Wednesday, March 19, 2008

Monte sings the blues

If a contest were held in Oshkosh looking for new country singing talent, I think Kent Monte would surely have a good shot at winning it. I don’t know if he can actually sing, but it’s been some time since I’ve heard someone sing the blues like he does (except for maybe his wife or those they associate with). The latest “somebody done us wrong” song was posted by Kent “Crying in My Beer (or is it ‘whine’)” Monte on Monday and several comments have been made on both the Monte blogs since then in response.

Though I’m flattered by the attention once again raining on me (and I’m not even a candidate), I always chuckle at those who try playing gotcha politics, but clearly don’t know what they’re talking about.

As part of his “Sermon on the Monte” Kent referred to my recent editorial and followed it up with his usual nonsensical comments. First, as anyone can see, neither that editorial nor an earlier one said anything about my approving of the Labor Council’s endorsement process. Second, I did not take a formal position on his wife giving her blog readers the impression that endorsements don’t mean anything in the grand scheme of election success or failure. I merely questioned why she lists all her endorsements on her blog, if that’s how she feels. Hardly “lashing out,” as Crybaby Kent called it.

He and some anonymous ninnies on both his and his wife’s blogs have also referred to positions I took on endorsements three years ago. They’ve tried desperately to make a correlation between them and my most recent editorial. But, anyone with half a brain can see they have nothing to do with each other. Moreover, contrary to what Kent has said, my position now is consistent with my position then.

I realize it may be difficult for them to stay focused on what’s important, but Kent, Michelle and their anonymous supporter(s) really should stick with issues and the candidates who are running. To do so would serve them better than to continue with their usual muckraking, especially in the final stretch of a campaign.

While on the subject of whining, I watched about 10 minutes of the recent roundtable discussion with school board candidates. That was all I could stomach. After hearing from others who suffered through the whole hour, I am glad I watched something else. The one thing I did hear right at the outset was city councilman and a discussion moderator, Paul Esslinger, bellyaching about how “at least one” venue would not invite all the school board candidates and how they (Who? He and his friends, the Montes?) didn’t think that was “fair.” It was clear he was talking about Eye on Oshkosh because we invited all school board candidates except Mrs. Monte - and with good reason.

The spin Michelle Monte put on it on another blog was that she was not invited on because her husband had become an acquaintance of an adversary of mine and she was guilty by association. This is pure, unadulterated hogwash and Michelle knows it. If what she said was true, she and Kent would not have been invited on the show during the last two elections they ran, but they were. Additionally, Ben Schneider II wouldn’t have been invited to come on either, but he was. I wouldn’t have thought a candidate for public office would have their head buried that far in the sand or be that disingenuous, but I guess anything’s possible.

I’ve previously explained why candidate Monte was not invited, but for those who missed it or who need another reminder, here we go. During the last couple of years she has regularly made or allowed negative comments about the show or its hosts on her blog. Included in that, she (and Kent, too) has either made and/or allowed slanderous comments about my reporting and professional ability to appear on the Monte blogs. Yet, despite that, they and their friends apparently live in such a world of entitlement that they still believe she has the right to come on the show. Without a doubt that is the height of hypocrisy. Here's some advice for them: If I'm such a lousy journalist, so unfair, so biased and the show is so irrelevant, be grateful you don’t have to be associated with it and move on, people. Don't keep whining about it.

On the positive side of things, I find it flattering that despite everything, they continue to watch the show and read the blog. So much for “irrelevancy.”


Blogger Mike Norton said...

Dear Cheryl :

Why was Paul Esslinger moderating a forum or discussion among candidates for Oshkosh Area School Board of Education when he has endorsed one of the candidates ??

Mike N

March 19, 2008 10:27 PM  
Blogger Kent Monte said...

First of all Cheryl, I don't sing nor was I "singing the blues". I was simply pointing out that you are a hypocrite.

Second, you clearly support the decision that AFL-CIO took regarding the endorsement of other candidates. If you didn't, you wouldn't have posted it and given your "opinion". To be frank, I was pleased that Michelle wasn't endorsed by either group.

Third, I am not now nor am I planning on running for office. It is MY opinion and MY time used to give it. Michelle really had nothing to do with it.

Fourth, because of number three, I do not have to focus on anything much less the "issues" that you aren't focused on either (since you took the time out of your busy schedule to lash out in such an extensive post).

Fifth, not inviting Michelle to your show was intentional because of your dislike for us, period. Any other reason you dream up is hogwash and YOU know it.

Sixth, If you feel that you have been slandered on our blogs, hire a lawyer and take your chances. Nothing that was posted was any different that what has been posted on your or other blogs about us. It is far from slanderous because it is the truth. This has been discussed at length when you were "slighted" by comments that I subsequently removed. There are plenty others that you never saw because I deleted rather than approve them. Get off your high horse and stomach a little criticism (you called me a "crybaby").

