The Post seems to think that Bob McDonnell, the GOP candidate for Virginia governor, should be more vocal about his opposition to abortion. His opponent, Creigh Deeds, recently attempted to make a campaign issue out of his (somewhat newfound) support for abortion rights – a strategy that the Post called “risky.” Today’s editorial, however, backed Deeds’ strategy:
Mr. Deeds's strategy of stressing abortion may work or backfire; time will tell. But to suggest, as the McDonnell campaign has, that a campaign discussion about abortion "is engaging in the politics of division" is disingenuous and wrong. Thousands of Virginians have abortions every year, a decision that touches on families and futures. It's a fair and pressing topic of debate.That is a somewhat perplexing position. On its face, that appears to be gently pushing McDonnell to engage on an issue critical to winning over Virginia voters. The problem is, the Post’s position would throw the current debate among Virginia voters wildly off-topic, according to no less a source than a recent Washington Post poll.
In a survey of 1,002 Virginia adults, the Post found that two percent of voters cited abortion as their primary concern in casting their vote. As a secondary concern, abortion was a much more pressing concern, weighing in at a hefty three percent.
Much has been made of Deeds’ appeal to rural voters – and, congruently, of McDonnell’s appeal to Northern Virginia’s more moderate voters. The same poll finds that, on the whole, Virginians favor legalized abortion at a rate of 55%. One might expect that rate to jump in the critical Northern Virginia suburbs.
In a newspaper which has made much of the fact that Northern Virginia cares very little about social issues such as abortion, it is an odd play for the editorial board – which endorsed Deeds in his Democratic primary – to root for McDonnell to take the bait on an issue which only five percent of respondents in their own poll cited as a primary or secondary concern in November’s election.
Indeed, the Post has repeatedly noted that Northern Virginia is much more interested in the economy, transportation, and education – and not necessarily in that order. To go against the numbers of their own poll seems counterintuitive, to say the least.
That is unless you know, as the Post’s editorial board undoubtedly knows, that Bob McDonnell cannot possibly win without a significant share of votes from the Northern Virginia suburbs.
Of course the McDonnell campaign is smarter than to seek political counsel from the pages of the liberally-slanted Post, but Virginia subscribers to the Post today got a peek at just how eager the paper is to help the Deeds campaign define McDonnell in what it considers an unfavorable light.



















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
This is a precursor of what
August 17, 2009 - 11:11 ET by mattmThis is a precursor of what we can expect from now until Nov. 2010. The DNC Media, a.k.a. the Press, will not allow the real issues to be the issues, but will try to set the agenda and control the debate. GOP candidates had better plan to be running against two entities, the other candidates and the media.
I'd just like to point out,
August 17, 2009 - 11:17 ET by Mike SargentI'd just like to point out, for my own benefit, that there is absolutely nothing wrong with being pro-life. I am myself, and I do wish for Roe to be overturned -- if for no other reason than that it is a horridly unconstitutional legal argument. My main issue with the Post's position on this is that the only possible loser in this hypothetical is Bob McDonnell -- and the Post's editorial writers are nowhere near dumb enough to have missed that very important fact.
Which means, of course, that it was intentional.
It's unbelievably irritating for that editorial, of all editorials, to appear in print directly under the words "The Washington Post -- An Independent Newspaper."
Bollocks, I say.
The Post is not the Left-most newspaper out there
August 17, 2009 - 13:43 ET by trak65They did endorse Maryland repub (Ehrlich) in the 2006 gubernatorial race (although he lost anyway) and I've also noted that they are more scrupulous about consistently identifying parties in reporting political scandals. I thought they would endorse McCain in 2008, and I bet they might have if he had picked Lieberman or another "moderate" as a running mate. I think it's important to distinguish them from the even more egregious NYT, LAT and the parade of lesser clowns.
Ha ha, nothing like this
August 17, 2009 - 11:28 ET by gmaniac1Ha ha, nothing like this liberal rag trying to put cheese on the mousetrap... these dolts have no idea what they truly represent unless some idiot with a (D) next to his name tells them.
When the people fear the government it's called tyranny, when the government fears the people it's called liberty!
And they wonder why ...
August 17, 2009 - 11:39 ET by katainkentif they can't pick the candidates - they'll manipulate the platform. If they can't do that they'll discredit it and belittle it. If they can't do that... then its personal attacks all the way. Seen a little bit of that with some of the minor races in my county already. And they wonder why they are fading into obscurity and bankruptcy.
___________________________________________
"The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" - HR 3200 (Health Care Bill) Pg. 203. Ln 14 & 15
sneaky
August 17, 2009 - 12:13 ET by AJBOf COURSE the libs would want him to be more strict because they know it's a hot-button issue and he'd more likely lose if he's very vocal about it. Very tricky, those State Run Media people...
NEVER in my life will I
August 17, 2009 - 15:23 ET by buddycNEVER in my life will I forget what the post did to Senator Allen. I cannot recall a more dispicable involvement by a news source in a political campaign outside of California (where it happens all the time with the LA Times).