Which Slate Are You?

Walerooter. The rest of them are merely politicians, and nary a marsupial in the bunch.

(And you know, Liz, when the Walerooski gets elected Montclair Mayor for life, he will probably be moving to the crawl space under the Municipal Building, so can I assume that the ... intimate ... little grotto under your porch might just be available?)

Repeat after me: you can't vote for a whole slate! Just mayor/your ward/2 at-large folks! Really, it's a little confusing for people already--don't make it worse by getting them to think they can pick the 1st ward candidate, for instance, if they don't live there.

the Honorable Conan has got his house in order. Do you?

Don't b e a shrew
Vote Walleroo!

It will be revealing to see how the election outcome compares to the Baristanet poll.

"He's da man da people chews,
Loves the Irish and Jews,
Vote Walleroo, vote Walleroo!"

"What began as a whisper has now swelled to a chorus."

Despite what this poll is telling us, Joyce Michaelson's Partnership slate (status quo, establishment, special interest) is very much in the front runner's position. They have a huge number of supporters that are the Montclair old guard. A group with many not on the internet or not on Baristanet. Many of them know that a donation or a pledge of support will result in something down the road.

Michaelson?s group doesn?t respect the Baristanet community. They don?t think we can make a difference in the election. They don't think we have the numbers or the motivation. That makes all the incumbents ripe for an upset.?

We have nothing against the Unity and Thrive slates. Other than the incumbents, they are made up of honorable, hard working, and intelligent citizens of Montclair. But we learned a lot from the last election. Michaelson's slate is likely to win because the two anti-establishment slates will split the CHANGE vote. We learrned from history. We don't want to repeat it.?

The best of all the CHANGE candidates have the best chance at upseting Michaelson's Partnership slate.?

The CONSOLIDATED CHANGE (a.k.a. CLEAN) slate:

Mayor-Jerry Fried (Unity)
At-Large-Starr Daniels (Thrive)
At-Large-Kathryn Weller (Unity)
First Ward- Roger Plawker (Thrive)
Second Ward-Cary Africk (Unity)
Third Ward-Nick Lewis (Unity)
Fourth Ward-Dr. Renee Baskerville (Independent)

None of these candidates are personal friends. No business relationships. They are just the cleanest outsiders running to lead this town.?

We need to turn the page and breath some fresh air.

thomas
pamphleteer76@gmail.com

"Paine" stop with the scare tactics and telling people how to vote. The Watercoolor poll shows Joyce way behind also. It may not be 100% accurate, but on what basis do you have to tell us Joyce is the sure winner unless we vote they way you want us to?

And if i was truly to buy into your plan, I'd want to know who you really are. How do i know you are not a candidate trying to get us to vote for the people you want...or some developer in town that is trying to get us to vote for the people that best serve your interests?

So stop with the scare tactics. They're unfounded. and if you really want people to vote for your plan, come clean as to who you really are so we can determine if you have some ulterior motive behind these picks.

BTW, the "change" ticket had all of 4 votes when i went to bed last night and seemed to magically catch up overnight." Either the ticket has a lot of real night owl supporters, or you're trying to rig the results to make people think you have more support than you actually do.

Dear Brandnew,

The beautiful thing about the Baristanet is that it's not who you are but the logic of your words. Names and reputations don't clutter up the arguments. And, people with power can't get back at you for telling the truth.

Do I make sense? Is this the truth?

1) Did the established incumbents win the election in 2004 with much less than the majority? (yes)

2) Did Joyce Michaelson get the most votes in the last election? (yes)

3) Was the anti-establishment vote much more in 2004 but too split up to make a difference? (yes)

4) Do you want that to happen again?

5) Is anyone on the non-incumbent CONSOLIDATED CHANGE (a.k.a. CLEAN) slate not a pretty good candidate?

Is this just common sense?

Baristanet has been asked to post the following:

Since the "Citizens Concerned for the Future of Montclair" have now formally released their fantasy slate, I must wonder why I was never even interviewed before this group made their decision. My enthusiasm and vision for Montclair, added to the facts that I am an advocate by profession and a parent of 3 active and happy children in the Montclair public schools, makes me a candidate worth considering in any type of fantasy. I want to work for Montclair and look into smart and creative solutions to our fiscal crisis. I want to listen to my fellow Montclairians and understand where we need to focus our energy to improve our life here. I want to be able to make decisions that will benefit Montclair as a whole. I want to see our diversity, our beautiful ethnic, cultural, religious, racial, family, and age diversity, thrive in our community. So, to the concerned citizens of Montclair-- please stay concerned and on May 13th, election day, consider voting for Sumana Rangachar for Councilor-at-Large.

