Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Fundy wing-nut McDonnell (GOP VA gov. candidate) 'can't recall' if he ever committed sodomy

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:24 AM
Original message
Fundy wing-nut McDonnell (GOP VA gov. candidate) 'can't recall' if he ever committed sodomy
http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2009/09/09/mcdonnell/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room

Bob McDonnell, sodomy and Virginia politics

||||Today 8:57 AM|Mike Madden

It's been a tough couple of weeks for Bob McDonnell. And it may be about to get tougher.

The Republican candidate in the Virginia governor's race has been on his heels ever since the Washington Post dug up his 1989 master's thesis from REgent University, in which the future politician took some impolitic stands: against a court ruling legalizing contraception for married couples; against women working (that's "detrimental to the family"); in favor of spanking kids; and against government policies that favor "cohabitators, homosexuals and fornicators" over married folks. Aides to Democratic candidate Creigh Deeds jumped on the thesis within hours and have been pounding McDonnell with it since, convinced it shows the hardcore fundamentalist side that the Republican has been trying to hide during this campaign; the Post reported that McDonnell appeared to have tried, while serving in the Virginia legislature, to implement many of the ideas in the thesis. Adding political insult to injury, the paper apparently only learned about the thesis because McDonnell mentioned it to a reporter.

Now it seems to be open season on social issues in the Virginia race, which is something McDonnell was trying desperately to avoid. There was a time when a candidate who wasn't sure women should be working might have had an advantage in statewide elections in Virginia, but that time has passed -- the state's demographics have changed enormously over the last decade, a shift demonstrated most clearly by President Obama's six-point win over John McCain there last fall.

So today's Post revisits another episode from McDonnell's past as a right-wing culture warrior, and this one from not so long ago: a 2003 hearing in which McDonnell and other Republicans grilled Verbena Askew, the state's first black female Circuit Court judge. The hearing focused, in particular, on allegations that Askew had sexually harassed a female colleague. And that led McDonnell to tell a reporter for the Newport News Daily Press that gay judges might not be qualified -- after all, they might be violating Virginia's anti-sodomy laws.

"It certainly raises some questions about the qualifications to serve as a judge," he told the Daily Press's Terry Scanlon. "There is certain homosexual conduct that is in violation of the law... I'm not telling you I would disqualify a judge per se if he said he was gay. I'm talking about their actions."

That's not even the most absurd part of the story, though. When Scanlon asked McDonnell if he had ever committed sodomy, the Republican answered, "Not that I can recall."

The Post buried that part of the tale. But as Democratic strategist Dave "Mudcat" Saunders, who's worked on Virginia campaigns for years, told me in June for a piece on the Democratic primary, that's not the politically savvy way to answer a question like that, even if McDonnell hopes to appeal to people who agree with him about gay judges. "I might have forgotten where my car keys were, and I might have even forgotten where my car was, but there's a few things in life you never forget," Saunders said. "A lot of conservative bubbas out here ain't gonna vote for somebody if they don't recall whether or not they've ever committed sodomy."
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:25 AM
Response to Original message
1. Yeah, I forget that all the time. Shit.
I hate when that happens.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BurtWorm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #1
3. You know how it is. Some sodomy is just more memorable than others.
:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #3
5. Great. Now I've got "Yesterday" as an earworm with a replacement word for "Suddenly"
Not your fault.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:34 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Here's the VA sodomy law:
§ 18.2-361
Crimes against nature

A. If any person carnally knows in any manner any brute animal, or carnally knows any male or female person by the anus or by or with the mouth, or voluntarily submits to such carnal knowledge, he or she shall be guilty of a Class 6 felony, except as provided in subsection B.

B. Any person who carnally knows by the anus or by or with the mouth his daughter or granddaughter, son or grandson, brother or sister, or father or mother shall be guilty of a Class 5 felony. However, if a parent or grandparent commits any such act with his child or grandchild and such child or grandchild is at least thirteen but less than eighteen years of age at the time of the offense, such parent or grandparent shall be guilty of a Class 3 felony.


Oral sex is sodomy under their law, and is a Class 6 felony, whatever that means.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:36 AM
Response to Reply #6
7. Dang, I'm guilty as hell - but wait, statute of limitations insulates me now.
Shit, it really HAS been that long since I lived there.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #7
8. Actually, that Texas case makes VA's law unconstitutional.
So, hey...enjoy!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Statistical Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. IIRC that isn't correct.
Edited on Wed Sep-09-09 10:49 AM by Statistical
The TX law was unconstitutional because it targeted a certain population (homosexuals). However VA law makes it illegal in all forms (male, female, animal) thus it doesn't rise to unequal protection under the law.

Granted it should be repealed anyways. My understanding is it is not enforced anywhere, not that I am aware of.

Edit I stand corrected.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Looks like it wasn't won on equal protection grounds but rather right to privacy so yeah VA law is Unconstitutional or more technically would be found unconstitutional if anyone challenged it. Of course you can't challenge without standing, and you have no standing unless harmed, and since it isn't enforced you can't be harmed so don't expect a challenge anytime soon (ever).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:53 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. You could be right, but I think it's unlikely that VA wants to
test that. In any case, it does put the guy in the spotlight, doesn't it. Either he's a liar or a felon. Which is it? I'd find it impossible to believe that the idiot has not been the recipient, at least, of oral sex. There's a good chance he was never the giver of oral sex, since "that's just nasty," but I have no doubt he's had a few hummers in his lifetime.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:54 AM
Original message
Well, that's unfortunate....
:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:28 AM
Response to Original message
2. Also oral sex
Supposedly it's a "crime against nature" law, which prohibits both anal and oral sex regardless of the genders of the people involved.


So we need to ask him whether he's ever given or received oral sex. Unlike Bill Clinton's little affair, it's actually a crime in Virginia!

:rofl:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MineralMan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:32 AM
Response to Reply #2
4. And if he says no, he's a liar. If he says yes, he's a felon.
Too cool.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
krispos42 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #4
11. So he'll say "I don't recall"
If it was me questioning him, I'd start asking him about positions he prefers with his wife. "Do you recall the missionary position? The cowgirl? The reverse cowgirl? Doggy style? The butterfly? The T-square?"

:evilgrin:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:43 AM
Response to Original message
9. Regent University? LMFAO. That's Pat Robertson's kkkolledge.
The smarmy turd really has taken over GOP politics.

McConnell must be a robot or someone akin to Plankton in Sponge Bob.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deucemagnet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:54 AM
Response to Original message
13. Then he's doing it wrong. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
drm604 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:55 AM
Response to Original message
14. I don't recall
means "yes but I don't want to admit it and I also don't want to be caught in a lie".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
HopeHoops Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #14
15. Or it can mean "Fuck, I was stoned all to Jesus at the time."
Been there, done that.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Laelth Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed Sep-09-09 11:40 AM
Response to Original message
16. k&r for exposure (of typical Republican hypocrisy). n/t
:dem:

-Laelth
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 26th 2024, 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC