Sunday, November 04, 2007

A Ken Cuccinelli Supporter's Last Minute Tactics of Desparation

I'll start out by saying that I don't believe any of this was authorized by Ken Cuccinelli himself. And I know that, to a certain extent, this may be unfair guilt by association to blame him for the actions of a few of his more desperate and extremist supporters. But here is a picture of the defacement of one of Janet Oleszek's campaign signs.

In addition, a suporter of Cuccinelli sent out this e-mail to other Cuccinelli supporters:

Hello Everyone...

As you know I am NOT a big fan of 'mass' e-mails; however, we are only 3- short days away from Election Day and it's important we get the 'right' people in place. This is one of several e-mails I have sent to solicit your support for Mr. Ken Cuccinelli.

As I have said before, and I will say again... Ken Cuccinelli is someone that not only has my respect but my complete support.

Now let's talk about Janet "oh my God is she an ugly liar" Oleszek. First and foremost as a woman I have to say, having a woman, like her, in office would do NOTHING for woman period. I personally want a woman in office I could absolutely be proud of... that clearly, under no uncertain terms, is NOT Janet. No... Janet is NOT for Fairfax... Janet is for Janet; that's it and that's all. Janet knows she can't win fairly so what does she do... this sorry excuse for a human lies and tries to smear the good name of Ken Cuccinelli. How original... growing a brain would do this woman A LOT of good. And Janet's unprofessional, dishonest and nasty behavior that speaks volumes as to what you can expect from Janet, this monster, in the highly unlikely event she would ever be elected. Unfortunately for Janet her disingenuous, unprofessional and unethical behavior can NOT begin to discredit what an amazing person Ken Cuccinelli truly is. Janet needs to grow up, find some morals, buy some ethics... and, most importantly, while she's at it Janet should absolutely consider a face lift. Have you seen her? Janet gives a whole new meaning to the word F-UGLY.

Back to Ken... Ken is PRO-Family... PRO-Virginia... PRO-Fairfax... and Ken Cuccinelli supports you, the good, honest, tax paying citizens of the 37th District.

Re-Elect Ken Cuccinelli, a man who will do right by you...

Not some sorry excuse, lying, sick, twisted and manipulative woman like Janet. Janet can ONLY hurt the 37th District- this I promise you.


I am not exactly sure why this person, I assume it's somebody named Georgia, put the pro-Ken writing in blue and the anti-Janet stuff in red but I kept the original color scheme that appeared in the email.

Given that blue usually stands for Democrats and red for Republicans, one would think Georgia was confused and color-challenged as well overly excitable and not very intelligent.

I guess campaign supporters are sort of like family, you don't always get to pick the ones you want. I couldn't imagine anybody thinking Georgia was an asset to any campaign. Nor do I think campaign vandals are an aid to anybody's cause.

I mean, if I were to see anybody's signs defaced, I would assume it was that candidate's opposition and think less of him. It's an unworthy tactic that usually backfires as it should.


Anonymous said...


I'd love to hear your thoughts on this email as an example of the way women running for office are often treated--in this case, disappointingly enough, by another woman! It rarely gets pointed out, but so far this election season I have heard Hillary, Leslie Byrne, and Janet referred to as "fugly" by people who disagree with them politically. I know it was the case during the Feder campaign last year as well.

It's frustrating to me that we still have to deal with this crap in 2007--and I only anticipate seeing more and more of it if Hillary is the Democratic nominee next year.

So I wondered, as a respected female blogger in Virginia, what you think about this, since the gender analysis often gets overlooked on sites like RK.

Because to me, while this email is an example of typical Republican nastiness, it is also an example of how much work we still have to do to get to the point where women are taken seriously for their ideas and positions, and not just for their looks.

Not Larry Sabato said...

I posted on this. This issue from Janet may be enough to make me not vote for the first time ever.

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

NLS, you should vote. I read your posts. I have to say I was not swayed by them. Being mad at a campaign trick is no reason to give up your precious right to vote. My father is a partially disabled vet who gave up a part of himself in Europe so that you would have that right. So get over it and write somebody in if you don't like the candidates running.

I have the same advice for anybody else who claims to not like their choices.

My reason for putting up what I did was purely a defense measure and a reaction to the way Republicans reacted last year when some of their signs were desecrated.

First of all, it's wrong no matter which side does it. And second, I think I said in my post that I don't think for one minute that Ken Cuccinelli authorized either the sign desecration or the email that was sent out.

