Full Cuccinelli-Oleszek Debate Recap

This debate was held at the West Springfield Government Center on Rolling Road. It hastily put together, and I must say, not terribly well done. The moderater wasn't very good, even making up some questions on the fly. There was not much preperation, either. Last wee's Jeannemarie-Chap debate was much better. Anyways, so I would say a crowd of about 20-25 where there, not terribly large. John Frey and Pat Herrity showed up to show support. To be fair to Janet, this seemed to be a pro-Cuccinelli crowd, which is not a good sign that she couldn't marshal any supporters to show up while Ken did. When Janet walked in, she barely gave Ken the time of day and didn't shake his hand. They then spent nearly 20 minutes outside debating the debate, it would seem. From what I was made to unerstand, Oleszek's campaign manager was digging for an excuse to leave. At one point, I heard that she even threatened to leave in a huff.

So anyways, this debate gets started at about 8:20 now. In the opening remarks, Cuccinelli started. He emphasised his role in bringing in real money for the first time in 21 years--and that it was the first ever to address Northern Virginia's issues on their own. That is why he voted for it, because he values compromise. It had stuff he didn't like, and stuff he did. But that is how you legislate. Ken then spent a moment touching on mental health, and talked about him being the only member of the state senate to lead an effort to reform this system.

Oleszek was up next. She talked about being a mom and a teacher and how she grew up in the area. She does a lot of stopping and starting, clearly nervous and uncomfortable. She is channelling Helen Lovejoy, the theme of "won't someone think of the children," becasue the kids are why she is running. She then said that our legislators aren't interested in compromise (HELLO, did she not just listen to Ken talk about how he compromised for that bill!), said something about abuser fees, and claimed she will represent "the mainstream, not the extreme."

It was at this point that the gentleman in the back of the room was asked to turn off his video recorder. He asked why he couldn't videotape public officials at a public forum. The reporter for the Connection Newspapers spoke up in his defense. He then agreed to do so without any fight. He just asked what candidate demanded this, at which Cuccinelli spoke out and said that he had no problem and that his opponent had been videotaping him since January. Oleszek jsut sat there like a deer in headlights as Cuccinelli outed her for silencing the rights of a constituent. Pathetic.

>>>The first question was about getting more funding from Richmond for Northern Virignia. Ken went first. He was ready with stats, facts, and figures. Northern Virginia has 14% of the states students, and gets only 7% of the dollars. Cuccinelli pointed out that he is the only member of the state senate to attempt to change the funding formula that would bring over at least $40 million in new money. And who opposed this more money for Northern Virginia? Dick Saslaw, Oleszek's patron! In fact, most Fairfax Democrats opposed this! So you make your choice.

Oleszek stood up and outlined the formula and why it is becasue Northern Virginians have higher incomes. She promises to fight for better funding for "our students." Thats it. She makes no reference to any of Cuccinelli's points, how she would stand up to Dick Saslaw, or anything. There were NO specifics. ZERO. NOTHING.

>>>The next question was on gun control. I was expecting Oleszek to get ready to hit this one out of the park. A swing and a miss, to be sure. She immediatly brought up Virginia Tech and said more guns don't make safer enviroments. She said she opposes guns in public areas, but they are fine for sport and for personal ownership. Ugh. Once again, this question was served up to her and she just wiffed. Terrible.

Cuccinelli got up next. He reminded people that despite what you feel, the 2nd Amendment is in the Constitution and thats it. He then cleverly weaves this into a the mental health area. He says that the key to stopping Virignia Techs of the future isn't to deny people thier rights to fireamrs, but to ensure that a system is set up to deal with people wiht mental health issues. "We need to catch the Chos before they get guns," was his line. He then talked about Richmond, and how in the past the city had become the murder capital of America. But authorities went after the criminals and not the guns, and the city became safer. He then pointed to Washington DC and said that strict gun laws haven't made that city safer. Once again, it was specific, while Oleszek said nothing.

>>>Transportation was the next issue. Cuccinelli was asked why he voted yes for the Transportation Bill. He said that the ability it gave the local governments to get around the obnoxious funding formula by raising nearly $400 million in revenue at home that will stay there was key. He reminded everyone that this was a party-line vote in the Senate, and DEMOCRATS voted to kill this for political reasons. He comrpomised to get real funding while Democrats who are Oleszek's patrons worked to kill this. He voted against abuser fees in 2006 and will work to repeal them, but voted for the bill becasue he couldn't deny his constituents the money in the bill. Not only the money, but his language was put in for Hot Lanes, and finally gave local government the ability to take over road construction and get funds for it.

Oleszek attempted in her jumbled way to say that Ken voted for the bill and voted against it when Kaine tried to "improve it." This exposed once again how unaware Janet is of the legislative process. Ken voted for the bill each time, but voted against the governor's amendments! They are two different things, and her inability to either understand or articulate that was stunning. She was clearly in over her head here. She just didn't understand that each amendment was dealt with individually and then the bill was voted on again. Just terrible. She then said that she would provide a sustained revenue stream and smartly avoided calling for tax increases. Rather, she stayed vague and offered absolutly nothing in terms of specifics. She used the canard that she was "not willing to take any solution off the table." Ugh.

The moderator then jumped in with a follow-up for Oleszek. If she was sitting in that state senate, would she have voted YES or NO. Her response? "I HAVE TO WAFFLE." My jaw dropped. She said that she would have made sure that the bill would have been better before it got to the floor. She ddn't say how. She then referred to the question as a "hypothetical," even though it clearly wasn't and as someone who was a teacher is shocking that she doesn't knwo the difference. This was just stunning in its idiocy.