Sincerely,

Sumana Rangachar

Candidate for Councilor-At-Large
Thrive Montclair

That's the roblem, your words have no logic...they are just scare tactics trying to get people to vote for YOUR choices. So no, it does not make sense and it is not the truth.

I'd be more likely to vote for YOUR choices if I new you were not Fried or Plawker (to name two of your choices) or Grabowski or Plofker, etc.

So congrats on trying to scare people into voting for the people you want to see elected.

A split ticket is a fine idea, but people, make your own choices.

I'd be more likely to vote for YOUR choices if I new you were not Fried or Plawker (to name two of your choices) or Grabowski or Plofker, etc.

Fried, Plawker, Grabowski and Plofker? Now that's what I call a Slate! I sure hope there's some system in place where we can write-in candidates on Tuesday.

Sumana Rangachar should not have run with Mattox. If she had picked another slate, she may be more palatable to voters. But many people know Mattox' true colors and that will prevent them for voting for Ms. Rangachar. Also, does anyone realize that Katherine Weller, on Unity Montlclair;s slate, is the daughter of the principal of Rand School? Ms. Weller, no matter how well intentioned, won't be able to sit on the Brd of School Estimate, won't be able to vote on anything related to Montclair schools which is the biggest tab for the town. It would be a conflict of interest. I'm surprised Mattox' slate has not pointed this out.

So you're saying you like her, but you won't vote for her because she is running with Mattox...even though you can vote for her and not Mattox?

I applaud Sumana for going on record regarding the Consolidated Change slaye. She has earned my respect.

One need not read between the lines to ascertain her rightful discomfort with her fellow Thrive candidates.

It's disturbing to see the two supposedly progressive slates, Thrive and Unity not taking a stand against the Consolidated Change slate.

If I were the leader of either of those slates, which I am not, I'd politely ask my colleagues to disavow their relationship with Consolidated Change. I had considered voting for several of the candidates now on the Consolidated Change slate. Until I hear them disavow themselves I will not vote for any of them.

For me it is outrageous that these candidates have remained silent and are willing to play both sides of the fence. Montclair deserves better.

Fried, Daniels, Weller, Plawker, Africk, and Lewis; DISAVOW YOURSELVES FROM THE CONSOLIDATED CHANGE SLATE NOW or forwever hold your peace.

(BTW-Although it seems as though I am a Partnership Montclair supporter nothing could be farther from the truth.)

Thank you for your concern and dedication, Ms. Rangachar. I wish you the best of luck.

I won't vote for anyone who can't figure out how to register on baristanet!

Post it yourself Sumana, just like the rest of us!

"I applaud Sumana for going on record regarding the Consolidated Change slate. She has earned my respect."

1. Of course she is against it. She is not included in the CCS. No where in her post does she say the she would not have accepted this endorsement if offered. Her main dispute is that she was not interviewed by the "Citizens Concerned for the Future of Montclair" prior the endorsements being made. No where in her post does she even mention the Thrive Montclair Slate, no less say that we should vote for it, only that we should "consider voting for Sumana Rangachar for Councilor-at-Large."

2. Ted Maddox has not renounced the his endorsement by Bobbi Reily, even though she has also endorsed Roger Terry, who is running against his slate mate, Ms. Rangachar.

3. Individuals, established groups and ad-hoc groups are always endorsing people in elections. Usually these endorsements follow party lines, but sometimes they don't. I have yet to here of a Republican turning down an endorsement from some group because they have also endorsed a Democrat or vice versa.

I see no reason why Mr. Maddox or any of those candidates endorsed by Mr. Paine et al should to down endorsements from those who do not endorse their entire ticket.

I would not trust the reliability of this poll. If you turn off your cookies in your web browser, you can vote as many times as you want. Anyone who wants to skew the results of the poll can easily do so.

I wondered why Thrive had so many "votes". More dirty dealing from THRIVE. Why am I surprised?

Actually Partnership is winning by a good margin...

That being said, i'm sure there are a lot of duplicate votes in every category.

It seems many RESIDENTS are wanting a Consolidated/Clean Slate, not the candidates. (well at least not publicly).