FCRC released this video today showcasing Janet Oleszek’s various attempts to debate John Cook on transportation (and failing miserably):

Unfortunately, there’s only so much content you can fit into a web video, and they didn’t have the chance to cover the rest of Oleszek’s greatest hits and misses:

1. Janet’s confusion over who actually owns and maintains the roads in Fairfax County led to an amusing display where Janet kept harping on the issue, claiming the recent budget cuts to the Sheriff’s office led to a lack of road maintenance (and even issuing a joint press release with the embattled Sheriff). Too bad the cuts Janet is referring to are the cuts made in a budget Cook voted against. No matter, Janet still claims that voting against the budget “contributes” to the lack of funds. How does that work? It doesn’t, because Janet Oleszek doesn’t understand how budgets work.

2. Along the same lines, Janet believes that there should be a 4th man on the fire trucks in Fairfax, a position opposed by Sharon Bulova, Gerry Connolly, and the rest of the Democrats on the BoS. They’ve been debating this issue since 2006, and never took any action to add a 4th man. Strangely, Janet again blames Cook (elected in 2009) for the Board’s inaction, and gets the IAFF to bash the IAFF-endorsed Sharon Bulova’s rationale. Janet Oleszek can’t tell the difference between 2006 and 2009.

3. It gets worse. Oleszek pledges to “never vote against” first responders in the same breath, presumably meaning she’ll oppose any budget that doesn’t include a 4th man on the truck. Yet she blames John Cook for the lack of a 4th man, despite the fact that John Cook has voted against two budgets, the exact same thing Janet pledges to do. Janet Oleszek doesn’t understand the difference between a “yes” and a “no” vote.

4. During a “debate” where candidates received 30 minutes of unregulated time, John Cook and the other candidate in the race did what any candidate seeking election would do: he talked with voters, and answered their questions. Janet Oleszek REFUSED to take any questions from the audience, and instead talked with two other Democratic politicians running for office. Janet Oleszek doesn’t understand the difference between a constituent and a political ally.

5. Asked about declining membership at community pools, Janet Oleszek blamed the aging population who, quote, “don’t like to splash around”. Then in her first smart move, she praised John Cook’s leadership on the issue. Cook has held many community meetings across the District in his term on the issue, and Janet Oleszek has yet to attend any of them, leading to her not understanding anything about community pools.

6. Despite Cook’s exceptional involvement in the District and Janet’s complete absence, Oleszek has the gall to bash Cook as a “part-time” Supervisor because he still works at the business he founded on the side. Janet must figure, “if Cook holds a dozen meetings across the District in a week, but I don’t see him at any because I never attended one of them, he must not be doing his job.” Janet Oleszek doesn’t understand the difference between the inside and the outside of her house.

7. In a move unprecedented in Braddock District politics, a move Sharon Bulova has never steeped as low to do, Janet Oleszek is blatantly LYING in her mail. She falsely quotes John Cook as saying his law practice “comes first”. The problem is he’s never said anything remotely close to that, and anybody who is active in Braddock District knows Cook’s busy schedule as Supervisor. Why the media, even the local media, hasn’t picked up the fact that Janet is lying in a personal attack in an effort to get votes is beyond me. One explanation is that Janet never saw or approved the mail that her out-of-county campaign team put together. Either Janet is not able to make important decisions regarding her campaign, or Janet doesn’t understand the difference between the truth and lying.

The Washington Post endorsed John Cook, calling him “knowledgeable” and specifically praising his attention to constituent services. They called Janet Oleszek “lackluster” and 4 years ago called her “embarrassingly short on substance”. She is not a serious candidate for any office, and her presence on the ticket and association with Chap Petersen and Megan McLaughlin brings them down, too, for their willingness to put party over county and prop up someone so unqualified and unintelligent for an office as important as Supervisor. Yet the Democratic Party is seriously investing in this race, and more negative, lying mail is sure to appear in voters’ mailboxes. Make a difference for Fairfax County, and volunteer for John Cook’s GOTV.

