I can only presume Deeds was in favor of indiscriminate sex, the state as family, and against having any values at all.

I think this is probably a "rally the right" gambit, otherwise McDonnell would never have mentioned that such a thesis existed:

The Washington Post learned of the thesis in a recent interview with McDonnell, who mentioned it in answering a question about his political roots. McDonnell brought up the paper in reference to a pair of Republican congressmen whom he interviewed as part of his research. McDonnell then offered: "I wrote my thesis on welfare policy."

OKAY, here is my solution. Let Hawaii and Alaska suceed from the Union (it balances out the D and R), give Texas back to mexico and everything south
of Virgin and east of the Mississippi River becomes "Jesus Land". Let's see if they can survice on their own. I really beleive we will never be a "united" states of America again, we are too divided, so let's just divide the country.

"In fact, I think most of us would argue that Bob McDonnell's faith and devotion to it are one of the things we admire most about him."

Not all of us. Jimmy Carter is the only politician I know who seems to actually be motivated by his faith for the better, and his behavior probably has a lot more to do with his specific character and upbringing than with the fact that he sat in pews next to a bunch of other people, putting himself into a trance state while he comforted himself with abstruse nonsense.

Something people should remember is while that McDonnell's views may seem extreme to non-Republicans, they are pretty much within the mainstream of his own party. Take a look at Dominionism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominionism), for instance: there's a movement that makes McDonnell look like a godless commie.

"I asked Elleithee whether playing this up might have an unintended negative effect -- that it could spur religious-right voters to rally around their guy, as he's put under assault for his views."

I think this outcome is highly unlikely. In the WaPo article yesterday, they noted that the "religious-right" is already upset with McDonnell, because he is not more forcefully defending the conservative viewpoint. Apparently, he had a fairly tepid response when Deeds hammered him on his radical anti-choice position that doesn't even include an exception for rape or incest. [That's a position of the most extreme right.] Even Mr. Macaca himself (George Allen) said that he disagreed with Deeds' position on abortion.

So, ultimately, this thesis revelation puts McDonnell firmly between a rock and a hard place. If he doesn't defend his radical right thinking, then many conservatives may become disillusioned (disillusioned voters don't turn out in droves) with him, and may even withdraw their support. But, if he does defend his far-right thinking, then he'll suffer losses among women and independents. This is why Democrats are hammering McDonnell over this. They have him in a no-win situation. Additionally, as more of McDonnell's votes and public statements are scrutinized, they are likely to reinforce Deeds' argument that McDonnell is beholden to radical right thinking.

Side note: For all the talk about how "conservative" America is, I think the nature of this race stands as a strong counterpoint to that notion. In Virginia of all places, the Democrat in this race is hammering the Republican for being TOO conservative, not contorting himself to show how conservative he is. And if recent polling belies a trend, may be making headway on the attack. [We'll see how this revelation impacts the trend. I'm guessing that the race tightens significantly.]