in California? What are the policies and records of those Democrats? California state government, with a Republican governor and Democratic legislature, is facing a horrifying fiscal crisis, far worse than anything facing state government in Virginia. What does Creigh Deeds think of the records and policies of those California Democrats? Deeds might argue that these things are irrelevant to his campaign, just as McDonnell has argued that some of the material in his thesis is irrelevant to his campaign. But if it’s fair to press McDonnell on the thesis, is it unfair to press Deeds on his California connections?
Yesterday Bob McDonnell visited the Washington Examiner offices and answered many questions, including some about his 1989 thesis; my colleagues David Freddoso and David Sherfinski provide accounts of his responses on the subject.
At this point it seems that it will require considerable ingenuity for the Post news staff to get the McDonnell thesis back on the front page. But somehow I think they’ll figure a way to do it.
