Oshkosh voted - are you happy with the results?
School Board
Due to the lack of challengers for Common Council, the School Board race took center stage. John Lemberger seems to have surprised quite a few by winning one of the two seats on the School Board along with incumbent Tom McDermott. The race was close - only 550 votes separated fourth place finisher Michelle Monte (3,554) from first place finisher McDermott (4,101). Monte went from finishing in first place in the Primary to fourth place yesterday. Did she benefit from the Presidential preference primary somehow, or was there a change in the electorate's mood between Feb 19 and April 1?
But more importantly, what do these results mean for the School Board and the direction the district will be taking regarding facilities planning, school closings, and boundary changes? Teresa Thiel has already started this conversation on her site. What are your thoughts?
County Board
Of the four contested races in Oshkosh, the incumbents managed to hold their seats in each race except for Donna Lohry, who was redistricted to face off against fellow incumbent Claude Thompson. The results by the numbers:
District 14 (North-central Oshkosh):
Claude Thompson (I) - 369
Donna Lohry (I) - 200
District 15 (Northwest Oshkosh):
Kathy Lennon (I) - 152
Travis Swanson - 114
District 18 (East-Central Oshkosh):
Bill Wyngren (I) - 475
John Daggett - 48
District 21 (South side Oshkosh):
Bob Warnke (I) - 164
Christine Kutnick-Richards - 91
The most interesting race, Thompson v. Lohry, resulted in the Democratic Party and CUT the Board endorsed Thompson defeating first term Supervisor Lohry, who was really counting on support from the portion of the new district in the Town of Oshkosh. I haven't seen the breakdown by district yet, but Thompson's east-side district typically has higher turnout than Lohry's north-central district, and it appears that it was more than enough to give him the victory.
No surprise with the Wyngren - Daggett race, and props to UW Oshkosh student Travis Swanson for putting a good show against incumbent Kathy Lennon. Bob Warnke was targeted by the CUT the Board group, and his win reflects his support among his constituents.
How will this impact the direction of the Winnebago County Board?
Are you happy with the results?
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
36 comments:
In the primary, Lohry trailed Thompson by only 11 votes if memory serves correctly. It looks like either most of the votes for the primary loser went to Thompson or Lohry benefited from the presidential primary. I suspect both, actually, but the former more than the latter.
You could be right. At the forum before the primary Harold Steineke pretty much answered every question by saying "I agree with Claude" or "what Claude said".
In the school board election I think Monte was part of the "Hillary factor" those voters who voted for Hillary because she was a woman, Michelle was the only woman running for school board. In the general election, the vast majority of voters came to the polls to vote for school board, I believe they were more informed on school board issues/candidates than the primary voters, who primarily went out to vote for a presidential candidate and a number of those, voted for school board as an afterthought.
I think with Schneider off the board and Lemberger on, the board will get along much better, find common ground, disscuss the issues rather than point fingers at each other and in the end FINALLY make some decisions that have been needed for way too long.
It was a good result that will improve the district in the long run!!
I wish someone would interview John Daggett and ask him why the hell he keeps running for everything.
John Daggett for Coroner!!
An interview with John Daggett - check. Great idea!
I bet Main Street Oshkosh can beat the Oshkosh Northwestern with THAT hot reader demand!
I think the Hillary factor affected Monte too. (In terms of Bill blowing up the scene)
Not only did she engage her detractors; her husband's comments on the community blogs had a very embarrassing and negative effect.
Yeah, except Kent isn't a former president, mayor, or anything really. He's just some guy. At least Bill Clinton can occasionally muster the illusion of credibility.
I think what the results mean that forums count. All the won either did well in the various forums shown on local cable o their opponent did do show well or appear at the forum.
Very happy for John Lemberger.
Lemberger only knows one issue and that is the way to the heart of a parent is to claim to be able to save their school. Anything else mentioned and he couldn't put three words together. Give me a break.
The majority of those voting believe other than you. Get over it alrady. Sour grapes make a bitter, distasteful whine.
