I get a dozen e-mails announcements from campaigns across the state each day, and all of them are boring puffery. But not the one I got today from Janet Oleszek’s campaign. Her opponent, Sen. Ken Cuccinelli, has asked a TV station to stop running an Oleszek TV ad which features a clip of Cuccinelli taking credit for stopping a stem cell research bill. His complaint? That his own statement was “intentionally false and misleading.” You’ve got to give the guy points for honesty, I guess.
Comments are closed.
This year, more than any other since I returned to Virginia, seems almost surreal in its qualities. Some of the most weired stuff I have ever seen in campaigns has been, well, commonplace in a lot of campaigns.
No doubt the Democrats have their share of weird stuff, but it is all becoming kind of overwhelming, and from every direction.
Waldo, I know that you are an intelligent person.
So I can’t understand your ignorance on this matter, although the alternative is that you are not ignorant, but being deliberately misleading.
Janet keeps saying Ken opposes “Stem Cell Research”. Her ad says that, and quotes him saying “we defeated”.
But they did NOT vote on, or defeat, STEM CELL research. It was only EMBRYONIC stem cell research, the research that has yet to yield ANY life-saving results (another deception — OTHER stem cell research has yielded real results, but not the embryonic research being discussed here.
More to the point, saying “we” did something in no way suggests “I” led the effort. “We won the game” — could be said by a lineman, even though the QUARTERBACK led the team, and the coach was the architect of the victory.
So Janet’s ad is doubly misleading. It says Ken opposed “stem cell” research when he only opposed Embryonic stem cell research, not any of the other more promising research. And it says he “led” the fight when he was a participant.
I didn’t realise how misleading this complaint is.
The reason they are protesting is NOT that Ken “did not lead”, it’s that he didn’t lead a fight “against” a bill.
From the Republican Party complaint:
“There has been only one piece of legislation addressing stem cell research in the Virginia State Senate during the five years Senator Cuccinelli has been serving the 37th district. That bill was SB 1194 in 2005, and contrary to the claim in the advertisement as follows: “Cuccinelli led the fight to stop stem cell research,” Senator Cuccinelli actually voted for the bill. We know that you station would not want to run advertising that is false and misleading, so we would ask you to determine on what basis Ms. Oleszek is making this claim.”
In other words, he may have been involved in making sure embryonic research was not IN the bill, the actual bill was a bill to FUND stem cell research, and he voted FOR that bill, so clearly he did not lead the fight AGAINST “stem cell research”.
BTW, their bigger complaint is that she doesn’t appear in the ad to take credit for it as the law requires, and it APPEARS that she has not disclosed major campaign contributions within 24 hours as required this close to the election.
I’m sure, Waldo, that you are in agreement with Virginia’s open policy for campaigns, that we can give any money we want but you must disclose it in a timely fashion.
It will be interesting to see where the money came from for Janet to run a major TV ad, without any money being bigger than 1000 dollars.
Anyway, this is what I hate mostly about the LEFT blogosphere, but also about some elements of the RIGHT blogosphere — Smart people who know better deliberately lie about things regarding the election hoping to deceive readers into voting for a prefered candidate.
Then when the election is over, everybody goes back to pretending they are trustworthy.
I can’t flip the “trust” switch on and off, and most normal people can’t either. I have a profound distrust of people who can lie so easily.
C’mon Waldo, you’re smart enough to know the distinction between being against a class of research and a type of research. Oleszek’s ad is misleading at best, dishonest at worst.
I think there is large matter here to consider, but apparently I am the only one who is considering it. Serves me right for talking to myself!
With all the other larger impact issues out there-immigration (however you want to address it), transportation, education, terrorism, gun violence/mental health/state duty (in the wake of va tech)…is stem cell research really the issue that wins or loses this election for Oleszek?
The WaPo poll last week about important issues for this election doesn’t mention stem cell research or reproductive rights.
I cannot help but think this is an issue primarily aimed at the base vote-and I cannot help but think that if JO at this late date is having to spend large media $$ on mobilizing the base, then she has a problem.
Bwana,
Heh heh. ‘There is large matter.’ Somehow you need to work that into Waldo’s other thread about novel insults.
‘OMG, he is such a a piece of large matter. Will someone please flush him already?’
Embryonic stem cell treatment is offered as the best hope for a cure for several close friends and family suffering with Parkinson’s disease (and other degenerative diseases). Politicians that pander to the religious bias of people that thwart this research are as close as I come to litmus-test voting. If you oppose embryonic stem cell research you won’t get my vote. If you bravely support it, I’ll back you up. I abandoned the religion of my birth over this issue.