 As we come down to the wire, Janet Oleszek and her Traveling Circus of Comedy and Failure has revealed their final, diabolical plan to turn the public against Supervisor John Cook. If you have a weak stomach or are reading this with minors, you may want to stop here, as the truth about Cook I’m about to divulge is grotesque and abominable: It turns out John Cook founded his own business, and continues working in that business to this day.

…

If you’re done throwing up for how appaling such behavior is, I encourage you to take a deep breath. It’s okay. In fact, the position of Supervisor is a part-time position, much like that of a Delegate or State Senator. And while the paygrade for a Supervisor isn’t as low as those two offices, its far below the median county income.

Ah, but voters demand a full-time representative at the County level, which is why its important for that Supervisor to have flexibility at his other job. As it is, Cook owns his own law firm, so he can bend his legal schedule around the duties of being a Supervisor. Which is why he’s never missed a Board Meeting, goes to Braddock District Council meetings, attends almost every Braddock Night (held on Fridays during the summer and free to the public), attends HOA meetings when asked, schedules multiple meetings with the community anytime a land use case comes up, meets with citizen-led groups that he’s formed to tackle important issues, like the West Campus Connector, meets with neigborhoods about community issues like swimming pools, attends every high school graduation, and shows up at ribbon cuttings and community events all the time.

In fact, it’s pretty damn hard to miss Supervisor John Cook at these events… unless you don’t go yourself. So I suppose it’s not surprising that Janet Oleszek is uninformed about Cook’s committment to Braddock District, considering all the Braddock District events she never attends. Maybe if she attended one of John’s meetings about community pools, for instance, she’d learn about the issue rather than believing that local pools are losing membership because, quote, “older people don’t like to splash around.” That is actually something she said, out loud, in front of real people.

Ah, but simply attending all the events and being everywhere in the district must not be good enough for Janet Oleszek. You need a full-time Supervisor, she says, to take care of important things like constituent services. After all, no less than the Washington Post pointed to excellent constituent services as one of the deciding factors when they endorsed… John Cook.

Okay, that’s a bad example for Janet. But still, it’s critically important that your Supervisor doesn’t have a part-time job on the side. Otherwise, they will end up spending too much of their time being, say, a managing partner at a crisis management firm you founded with your wife, like Frank Principi (D), Supervisor from Prince William County is. Or they’ll spend too much time as a public affairs consultant for a major regional employer, as Gerry Connolly (D) was when he was on the Fairfax Board. Or maybe they’ll just be too busy being a special education teacher, as Kelly Burk (D) of Leesburg is.

In fact, Janet Oleszek said at a debate “I think it is WRONG to accept a public policy position and only do it part-time.” Under normal circumstances, we’d give Janet the benefit of the doubt and say that she obviously isn’t referring to the part-time Delegates and Senators [like Chap! Petersen] who endorsed her campaign, but she’s too dim-witted to have earned that benefit. Either way, she thinks Kelly Burk is unfit to be a Loudoun County Supervisor. She thinks Frank Principi is uncommitted to serving his Prince William County constituents. She thinks it is WRONG for Gerry Connolly to have worked as SAIC.

The truth is that the Supervisor position is nominally a part-time postion that requires full-time attention, and that’s exactly what Braddock District is getting from John Cook. Janet Oleszek is running a negative, cynical, and half-baked attack, hoping that voters will be as stupid as she is in thinking that just because you have a job in the real world, you aren’t devoting your time to being in elected office. The fact that the Oleszek campaign is using this line of attack on one of the precious few mailers they’re able to send out is indicative of how completely unsubstantive her campaign has been, and how completely out of her depth Janet Oleszek is.

Fairfax County has one of the most educated and engaged electorates in the country. It would be a travesty if they wake up on November 9th and find out that Janet Oleszek will be making decisions for them. John Cook needs whatever help you can lend.

