Bob McDonnell should be careful playing the guilt-by-association game. Isn't his largest individual campaign contributor and the founder of his law school Pat Robertson, who advocated for a permanent moratorium on the death penalty, and claimed that activist judges are more dangerous than the terrorists that attacked us on 9/11? I call on Bob McDonnell to either repudiate these stances by his good friend Rev. Robertson or admit his support for the anti-freedom extremist right-wing agenda.

I believe the Virginia "Right to Work" laws should be abolish or at the very least reformed. The laws really benefit big business and not worker's rights. No one should be forced to join a union at their place of employment but at the same time that non union worker should not enjoy the benefits of a union contract such as health care, pension benefits, job security, which is not the case under the "Right to Work" laws. Union dues help to pay for efforts to achieve these goals. Therefore, does it make sense for non union workers to benefit from something they did not help pay for? Large companies all across America support "Right to Work" laws hoping that non union workers will dilute the financial resources of a union by forcing the unions to represent all workers at a plant without everyone sharing the cost. That's just one of many anti worker initiatives being pushed by the "Right to Work" organization. I support Leslie Bryne for her standing up against such a group that is definitely anti family, anti worker. Check it out for yourself, and I'm sure you will be as surprised as I was when I found out about "Right to Work" laws.

Actually, according to VPAP.org, McDonnell's largest contributor is small businessman, Doug Bevelacqua from Newport News.

And it's funny you should mention a moratorium on the death penalty since Creigh Deeds voted for a moratorium on it himself.

Not a good trait for a crime-fighting AG, I don't think.

Excuse me, Pat Robertson is his second largest individual contributor (and by only $503, not counting the $5,000 he gave to Bob's PAC). That doesn't change the fact that Bob is the political protege of Pat Robertson. Does McDonnell really think he can win by aligning himself with such an out-of-mainstream extremist?

You've got to wonder how much pork Pat Robertson is expecting in exchange for his donations to Bob's campaign. $16,000 just got him a $10 million road to his "700 Club" ranch in Hampton Roads - I guess that means Pat is getting a $22.5 million road courtesy of Bob McDonnell (if he's elected AG).

Yikes. I forgot about Pat Robertson's comments about how American judges are more dangerous than freedom-hating terrorists. I can't believe someone like Bob McDonnell would actually associate himself with someone like that.

If Deeds has to defend himself against Leslie's comments, he has really opened the door to have to defnd himself against Robertsons positions. And who are the donors who illegally funneled money to McDonnell through the VTRA? McDonnell needs to be more carefull of which cowpies he steps in.

Of course, James Lee's comment misrepresents "one of many anti worker [read: anti-union boss] initiatives being pushed by the 'Right to Work' organization" when he asserts that they -- presumably the National Right to Work Committee -- would "forc[e] the unions to represent all workers at a plant without everyone sharing the cost." Actually, the National Right to Work Committee has supported the repeal of monopoly bargaining, which is the federal law -- lobbied for and jealously guarded by union bosses -- which "forces" unions to represent all employees in a bureaucratically-determined "bargaining unit." It would solve the "problem" aobut which Lee complaints. Of course, apologists complaining about being "forced" to represent all workers either don't know their history, or misrepresent it, as well as the agenda of union leaders. The only reasonable explanation for the disjunction between their attachment to monopoly bargaining and their contempt for so-called "free riders" is their addiction to power, since doing so is like buying a horse, and complaining about the price of oats.

Of course, Creigh Deeds deserves credit for demonstrating that attack on Virginia's tradition of worker freedom is electoral poison.

I found this interesting thing about Pat Robertson and Bob McDonnell in the American Prospect:

"Robertson was recounting the creation story of Regent University to a crowd of about 200 people inside a Baptist church on a cool May evening in Chesapeake, Virginia, 15 miles from Regent's main campus."

...

"Regent Law School grad and trustee Bob McDonnell just won the Republican nomination for state attorney general in Virginia."

Student Body Right

I wonder if the connection to Robertson's repugnant remarks will plague Del. McDonnell throughout the campaign.

