Thursday, October 04, 2007

Check Out Janet Oleszek's Live Blog at Raising Kaine

I just finished reading Janet Oleszek’s live blog at Raising Kaine. Although the live portion is over, so you can’t really post any more questions, she provides good answers to the questions posed to her. And they weren’t all from the progressive community. Chris Beers, the Mason Conservative, Bwana, from Renaissance Ruminations and other Republicans were well represented as well.

While Janet is not at her best in a debate forum, she did a great job over there. To get a sense of what she stands for and her opinion on the major campaign and policy issues, head on over to read it.

On a personal note, I have to add that many, many people have told me I’m a good writer. I’ve also been told that I’m articulate, eloquent and logical – all the types of very kind words that make me blush to hear them.

But one of my favorite stories about me and my blogging is this one. When Kate Wilder found out that I was Anonymous Is A Woman she gushed about how articulate, eloquent and logical I was and said, “Everything you write is so calm, correct, and reasonable.” Then she added, “I couldn’t believe it’s actually you.” And she blushed that it had slipped out.

But it’s true. AIAW is my smarter twin. I’m actually pretty dumb and illogical in person. Honest.

The reason is that I don’t have a good memory for facts, figures, statistics, quotes; all the things you need to make a credible argument. I forget things. Oh, I can remember and grasp the basic concepts and apply them to new situations. I can even make connections and distinction that are creative. But I don’t have rote memory and can’t always lay my hands on just the right source or statistics I need to back up my argument and make it convincing. I can do that when I write because I can Google and research. Usually I’ll remember exactly where I read what I need or I’ll have a pretty good idea where to find it. I’m good at the type of free association you need to use a search engine.

But I can’t hold the stuff in my head to get up at a podium and debate somebody. But that doesn’t make me dumb. And it doesn’t mean I’d be incapable of writing a bill or understanding it or even getting it passed in a legislature. The truth is legislators don’t spend all their days standing around debating bills. Lots of what gets passed is decided in the cloakroom. The ability to get along with your fellow legislators and do some horse trading is as important, if not more so, as debating skills.

Ken Cucinnelli is a great debater. I certainly wouldn’t want to go up against him. But he hasn’t actually been that successful at getting many of his bills passed. And given the nature of some of them, I’m actually grateful for that.

But Janet has great people skills one on one. She is knowledgeable. You can find out what she stands for and what her solutions will be to Virginia’s challenges at the live blog. And you can rest assured that if she is elected, she will be able to get her bills passed because her focus will be on transportation, education, mental health, and other bread and butter issues, not social wedge issues that seek to limit a woman’s freedoms, choices and horizons.


Anonymous said...

would have been nice for her to actually answer my question

"how will you pay for everything you are proposing?"

Its a trend though most politicians either don't answer my questions at all or don't address the substance

I guess its kind of a compliment in a way :-p.


AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Cheer up, it could be because you're asking the right questions :) Or at least some of the right questions.

As you say, no politician answers them. It's because they have been carefully trained by us, the voters, that if they tell the truth about raising taxes, needing an income stream for the programs and services we want, we will not vote for them.

It should be enough to pledge to be responsible, to spend our money wisely and to do everything they can to avoid raising taxes, to live within a budget and to raise taxes or othe revenue as responsibly and moderately as possible. But years of pie in the sky pipe dreams of political promises have made it impossible to be honest and responsible.

When did we all decide there was a free lunch? Or free schools? Free mental health programs? Even if you contract out for them, rather than hiring public employees, you still have to pay.

What important services do we want cut so that we can avoid having to ever pay for them?

Democrats won't answer what taxes they'll raise and Republicans won't answer what services they'll cut.

The truth is if you're willing to pay nothing, you'll get nothing.

Isophorone said...

"Democrats won't answer what taxes they'll raise and Republicans won't answer what services they'll cut."

Actually, Ken Cuccinelli was very specific on pointing out how he does quantify what source of revenue he would use or cut for any program he proposes. No wonder Democrats find him so scary!

The fact is, Janet has been changing her tune so much on her positions on the important issues it should not surprise us that she cannot articulate anything. Remember, Janet is probably the only candidate in the Commonwealth to contribute (indirectly) to her opponent's campaign. Ken has always had a consistent message and can describe any vote or issue intelligently and in detail.

And watch it with the abortion issue. I would say that demanding public funding for repeat abortions is a bit too extreme for the district as well. So is lying about your opponent's legislating.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

Welcome Isophorone!

First off, I don't find Ken scary at all. I like him quite a lot. I just disagree with him on some issues - not scary and no need to demonize him either.

As for abortion, I don't know that Janet is demanding public funding for repeat abortions.

And personally, speaking for myself, I respect that some people have a religious definition of when life begins that would preclude any abortions.

But I have a great deal of difficulty with laws that would limit a woman's access to effective birth control, which could be an unintended consequence of the so-called "conscience clause."

Any pharmacist that can't fill a prescription, regardless of what it's for, perhaps should not be working as a professional in the field. It's not his or her place to second guess a doctor's prescription.

Especially since birth control pills are also prescribed for medical conditions other than preventing pregnancy. And in some cases, women have been advised that getting pregnant could endanger their health.

So, this is a real intrusion between a patient-client relationship.