Bob McDonnell employed Robin Vanderwall as his campaign manager in his 1999 House of Delegates race. Turns out Vanderwall is a pedophile — he was convicted last year of “attempted indecent liberties with children,” Raising Kaine reveals. He thought he was arranging to meet a 13-year-old boy for sex. Turned out to be one of Virginia’s finest, who arrested him when he shows up at the park.
McDonnell — who famously told the Virginian Pilot in 2003 that he couldn’t remember if he’d ever engaged in oral sex — has based a significant portion of his campaign on cracking down on child molesters. He’s said that he’ll help to detect those child molesters who are going undetected, asserting that since pedophila can’t be cured, offenders have to be monitored extremely closely. In short, McDonnell bills himself as a one-man pedophile-fighting AG candidate.
So why did McDonnell employ a pedophile as his campaign manager? McDonnell’s own logic says that Vanderwall must be a life-long molester. If I were to take McDonnell’s assertions at their face value, he should have known that Vanderwall was a menace to society. McDonnell didn’t investigate him. McDonnell didn’t lock him up. McDonnell didn’t keep tabs on him. Instead, McDonnell put him on payroll and entrusted his political career to the man.
If Bob McDonnell didn’t pretend to be top cop, this would just be a sad irony. If McDonnell hadn’t chosen to base his campaign on cracking down on child molesters, knowing full well by that time that his former campaign manager was a child molester, it would also just be a sad irony. Instead, Vanderwall’s conviction makes it clear that McDonnell’s claim to be Virginia’s #1 molester fighter are nothing more than the invention of McDonnell’s latest campaign manager.
Ummm… can I help you out with a little exercise in logic on this one, Waldo?
Just put events on a timeline, and I’m sure you’ll see your error.
Bottom line, your title on this blog entry is either an innocent mistake or a flat-out lie. Which is it?
You give me a more accurate title that’s brief enough to be used, and I’ll use it. Lord knows I couldn’t come up with one.
See that’s what i love about Waldo. If you tell him something is wrong, he’ll offer to correct it.
Why haven’t the Right-Wing blogs offered to write retraction posts about the Warner-Kaine breakup?
I Publius,
When you find yourself arguing about the timeline within which your candidate’s former campaign manager was a convicted child molestor, you’re pretty much doomed. What is ‘is’? But yeah, the word ‘former’ in the headline would have been more clear.
Even before this child molestation scandal came to light, McDonnell was just as obviously the runner-up in his race as Leslie Byrne is in hers. I wouldn’t waste a lot of tears or breath on him.
Post. Hoc. Ergo. Propter. Hoc.
I don’t think I follow Virginia politics closely enough to get the joke here. Anyone want to fill me in?
That’s latin for “after this therefore because of this”
It basically says that things can be in a sequential timeline without actually being related logically.
For example if the Red Sox win the world series, people in Boston cheer. So why not make it a rule that everyone in Boston cheers before the game? Because the two are disconnected and it just wouldn’t make any sense.
I suspect Shaun is stating that knowing the exact timeline is irrelevant to finding the error in the cause and effect. At least that’s what the latin he just wrote means.
Ah, I get it. So I take it there was a Democrat who was criticized by Republicans in a similarly non-sequential manner?
Not that i know of. Who are you referring to Jon?
No, that’s not what it means, but it’s easy enough for you to look up, so I won’t bother to explain it here.
My comment had nothing at all to do with people making faulty assumptions about cause and effect. But clearly, the error that’s been made here is beyond some folks’ understanding.
A hires B to do a job
B does the job
B no longer works for A
Five years go by, no interaction between A and B
B does bad stuff
And seemingly intelligent people suggest that this reflects badly on A?
Are you KIDDING ME?!!? Wow. I’ve seen some serious reaches by some of you, but this one is just laughable.
I’m not referring to anyone in particular…I’m just confused by this post.