"We have lost our ambition, our imagination, and our willingness to do the things that built the Golden Gate Bridge" - Barack Obama (aka President Malaise)
Pitch in with the Prince William Young Republicans and help defeat Obama in 2012!
Janet Oleszek, Defender of the Throne
By Greg L | 1 May 2007 | Fairfax County, Virginia Senate | 20 Comments
The Queen of England gets a mild poke from Senator Ken Cuccinelli in his latest Cuccinelli Compass in the tradition, of well, George Washington, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson. Not too remarkable, given how the concept of royalty is so completely incompatible with the ideals of American democracy.
Okay, I don’t mind telling you that it feels a little underwhelming to be going to Richmond on May 3rd to be hearing from the Queen. However, it is a nice gesture, so I’m leaning against trying any parliamentary maneuvers when she gets up to speak…
So how does Senate candidate Janet Oleszek react to this? She establishes an account on RaisingKaine and goes off on a bizarre royalist tirade.
And then, just when you wonder what exactly he is trying to say to his “Fellow Republicans”, he goes on to trash the Queen of England. I wish I could tell you that this is a joke, and that a Virginia State Senator didn’t actually send this out. Unfortunately I cannot, because this email really did come directly from Ken’s campaign today.
Let’s just overlook for a moment the utter stupidity of a candidate for the Virginia Senate becoming a contributor on RaisingKaine and then using the RaisingKaine website as an official part of her campaign. If a candidate was to start violating election laws in order to achieve some concrete purpose, you’d think that purpose would be to do something other than demonstrate a stunning misunderstanding of the nature of our republic. It might also promote someone other than a person who obtained wealth and power not because she earned it in any way, but because she was born into it after some ancestor murdered and pillaged his way towards obtaining that wealth and power.
Lady Janet Oleszek, Defender of the Throne. And now, Sir Lowell Feld, loyal heir to the Realm, and defender of the British Empire. How utterly and completely stupid. Are they starting the Tory Party now? Sometimes it’s hard to follow this progressive agenda, but when it starts promoting royal privilege, I really get confused. Maybe this can help:
How To Start Each Day With A Positive Outlook:
1. Open a new file in your computer.
2. Name it “Hillary Rodham Clinton”
3. Send it to the trash.
4. Empty the trash.
5. Your PC will ask you, “Do you really want to get rid of Hillary Rodham Clinton?”
6. (Firmly) Click “Yes.”
7. Feel better.P.S. Next week we’ll do Janet Oleszek.
UPDATE: Apparently Henry Light also believes that it is consistent with Virginia election laws to run a satellite campaign operation on RaisingKaine without any disclosure of who has authorized or paid for such activities. So far none of his campaign finance reports are showing payments to RaisingKaine or in-kind contributions from them, although he started his campaign operation at RaisingKaine on March 14th, which was within the most recent campaign finance reporting period. This would seem to be two separate violations of Virginia election laws.
UPDATE 2: Post edited to include Cucinelli quote, and given what it is he said, I’m calling it a “mild poke” rather than a “mild assault”.
The opinions expressed here are solely the views of the author, and not representative of the position of any organization, political party, doughnut shop, knitting guild, or waste recycling facility, but may be correctly attributed to the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy. If anything in the above article has offended you, please click here to receive an immediate apology.
You can follow the discussion through the Comments feed.
20 Comments
Views: 1745
Loading ...
Yeah, the Dems in this state seem to be leaning towards monarchists. I guess old tories die hard.
Weird. I mean, really weird.
What an odd post from Oleszek. I don’t get it.
Actually, they’d be starting the Labour Party, not Tory since the Tories are conservatives.
Obviously the idiot writer of this post missed the entire point of Janet’s Diary, which was
“Well, now we know why: he is far too busy “trashing” women in power, like Hillary Clinton (NY) and the first female Speaker of the House in our nation’s history, Nancy Pelosi (CA). Oh, and don’t forget the other woman he bashes, a figurehead from the United Kingdom. Obviously Ken just doesn’t have the time to focus on the problems we face here in the 37th.”
