A note on the November 2002 general election: Jim Doyle actually defeated incumbent Gov. Scott McCallum in the Milwaukee County suburbs — 58,152 to 58,061 in that election. 91 votes! But let’s not forget the Ed Thompson factor. Ol’ Ed picked up enough votes in Milwaukee’s ‘burbs to affect Doyle-McCallum, though it’s anybody guess who would have received Ed’s votes.

I\’m not surprised you would complain about people who don\’t use their real names posting about Clarke. You don\’t use your own name and you\’re shilling for Clarke so drop the whining — it\’s just hypocracy.

As for your regular complaints about censorship, your comments aren\’t censored, they simply sit in a que until we approve them. We\’ve had days where we get hundreds of blog spams and we have to manually shuffle through all of them to pull out the ones that are real comments versus those which are just meant to advertise products or websites. It\’s possible that in a mass edit section, a real comment could have been deleted rather than approved but that would be the exception, not the rule. I also delete comments that add nothing to the discussion or that are heavy with profanity.

As for your justification of putting Deputy Schuh on foot patrol to punish him for speaking out in a union newsletter, you use thin logic and misunderstand the responsibilities of deputies. It is not the responsibility of deputies to patrol the streets. Clarke\’s decision to send Schuh out on foot patrol had more to do with punishment than responsibilty. The Milwaukee Police Department is responsible for policing neighborhoods — not the Sheriff\’s Department.

By Clarke\’s own actions, he helped Walker justify a cut to Clarke\’s department. If Clarke is so flush with deputies that he can duplicate City tasks, the logic holds that Walker was justified in making the cuts.

Personally I don\’t agree that either Clarke or Walker\’s actions were appropriate, but Clarke certainly can\’t complain that he doesn\’t have enough if he\’s squandering resources.

But Clarke doesn’t act as a non-partisan, he acts as an irresponsible power hungry politician. His ego got the better of himin his attack against deputy Schuh.

The overwhelming majority of Republican voters in Milwaukee County, 80,000+, will vote for Donald Holt.

I\’m not so sure what you mean by this overwhelming GOP support for Clarke is all about. I was recently at a GOP event, mainly as a spy, and I overheard a few conversations talking about Holt\’s fundraiser tonight and how they wanted Clarke out of office.

To me, it seems like the extreme edges of both parties (left and right) do not like Clarke for various reasons. But it\’s that \”gooey\” middle that make up a bulk of Clarke\’s support as evidenced by the democrats AND republicans coming out in support of Clarke. Isn\’t that the type of non-polarizing politician that we Americans should want?? The one who truly appeals to BOTH sides of the aisle??

Holt\’s status as a \”republican\” is weak at best considering he had NEVER joined the party prior to announcing his candidacy for Sheriff. I\’ve also heard rumors that the same person who recruited Bobot also recruited Holt to run against Clarke.

I do believe, however, that the position of Sheriff should NOT be partisan. It makes no sense that Sheriff is partisan yet the county executive, county supervisors, mayor, and common council are all NOT partisan yet they decide on legislation every day and the Sheriff merely enforces the lawsordinances that they pass.

Many Republicans who cared about the sheriff’s race crossed and voted for Clarke. Those who cared more about the AG’s race stayed in the GOP primary. In the city of Milwaukee, of those GOPs who kept party and voted Van Hollen-Bucher, nearly half (46 percent) did not even cast a vote in the sheriff’s race. Big problem for Holt.

With the GOP party apparatus behind Clarke, and the Democratic apparatus in the county busy with Doyle, Falk and Sullivan, the resources available for Holt are scant.

Bill, I’m looking at numbers from 2002, and those say that the overwhelming majority of GOP voters (about 85 %) voted for Franklin police chief Ken Bohn. There were about 100,000+ Republican votes in the county, factoring in ol’ Ed Thompson. That was then, this is now — the GOP is going to have a difficult time mustering that turnout in this election, which means the Democratic vote in the city will likely be enough to carry the county. Republicans will have a difficult time holding onto their edge in the county suburbs this time. Many people don’t realize that Doyle won 48% [and 8 of 18 wards] in Oak Creek. The GOP stronghold is still ‘Tosa, but Sullivan’s put that into play [though Green and especially Van Hollen will get a decent push out of there].

