
The Weekly Standard is firing back at Democrats and the Washington Post for hammering away at Bob McDonnell, the Republican gubernatorial nominee, over his hard-right thesis/political manifesto that he wrote at age 34.
The Standard has now unearthed some campaign literature from Democratic nominee Creigh Deeds, published in a 1999 legislative campaign, in which Deeds defended his qualifications as a social conservative, after his opponent accused him of supporting "special rights" for gays:
NO SPECIAL RIGHTS FOR GAYS
I don't believe in discrimination, but I don't believe in special rights for anyone. I have never voted to allow gay partners to receive medical insurance -- or any other benefit -- from the state. It's sad that Mr. Collins has to resort to bigotry and hate-mongering.
Granted, it's not as bad as the out-and-out theocracy from the McDonnell thesis, but the Standard sees the opportunity to drive a wedge into the Dem coalition, saying the comment "might shock the sensibilities of socially liberal Northern Virginians."
TPM has contacted the Deeds campaign for comment, but they do not have a comment as of this time.
CVille Dem
September 9, 2009 6:31 PM
Right. That will drive a wedge. Democrats would rather have an unabashed homophobic, man is the boss, women's place is in the home ironing shirts guy; than someone who hedged a statement once in Virginia.
EFF you, Weekly Standard! If you consider negative statements about gays to be a valid reason not to vote for someone, then the scales tip GREATLY in the negative department to that McDonnell goof-ball. Disingenuous much?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joejustice
September 9, 2009 6:34 PM
Well, I'm sorry, but it is a shame that Deeds is such a bigot when it comes to gay rights. We shouldn't apologize or make excuses for any bigot inside of the Democratic Party.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 9, 2009 7:00 PM in reply to joejustice
I don't see bigotry. I see a guy who says he's against discrimination against everybody and doesn't support "special rights" for anybody and never voted to give gays partner benefits in Virginia.
Question: has there ever been such a vote in Virginia?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joejustice
September 9, 2009 7:06 PM in reply to FreeRider
Calling them "special rights" is a fancy way to cover the blatant bigotry. How can you be against discrinimation and then be against giving a minority equal rights?
He's saying no benefits "or any other benefit" (!) for gay partners. I wonder what his reasoning behind that would be. Maybe gay couples in Virginia can use that reasoning to stop paying any state taxes or fees there.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
September 9, 2009 7:16 PM in reply to joejustice
He didn't call them special rights. His opponent called them "special rights". He resonded that he didn't support "special rights" for anybody.
He didn't say he was against benefits for gays. He said he has never voted for them. Huge, huge difference!
Do you really think that back in 1999, Viriginia had ever proposed benefits for gay partners? Vermont had not even done that by then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
September 9, 2009 9:14 PM in reply to joejustice
So why are you going after Deeds? The stuff McDonnell said is much worse, and more hateful. Are you a McDonnell worker? You sure sound like one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
September 9, 2009 6:48 PM
So the weekly standard's retort to "the Republican candidate is an extremist conservative" is "the Democratic candidate is a moderate conservative"?
Way to build the brand there, guys
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?