Bizarre royalist tirade or pragmatic realist focused on actually solving the problems we all face in Virginia? Hmm…
Maybe Ken could try focusing on our problems rather than “mildly assaulting” a figure head from across the Atlantic Ocean.
I seem to recall from elementary history that those loyal to the crown during the revolutionary war were called tories.
I’m not sure what a mild assault is, but Ken respects powerful women who share in our Republican values.
I’m sure what we really need is a democratic majority in the state senate so they can get even less focused on transportation and start working on the important work of the people like banning smoking and legalizing gay marriage.
“”"Ken respects powerful women who share in our Republican values”"” especially if they wear veils like the families of his $15,900 Saudi Safa Group donors.
Here is Ken Cuccinelli in the 1/22/03 Washington Post explaining why he accepted and kept $15,900 in contributions from the raided Safa Group, which operating as the “Saar Group,” one of numerous shell entities, routed its foreign transfers to ostensible charities on the Isle of Man.
Because of banking secrecy laws on the Isle of Man the search for where the money went from there reached a dead end. Doesn’t prove that the Safa Group violated the law, but you would certainly expect more of an understanding of the issues involved from Cuccinelli then the following head-in-the-sand statement:
“”"Black and Cuccinelli are two of Virginia’s most conservative lawmakers. They said they have found common ground with Muslims who share their opposition to abortion and pornography and their support of traditional families.
“They were brought to my attention by Dick Black because they’re so conservative, and my goodness, they are,” Cuccinelli said of the groups. He said he met with them for about an hour shortly before his election Aug. 6.”"”
Worked great for Dick Black, huh? The FORMER delegate Black scored twice as much money from Safa as Cuccinelli, and he refused to give it back also, right up to the time when the voters threw Black out of office.
It might be a good idea if BVBL and some of the others sat Cuccinelli down and gave him a good talking to. I don’t know about you, but getting dressed up like a ninja to go to the supermarket is not a conservative value at all.
Hillary Clinton is a lightweight junior senator in only her second term in office and hasn’t done a thing to help her constituents. Nancy Pelosi is stark raving mad. If it weren’t for liberal kool-aid addicts in California and New York City our country would never be subjected to these two. If this is the best representation that the “progressive” nutroots can muster, I guess that might explain why Democrats haven’t come up with a single idea on how to govern with their new House and Senate majorities other than to surrender in Iraq and find new and creative ways to destroy our economy.
As for the Queen of England, I’m sticking with George Washington on this one. Royalty can bite me.
What is it with Republicans being stuck in the past? Yes, you are correct, we were not supposed to like the British Monarchy back in the 1770’s, heck even earlier than that it was cool to not be a fan.
But….hey, guess what, it’s now 2007. That’s right, and the British are our allies (Heck, even Prince Harry is in Iraq right now fighting on OUR side).
And, when an elected official speaks ill of the Head of State of an ally it doesn’t look good, especially in the circumstances of her visit (remember, we are celebrating the 400th anniversary of Jamestown, founded with the purpose of giving the crown the finger) it reflects poorly not only on himself/herself but also on those he represents. In this case, it reflects poorly on the Commonwealth and its citizens.
Hey, the Coochman is all right. Hope he cracks wise to the Queenie and calls her a broad or dame or something. Frankie woulda.
What is it with Democrats steadfastly ignoring the lessons learned by our forefathers at such great cost in blood and treasure? This reminds me of Soviet attempts to make “The New Soviet Man”, rooted entirely in dogma and thoroughly divorced from the reality of our experience.
Only the left could find a way to throw rocks at people who promote the principles our nation was founded upon. It’s not like Cucinelli was rude to her or anything, but for him to feel “underwhelmed” by the Queen of England is not only understandable, but puts him in damned good company.
Pick up a history book sometime and lean how the Windsors managed to seize and maintain power so they could pass it on to their heirs. If that’s consistent with the ideals of the Democratic Party, I’d like to know.
Hmm, apparently they didn’t have sarcasm where Janet et al. grew up? The Queen sees worse than that all the time on both sides of the pond! Come on people. breathe!