Anon. 4:14 you obviously didn't see the student forum... Lemberger was very articulate there and showed a knowledge of education and the school district that Monte will never have.
While I completely disagree with Lemberger on keeping every school open, I do not think it was a political ploy or pandering to parents, I think he truly believes they should all be saved. Hopefully with more information he will realize this is not the best route to take. If he doesn't agree that is fine, there are enough board members who know schools need to close.
Mike Norton said- " I think what the results mean (is) that forums count."
I do too. I think Mr. Schnieder reneged participation in the forums and under estimated the readership. It resulted in a loss.
Really CJ? I didn't see a whole lot from McDermott either but that didn't stop him from winning.
You are pissed at Schneider because he wouldn't debate you in a public and less identifying manner. I don't blame him one bit.
Your argument is not credible.
It's very credible. McDermott may not have posted much, we don't know because you can't find many of the boards on the ONW's site now that the election is over. But what no candidate other than Schneider did was refuse to participate. First he had some lame-ass excuse as to why he was piping in late (claiming he didn't know it existed), then at the first sign of criticism, he took his ball and went home. That's just like Monte did on the district's committee she was serving on. Can't have it their way, so they stomp their feet and go home. The voters told them Tueday to STAY HOME. For every action there is a consequence. I believe we saw theirs.
And if the vote had gone the opposite direction we would still have these rediculous and unproductive debates in reverse. There is no logic or explanation for what happened or what it says short of interviewing every eligible voter as to who they supported and why, and why or why they didn't vote.
Still can't deny Schneider and Monte are childish and when they can't get their way they go home. Now they can stay there.
I have to agree with some of the posters on different blogs. The negativity and meanspiritedness of Schneider and Monte is not something voters wanted to keep seeing. The school district has major work ahead of it and it can't accomplish it if it keeps getting sidetracked by things like that.
I keep reading on blogs how mean-spirited Schneider and Monte are and cannot seem to find any evidence of such. Just because someone says it is true, doesn't mean it is. I happen to think that if someone gets elected to office, they should be subject to questioning of their statements and actions. It's called holding our representatives accountable. If those that get elected and those that support those representatives cannot handle it, too bad. Stay out of the kitchen if you can't stnad the heat.
EVERYONE is entitled to their opinion and that includes pro and anti Schneider, Becker, Monte AND pro and anti Bowen, McDermott, Kavanaugh, Weinsheim. That does not mean that the ones we happen to agree with are poor victims and the ones that we disagree with are negative and vile. I've seen more personal attacks against Monte than I have seen from Monte.
Their own words and behaviors prove it is true and if you haven't seen it, it's because you're not looking for it. There is none so blind as he who will not see.
J, I agree with you. Just because someone says something doesn't mean its true. That applies to Michelle Monte also. She says a lot of things but when you really start investigating her words you find she's only got part of the information right or she's spinning things completely her way to sway people in her direction. People saw that and when you factor in her anger and derisiveness that so many other than you can see, weren't willing to take a chance on her.
I have seen more negativity, anger, and nasty disrespect from Bowen and Weinsheim towards Schneider and Becker and from Thiel towards Monte than the other way around. Maybe the not seeng that I am being accused of should be reflected back.
As for Monte's anger, I did see that the first year she ran. I also noticed that she has tempered her emotions to get stronger points across in a better way. We can dance round and round surmising what the election means. There is no way to know definitively. I'm pretty sure both sides have their way of seeing the results.
What I have noticed as a constant, is that when there is a site that allows anonymous comments and happens to say something nice about Monte, suddenly, there are anonymouses crawling out of the woodwork claiming she is the nasty one. I have read comments about her breasts, breath, and children. I have seen her blog and find no such comments about anyone. The evidence seems to indicate that Monte has been the target of much anonymous abuse and bullying simply because she is opinionated and not afraid to express herself and some not only disagree, but take to personal attacks. Flimsy excuse in my opinion.
Since the election is over, I hope we can move on to a topic other than Monte, Schneider, and anyone else that bucks the system and questions the powers that be.
