See here:
http://anonymousisawoman.blogs...
As discussed in my comments on Wednesday, November 7, 2007, this vote is a perfect example of the democratic majority in the state senate not being big enough. In my comments, I suggested that there would be instances in which some Democratic state senators sided with a block of Republicans that would pass bills that we as a community on this blog opposed.
http://www.raisingkaine.com/sh...
And in the instance of the budget amendment proposed by Cuccinelli, that is exactly what happened. Senator Charles J. Colgan, D-Prince William, voted for Cuccinelli's amendment cutting the funding for Planned Parenthood.
But one other chicken came home to roost on this bill and that was the election loss of Janet Oleszek, who ran and lossed by less than 100 votes to Cuccinelli. In my comments on November 7, 2007, I discussed the fact that perhaps way too much emphasis, time and money was spent on the marquee race of 2007, the Peterson-Devolites race, and ignoring races such as those of Janet Oleszek and Albert Pollard.
Oleszek's race was winnable but too little focus was placed on this race. And of course, the daily rantings of Ben at NLS against Oleszek didn't help either, and he as much as anyone needs to take responsibility for the results of this bill as well.
And of course, NARAL, both in Virginia and nationally, might be paying for their silence in the presidential campaign and their silence might be coming home to roost as well.
You might recall that the Clinton campaign mailed post cards to female voters in New Hampshire that arrived in households stating that Senator Barack Obama was not pro-choice based on him voting "present" on a number of bills affecting choice in the Illinois legislature.
http://www.barackoblogger.com/...
Noe we all know that Obama's votes on these bills in Illinois were part of a strategy designed by NARAL, as was touted in the now infamous videos:
Obama has always been and always will be pro-choice. Here are Obama's staements on choice made to NARAL, at their request and posted on NARAL's website:
http://www.prochoiceamerica.or...
But what was so disturbing about the Clinton campaign tactics was that Lorna Brett Howared was the only memeber of NARAL to stand up and say that Obama was pro-choice and that the Clinton campaign was wrong stating in her mailers that he was anti-choice.
NARAl remained quiet after the NH primary on January 8, 2008. However, on January 18, 2008, ten days after the NH primary, three Clinton supporters who signed a letter attacking Obama, stepped forward asking Obama supporters in the state to put the rifts of the primary campaign behind them and praising Obama for being "strongly pro-choice." Again, NARAL remained silent.
The Nevada caucuses were held on Jnaury 19, 2008 and again, not one word from NARAL.
Then, finally on either January 24, 2008 or January 26, 2008 (I am unsure of the exact date as the blog posts on NARAL's website are for the month of February) NARAL finally posted a statement on their blog that all three candidates seeking the Democratic nomination for president were pro-choice. The statement was posted a full two weeks after the NH primay and 5 days after the Nevada caucuses. And of course, the damage had been inflicted by then, especially in NH. I think these post cards and statements put out by the Clinton campaign swung the state of NH to Clinton. You might recall that Obama had huge leads in the polls leading up to the primary. And if you look at exit polls in NH, Clinton lost the 25-29 category of female voters, a group that Obama swept in Iowa and was far ahead with in national polls.
And what is even more shocking is that the statement prepared by NARAL confirming that all candidates for the Democratic nomination was not even emailed out to their memebership.
NARAL's silence on this issue and not taking the Clinton campaign to the wood shed was was a HUGE political miscalculation and has created a split in the pro-choice community of their own making.
And as a result, I have a feeling this is trickling down to the state level as well. And as eveidenced by the passing of the Cuccinelli amendment, NARAL needs all the allies it can get and NARAL needs to move quickly to address the problems they have created within the pro-choice movement.
I clicked on your name and read your diaries for the past year. Not once did you do a diary in support on Janet. In fact, I couldn't even find one where you mentioned her name.
I covered the positive and the negative in her campaign, and Janet thanked me at JJ for trying to help her fix the problems in her campaign before it was too late.
So instead of blaming me, don't you want to take some responsibility for her loss since you never once wrote a diary in support of her campaign on Virginia's largest community blog here?
You are avoiding the very factual charge made by Flipper. You tormented Janet and her staff after the campaign didn't hire you. You got Aimee Fausser to do your dirty work and leak info from Oleszek's campaign to you.
If Janet lost by thousands of votes, we wouldn't blame you. But she lost by about 100 votes and your actions made a difference in helping your cousin, Ken Cuchinelli, win another term in the Senate.
Ben, you refuse to take responsibility for any of the damage that you inflict on Democratic candidates. It's about time that somebody hangs some of this crap around your neck.
Now, you seem to take issue with the fact that I had not made one post in support of Janet on this blog. But lets be honest here, I am simply a cog on a wheel, posting my opinios, for what they are worth. However, you are "Not Larry Sabato" the man behind the curtain with his own blog and huge readership. You are the wheel. Bloogger and leader of progressives throughout the state of Virginia. So your opinions carry much more weight as you have your own bully pulpit in which you can rant and rave, call people names, you know, the typical mean-spirtited things you typically do an a day to day basis.
So, the day before election day, you announce to the world that you might not be able to vote for Janet Oleszek. And then, after losing by only 101 votes, you have the audacity to crticise her for even seeking a recount, and then give her timelines as to when she should ask for the recount.
You disparaging remarks against Janet during last falls campaign were certainly hurtful and harmful to her cause. The death nail could have been your announcement that you were thinking about not voting for her. How many readers of your blog foolishly followed your lead? All it took was 51 and she was done.
Oh, and as far as my commnets or lack of comments regarding Janet are concerned, they have no impact. I am simply one among thousands posting comments here.
And Ben, I am sorry it took so long to get back with you but I have been quite busy making phone calls today on behalf of Senator Obama in Texas and Ohio. And I am happy to report the calling has gone quite well. And I converted two Clinton supporters to Obama, one each in Oho and Texas. And the one in Ohio was the most rewarding as she thought Obama was anti-choice. I thought it was quite fitting based on my post above, don't you think?