Meeting With Assembly-person Elect Dan Knodl...

I enjoyed a meeting and cup of coffee with Dan Knodl on the Friday after Thanksgiving.  He had indicated a willingness to meet since we hadn't yet had that opportunity.

We discussed his campaign 'issues' and he appeared to be very contrite, wishes that it hadn't happened and indicated that he was ready to face the penalty.  I felt that he was being honest and forthright during this discussion.  He recognizes that this will dog him for a good long time to come, but wants to do a good job for the district and hopes to eventually move beyond this chapter in his elected life.

His purpose in our meeting was to indicate that he wanted to "stay grounded" and open lines of communication with people throughout the district.  He indicated that he had already tendered his resignation from the Washington County Board; I'm not certain of the effective date of that resignation.  I believe that spot will be filled by appointment with the full Board's approval.

We joked about the 'broom closet' he was likely to be given as his Madison office since the 'newbies' who are also in the minority are not among the favored.  He said that he would qualify to have a single staff person and that he was already involved in the interview process and hoped to have made his decision by December 15th.  His choice will likely be made from among seasoned staff people who were working for a member that lost his or her re-election bid and were seeking a new position.

He said that he intended to spend a lot of time in the district so that he could keep himself abreast of its needs, and so that he didn't fall into the "trap" of being caught up in the position where people are all trying to make you feel good so that you'll support their position on this and that.  He is working now to identify issues that he can begin to work on hoping that this will help him establish his credibility even as a minority freshman assembly-person.

He professes to be a conservative.  He mentions his business experience and indicates that he is a 'property rights' believer.  He mentioned that he will remain a member of the Wisconsin Tavern League but will not be involved in leadership roles as he had been.  He understands that it will be very difficult for him to establish his credibility especially since the Republicans are in the minority in both the Assembly and the Senate.

He has developed a list of issues that he hopes to become involved with, and indicated that he was open to people's suggestions for additions to this list.  Among the items already on the list are spending reductions through things such as the sale of some state-owned property that could benefit both the state treasury and the communities that would acquire newly taxable property within their borders.

I would invite readers to offer their thoughts for Mr. Knodl as to issues that are important in this coming two-year period.  I'd also like to encourage his periodic contributions to this Blog as a guest writer if his schedule permits.  He was stung by some of the comments (relating to his family) that were posted to my earlier Blogs.  I indicated that I am not permitted to edit comments, but that, had I that opportunity again, I'd probably have decided to pull the offensive comment in its entirety, which I am permitted to do.

All in all, we had a good first visit.

Congressional 5th District...

Congressman Sensenbrenner (R) easily defeated challenger Burkee (R) by a vote of 47,157 (78%) to 13,083 (22%).  This race appeared to be quite competitive if all the pundits were to be believed.  Burkee started with a very conservative message that seemed to fade into a somewhat conservative message.  That very probably is what turned the tide.  That and the support of the Journal Sentinel and Shepherd Express for Burkee spelled the end to this challenge.

To be fair, Sensenbrenner was very engaged this time around given the perceived threat.  But, Burkee just couldn't mount a serious challenge in the final analysis.

Assembly District 24...

This was a wide open race with four Republicans and two Democrats in the fray.  Brady (D) waged a very quiet campaign with knocks on doors giving her exposure rather than advertisements.  Lauer (D) spent a good deal more money but apparently was done in by name recognition and maybe lack of a resonating message to inspire Democrat voters.

Three of the four Republicans seemed to be 'everywhere' with signage and mailers.  One of those, Melchert, easily buried the other two with his spending.  The fourth Republican barely showed his face.

It is interesting to look at the money spent in this primary race (based upon state filings with Dan Knodl's being incomplete and filed only through June 30th while the balance reflect filings as of September 8th) .  While one might expect the actual race to carry a big price tag, this seat is usually solid Republican.  Unless there is some kind of bombshell, this race is virtually a foregone conclusion.