Surprisingly, one would think that an website like this would embrace the underdogs and grassroots politicing instead of bashing it.
You need to open your eyes and search a litle harder on her blog and you'll not only see the same kinds of comments (lies really -- saying people's children are disrupting meetings, people are snooping around in offices looking at confidential files, just to give you a few examples. She's also remarked frequently about the dress of a certain board member and even claims the district has a policy about board member attire when the fact is it doesn't.). Funny how she starts something and it's either fine or you can't see it. When others fight back they're the bad guys. Give us a break.
And when Monte has fought back, people like you ridicule her for getting defensive and claim she has no right to comment as she is in the public eye and should lay down and take it. By that logic, Thiel should shut up and take it as she stays in the public eye no matter how many times she loses, and to a Monte last year no less.
Are you really going to defend such deplorable comments with "well she did it first?"
I have seen Monte's criticism's. Nothing even broaches the level of mudslinging on Thiel's blog. I would expect better from a woman (Thiel) who doesn't think Monte is relevant and professes her own virtues being superior.
Being an outsider looking in, I would say the tow of them are about equal though Mrs. Monte had come to Thiel's defense when someone posted a comment about her home. There has never been any such defense from Thiel only encouragement for people to get as nasty as they want. In my opinion, that makes Monte one notch up on the evolutionary ladder. Then add a notch for Thiel deleting negative comments about herslef while leaving negative comments about others. Monte has both sides on her blog.
It is really a shame to see this blog go the route of so many others. Someone says one thing (Kay posted something reasonably positive about Monte) and this has become a discussion of she said-she said. I'm not defending or negating anyone, simply trying to clarify positions for my own mind. It certainly seems the anti- Monte's have nothing better to do than lurk around looking for blogs that so much as mention Monte's name and then proceed to drag it through the mud with only flimsy excuses to do so. What is the point? Oh, yeah. If I don't already know than I can't see past my nose and it isn't worth explaining to me, right?
If I were to vote on a ballot that included Thiel and Monte, I would vote Monte just for the entertainment value.
People (like Monte) who start things have no jutification in "fighting back" when someone self-defends against them. If they (like Monte) don't want to be "attacked" they should consider their words and tactics more carefully before plowing head first into the world of mudslinging.
As far as the entertainment value, I agree the Monte bait and switch, shuffle and spin are entertaining. But the entertainment value isn't worth jeopardizing our schools over. Oh yes, and your comment about how Thiel lost to a Monte, no less, tells us you need to get your facts straight. Thiel may have lost a couple times but Monte has lost multiple times as well. And to an incumbent that her supporters said would fail miserably no less. Furthermore, no matter how many times Monte loses she stays in the public eye too. Last week's loss only shut her up for a few days. Now she's right back at it, being ugly with people and showing how she can't ever play nice.
I'm sure that I speak for many when I say that personal attacks on people are tasteless and depressing and not welcome here.
There is a difference between that and criticizing a candidate's positions or an elected official's votes. One can do that without criticizing the individual themselves.
Regarding Michelle Monte, this website has not engaged in attacking Monte, and I hope that it doesn't. I've said it before - I voted for John Lemberger and Michelle Monte. I like Michelle, although I don't agree with all of her positions as a candidate (and I'm sure she wouldn't agree with all of my positions either!)
Anonymous(es) - the best way to help yourself to avoid personal attacks is to pretend that the person you are talking about knows who you are. If you wouldn't want them to hear it come out of your mouth, don't write it.
We would like this blog to be constructive when critical and a tool for healthy dialog about our city.
THANK YOU RON!!!
Yes, Ron. Thank you for pointing out that this web site (nor it posters for that matter) have attacked Mrs. Monte. I think the best advice was from J and that was if candidates and their supporters can't handle the pressure of criticism and public scrutiny of their statements and actions, they should stay out of the kitchen.
That goes for all candidates, past and present, and all elected officials.