Personally, I think it is simply rude, boorish behavior on the part of Cuccinelli - nothing more. It’s not like the woman was begging to come to Jamestown. We invited her. It is an historical link. The least Cuccinelli could do is be polite and keep his ungracious opinions to himself.
Although, I am not a big Cooch fan, Janet is a very weak candidate and doesn’t have a chance. If anyone has ever seen the woman speak, you’ll know why. However, at least she didn’t pull a Chap Petersen and campaign at the GMU vigil. I mean, don’t you think handing out business cards and introducing yourself as a Senate candidate is a little over the top at a vigil?! It is my understanding someone caught this on tape. Thank goodness for YouTube.
At least he didn’t call on the Queen to apologize for Slavery.
Just when I thought the Galligan beer post might be your most stupid, Greg, you give this one play. Okay, first let’s get our early American history correct. Tories were the conservatives. Now let’s get our modern history straight. The British have been our most stalwart allies in the war on terror. Why defend a mild, but nevertheless unnecessarily rude comment by Cooch about the head of state of our best ally. To be consistent you should praise the French, who supported us in the American War of Independence, but wussed out in the war on terror. How old are you? This is like elementary school. It’s an insult to the rest of us who wore the uniform of our country that your knowledge of our past is so poor.
Tories were the loyalists to the English throne during the American Revolution. In modern days they are the rough equivalent of the Republican party in England. I think you’re the one who is confused here.
Greg, you write so aggressively and forcefully, but so ingnorantly sometimes, that you deserve to be made fun of. I’ll go slow, so try to follow along now. Yes, we called loyalists to the British crown during the American Revolution Tories. Like the Tories in Great Britain at the time they were conservatives that supported the monarchy. Today the term Tory is used to refer to conservative party members in the UK and several other British Commonwealth countries. Tory and conservative are virtually synonymous. That’s one of the things that is so ridiculous about your post. You’re giving play to a basically harmless, but rude comment by Cooch about the head of state of our best ally in the War on Terror (whose liberal, labor party head of government is basically twisting in the wind because of his support for us). And why? Because the conservative party that ruled Great Britain 200 years ago mismanaged and oppressed us. As much as I hate to say it, it was liberals and even anarchists that had to drag our conservative American predecessors kicking and screaming into the American Revolution. We modern conservatives don’t have to identify with them to be right on the issues today, so don’t try to revise history, you just make us look stupid. Were you public-schooled, private-schooled, or home-schooled? Whatever, you should ask for your money back, or at least please don’t mention your military service, because you’re embarassing the rest of us with your poor knowledge of our country’s own relatively short history.
You are seriously mislead if you believe anarchists had anything to do with the founding of our republic. To the extent that “liberals” had a part, and in the Jeffersonian sense they clearly did, modern liberalism is so far removed from those ideals such an assertion is entirely laughable.
“Tories”, as I have referred to them, is entirely the American use of the term to describe royalists. If you can’t fathom the context of a common term from American history, you and Judy Feder are both welcome to enjoy the company of others who seem in awe of royal privilege and immigrate to Canada, where such notions are more commonly believed.
For me, I’m still sticking with George Washington, as is Cuccinelli.
[…] Black Velvet Bruce Li: Janet Oleszek, Defender of the Throne […]
Poor Janet. She’s never been the brightest bulb in the pack, and now she’s so clearly in over her head. Anyone who has ever watched a school board meeting, or watched her try to debate when she ran in 2003, will know this is going to be a looooong campaign for her and those who have to watch her try to keep up. She’s a terrible candidate. The more the campaign can keep her smiling but not talking, the better chance she will have. They must avoid ANY debate between Janet and Ken. It will be pitiful. While serving on the school board Janet has managed to anger even her fellow democrats with her inane, and often insulting, comments, with no substance. She often appears to not understand what is being discussed and why.
As Janet once commented to me over being misquoted, “I was very, very, careful to not say anything when I spoke to the group”. I could but agree.
Janet’s husband is great at getting her signs out, every night. That is her campaign’s greatest strength.