• Charlene Brady (D) spent $274.04, and won her race with 564 votes that cost her $0.49 each.
• Torrey Lauer (D) spent $5,602.59, and lost his race with 386 votes that cost him $14.51 each.

 ~~~~~~

• Dan Knodl (R) spent $17,072.32, won his race with 2,706 votes that cost him $6.31 each.
• Jason LaSage (R) spent $5,921.18, came in second with 2,312 votes that cost him $2.56 each.
• Randy Melchert (R) spent $33,754.76, came in third with 1,995 votes that cost him $16.92 each.
• Michael Moscicke (R) spent $46.00, came in fourth with 215 votes that cost him $0.21 each.

What does all this mean?  That is difficult to fathom but here are some points:

• Name recognition seems to carry significant weight with both current Washington County Supervisors carrying their respective races.
• Money didn't make the biggest difference in the Republican race.  LaSage seemed to make more door-to-door visits than Melchert and spent 17.5% of what Melchert spent and garnered more votes.
• A total of $62,670.89 was spent in the Assembly race for which 8,178 people turned out.  That seems to be a relatively low "return on investment".
• Future contestants may well be dissuaded from running simply because they can't spend 'enough' money.
• One candidate contributed $30,000 to his own campaign; that seems quite grandiose to me.
• Finally, if the ultimate winner holds the Assembly seat for eight or ten terms, he or she will probably think the initial investment was quite reasonable.

Would term limits be something we should consider in state politics?  As was pointed out in a week-end newspaper article, term limits have certainly not held the state of Colorado back from growth, low taxes and good educational results. 

The latest count on the race to replace Sue Jeskewitz is now standing at five.  Randy Melchert (R) and Jason LaSage (R) have been involved in our Assembly "Debate" series as you know.

The additional filed candidates are:

Ms. Charlene Brady (D), a Germantown resident who is currently serving on the Washington County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Torrey Lauer (D), a Germantown resident

Mr. Dan Knodl (R),  Germantown resident who is currently serving on the Washington County Board of Supervisors

We hope to obtain the agreement of the three additional candidates to participate in the Assembly "Debate" Blog series that has begun.  If one or more decide to do so, we'll ask them the same questions already published and print a 'catch-up' Blog to get all five on the same topics from that point forward.

There is still time for another candidate or two if I remember correctly.  I believe that July 8th is the final date for the Declaration of Candidacy filing.

We should have a spirited discussion as we move toward the primary election in early-September.

Random thoughts:

• The turn-out by voters in Germantown was reported to be some 34%, as contrasted with the statewide prediction of only about 20%.  That may well be a 'victory' for the group that was pushing its agenda using postcards and telephone calls.  I suspect that this group stimulated a greater turnout than would've otherwise been the case.  That is a good thing.
• It seems though that the voters were not swayed sufficiently so as to follow the suggestions made by this group.  Those who were criticized by this group seem to have fared well enough to win.  Those who were 'favored' by not being attacked by this group didn't fare as well.  Are we likely done with this kind of electioneering in Germantown?  I am admittedly naive, but I'm not that naive.  I expect these tactics will continue to be seen in future Germantown elections.
• The need for some kind of solution to the school crowding in the Germantown district will have to be addressed at some point in the future.  It may be that a scaled down version of the defeated proposition will find its way to a ballot later this year.  If so, I suspect we'll see higher interest rates and increases in all the associated costs so that, even if the total bond issue were to be reduced, the ultimate costs could very well exceed what would've been the case with this issue.  The reported 55% to 45% margin was a bit surprising; I had suspected the issue might have been outvoted by a larger number.  The smaller turn-out obviously included a higher number of voters who favored the referendum.  That might be expected in a non-Presidential election.
• The face of the School Board changes a bit.
• The state Supreme Court race was critical, in my view, and the conservative won albeit by a relatively slim margin.  That bodes well for the state.
• There is a large segment of new members elected to the Washington County Board.  What that will mean can only be determined as we see the outcome of the various issues that will face this new board.  I hope that we will see special attention paid to holding down spending and thus taxes.  Maybe my naivite' is showing again.
• And, the 'Frankenstein Veto' has died at the hands of the voters.  That, also, is a very good thing without regard to which party might control the Governor's Mansion.

All in all, the voters have spoken and our representative form of government is working as was intended.

Wisconsin citizens get the opportunity to vote on whether or not the 'Frankenstein Veto' should be eliminated by constitutional amendment.  This was made possible when the Assembly gave its final approval yesterday. 

The question will appear on the April 1st ballots.

As you'll probably remember, Governor Doyle found letters, numbers and punctuation marks across many pages of the budget to enable him to cobble together a new budget item that transferred some $470,000 from the transportation fund to another pet program that the legislature had not given him.

His spokespersons, of course, decry the elimination of this 'tool' since it gives them the opportunity to protect us from the evil legislature whenever it is misguided from Doyle's perspective.

I often disagree with legislative actions, but I have to believe that we're better off not having the governor armed with this ability.  No matter your feelings about the current governor, do you want future governors to have this kind of a tool?

You will also have the opportunity to help shape the future of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, choose your state senator, vote on the school referendum and school board members, and elect county supervisors and village trustees.  Mark April 1st on your calendar (and ignore the fact that this is also "April Fool's Day').