A look at one of the fifteen policy proposals put forth by Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell in his thesis and the extent to which he attempted to implement the proposal during his career as a legislator and attorney general.
Continue to battle the interstate sale of pornography and obscenity to the extent constitutionally permissible, and encourage state Republicans to do the same.
Again, I have not found any legislation that McDonnell put forth regarding this policy proposal. However, during his term as attorney general, McDonnell’s office announced the successful prosecution of at least one case of child pornography. McDonnell’s website says that he “fought for mandatory minimum sentences for online sexual solicitation of minors and child pornography offenses” during his tenure as AG.
This is a policy proposal that I believe most people will agree is a worthy one. In implementation, McDonnell appears to have made it less broad – by focusing on child pornography – than it was originally, but that is not a bad thing. Explotation of children is not a Republican or Democratic issue. I applaud McDonnell and others, including Democratic gubernatorial candidate Creigh Deeds, for making this a priority.

Hey, that’s no fair, using Bob’s own words against him. Let the word twisters, excuse makers (Anon E. Mouse) and muck-rackers, tell us what he ‘really’ meant, and not use his actual words! Come on now, play fair!
And as I predicted: crickets from the peanut gallery.
Didn’t mean to disappoint you, but I’ve been “out of pocket” since yesterday morning.
—————-
“The Congress shall have Power… To regulate Commerce… among the several States….” (Article I, Section 8)
So, what could he had proposed as and state legislator that would have been constitutional?
When he is Senator, I suspect you will see this goal pursued.
I hate the auto-smiley.
“Section 8,” not “Section 8)”
Anyway, it does make an amusing analogy with the Section 8 made famous by Capt. Yossarian and Cpl. Klinger.
I assume this post is merely meant to be informative, and you are not “bashing” McDonnell for proposing something that would be unconstitutional.
ok, you got this out of the way, I can only assume you will put the blinders back on and continue with your usual posts!
And you still don’t get it, either.
please vivian, I am listening, please tell me exactly what I don’t get? Have you ever thought that you might be the one that doesn’t get?
And you still don’t get it, Mouse.
No, I really don’t. So be more blunt. What is the point of this post, and what was the point of the “Peanut Gallery” comment?
How can I be more blunt than this?
OK, so this post was meant to inform, not to bash. That’s what I said.
Now, what of the “peanut gallery” comment? Were you expecting McDonnell supporters to be unhappy because he did not push something at the State level that is a federal responsibility?
May I assume you will do the same with Deed’s doctoral thesis?