Comments on: Janet Oleszek, Defender of the Throne

By: Jane

Jane — Thu, 03 May 2007 08:01:28 +0000

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.

By: The Ward View » Blog Archive » Lord, what fools these mortals be!

The Ward View » Blog Archive » Lord, what fools these mortals be! — Thu, 03 May 2007 04:02:14 +0000

[…] Black Velvet Bruce Li: Janet Oleszek, Defender of the Throne […]

By: Greg L

Greg L — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:16:02 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Thu, 03 May 2007 03:01:50 +0000

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.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Wed, 02 May 2007 20:33:01 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 02 May 2007 20:24:10 +0000

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.

By: charles

charles — Wed, 02 May 2007 05:15:21 +0000

At least he didn’t call on the Queen to apologize for Slavery.

By: Dew

Dew — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:58:17 +0000

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.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:53:01 +0000

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.

By: Ron

Ron — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:44:06 +0000

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!

By: Greg L

Greg L — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:10:40 +0000

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.

By: Cousin Vinnie

Cousin Vinnie — Wed, 02 May 2007 01:06:36 +0000

Hey, the Coochman is all right. Hope he cracks wise to the Queenie and calls her a broad or dame or something. Frankie woulda.

By: Nate de la Piedra

Nate de la Piedra — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:53:10 +0000

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.

By: Greg L

Greg L — Wed, 02 May 2007 00:38:04 +0000

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.

By: Jonathan Mark

Jonathan Mark — Tue, 01 May 2007 23:08:38 +0000

“”"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.

By: Phantom08

Phantom08 — Tue, 01 May 2007 21:33:54 +0000

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.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Tue, 01 May 2007 21:06:26 +0000

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.

By: Not Doctor Who

Not Doctor Who — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:56:51 +0000

Actually, they’d be starting the Labour Party, not Tory since the Tories are conservatives.

By: Shaun Kenney

Shaun Kenney — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:51:22 +0000

Weird. I mean, really weird.

What an odd post from Oleszek. I don’t get it.

By: Phantom08

Phantom08 — Tue, 01 May 2007 20:24:25 +0000

Yeah, the Dems in this state seem to be leaning towards monarchists. I guess old tories die hard.