And finally, if you think that I am trying to "flatter" you, you are living in fantasy land. I really didn't care what you thought about my post. People can read it and know the real truth. They can see your words and contridictions and know that you would say anything to support your accusations and "mis-information".

In the meantime, have a wonderful evening and I look forward to your last minute attempt to bash on Michelle before the election. You have become predictable and recognizable on other sites (anonymous or otherwise). ;)

March 19, 2008 10:39 PM  
Blogger Teresa Thiel said...

To answer Mike Norton I would guess Esslinger was moderating a forum so his candidates could have the questions in advance so they had a better chance of making sense when answering and they could line up all their attacks and misinformation about other candidates well in advance.

Can you even believe that Esslinger and the Montes go around calling other people biased...It's not like either Esslinger or Burnell had a handle on the school district issues... Burnell almost insisted that Mr. Lemberger served on the facilities committee (he did not).

I am so tired of the Monte's whining all the time and attacking people and then being "shocked" by people answering back.

For goodness sake, Cheryl asks a question and Kent has to do a whole blog piece on the "attack". How a simple question can be an attack is beyond me, but then I'm looking for logic from the illogical.

March 20, 2008 12:17 AM  
Blogger Cheryl Hentz said...

Response to Kent Monte:

My first observation is you're not too good with tongue in cheek comments.

Second you may have been trying to point out what you view as hypocrisy on my part, but you failed miserably and people with even a small amount of common sense and an ability to read can see that. Now you're saying that to post a press release or something else I receive means I agree with it? Wow, and you talk about me living in fantasyland. Also, what opinion did I give on the endorsement? Moreover, how do my positions on endorsements from three years ago differ today? You still haven't been able to successfully make that point. Save yourself the time and effort, because it's not possible, Kent.

Third, you say I'm not focused on the issues. More silliness, Kent. The show has covered the issues. As for other issues, one of my issues is defending myself against the nonsense you and your kind continue to put out there in the public, especially as it related to my work. Much of the time I've just let it go and not responded. This time I decided to say something. That may not always be the case, but this time it seemed worth the effort.

Fourth, you claim I didn't invite Michelle on the show because I don't like you people. You're right about the fact that I don't like you, and I haven't for some time. Still, I've invited both you and Michelle on the show, even as late as last year. That was, of course, before some other things happened but it shows your excuses are lame and hold no water.

I've already addressed the slander part and am not going to continue to belabor the point. And while some comments may have been deleted, others haven't been.

As far as bashing on Michelle, I've been relatively silent on giving my opinion on school board issues and have rarely even mentioned her name (or have you forgotten that was one of the complaints someone anonymously wrote on another blog that you also contributed to, so I'm sure you saw it). So again, your comments, though you may think they sound good, are lacking substance and support.

Finally, spare me the wishes for a wonderful evening. I find them as insincere as most of the things you people say and do.

March 20, 2008 12:27 AM  
Blogger CJ said...

Kids- Y'all are embarrassing yourselves. Stop, please. Both here and on KM's blog.

March 20, 2008 11:42 AM  
Blogger Cheryl Hentz said...

CJ, while I respect your position and have ignored many of the comments from the Monte "camp" for some time, there comes a time when enough is enough. That time came this week. Yes, my words and professional work speak for themselves, but that does not mean I just have to let them say whatever they want and get away with it, especially when it's wrong. You strike me as a reasonable person, so I would hope you could understand that.

Now I see Mr. Monte will no long publish anything on his blog containing my name or web sites. This is delightful news; something I'd hoped for for some time. Let's hope he extends that "ban" to cover comments that contain no names but are suggestive enough in nature that the reader can tell who or what is being referenced. Otherwise, it is a moot point.

March 20, 2008 2:43 PM  
Blogger Kent Monte said...

It will Cheryl, you have my assurance on that.

Please feel free to monitor.

The first "modified" comment was posted a short time ago that removed any reference to you.

I would appreciate the same courtesy. We can be adults despite our differences. I can admit that my judgement has lapsed a time or two in the past. It won't again.

March 20, 2008 6:46 PM  
Blogger Cheryl Hentz said...

Thank you; and yes, we are monitoring both the Monte sites. Pity your wife doesn't seem to have enough brains (or maybe it's just plain old common-sense) to follow your lead. I had a chance to see her most recent posting about me. Very "interesting" stuff. Predictable too. She has quite a different definition of "an opinion" than people in the legal profession (the archive is getting pretty full). She publishes comments like that, and then wonders why people think she's mean, vile and two-faced. Pretty scary to think she could be that out of touch.

April 06, 2008 6:36 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home