I have very little to add to this pitch-perfect article from Richmond Times-Dispatch columnist and Reason contributor Barton Hinkle, on the odd turn the 32nd Senate District race has taken between Patrick Forrest and incumbent Janet Howell:

Forrest says a number of conservatives have told him, “We heard you’re a homosexual.” He has told them he is, and has always been openly gay. As Forrest tells the tale, they have said they learned about it from Democratic volunteers, who also told them Forrest “would be promoting the homosexual agenda in our schools.” Nice.

That somebody is gay-baiting seems beyond dispute. Forrest’s field director, Eric Newland, recorded a conversation with Kavita Imarti, a precinct captain for the Democratic Party in Reston. On the recording, made at a party earlier this month, a seemingly drunk Imarti defends the tactic.

…

Howell’s role in the current contretemps is murky. Other angles on the story, however, are not.

First, the Virginia Republican Party still displays considerable hostility to gays and lesbians. That hostility is indefensible.

Second, the GOP’s homophobia will disappear as more Republicans’ family members and friends come out of the closet.

…

The third important angle to the Forrest-is-gay story is this: A person’s sexuality is his business. Nobody else’s. This point is all too sadly lost on the state’s GOP, which fails to understand that much of the alleged homosexual agenda boils down to a politically conservative message. Isaiah Berlin described it as negative liberty. Less cerebral thinkers would put it this way: Leave people the hell alone.

Consider me a less cerebral thinker than Isaiah Berlin, but that captures my sentiments exactly (emphasis mine). Which is a lesson for both parties:

Likewise, Democrats in Northern Virginia know better than to harp on a candidate’s sexuality. Doing so might bring them short-term gain. But playing to homophobia is a form of participating in it.

There’s no question that, on the whole, the Democratic Party has the high-road on this issue. That doesn’t mean they always take it.

Check out this report from Chris: Instead of spending 30 minutes with voters answering their questions and communicating with them, as Supervisor John Cook did, Janet Oleszek offers a rehearsed “talk show” with her partisan allies!

What a perfect encapsulation of the differences between the two candidates. John Cook took questions, both from supporters and adversaries, and answered them substantively and explained the issues and where he stood. Janet Oleszek REFUSED to take questions from “the masses”, and instead puts on this embarrassing sideshow.

People that were there told me that attendees walked out, and not just Cook supporters. I don’t blame them. If Janet Oleszek can’t be bothered to be responsive to Braddock District residents when she’s actively trying to get their votes, what kind of representative will she be if she actually stumbles into power?

And a quick note for any Democrats who may still be confused: If you’re wondering, THIS is exactly why the Washington Post called Janet Oleszek “lackluster”.

For the second straight election cycle, Janet Oleszek is running a party-line, talking-point driven campaign, and for the second straight election cycle, the Washington Post has seen straight through the act and declined to endorse her, despite their proclivities towards Democrats. In 2007, they called her “embarrassingly short on substance”; this time around, she’s “lackluster”. Either way, the Post sees what everybody but the most partisan Democrat sees: a candidate who has no idea what she’s doing or saying.

The Post actually endorses John Cook twice, first by calling him “knowledgeable, able and diligent and pays close attention to constituent services” and saying there’s “no question he’s a stronger candidate” than his opponents. Then the Post endorses him again by saying that he’s often antagonized his colleagues over disputes in the budget. Of course, the Post sees this as a bad thing but Fairfax County taxpayers should feel better knowing that there’s someone on the Board looking out for their interests. Go along to get along politicians is how budgets exploded in the past decade in the first place.

Sadly for Fairfax County, Janet Oleszek’s campaign is in desperation mode, and is embarking on a cynical ploy to get elected any way possible. And now, having determined that John Cook’s superior constituent service and grasp on the issues has earned him the support of Independents and moderates, as well as the Washington Post, they’re running a campaign targeted at turning out as many Democrats as possible, ignoring both reality and any concept of representing the whole of Braddock District.

Continue reading this story here.

[Read more...]

