A few predictions

For those of you just stopping by, I’ll mention this blog goes dormant on January 12. There are a few things to get to before that day! One is a few predictions. I won’t be online when it all comes to pass, but I thought I’d give it a go anyway.

I believe the Brookfield mayoral slate is set. I do think Steve Ponto will win. I also think – and this is new! – Ponto will rearrange a few things and recruit 2nd District Alderman Bob Reddin as Chief of Staff. That will leave the 2nd district to be appointed. It might need to be that the 2nd district elects their own appointment next April instead of relying upon the Council. Right now Reddin is running unopposed.

I think Scott Walker will win the Republican nomination, but Tom Barrett will be the next Governor. Walker’s campaign has been sloppy and heavy handed to date. It’s going to hack off a lot of independents and send Barrett to Madison. (You do have the power to control that, Republicans. Will you bother?)

Republicans will continue to flounder in this state. You don’t really need to look any further than Fairly Conservative to catch that one. Every time I fail to walk lock-step with those predetermined leaders, I get hammered. Wisconsin voters are much too independent to let that happen to them.

(I find it incredibly amusing that I received dozens of press releases if I spoke well of an elected official, but was yanked from the list the first time I criticized. Hello elected. If you can’t take the heat you are in the wrong business.)

Wisconsin, if you want proof of a Republican message that works, look to Oklahoma. My thinking, that fiercely independent streak that has no problem mandating accountability, is revered in that state. Remember Oklahoma was pretty much the most Republican state in the country for the last presidential election.

Holding your own accountable would be a heck of a good start.

Obama will fail the hard-left who fought so hard for him to win. The climate summit is imploding. The public option for health care is gone and health care reform may not happen at all. The wars will go on through his entire term.

I do see him at one term. My crystal ball isn’t clear on whether or not Republicans manage the White House in 2012, though. There is still so much work to do. A moderate Democrat could step in and take it all.

Palin will cash out and sit back and laugh. Like me, her brand of feet-to-the-fire Republicanism will create waves, but not catch on with the money-paying establishment in the party. She’ll continue to shape the agenda in whatever way she can.

That’s it for now. I may think of other things later and reserve the right to continue the babble. šŸ˜‰


  1. A week ago you said “Mr. Hell, Iā€™m not Republican…”. Well the tone of your latest post smacks of sucking up to the righties. Especially the comment about Sarah. An independent Republican? Sounds like some evolution concept to me. Oh wait – evolution IS just a concept.

  2. I’d love to be a Republican, Mr. Hell. It seems my brand doesn’t fit in the mold.

    You are grossly naive in your comment, by the way. Not all Republicans find evolution an outlying concept. I think you just want to pigeonhole someone.

  3. Bob Reddin for Chief of Staff? Is that the same Bob Reddin who, as a consultant, sat in a Town of Cedarburg meeting(s) that may have been in viloation of the Open Meetings Law? Sounds like he’d fit right in at City Hall, Cindy.

    President Obama, a single term? I can buy into that. He failed to recognize the single most important issue facing the country, the economy. Health care reform, climate change,
    the Afghan War, the Chicago Olympic bid šŸ™‚ and the economy all in ten months? No way…

  4. Sorry to break it to you, but Ponto has a few Open Meetings issues of his own. Yes, peas in a pod.

  5. You’re looking at the wrong side of the equation.

    I don’t think the GOP could win back the Presidency if Obama had Tiger Woods move into the White House.

    This group could screw up a cup of coffee.


    Why have a chief of staff at $100,000 yr or so ? What are Steve’s open meetings issues ? Why not have a series of open debates/discussions between the worthy candidates ?

  7. I’m sure they will after the primary.

  8. Dick, has it occurred to you that as a self proclaimed “worthy candidate”, it is up to YOU to start the discussion? Are you admitting that you have nothing to offer in terms of policy but only wish to pick apart the thoughtful proposals of others?

    That doesn’t sound like leadership from a person who claims to have “been there, done that.”

    Or perhaps you’d like to explain why Judge Davis overturned your decision on the Ryan May case 2008CV000887.
    That was the straw that broke the camel’s back among your peers. If only a REAL journalist would pick that story up instead of all these amateur Jack Anderson wannabees floundering about.

  9. Scott,

    Why aren’t you this aggressive against candidates that actually are unworthy and not lash out against a respected judge? It seems you have an agenda.

  10. Who am I to decide for you who is “unworthy”? Wouldn’t you rather have all the facts and decide for yourself? Cindy has compared to Speaker to a serial murderer (June 15, 2009) and no one flinched, so why should I do otherwise?

    For example, I have included the link to Mr. Bieleinski’s web site on several occasions and no one has commented one way or the other. Click on the blog in the lower left. Is that the sort of thing you are interested in?

  11. Dear Scott,

    I won’t miss you at all. One might say, however, that “superficial charm, an exaggerated sense of self-worth, glibness, lying, lack of remorse and manipulation of others” really applies to you much better.

    Here’s the link, folks.

  12. DICK STEINBERG says:

    Judges/Reserve Judges do not discuss their decisions off the record. On CCAP the case you mention states “Appeal From Municipal Court Judgment”. Either party may file an appeal from Municipal Court for a trial de novo (new trial) to Circuit Court and request a jury trial.there was litigation from 3-1-08 to 10-16-08. There was a motion hearing and a Court decision. No other documents are on CCAP so you must have a personal source of information. Municipal Judges do not get these decisions nor did I in 34 years so you know more than me. My peers elected my twice as President of the Wisconsin Municipal Judges’ Association and are well aware of my accomplishments. Scott, you are part of the problem at city hall. The other alderpersons are dedicated and seek no publicity.

  13. Scott Berg says:

    Well, let’s set aside the massive conspiracy theory for long enough to use some common sense.

