Wednesday, September 30, 2009

Racing for governor. . .

Today's Washington Post has an interesting article (at least to me, as a woman who votes) called, "A Tug of War for Women's Votes in Race for the Governor." It details the rise of Women Power in Virginia politics since the 1980s.

1989 was when gubernatorial candidate Bob McDonnell wrote his master's thesis for televangelist Bob Roberts' Regent University stating basically that women should confine their power to what...powering their dust cloths? He was 34 at the time, already married.

Twenty years is a long time in a person's life. I, personally, have changed drastically in how I act, relate to others, and go about my business in the last two decades. I like to think that change has been for the better. I'm not sure, however, that I've changed how I think all that much. Or that I've changed my core beliefs and values.

As the Post article points out, Bob McDonnell has not refuted the beliefs he expressed in 1989, but rather sought to distance himself from them. To me, as a life-long professional woman, there's a worrisome difference between refutation and distancing when it comes to someone telling me what I should and should not be doing because of my sex.

This thesis-business has set me to wondering what should matter and shouldn't in a political campaign. Virginia has so many pressing problems in the here and now--transportation, transportation, transportation, to name three. Should we be worrying about what a twenty-year-old master's thesis says about a candidate's core beliefs? Or should we just stick to reading position papers that address our state's current difficulties?

Anybody got something to say about that?
Programming note: For those who read this blog regularly, I wanted to let you know that Jessica Penner's story will run tomorrow. (I wish there was more than one of me, but there just isn't!)

Aye me, as Juliet said on her balcony. So much interesting stuff here in WMRA Land, so few hours in the day.

1 comment:

  1. I don't like the political practice of fishing indiscriminately through a candidate's past for something to attack, but in this case I think it's relevant. We're talking about beliefs and values that are at the heart of the current political debate. I see the thesis (which I haven't read but only heard about second hand) as simply explaining why he stands for what he stands for. He wants to cut taxes and social services, and this is an agenda that is going to hurt and hinder working women, always.