My only reason for putting both up is so that when Republicans whine that it is done to them and put up their own examples of this, as BVBL did last year, and as Brian Kirwin has complained of Democrats' negative campaigning in general, we have tangible proof that we did not invent dirty tricks and are not the only ones employing them.

Should it stop? Yes. But until it does, it is useful to have proof that nobody has a monopoly on this nonsense.

Anonymous, the issue you raised, how women are treated in campaigns, is complex. I will try to deal with it in a post. Thank you for bringing it up.

Anonymous said...

My name is Kathryn and I know Georgia (aka, Anonymous) personally as I was one of several that received the e-mail in support of Ken Cuccinelli.

First, the photo of the sign is the worst 'photoshop' job I've ever seen. Anyone looking at that can tell it was digitally created. Personally, I'm offended Janet would think for a sher second I, and the rest of the public, are dumb enough to believe that sign actually existed.

Second, it's pretty low that Janet would try to link Georgia's e-mail to the fake picture of the 'defaced' sign. That alone should be enough for people to see how desperate Janet was to try and get elected.

Third, you people didn't see the full the e-mail. Georgia wrote a disclaimer that the top of her e-mail (a very in-your-face disclaimer) that said the e-mail was sent WITHOUT the prior knowledge or consent of Ken Cuccinelli. Janet, in a deceitful attempt, didn't include the disclaimer when she posted the e-mail on her website because she, again, manipulated the facts to try and blame Ken. Janet is disingenious and in short a complete liar. I would never want someone that untruthful and underhanded to represent me and my District. The woman lies so much I honestly think she needs Professional help. Pathalogical liars don't lie that much or that often. Every other word out of her mouth should be questioned and verified because she has a reputation for lying so much.

Last but not least, the point Georgia was making, which those of us who received the e-mail understood and agree with is; if Janet is going to be this unethical, untruthful and deceitful then you have just received a glimpse of what you could have expected from her in the event she had been elected.

However, as the recount confirmed, thanks to all the VOTERS who supported Ken, Janet lost the election (regardless of her unethical tactics).

I, like Georgia, agree that women have an uphill battle to prove themselves in politics today. Yes it is 2007, yes we've come a long way but has anyone seen a female president yet? NO! Do you really think Hilary is going to be elected? Outside of the fact she is married to Bill Clinton, she won't be elected simply because she is a woman. While we all preach 'equal rights' I think as a Nation we are still on the fence about whether or not we are ready for a woman to be president. Yes, several women have obtained seats as Senators; however, don't think for even a moment it was easy for them of to get their. Women should fight the good fight but they should do so honestly, ethically and appropriately.

Georgia is a great person and anyone lucky enough to have her as a friend knows what I'm talking about. This lady will stand up for the things/people she believes in; if you treat someone unfairly (I don't care if it's Ken Cuccinelli, homeless person, old lady, kid, etc) Georgia will stand up for them because she hates seeing that kind of injustice inflicted on anyone in any position. It's what makes her amazing. If anyone faults her for that, it's because they're ignorant. Plain and simple.

Georgia: I agree with you 110% Janet would have been the worst thing for the 37th District! Ken won the election fairly and ethically because he has supporters, like you, that will voice their opinions and support him openly, honestly and appropriately.

As many of us were saying the other night, "ding dong Janet the nasty witch is gone"!!

If you have an issue with my posting, contact me directly at:

AnonymousIsAWoman said...

By your comment, it is easy to tell that you are an ardent supporter of Ken, a friend of Georgia's and not the most unbiased person.

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. But it by no means is an objective explanation of the events.

Further, your comments are a confused ramble where you attempt to appear supportive of women's equality. Yet your friend Georgia and another friend of Georgia's, who sent me an email, which I will post in full later, believe it's ok to attack a woman's looks. That other person, named Kathy Ward (is that you Kathryn, or another Kathy?) seem to believe any woman who isn't young, with a certain acceptable look, no doubt long legged, long haired and pretty, has no worth. To me, that doesn't show support of women, it shows soembody who demeans them. And I'd love to see pictures of the two beauties who think that way to see if they even measure up.

Further, I never said Ken was personally responsible for the sign but I also don't believe it was photoshopped to look defaced.

People on both sides deface signs all the time. Stop making your side, and Ken by association, look ridiculous with accusations you can't prove.

BTW, the election is over. Ken won fair and square.

Get over your vitriol. Nothing will age you faster or make you uglier than that. Even high cheekbones, blond hair and long legs don't disguise an ugly inside.