Ken Cuccinelli then stood up and absolutly destroyed her. He said your voting for a senator who has to, at their core, make a yes or no choice. He made a choice, voted yes, and stands by it. Its clear Janet is incapable of making that choice.

>>>The next question was an odd hypothetical about voting for a mythical bill that would solve transportation but would add a $500 tax on each person in Virginia. Both Ken and Janet said they would vote "NO." Terrible question.

>>>They were then asked to list their top priority. Janet said it was traffic because it hurts everyone and effects the standard of living in the state.

Ken said it was transportation, education, and then illegal immigration.

>>>Illegal Immigration is the next topic. The moderator talked about a question written down about what the candidates would do regarding neighborhood complaints about houses with 6 or so unrelated people living there. Ken was up first and talked about the challenges of the Courts and Justice committee with the Democrat-RINO alliance that keeps his legislation bottled up. He said that one bill he did get through was giving zoning officials the power of subpena, which is an improtant power.

Janet was up and suprised many by how good she was here. Her focus was penalizing businesses, who fuel illegal immigration--something I wholeheartidly agree with. She mentioned support of ICE for police and jailers to deal with criminals already in the system for deportation. Very good! The moderator then asks Janet how she would punish businesses, at which she said "I DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS." My god lady, make something up! That is what I screaming in my head. She said that legislative services had plenty of ideas.

Ken, smelling blood no doubt, and emphatically stated that you vote for a senator, not legislative services. He said he's worked on the bills, he's written these bills himself. He said he would revoke business liscenses for business that hire illegals knowingly. His message here, "I know what to do." This was an increidble exchange as the debate now turned from Democrat and Republican to whether Janet Oleszek was even capable of holding such an office when it was clear she had no idea what she was talking about, had no plans or specifics, and no understanding of the legislative process.

>>>The last question was a werid one about each candidates websites. I don't know, I forgot what Cuccinelli was asked but he talked about immigration again and the importance of the rule of law.

Janet was asked about her website and why all it was were hitpieces on Cuccinelli and little to no substance. She claimed that the person hasn't seen her website and to check out all the tabs to see all the substance there. You can see it HERE, where the front page is plush wiht anti-Ken hit peices. The tabs do have proposals on them, too. So both were right. What a stupid question, in fairness to Janet.

>>>Then came the closings, mercifully. Ken stands up with a peice of Janet's mail and talks about its personal attacks of Kooky Ken and all that and said the people deserve better. We need a leader and on issues of mental health, transportation, property rights, and taxes Cuccinelli has been a leader.

Janet talked about her education background, her work on full day K, and that her views represent the mainstream of Fairfax. She talked about crossing party lines on the school board, which made me wonder how hard that is on a school board thats 8-2 Democrat. That was it.

>>>

Now for my thoughts in full. Its clear that Janet Olesek is not capable of being a senator. She has no ability to artiuclate her thoughts, she has no plans or specifics, and is banking on attacking Ken and a Democrat vicotry. She is by far the worst candidate I have ever seen. She was inarticulate, slow, and offered absolutly nothing. She offers no leadership and no vision. It was perhaps the worst display by any political candidate ever. I can't tell you how terrible it was. I actually felt sorry for her as Ken methodically outlined his vision with facts and stats. He made no apologies for his stances, and Oleszek was incapabale of getting past why people should vote for her other than "I'm the mainstream, not the extreme" line. She gave no reason to vote for her, no reason to vote against Ken, and come off as someone wholly incapable of holding any sort of important office.

Ken Cuccinelli was measured, confident, and strong. He did not come off as a bully, but as someone clearly superior. It was a demolition, pure and simple. If Janet Oleszek is elected, it will only be a victory for partisaship. Last night was proof that she is incapable of holding this office, and even Democrats have to know this. Just awful.

Comments

[Isophorone]

Awesome recap! There's the "prelude" of just how bad she would probably be here:

http://isophorone.blogspot.com/2007/09/janet-oleszek-speaks.html

[just a mom]

Janet was exactly the same when she ran for school board. It was painful to watch her in debates. She couldn't articulate anything. She has continued that for the last 4 years on the board. She says nothing, poorly. She is the dumbest school board member I have seen in 16 years, and that's saying something. Even democrats on the board can barely tolerate her. They've made that obvious.

BTW, the school board as 10 democrats and 2 republicans. One of those two is a RINO. Our school board has one rep for each district and three at large, for a total of 12. Under Janet's fine leadership there has been NO increase in students from 2004 to 2008, yet the budget increased from $1.4 BILLION to $2.2 BILLION. No increase in students, no real increases in SAT scores, no decreases in class size, and more schools failing No Child Left Behind than ever. Yet an increase in funding of nearly $700 million. Thanks Janet! We could ask Janet why that huge increase, what we have gotten for all that money, but I'm quite sure she couldn't tell us.

[Not a Mom]

JAM,

Can you point us to links for your budget numbers?

NAM

[Jeri]

Your article would have more credibility if you would run a spell check!

[JAM]

It can all be found at FCPS.edu Search for budget, fy 2004 then fy 2008. Enrollment numbers are there too. It's all true. Big budget increases with nothing to show for it.

[Tony]

Here is my recap of the debate from my perspective...

http://www.fairfaxtimes.com/letter/116/

I think I spellchecked it...