    The CCAP record says this was an appeal filed by the City of Brookfield to circuit court regarding a decision you made. Appeals are never welcomed by a judge since they imply the judge made a significant error and justice was not served. Since the questionable (and overturned) decision was made near the end of your term, it may inform on your comprehension, acuity and other cognitive skills. Certainly relevant questions for any mayoral candidate!

    Your decision must have been to throw the case out since the prosecution (city) would not appeal a guity finding and the defendant wouldn’t protest (!) a not guilty fnding.

    The CCAP record includes phrases like, “Notice Of Intent To Suspend Operating Privilege Temporary Driving Permit” and “Alcohol/Drug Influence Reports” so it’s not too hard to guess that it was a drunk driving case and you decided that there was a defect in procedure, no probable cause for making the arrest, etc. Perhaps you let a drunk driver go on a “technicality”.

    Since this apparent drunk driving arrest had to be made in the city, there must be an arrest report by a city policeman and which would now be considered a public record. A simple open records request to the Brookfield Police should reveal the circumstances of the arrest. Anyone willing to put away the Oreos and leave the comfort of their basement command center could ask for that.

    So, you see, just the CCAP record gives a lot of information about an apparent judicial error made by you. No secret sources required. The fact that the last entry is the defendant being found guilty, fined, license revoked, etc. shows another judge had a very different view of the arrest than you did.

    So, no vast conspiracy. No judges talking out of school. Just a revealing decision. If you’re going to claim you’re the best candidate for office, you’d better be ready to discuss the details of all of your decisions as documented by the public record.

    By the way, how is making the voters well informed seeking publicity for myself? Is an honor awarded to you years ago relevant to how you will act as mayor in the coming years? Why are you suddenly trying to divert attention?

  14. Dear Scott,

    You can go away now. Really. No one will miss you.


  15. DICK STEINBERG says:

    Scott. you have crossed the line of average know how. As a friend of my beloved Son who is a successful lawyer you are the “pits”. No lawyer would ever talk like that without every fact. So. I will challenge you and your friend Jeff to a debate on any issue you want asap at any place you and your friend want. Shake off the cover for Jeff so you can get a full time job in city hall. As a veteran of the military I have no fear of you or your kind. It is most unfortunate as Cindy correctly pointed out that the real debate will come after the primary when your friend will and should survive. No excuses just name the time and place. As a scholarship athlete in college in baseball and basketball, a handball winner and now a tennis player youi name the game.tennis tennis plahyertennis player tennis compedtitor name the game.

  16. DICK STEINBERG says:

    sorry i tried to correct the statement you name the game, but my computer had a glitch. we used talk to each other in plain talk. Scott could only get this info that even judges and lawyers can’t get from a personal source, the mayor jeff and ex-police officer who must protect his back side in case he loses and re-joins the police dept. This is exactly why I moved the court office from the police dept. to a neutral location and create a truly independent court. Emily Post: “don’t pretend to know something you don’t know”. Let the games begin.

  17. Dick, sorry about that. I’m pretty sure your computer glitch is a javascript error on this end. You’re the second person in the last couple of days who has mentioned they tried to edit and it didn’t work.

    My advice for now? Be really careful before you hit “submit reply.”

    There will likely be an update for the plugin soon, but until then, you all are on your own. šŸ˜‰

  18. I’m always amazed at Scott Berg’s contributions on this blog.

    Why? I mean why do you Scott?

    Actually, I believe that a requirement of citizenship for Brookfield should be to meet or speak with Scott. Don’t you?

    I first became offended at Scott’s political behavior when I watched an ambush video he made of a discussion between he and Cindy. Wow, I remember thinking – this is one malicious puppy.

  19. Oh, great, Wilson828. I’m sure you’ve encouraged him to do it again. (Thank goodness I don’t remember what you’re talking about!)

    Really, truly, one of the best reasons to give up the blog and fade into Brookfield’s woodwork is getting rid of Scott Berg. He knows if he continues to follow me, I’ll take the actions necessary, but I will give him a couple of months to finally back off. It’s my greatest hope he will simply leave me alone.

    Of course, it would be nice if he would finally get the help he so desperately needs and not choose to make anyone else the focus of his bizarre attention.

  20. DICK STEINBERG says:

    Ditto to the above. What law school did the finance chairman attend ? Again, an appeal from a municipal court to a circuit court is a request for a new trial, that is, you can start all over and the municipal court case is not precedent. Some lawyers use municipal court for discovery to get information because of the limited municipal court pre-trial discovery. In circuit court then either side may have new witnesses, new testimony, new legal argument, a jury trial and a new judge. I stand on all my decisions and in this case, as I remember, the city and the defendant failed to testify under oath which of the 4 tires was flat, a technicality but also a necessary fact for the city to carry its burden of proof. My recollection is that I even gave both sides a chance to reopen their case for more testimony and both admitted the lack of proof . The criteria in municipal court is clear, satisfactory and convincing evidence. Why 2 courts for the same case ? Because there are no jury trials in municipal court. The city appealed after a mandate by a police dept. official. CCAP shows the case in circuit court was decided after a motion hearing which are quite common in those cases. After losing a motion either party may still have a court or jury trial. The CCAP record does not say that . Most lawyers after a motion hearing that is a dispositive defense enter a plea of guilty or no contest. The highest court, state supreme court, upheld my ruling that has become binding precedent in another case. Lawyers do not always agree on the law and Judges are no different.

  21. Hey! That actually all made sense to me, Dick. I do remember hearing that a case could go to trial out of municipal court and be a “do over” of sorts. Thanks for explaining it.

    Don’t let Scott get to you. That’s what he wants! Remember he’s just a bully with a personality problem and walk away. Otherwise you’ll fall into his trap.