I have a minor issue with the ongoing gubernatorial race in my home state of Virginia.
Let me be clear. I have never "endorsed" any candidate for any office. I vote for a candidate to express my support, which means I vote for the candidate that best aligns with my values. In doing so, I do not find the need to dedicate my undivided attention to defending a candidates' every word, flaw, and attribute. I will leave that to campaign staffs and press spokespeople.
That said, I write to express my frustration with the Creigh Deeds campaign. As many are aware by now, candidate Bob McDonnell wrote a rather controversial thesis while enrolled in college in 1989. His thesis was written with a socially conservative slant, with the view that, among other things, women in the workplace have worked to the detriment of the American family.
According to the Washington Post ("Deeds says McDonnell's 1989 Thesis is Relevant in Governor's Race," September 3), Deeds' campaign is pouncing on the issue. So far, so good.
But the glory story ends there. How did Creigh Deeds pounce? Did he call on himself and McDonnell to have a debate about the status of the family in the state of Virginia and any possible relationship it may have to the problems in our public schools? No. Did he call on Virginians to examine the issue for themselves, and in so doing live up to Democrats' typical calls for so-called "tolerance" of all viewpoints? No.
Creigh Deeds did none of these. The campaign decided to lambaste their GOP opponent. Nevermind the fact that many are concerned about the status of the "family." Nevermind that this was a clear and welcome opportunity to concentrate on any possible sources of broken marriages and psychologically broken children, whether it is due to women in the workplace or not. Instead, Mr. Deeds has decided to lob shots from the other side of the continent with his cohorts in the state of California (it is difficult for me to figure out how you can work for the benefit of my beloved state's voters and families by traveling to the complete opposite end of the continental United States, but that is neither here nor there). Deeds pointed to McDonnell's support for covenant marriages (set aside for one second the shock that a conservative Republican supports covenant marriages) and accused McDonnell of engaging in a "social crusade."
But the Deeds campaign's overreaction reveals more than the inevitable overzealous reaction of his "supporters" on Grounds (see the updated Facebook statuses that pop up every four seconds). It is also indicative of his campaign in general. I have not decided who to support in this race. I have been fairly dissatisfied with the crop of Republican gubernatorial candidates over the past few election cycles. But when I see McDonnell's television ads discussing issues relevant to Virginians, like energy and transportation, as opposed to Creigh Deeds' ads comparing McDonnell to a man who is not President of the United States any longer, the decision becomes slightly easier. Creigh Deeds can take advice from the last candidate for Governor of Virginia to attempt to insult his citizens' intelligence with strictly national issues. That candidate was Jerry Kilgore (R). McDonnell has already learned from Kilgore's victorious foe, Tim Kaine (D): Talk about what locals actually care about. Welcome debate on social issues relevant to the state.
I am all for the Democrats' repeated calls for tolerance of all viewpoints. What I am not for is the castration of candidates with views opposite their own, calling those opposing views "intolerant," and refuse to allow a reasoned debate to surface.
If Deeds or his supporters have any quarrels with this letter, they can feel free to update their Facebook or Twitter accounts. God forbid (can I say "God?") you attempt to discuss controversial topics rationally without screaming your heads off (grammatically speaking, of course). I will be off somewhere engaged in a verbal social crusade.
Jeremy Lambert\nCLAS IV
Read More
KURTZWEIL: True financial aid must be transparent
By Paul Kurtzweil | 4 days agoThe implications and revelations of the lawsuit should inspire greater transparency at the University in order to ensure that financial aid is properly and equitably distributed.
SULLIVAN: Ramp up physical accessibility on Grounds
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 days agoThe University must take responsibility for the inaccessibility of Grounds and work to promote accessibility for all students despite misguided laws.
EDITORIAL: Scapegoating students will not stop hazing
By Editorial Board | April 25, 2024Instead of retroactively responding to extreme hazing allegations, we, and especially the University, must begin asking more probing questions about the role of fraternal organizations on Grounds.
