While I will continue to look at the fifteen specific policy proposals of Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell as it compares to his legislative record, I find it interesting (and disappointing) for people to try defend his thesis on the basis that it was an academic exercise of a young man.
Even McDonnell says differently.
In an interview with the editorial board of The Washington Examiner, McDonnell was asked how he has changed in the past 20 years.
The subject of the thesis was that there are government policies — particularly the ones at that time that came out of the Great Society, and the incredible welfare policies from that — that appeared to be not helpful to maintaining an intact family. That was the thesis. And I think that was true then and it’s true today.
[…]
The essence of the thesis, about making sure government policies don’t undermine the family, I think is still an important question today. And as governor, I’ll make sure that we continue to do everything we can to support families.
McDonnell may now, as the article says, disavow “some of the more incendiary assertions” of the thesis but he remains committed to his central theme.
The only question is whether you, dear reader, agree with his premises.
VIVIAN J. PAIGE | All Politics is Local 
Time children spend with parents is steadily declining. Divorce rates are rising, single parent homes are increasing. A lot of proof can be given that government programs and policies have contributed to these facts. The facts represent a degradation of the family.
Is government in part responsible? Clearly.
Is that what McDonnell is trying to say? Yes.
Do I agree. Yes.
Does that mean I think working parents don’t love their children or that females shouldn’t work? No
What government programs have contributed to the rise in single parent homes, divorce rates and declining time spent with children?
A fair question. There is always the temptation to see correlation and assume causation. This is particularly true when there is really only one data set taken at different times.
That is the real problem with the one-size-fits-all solutions of the federal government. How can we tell when a program is working? When the government sees a growing problem, implements a “solution,” and the problem gets worse, the proponents of that solution say, “Just think how bad it would be if we hadn’t done that! We need to do it more!”
Conversely, that is the beauty of true federalism, wherein these 51 laboratories (the feds get to experiment with DC) each come up with different ways to address the problem, and at different times. Some States do nothing, and serve as the control group.
We have seen this with gun control. As States have implemented more liberal concealed carry laws, the violent crime rates in those States have dropped much faster than in States that have not.
That (and the Constitution) is why I believe that the health care issue should be handled by the States. Are we not more likely to find a workable solution with dozens of State plans’ being implemented, with their results examined and evaluated by the other States?
Not directly related perhaps, but interesting.
http://www.cato.org/testimony/ct-wc67.html
Obama openly did drugs, is friends with Bill Ayers a admitted terrorist,and went to church for 20 years with Rev. Wright who openly said G D America along with alot of other racial comments and he got elected. So i don’t think something that Bob McDonnell wrote over 20 years ago will hurt him to much.
But Obama is a Democrat.
Then don’t vote for Obama for Virginia Governor.
I won’t — he doesn’t have enough experience! 🙂
“The only question is whether you, dear reader, agree with his premises.”
Which of his premises do you disagree with, Vivian? I was under the impression that it was with his conclusions that you disagreed.
Actually, divorce rates are not rising. Marriage rates are declining. This is where we begin discussing what led to the fall of Rome.
After reading a summary of Mr. McDonnell’s thesis on one of Creigh Deed’s sites, most Virginians will, for the most part, will agree with the traditional views espoused by Mr. McDonnell.
This tactic of allowing Bob McDonnell to be cast as the defender of the traditional patriarchal family, while Creigh Deeds is held out as the champion of feminists and homosexuals, is going to blow-up in Mr. Deeds’ face.
What Mr. Deeds should be doing is beating into the heads of voters how Mr. McDonnell favors the handing over of our roads and the Port of Virginia to foreign-owned operators. How Mr. McDonnell did nothing to fight the Bush regime’s power grabs, or to defend the liberty of our citizens. Creigh Deeds should be getting lauded for his longstanding support of Virginia’s working man, but instead, his capaign wants to point a finger at Mr. McDonnell and say, “That guy is for the traditional family…” inferring that Creigh is NOT. All this in a state that is firmly part of the Bible Belt and has the associated traditional values.
Mr. Deeds, if he is to have a prayer of winning, needs to quickly shift back to discussing pocketbook issues and how Bob McDonnell is the agent for Multinational interests, while Creigh Deeds has always stood-up for our Virginia’s working men.
I have a theory. In the name of Party Unity, Deeds has hired the campaign staffers of his vanquished primary foes. The 2/3 of his staff who LOST are now outvoting the 1/3 that won.
Anon:
Couldn’t agree with you more about the staff problem. I warned about this after Deeds won, that he needed to now let the people who had won the primary be pushed aside by the Democratic consultant class, which despite horrible won/loss records somehow always has a job.
Deeds said only 10 years ago that he wouldn’t give gays the rights everyone else has The Democrats say that Bob McDonnell couldn’t have changed his thinking in 20 years so we all know Deeds couldn’t have changed his mind in only 10 years.