City of Milwaukee Democrats will carry the sherrif’s race, which means the biggest factor in Clarke’s favor is not the Republican vote but the black vote, which Holt has far less chance of getting than the Packers have of winning the NFC Central.

mkelover, you’re just missing the point. The Dem primary is over. Partisan arguments in the sheriff’s race ended Sept. 12. I suppose it should be nonpartisan, but does it matter? As we’ve been discussing, Republicans in Milwaukee County don’t often have compelling reasons to stay in their primaries and, to a man, just about everybody running for Sheriff in recent memory [maybe Pete Misko excepted] has been pretty conservative. Bobot’s a very, very conservative Dem, and nobody ever accused Baldwin and Artison of being liberals. Far from it, actually.

Wonder if Tom Reynolds and Scott Walker and the CRG and Bob Donahl would agree on Clarke’s most-hated status?

Would these same people who support both Bobot and Holt agree that the position of Sheriff should be NON-partisan? I doubt it because it would make it even tougher to oust the most hated man on this web site (Clarke).

Massive cross over for Holt?

Nobody knows this guy. He will lose.

If Democrats start jumping, Clarke could be in trouble. He will do well with the black vote, which will be out in force for Doyle … so for Holt to win, Democrats will have to jump in large numbers, and will also have to show more interest in the ins and outs of the sheriff’s race than they have so far.

In smaller unions, officials are working union member deputies elected by the membership to run the union. Bigger unions hire paid reps and have paid leadership, also elected by the membership at annual meetings.

The skyrocketing health insurance and the pension are two separate things. Skyrocketing health insurance costs are the primary driver of county fiscal woes across-the-board, though nobody would know that listening to county exec Walker and Clarke, who continue to blame any problem they have on their predecessors.

(I’m still baffled about how the guys who managed the county out of its jail overcrowding problems — Lev Baldwin, Pete Misko, Richard Cox — and got the county under legal compliance are to blame for Clarke allowing the county to fall out of compliance. Baldwin, Misko, Cox and, yes, Ament, had a lot of years under their belts and effectively worked the county out of a bad mess — Clarke and Walker then came along and fouled it up. Some people are just better at their jobs than others, obviously.)

Back to our union official - he’s just saying that any pretense made by Clarke that he understands working people’s issues is laughable. Sheriff Dave doesn’t get it, obviously.

Yes, county taxpayers should pay for the health insurance of county employees and should also contribute to pension funds (which are then invested for growth to lighten tax base load). It’s the cost of doing business and it’s the example we want government to set for private sector employers.

Does Clarke think it should come out of deputies pockets?

I can see it already from Clarke– “health insurance … it’s a HIDDEN tax.” Clownishly, Clarke then purses his lips into a Clint Eastwood grimace and holds the pose, just as he did when running for mayor, only then the issue was parking tickets. “A HIDDEN tax …” Clarke holds pose. The audience waits. Clarke continues to hold the pose, grimacing still with his best Dirty Harry face. The audience waits some more, but that’s all there is to the Clarke act. He holds the Eastwood pose some more, as if waiting for a director to yell cut. … first one, then others in the audience begin to laugh.

HOLT FOR SHERIFF!!!

The Sheriff believes that we shouldn’t have to pay for the lucrative pension plan and retirement health plan left behind by his predessor and his sidecar, er, sidekick, Tom Ament.

I’m sure Mr. Holt is a very nice man, but having worked for the State Patrol for all of those years leads me to believe a couple of things: He’d give his own mother a ticket. He’s no stranger to bureaucracy, “studying” things(instead of action), red tape and ineffectiveness. The State Patrol is part of the Wisconsin DOT, the model of ineffectiveness. Talk about an agency full of headless nails.

I’m more comfotable with a Sheriff who’s more than willing to grab a pair of pliers and remove those nails, or at least a hammer and chisel to chisel away at them.