Check out the debate spin from Janet Oleszek’s campaign chair after debate #1: http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2011/09/first-oleszek-cook-debate.html Apparently, Janet “won” because she sat in her car until 2 minutes before the debate started, couldn’t figure out how to turn on a microphone, and didn’t get a room in John Cook’s office. Notice how absolutely nothing she ever said during the debate is mentioned, aside from a line from her rehearsed opening statement.

And here is the debate spin from Janet Oleszek’s #1 cheerleader (and re-tweeted by her campaign chairman) after debate #2: http://bluevirginia.us/diary/4972/braddock-district-debate-2-which-one-of-these-candidates-doesnt-want-to-be-here John Cook had a bad performance because you took a couple of awkward looking candid photos? They’re not even trying to pretend what’s actually said at debates matters.

Which is their only hope, perhaps. Check out this trainwreck of an answer by Janet Oleszek on why median strips aren’t mowed:

In case you can’t or don’t want to open the video, here is a transcript of Janet’s answer:

“The reason it doesn’t present well is because we don’t have enough money in the budget. When the incumbent votes against the budget two years in a row, he votes against funding those important activities.

But not only the transportation problems and the school issues of increased need in schools. Our school system is a majority-minority school system.

The competing dollars for education, for transportation, for public safety, make this a very very nuanced job to deal with. I don’t think we’ve had that kind of leadership in Braddock District.”

Sadly, this is like an episode of LOST, in that it raises more questions than it answers, chief of which is “what the hell is she talking about?” The only bright side is that she didn’t foolishly claim that “local control of local roads”, which is in place in Henrico and Arlington County as well as independent cities, is “privatization” as she did last week.

Oh, but it gets worse. You may have noticed that Lowell, of Blue Virginia, uploaded this clip. Why, you ask, would a campaign supporter upload a video where his candidate looks so bad and the incumbent looks good? The reason why is because they believe John Cook erred in his response. Check out this sequence of tweets from Connection Newspapers:

#BraddockVA2011 – JO “When your incumbent votes against the budget 2 yrs in row, he contributes to lack of funds for various services.”

#BraddockVA2011 – Oleszek counters State stopped maintaining roads several years ago; local inmates now mow lawns. Voting against County…

#BraddockVA2011 – Oleszek: …budget, as Cook did, impacts Sheriff’s funding and abiilty to provide inmates to mow grass…

(A quick note: the first tweet is a quote from the debate, while the last two were speaking one-on-one with the reporter afterwards, after her staff could give her the new talking points.)

In short, its the state’s responsibility, but they abdicated their responsibility years ago, and turned it over to the Sheriff’s office, who deploy inmates under the supervision of deputies. The Oleszek campaign claims that budget cuts impacted the Sheriff’s office’s ability to provide this service.

However, Cook explains how this is wrong:

#BraddockVA2011 – Cook: Janet wrong. Important to understand that Sheriff doesn’t have prisoners to cover all the roads.

#BraddockVA2011 – Cook: “If you’ve got an intersection, and it’s safety hazard, Sheriff will see if he can provide inmates.”

That’s not all. Ben Tribbett explained to me, in detail, that the specific budget cuts he’s referring to is the 2008 budget, the one year that Sharon Bulova worked with the Republicans on the Board to pass. So therefore, Cook (and the bi-partisan majority who also voted for the budget) voted for the cuts to the Sheriff’s office which used their own discretion to cut deputies.

But that’s not what Janet Olezek says. She says that John Cook voted against the budget, and therefore voted against funding for the Sheriff’s office, and somehow that’s what caused the cuts to deputies. Check out the first tweet above: “”When your incumbent votes against the budget 2 yrs in row, he contributes to lack of funds for various services.” Apparently, Oleszek thinks that when a budget passes by a 7-3 vote, the County only gets 70% of the funds!

Janet and her campaign can’t get their story straight even when they confer about it before sending her out in front of reporters. And the point they were trying to make is moot because its still the state’s responsibility, which John Cook wants to fix my turning local control of roads over to the County, like they have in Arlington and Henrico.