There is no room for "s/he started it" as justification for personal attacks. As Ron said, discuss the issues, not the person. More often than not, those discussing the person have never sat down and spoken to them and do not know them at all. Issues are out there for people to read and hear. Stick with what you know. Discuss the issues.
"...those discussing the person have never sat down and spoken to them and do not know them at all..."
This is a really good point. I've sat down and talked with both Michelle Monte and John Lemberger. That may be partially why I felt comfortable voting for them.
On the other hand, I have had several "interactions" with John Daggett, which is likely why I will NOT vote for him.
J said - those discussing the person have never sat down and spoken to them and do not know them at all. Stick with what you know. Discuss the issues.
So J do you know Theil? If not maybe you could take your own advice?
Actually, I have talked with Thiel on several occasions. At first, she was very nice and open with her positions. She does have a tendancy to openly berate those she doesn't like when she thinks you agree.
When, in one conversation, it became clear that I disagreed with her, she became very cold. I got the impression that she was no longer interested in what I had to say and had blown me off as wrong and not worth her time if I wasn't willing to listen to her and change my mind to match hers.
Likely, not everyone has had that experience, but that was mine. It left a bad taste in my mouth about her. Since that time, though, I do not bad-mouth her like she does with others. I just choose not to discuss her on a personal level. If so inclined, I will address some of her positions, but see no need to do or allow what she does on her blog and am glad to see Ron does not endorse that behavior.
Let's stick to the issues.
I've had quite the same experience with Monte. So I won't vote for someone like that.
Michelle A. Monte said...
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Here is one of the "nice" things Monte has posted on her blog:
Michelle A. Monte said...
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.
I don't necessarily agree with her conclusions or her position, but at least it isn't riddled with BS and egotistical, sanctimonious, self-serving, delusional, name-calling rants like another blog I can think of.
Tue Apr 08, 06:59:00 AM
I just don't see that "high road" you supporters are seeing and I think the voters saw enough of this side of Monte to say -- that is NOT what this board needs. It is clear from comments he made at forums (both televised and written blogs) the Mr. Lemberger is not an attacking type person. I predict the board will be much more civil now and will be much more willing to work together since the most negative force is off and the incoming member is a reasonable, soft spoken intelligent person.
Let's hope we can maintain such a board for years to come.
Well anonymous, that is one example of Mrs. Monte's "niceness." That's pretty tame compared to some of the ugliness she's spewed forth. It is that kind of nastiness that has led others to fight back. I agree with you when you say voters saw enough of it.
"I don't necessarily agree with her conclusions or her position, but at least it isn't riddled with BS and egotistical, sanctimonious, self-serving, delusional, name-calling rants like another blog I can think of."
While the comment is quite vivid, it isn't an attack on anyone personally or their character, simply a commentary on what that person allows on their blog which, in my opinion, is an endorsement of the comments. This quote was criticizing that which has been posted, not the poster or blog operator. See the difference? And having seen what is on said blog, I can't say I would have had such restraint.
That blog operator has allowed comments that ridiculed Mrs. Monte's children, her husband, made threats toward Monte, brought up her divorced name, called her names, and got very personal. Rarely were issues or platforms discussed beyond saying that Mrs. Monte doesn't get it according to anonymouses and the blog operator's opinions. Over three thousand people think she does, so who do we believe? This discussion does beg the question: Why, when something neutral or nice is said about Mrs. Monte, there are dozens of anonymous comments trashing her and saying she started it? What is the point? And why does this happen on every single blog? I am starting to think anonymous is one or two people with nothing better to do.
McDermott and Lemberger may have won, but the margin between first and fourth was less than the margin between third (Monte) and fourth (Thiel) last year.
There are no definitive conclusions to draw from this election.
I'm beginning to think those who stick up for Mrs. Monte and never see the harm in anything she says or does are one or two people with nothing better to do than pick on those who defend others against her scurrelous attacks but find her own rhetoric justifiable. Sorry J, but we reap in this world what we sow. Mrs. Monte is not immune from that.
Post a Comment