The Post's editors should be ashamed of themselves.I've listened to Janet Oleszek a lot in the last month. I know, she's not always the slickest person when it comes to expressing herself and her ideas.
But for the Post to lay down the bitchslap they did on her was completely uncalled for and shameful.
Janet speaks with frequent pauses and often slowly, and frankly, that sometimes makes her difficult to follow, honestly. However, and I've listened to her performances several times now both on the one TV debate and in the audio at her Equality Fairfax performance, where her opponent didn't even have the decency to show up or even provide a written statement to be read, and she DOES NOT lack in substance.
What she lacks is an inherent ability to slickly communicate.
I have listened to Janet advocate vociferously for schools, stress over and over that she thinks the legislature could have done better on transportation, and that were she the Senator, it would have. I have listened to her articulate why she believes in fairness and opportunity for all, and advocate the repeal of the Marshall-Newman embarassment [amendment]. Anyone who has followed her career as a School Board member will know that her judgement and leadership are solid, even if her ability to articulate her positions is not always.
This is not a woman who is an "empty suit". The Post may not think she is worthy of endorsement since she's not the best communicator. But the Post owes Janet Oleszek an apology.
Those editors crass description of her is rooted in one of the oldest sexist stereotypes of women in the book.
Shame on them!!
The Washington Post ought to know better. Not only did they fail to endorse the far better candidate, they gave Ken all sorts of ammunition to use out of context. If history tells us anything, that's exactly what he will do. He needs to be sent back to his law practice. Permanently.
This is a smart and perceptive woman. Because she doesn't always take the bait does NOT mean she is lacking any substance, or that if she's elected, she won't be voting and serving the best interests of her district FAR more eloquently and unselfishly than her unesteemed opponent!!
What I'd like to ask the Post is: so since Oleszek isn't a spellbinding speaker you refuse to endorse her? What kind of logic is that? And apparently you aren't really aware of hos far-right Ken Cuccinelli is or you might have an actual opinion at least about this race.
This one's really got me steamed. It's a throwback and not-so-subtle endoresement of the attitude that Cuccinelli and his supporters have tried to spin in this campaign that goes something like "she's just a woman, what does she know...". Disgusting.
whose doctrinaire, at times obstructionist, views on taxes and social issues have alienated his own party's more moderate leadership in the Senate. While he finally did vote this year for a bill to provide new roads for Northern Virginia, it was only after repeatedly helping to block better ones.
And the best that they can do is dismiss Oleszek with a subjective evaluation. Without a proper explanation of what they mean and how they arrive at that is pretty useless. The Cuccinelli comments are factual and verifiable based on his record in the GA. The comments regarding Olezek are not as they give no point of reference.
If the Post has an idea of what is best for Virginia, surely they would not include Ken Cuccinelli in that. Someone who isolates himself from his own caucus with his extreme views, who clearly lacks the understanding that taxation is sometimes necessary for the effective operation of government, and they could not reach a decision here? Charming though he may be, his ideas are impractical and idealistic. He has a place in government for sure... In Texas, the testing ground for bad government (credit goes to Molly Ivins for coming up with that one). How they deemed this a toss up is just vexing!
But I guess they may be for bad government. Good government does not create headlines, which sells papers.
Because someone works hard at door knocking does not mean they are good campaigners or worthy office-seekers. There's a couple of turkeys here and praising a Yellow Dog because it's not Kook doesn't change the fact that we got a turkey, too.
It's NOT that Janet is a yellow dog either. In fact, she's pretty much in-line with the moderate beliefs of her district.
There is a good candidate, a smart, substantive woman, and a person who deserves voters support in this race. That person is Janet Oleszek.
Your comment reflects the problem that I had with the Washington Post's opinion: it is subjective and without any reference to support that subjective statement. If, for example, Janet Oleszek is a "turkey"; then what would help substantiate that?
On knocking on doors, are you discounting that knocking on doors is an element of a successful campaign or worthy office-seeker? Or are you saying that knocking on doors is only one of many elements that compose a successful campaign and/or worthy candidate?
Richard Cohen, Charles Krauthammer, David Ignatius, Fred Hiatt, Kagan A or Kagan B (I forget which one, but the one that ironically has a position at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace), Michael Gerson, George Will (although he can write prettily about baseball every 12 weeks) ... good God! What a collection of hacks and fools. I'd say to save the pages in case you ever run out of toilet paper, but I'd be afraid of some type of idiot/enema effect. Brutal, mind-liquifying tripe.
The Post still has some great reporters, but the OpEditry almost couldn't be worse unless the National Review or Weekly Standard ran it.