With Republican gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell, Virginians knew that we were getting a social conservative-cum-moderate whose onetime fixation on limiting abortion rights now translates into a focus on ending transportation gridlock and bringing jobs to the state.  But over the weekend, The Washington Post explored a whole new dimension of the former attorney general.

            McDonnell’s master’s thesis, written at age 34 for Regent University (which was at the time called the Christian Broadcasting Network University), laid out a fifteen-point action plan for Republicans to follow to claim the moral and electoral high ground on family values.  Most of them were explicit statements of deep conservatism: pass anti-abortion laws and right-to-life constitutional amendments at the state level; make respect for parental authority and views on covenant marriage (in which it is more difficult to receive a divorce) a prerequisite in considering judicial appointments; gradually transfer responsibility for social welfare programs to community-based groups; use vouchers for housing, education, and medical care; repeal welfare by eliminating “conditional federal funds for family programs.”

            Two of the points deserved to be quoted entirely. Number 8: “Fight any attempts to redefine family by allowing special rights for homosexuals or single-parent unwed mothers.”  Number 9: “Fight the use of federal funds for state sex-education programs or school-based health clinics giving abortion referrals, contraceptives, and family planning.”  He also lamented the fact that Judeo-Christian traditions were not being taught in schools, that women entering the workforce are a detriment to families, and that “government…should prefer married couples over cohabitators, homosexuals, and fornicators.”

            McDonnell has quickly asked Virginians to judge him on his record as a legislator and as attorney general, rather than a strongly-worded piece of academic literature.  In response, his Democratic challenger, Creigh Deeds, put out a fact sheet laying out McDonnell’s record.  It includes such instances of voting to extend conscience protections for pharmacy workers dispensing contraception; voting to ban college health centers from distributing the morning-after pill; voting against improving child care training and access to child care for low-income families; voting against a resolution in support of eliminating the gender pay gap; and voting against allowing for local distribution of Temporary Assistance to Needy Families grants.

            To be fair, McDonnell’s apparent sexism and homophobia is not indicative of a typical Virginia Republican.  Democratic Sen. Jim Webb caused a stir in his 2006 campaign when it was revealed that he had written an essay entitled “Why Women Can’t Fight” at age 33.  He succinctly argued that given the horrors of war and the raw endurance needed to train for it, women had no place in the military.  I did not entirely agree with that conclusion, and neither did Webb in 2006.  Normally, such literature would deal a heavy blow to a person’s candidacy, especially if he were a Republican. 

         But, given that national attention was focused on the “macaca” gaffe of Webb’s opponent, George Allen, Webb emerged relatively unscathed.  Since the election, nothing in his voting record—including his support for the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination, and the new GI Bill—has shown Webb to be against protecting and expanding the rights of women.

         This begs the obvious question: if McDonnell is elected, will he govern pragmatically and economically like former governor Mark Warner?  Or will he let his anti-tax, anti-social welfare, anti-abortion, anti-homosexual agenda define his administration?  Either way, if McDonnell keeps hammering the moderate-to-conservative Deeds because of his supposed support for the Obama administration’s “liberal” policies, Deeds has every right to question just how centrist McDonnell will be if elected.