Right to Work passed in Oklahoma in late Sept. 2001. Billboards proclaimed 'More jobs - Higher Pay".
An ad in the "Oklahoma Democrat - May 2005 states" Instead of more jobs, Oklahoma ranked 2nd in the nation for lost jobs in 2003. ...Instead of higher pay, Oklahoma now has over 20% more people receiving food stamps...Instead of providing more and beter jobs, many of Oklahoma's largest employers including Citgo, Lucent, and Gulfstream, supported 'Right to Work' and then laid off employees after it passed."

A poll published in the "Tulsa World" on September 2, 2002 asked the question;
"It is about one year after Oklahoma passed a Right to Work law. Do you think having the law improved Oklahoma's economy?"
The Results:
Yes- 20%
No - 61%
Don't know/refuse - 19%

Historically, the Rev. Jerome Toner, O.S.B., President of St. Martin's College, in his Presidential Address in 1959, entitled 'Right to Work laws and the Common Good said,
The right-to-work is not the specific object of right-to-work laws. The term right-to-work is, like its grandfather - the open shop - and its father - the American Plan - a name, slogan, or banner used to attract, entice and captivate voters and supporters. The Attorney Generals of Idaho, California and Washington considered the term right-to-work so inappropriate that they would not permit it to be used on the initiative petitions or ballots for the right-to-work laws."

The introduction of the
Public Policy Position on "Right to Work" Laws by New Mexico Conference of Churches
is as follows:
"In view of the ethical, as well as the economic and political implications of current proposals for the enactment of a so-called "right to work" law by the New Mexico Legislature, the New Mexico Conference of Churches feels constrained to express its opposition to such legislation for our State.

We begin by pointing out the basic hypocrisy enshrined in the commonly assigned title of this proposed legislation - "right to work". The law, as enacted by some twenty states and as proposed for New Mexico, guarantees no worker or group of workers any rights whatsoever, certainly not any right to a job. What it does do, and all that it does, is to undermine the stability and strength of labor unions and the foundations of the collective bargaining process which are the principal protection of individual workers against potentially capricious hiring and firing practices of management in industrial and service employment situations. An analysis of the nature and history of right to work legislation makes this very clear."

www.nmchurches.org/pprite.htm

Right to Work passed in Oklahoma in late Sept. 2001. Billboards proclaimed 'More jobs - Higher Pay".
An ad in the "Oklahoma Democrat - May 2005 states" Instead of more jobs, Oklahoma ranked 2nd in the nation for lost jobs in 2003. ...Instead of higher pay, Oklahoma now has over 20% more people receiving food stamps...Instead of providing more and beter jobs, many of Oklahoma's largest employers including Citgo, Lucent, and Gulfstream, supported 'Right to Work' and then laid off employees after it passed."

A poll published in the "Tulsa World" on September 2, 2002 asked the question;
"It is about one year after Oklahoma passed a Right to Work law. Do you think having the law improved Oklahoma's economy?"
The Results:
Yes- 20%
No - 61%
Don't know/refuse - 19%

Historically, the Rev. Jerome Toner, O.S.B., President of St. Martin's College, in his Presidential Address in 1959, entitled 'Right to Work laws and the Common Good said,
The right-to-work is not the specific object of right-to-work laws. The term right-to-work is, like its grandfather - the open shop - and its father - the American Plan - a name, slogan, or banner used to attract, entice and captivate voters and supporters. The Attorney Generals of Idaho, California and Washington considered the term right-to-work so inappropriate that they would not permit it to be used on the initiative petitions or ballots for the right-to-work laws."

The introduction of the
Public Policy Position on "Right to Work" Laws by New Mexico Conference of Churches
is as follows:
"In view of the ethical, as well as the economic and political implications of current proposals for the enactment of a so-called "right to work" law by the New Mexico Legislature, the New Mexico Conference of Churches feels constrained to express its opposition to such legislation for our State.

We begin by pointing out the basic hypocrisy enshrined in the commonly assigned title of this proposed legislation - "right to work". The law, as enacted by some twenty states and as proposed for New Mexico, guarantees no worker or group of workers any rights whatsoever, certainly not any right to a job. What it does do, and all that it does, is to undermine the stability and strength of labor unions and the foundations of the collective bargaining process which are the principal protection of individual workers against potentially capricious hiring and firing practices of management in industrial and service employment situations. An analysis of the nature and history of right to work legislation makes this very clear."

www.nmchurches.org/pprite.htm

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.