Gubernatorial Gaga

Ignorance is bliss, or so they say. I’m inclined to disagree, particularly when it comes to politics. Take, for instance, Katy Abrams, the Pennsylvania mom who protested healthcare reform at a Town Hall Meeting in August, claiming that the United States was turning into a socialist country. Funny how in her interview with Chris Matthews, she wasn’t willing to say she wouldn’t want her parents on Medicare, which, as a single-payer government-funded system, is the very thing President Obama said that spurred her into political action (note: Obama never said this. Abrams claims she heard him say it on TV a couple years ago, before he was even running. Riiiiight.). Matthews made a complete fool of Abrams, and her inability to answer direct questions and constant floundering for a reply that would support her argument made her come off as completely ignorant. Let’s face it—she’s not the only one unsure of her facts. And whose fault is that? Is it ours, for not taking the time to check the facts about what politicians are constantly throwing at us, or is it theirs, for misleading legions of voters in order to squeeze that vote out of them?

The upcoming gubernatorial election in Virginia is a prime example of the need for a well-informed electorate. Bob McDonnell, an ultra–conservative Republican candidate, is running against Creigh Deeds, the Democratic candidate. The main focus of both parties’ campaigns is the economy, and a good many of their proposals are strikingly similar.

McDonnell is mostly pressing the issues of jobs and transportation, but he has also proclaimed stances on a plethora of other issues, including healthcare and education. He maintains that he will be a “jobs governor” —that his top priority as governor will be creating jobs all over Virginia to stimulate the declining economy. Part of that plan includes a reevaluation of Virginia’s transportation issues to improve efficiency and decrease the amount of time spent in traffic, as well as stimulating the growth of small businesses in all parts of the Commonwealth.

Deeds’ campaign also focuses on creating jobs in addition to improving education and keeping Virginia’s taxes low. His overall economic plan consists of proposals to improve transportation by reducing congestion and bringing high speed rail to Virginia, as well as making Virginia a “leader” in green energy. However, his policies often seem overshadowed by his constant mudslinging, which began as early as his campaign address. Of course, with the number of similarities between the two candidate’s platforms, one can see why he may have felt the need to differentiate them by character.

Deeds’ commercials are full of accusations against McDonnell, the typical political B.S. voters have to put up with—as mentioned, even his campaign address attacked McDonnell. McDonnell’s ads, on the other hand, has hardly mentioned Deeds (until recently, apparently). Bravo for class. Of course, McDonnell’s ads promoting himself may be a little too Brady-Bunch to be taken seriously. The way his family happens to appear at candid moments and the Kennedy-esque football tossing is a bit kitschy. But honestly, who wouldn’t rather watch a pleasant TV spot that might actually tell you something about the candidate than a constant decrying of the candidate’s opponent? Sure, I’ve heard about why I shouldn’t vote for him, but hell, why should I vote for you?

It recently came out that in 1989, at the age of thirty-four, while attempting to procure his Masters’ in Law from Regent University in Virginia, that McDonnell published a ninety-three page thesis entitled “The Republican Party’s Vision for the Family: The Compelling Issue of The Decade.” The thesis appears anti-feminist, anti-abortion, and anti-homosexual. But let’s be real here—since when is it “news” that a conservative candidate holds such viewpoints? They are traditional for a conservative republican—not to mention the fact that the thesis is twenty years old. The possibility that he might not be so vehemently inclined towards those viewpoints is a lot more likely than if that thesis was written sometime in the past few years. True, he was an adult; true, his voting record shows a trend that favors those stances. However, most of the accusations made by Deeds’ ads overdramatize the extent of McDonnell’s standpoints. For instance, McDonnell is a Catholic, and therefore his faith predisposes him to be against abortion. The legislation he voted for that was “anti-abortion” were more along the lines of preemptively stopping abotions than illegalizing them entirely, as in the case of such bills that require parental consent for underage abortions. The opposition calls the thesis “McDonnell’s Blueprint for Virginia.” Melodramatic much? It is a smart move by Deeds, and jeopardizes the lead held by McDonnell before the thesis was released. McDonnell, forced to defend himself, now looks wishy-washy and indecisive, instead of a strong potential leader.

Still, where are the positive proclamations on plans for Virginia’s future on Deeds’ part? His website states his stances and makes plenty of promises, but the realistic solutions offered are few and far between. His website states that part of his economic plan is to “provide tax incentives for businesses that create jobs”. Good premise, but rather vague. McDonnell’s, on the other hand, specifically claims that his plan involves “providing a $1,000 tax credit per job to businesses that create fifty new jobs, or twenty-five new jobs in economically distressed areas.”

It is understandable that voters would be concerned about voting for a candidate that could potentially have an agenda that would take them a step backwards, moving against rights gained by women and homosexuals in the past. But it is equally concerning that the alternative to that could be a soap-box politician who doesn’t seem to bring much to the leadership department, offering little more than vague promises and accusations rather than concrete evidence of his own merit as a candidate. As such, I would encourage voters to take a serious look at the actual platforms of each candidate, and investigate their voting records, before casting their vote in this year’s (and every year’s) election.