I suppose if you’re gonna abandon the religion of your birth then embryonic stem cell research is as good a reason as any. One recalls that Howard Dean abandoned the Episcopal Church over a disagreement regarding the location of a bike path. With friends like these…
I take umbrage at the “pandering to the religious bias” angle though. For pandering, it doesn’t get much more brazen than brave John Edwards’ assertion while sharing the stage with the late Christopher Reeve that embryonic stem cell would enable to rise from his wheelchair in the near future.
Judge Smails,
I found your statement regarding John Edwards and Christopher Reeve to be disturbing. What you describe does sound like pandering. My research tells me, however, that that’s not exactly how it went down.
Edwards wasn’t sharing the stage with Christopher Reeve. He made the statement after Reeve died. Unless he was predicting resurrection, I don’t think he was expecting that Reeve would be rising. Nor, did he say anything about the “near future”.
Here’s what Edwards said: “If we do the work that we can do in this country, the work that we will do when John Kerry is president, people like Christopher Reeve will get up out of that wheelchair and walk again.”
In my mind, that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish.
Look, this really isn’t that hard. John Edwards wouldn’t suggest that you quit praying for Chris Reeves, and I’m saying keep your interpretation of God’s will out of embryonic stem cell medical research. I’m sufficiently certain that the Lord God Almighty has not conveyed his position on this healing break-through with anyone, even the pious Cooch, or his leader in Rome.
So we didn’t need to pour billions into a dubious scientific experiment that a sizeable % of the country is vehemently against. All we needed to do was elect Kerry and Reeve would have walked again? That’s even worse.
You should talk to my Amish neighbor JS. He’s plenty peeved that bazillions get poured into highways for horseless carriages, his money. Many of them specifically exclude his buggy. Its an abomination he bears through Humility and true personal Faith. He likely thinks I’m going to hell, but hasn’t yet petitioned me to get rid of the car.
Aw, c’mon Judge Smails, you’re a smart guy. You know, that’s not what he said or meant.
Reeve will never (on this earthly plane) walk again. “If we do the work that that we can do in this country”, that is, if the scientists and physicians in the U.S. are provided with the requisite resources, Edwards believes that, at some point, advances will be made that will permit those with spinal injuries to walk.
Don’t you think that’s plausible? The political comment – “the work that we will do when John Kerry is president” implied that it would be the intention of a Kerry-Edwards administration to provide those resources to permit pioneers to do the work that would make those advances possible.
This NOVA senate campaign hasn’t been as nasty as the Davis-Petersen race, but there’s still time, I guess. Desperate challengers often turn to dishonest advertising in the closing days. (Davis has been running some real doozies trying to hold to her seat against Petersen.) I suppose this one shouldn’t come as a surprise.
What does come as a surprise is this blog entry about that ad, where the focus is not on Oleszek’s lying, but Cooch’s complaint about it… and the the fact that the truth of it seems to go right over Waldo’s head.
My wife and I have been inundated by campaign mailers by both sides – that is why I became interested in the race – we’ve read them all. She is an independent, I am a more that a little moderate republican- and I’ve voted for democrats, such as Rep Jim Moran when I lived in Alexandra.
I received Janet’s “wacko” flyers back in September and was curious to see if Ken was an “extremist and kooky” as she accused him of being – so I spoke to both she and Ken directly – and attended the Springfield Government Center debate – and this is the bottom-line: Janet is not qualified, has a problem with integrity and is a liberal and as far as I can tell holds no moderate views.
Ken has every right to ask for inaccurate information, especially in light of the fact that he DID vote to support stem cell research – that he was against embryonic stem cell research – this is a large difference from what her TV ad says (I just watched it again). I am even more frightened by the prospects of having a Janet represent me in light of her candor and integrity problems – if she is willing to go to these extremes just to get elected, what will she do to forward her (clearly liberal) agenda once she is in?
Because of a trip to the west coast, I have already cast my vote – it was for Ken – Janet never made her case to me – and her campaign has moved me from interested bystander to making my first donations to a local political campaign – for Ken, not her. I’ve lived here in Fairfax for 20 years and this is the first time I’ve ever donated – or ever felt the need to be involved. Janet does not represent my values – and her lack of moral compass makes me wonder what she was teaching the children in her classroom when she was a teacher.