The rest of the debate went similarly. Janet gave rambling, often incoherent answers while John Cook detailed his record of leadership and his vision for the future. Oh, there was also a sideshow when the hanger-on third-party candidate thought a winning strategy was to insult the host and the moderator.

Here’s the bottom line: John Cook is a great Supervisor who campaigned on strengthening neighborhoods, and has delivered on it. He’s been endorsed by the environment lobby, by unions, and by businesses, and is being attacked from both the far left and the far right. Meanwhile, Janet Oleszek is running on being a Democrat, endorsed by other Democrats, and is hoping to limp through sub-standard public appearances and hide the fact that she is clearly not able to understand the job she’s running for.

The choice couldn’t be more clear, but John Cook needs your help. Check out www.johncook4supervisor.com to get involved.

The 2nd debate in a series of 10 (!) between Republican John Cook and Democrat Janet Oleszek for Braddock District Supervisor in Fairfax County is scheduled for tomorrow. I’m looking forward to this debate since rebuttals will be allowed, unlike the first debate. That rule certainly benefited the Oleszek campaign and the many wrong things she said (non-NoVa readers may remember Oleszek as the candidate who lost to then-Sen. Cuccinelli after the Washington Post called her “embarrassingly short on substance”).

Unfortunately, it doesn’t look like local media is interested in the facts, either. Check out this terribly written article from Connection Newspapers:

A squabble erupted when Cook, answering question about congestion on Braddock Road, said he would push for “local control for local roads.”

“We have a task force working on Danbury and Wake Forest. We’ve got three ongoing projects at George Mason. We are adding a lane to Braddock Road near Guinea Road,” he said.

Oleszek said his plan amounted to privatizing roadways. “I am amazed that someone would privatize our roadways at a time when our transportation issues are so much more complex,” Oleszek said.

This is reporting is so wrong its absurd. Oleszek never said Cook’s plan “amounts to privatization”. She thinks Cook’s plan actually IS privatization! She thinks local control of local roads, the same arrangement that independent cities in Virginia has, the same arrangement Arlington and Henrico County have, is the same thing as privatizing them because she doesn’t understand what “local control” means.

Fortunately, the Cook campaign doesn’t seem to be letting Oleszek’s ineptitude slow them down. Yesterday, they issued a release on the County Pension system responding to Fairfax County Chairman Sharon Bulova, who stepped in and bailed Oleszek out after she didn’t know that the County had a pension fund that wasn’t the statewide VRS (Chris has more details here).

And today, they issued another press release touting Supervisor Cook’s plan to strengthen neighborhoods, with local control of local roads receiving prominent attention:

Improving our Neighborhoods Through Local Control of Local Roads
A relic of a bygone era, Virginia is one of only three states where the state, not localities, owns and maintains local roads. “This is not a system that is benefiting Braddock District,” said Cook. “Grass in the medians is high, potholes mark our streets and little hope for change is in sight.”

…

County staff has followed through and interviewed each Virginia locality that owns and maintains its own roads. All reported that they are happy they do and, in fact, many expressed their disbelief that Fairfax has not yet followed suit.

Also mentioned in the news release is Governor McDonnell’s (who won Braddock in 2009) support for the campaign, including a fundraiser he’s holding tonight here in Fairfax. The Governor’s support joins that of the environmental lobby (from the Northern Virginia LCV), from labor (Fairfax County Government Employee’s Union), and businesses (Fairfax County Chamber of Commerce), despite objections from the far left and the far right.

All of this leads to tomorrow’s debate, Saturday at 3:30 p.m. in the front yard of Denny and Suzie D’Alelio’s home, 4811 Woodland Way in Annandale. I’ll be there, so if you’re anxious to know what Janet Oleszek will get wrong this time, you won’t have to wait very long. Or you can just show up!

In the meantime, the full text of Cook’s release is below, and you can check out Chris’s link for the full text of the one he sent yesterday.

[Read more...]