Last night’s monthly Democratic Party of Milwaukee County meeting had a surprise visitor: Sheriff David Clarke. 
Although Clarke continually runs as an “independent Democrat” in elections, his views are often in direct conflict with those of most Democrats. Many feel that he uses the “Democrat” label to win elections as a conservative candidate because someone who more accurately identified themselves as a “Republican” would never win in Milwaukee. Top it off with his alignment to conservative candidates across the state and writing for the “Wisconsin Conservative Digest” and, well, it’s no secret that many Democrats in Milwaukee County feel “used” and harbor some resentment for our Sheriff.
So you can imagine the collective gasp when he walked through the door to the monthly meeting last night. Things were polite however, and he was introduced, welcomed, and given the chance to speak to those in attendance.
Sheriff Clarke kept his remarks short, only speaking the obvious: that we didn’t always agree on the issues, that he’s had a strong amount of support from Democrats, especially in Milwaukee, that he appreciated the chance to speak, and that we didn’t always agree on many issues.
Although I disagree with many of the stances the Sheriff has taken in the past and many of his actions as Sheriff, I do give him credit for showing up in what he had to know was going to be a less than friendly crowd. It takes a lot of guts to get up and speak in front of an audience like that, and to his credit, he stayed through the entire meeting which lasted much longer than normal.
A true test of patience is debating whether a motion to end debate of a resolution precludes a motion to table a resolution.
After the meeting, I was thinking about why Sheriff Clarke attended last night’s meeting, and came to two possible answers. One, he’s genuinely interested in becoming a more active part of the Democratic party and is taking the steps to gain back support from many grassroots Democrats in Milwaukee.
The other possibility, which may be closer to reality, is that he realizes the “independent Democrat” thing isn’t going to work forever and in a future race he will very much need the support of Democrats in Milwaukee. In last year’s primary for Milwaukee Sheriff, he ran a close race with Vince Bobot, who was strongly backed by the Democratic party. So much so that the our party constitution was changed just so we could back a candidate who was a “real Democrat” during the primary.
It’s speculation at this point, but Sheriff Clarke attending a Milwaukee County Democrats meeting may be his first step towards running for political office again in 2008.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
Did you say a wolf in sheeps clothing? For how long has Sheriff Clarke mocked and insulted the Democratic Party? For how long has he endorsed republicans and worked to secure their election to office. Please don’t be fooled by his charm and good looks. This sheriff is doing his best to revive a failing political career. Don’t let him do it on the backs of the democratic party.
Clarke is cynically trying to neutralize some active Dems. Next time someone says he’s not a real Democrat, he’ll say, “I even go to party meetings.”
Bet he hasn’t joined yet.
He’s a phony through and through. I helped him with his first campaign because I was dumb enough to believe his lie about being a Dem, and that he was running as a Dem even though Scott McCallum, who appointed him, wanted him to run on the GOP ticket. He later admitted that the truth was just the opposite, and McCallum’s people had told him to run as a Dem.
Of course, he’s running for office again — for mayor.
If the Democrats fall for this, they’re fools, and it will damage the local party for a long time to come. I could see a third (well, second here) party because of it.
Fall for his charm, and see what happens with those of us who are reality-based about all his lies all these years on the ballot. And, worse, all his honest statements about his actual beliefs.
BTW, 90% of the people who move to table a motion have no clue what that means or implies. They use it as an easy way to kill a motion (it requires a simple majority, rather than the 2/3 that calling the question requires) when it’s supposed to be used simply for temporarily interrupting current business and then returning to discussing the motion at a later time. There’s a time limit for motions on the table, which is why it’s wrongly used to kill a motion so often. It’s anti-democratic to do that, because it allows a simple majority to stifle discussion, instead of a 2/3 majority, but that doesn’t stop ordinarily decent people from doing it.
Oh, and motion to table takes precedence over calling the question.
You’re a true parliamentarian Arlen, thanks for the correction :)