Image courtesy MyFoxWausau.com


According to her campaign website, Tea Party Republican Kim Simac (pictured, right) says, “I believe in the preservation of the family and traditional family values, and will fight for legislation to protect them. To be strong, Wisconsin needs to support the traditional family structure…”

Simac, who has announced she’ll challenge Democratic State Senator Jim Holperin in a recall election that will likely be called against Holperin, really wants voters to believe she’s a “family values” candidate, but I’m wondering how Simac will reconcile her “family values” statements with her own personal history.

According to the Wisconsin Circuit Court Access Program (CCAP), Simac (then known as Kim Maillette) filed for divorce from her first husband on the exact same day that her current husband, Arthur Simac, filed for divorce from his now ex-wife. I suppose it could be purely coincidental that Simac filed for divorce from her first husband on the same day that her current husband filed for divorce from his now ex-wife, but to add further intrigue to the story, the two divorce petitions were given consecutive case numbers, meaning they had to have been filed within a short period of time of each other. While there’s no telling whether Simac and her current husband walked into the courthouse hand-in-hand to file for divorce from their respective spouses, I can just see that being the case.

I’ve attempted to contact Kim Simac and her campaign press secretary, but it’s been four days and I’ve gotten no response from either regarding Simac’s apparent hypocrisy when it comes to “family values.”

Kudos to PolitiScoop for first breaking this story.

Tagged with:
 

84 Responses to Kim Simac’s “family values” hypocrisy

  1. Jeff Simpson says:

    Hypocrisy on the tea party trail? Say it aint so!

    The “tea party” has this philosophy that they only care about and have to govern to the “tea party”. No one else matters.

    I am still waiting for ROJO to answer the questions I sent him last election cycle.

  2. Palli says:

    Public office (or at least campaigning) seems to be a lifestyle financial support system for a lot of republicans.

    • Zach says:

      Yep….while they “hate” government and the benefits it provides to public employees, conservatives sure aren’t shy when it comes to accepting those benefits for themselves.

  3. Jeff – I’m sure Sarah or Kristen just lost them.

    Being as honest as I can there…really. 😛

    And Zach, nothing about the New York Congressman who allegedly pulled a Brett Favre and may or may not have sent a picture of his junk to a college coed in Seattle? And he’s married to Hillary Clinton’s old campaign bodywoman?

    Dude, you’re slipping.

  4. Jeff Simpson says:

    Kevin, Thanks for the info. After seeing him talk recently, I just thought the questions were too hard for Rojo.

    After the incredible sense of buyers remorse that the people not only of Wisconsin, but the country, show that the last election was an anomaly. People will not be voting for politicians no questions asked anymore. We already see by the recalls that people are finally starting to hold politicians accountable.

    http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/mailbag/article_a1845177-b13d-5b42-9250-38f1eae66164.html

  5. Mark Miazga says:

    Wow, whatever happened to reasonable politicians? She is like Newt Gingrich, Michelle Bachmann, and Larry Craig all rolled into one. This kind of anti-labor hypocrisy would be bad for Northern Wisconsin independence and its’ reputation as a great place to live, grow-up, and visit.

  6. Randy in Richmond says:

    Apparently none of you have any idea how the court system operates. Let me assure you they didn’t go in to file hand in hand–they didn’t go in at all. Their lawyers do the filing. And as happens often when neither party contests a divorce they hire the same lawyer, usually to save money. Rather than jumping to untrue conclusions, if you had read further, you would have discovered both parties had the same lawyer in this case–18 years ago. He being Kevin Kelley,esq.

    • Zach says:

      Whether they used the same lawyer who filed the petitions together, doesn’t it strike you as a bit odd that Kim Maillette and Art Simac ended up together? I know you really want us to believe this is all some happy coincidence, but I’m guessing it’s not.

      • A S says:

        What do you mean that doesn’t it strike you a bit odd that Kim and Art Simac ended up together? She married him after she got a divorce, whats odd about someone getting married after a divorce? She married Arthur before their ex’s got together? I’m confused, you are acting like you just found some really good dirt on this candidate and its laughable. Didn’t Holperin have affairs on his wife? I think that’s worse then getting out of an unhealthy marriage-just saying.

  7. Jeff Simpson says:

    So Kim Mallaite and Art Simac both used the same lawyer and did not file together it was just pure coincidence? I dont know how it works I have not been divorced.

  8. Randy in Richmond says:

    So then, how would you feel about a US Senator that is a former member of the KKK backing then Senator Obama for President ?

    • Jeff Simpson says:

      Come on now Randy you are better than that.

    • Zach says:

      I think Sen. Byrd’s endorsement of then-Senator Obama for president speaks to how far Sen. Byrd came from his days as a member of the KKK to endorsing an African-American presidential candidate, and to be honest I’m not even sure how that has any bearing on this particular issue that we’re discussing.

  9. Randy in Richmond says:

    I doubt very seriously it was a coincidence. Don’t assume you know what I believe. But do you know–how long were they each seperated ? months, 2 years, 5 years, 8 years ? Many times couples remain seperated until one of them desires to remarry. Who initiated the divorce and for what reason ? Was Mr. Maillette unfaithful to Mrs. Maillette ? Was Mr. Maillette an alcoholic and possibly an abusive father ? Were there children involved ? I could go on and let’s be clear–I don’t know the answer to these or multiple other questions about what took place 18 years ago. And apparently neither do you–yet you publish this condemnation based on court documents which you wrongly represent or make implications based on zero facts.
    Do your homework before just throwing it out there. Now, if your beef is with divorce itself–go for it. But be very, very careful if you head in that direction.

  10. Jeff Simpson says:

    Agreed Randy and we should be better because if anyone understand Nuance and that the world is not black/white it is the “tea party”!

  11. Ginger says:

    I do not think Kim will win since her overnight horseback riding camp ends just before the election and I can’t instruct camp by my self.

  12. Zuma Bound says:

    @ Kevin Binversie

    Next time, try doing a little research before jumping on the latest Breitbart/rightwing bullsh*t. huh?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980761/-Weinergate:-A-Pathetic-Attempt-at-a-Fake-Scandal?via=search

    Partisan hack.

  13. Zuma Bound says:

    @ Kevin Binversie

    Next time, try doing a little research before jumping on the latest Breitbart/rightwing bullsh*t. huh?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/31/980770/-A-Silly-Season-Upon-Us?via=search

    Partisan hack.

  14. Zuma Bound says:

    @ Kevin Binversie

    Next time, try doing a little research before jumping on the latest Breitbart/rightwing bullsh*t. huh?

    http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/05/30/980495/-CNN-Spreads-Latest-Breitbart-Smear?via=search

    Partisan hack.

  15. Locke says:

    Zach, you need to tweak the spam filters… 🙂

    • Zuma Bound says:

      I hear ya. Looks kind “spammy”, doesn’t it?

      The irony is that I tried to put all the links into one comment, but the spam filter rejected THAT as being too spammy, so I improvised. I’m sure Zach will forgive me.

      But, now that we’ve gotten the all-important “spam” discussion out of the way, how do you feel about Breitbart’s most recent smear/hoax/fake scandal?

      • Locke says:

        Haven’t given Breitbart a second of my time since the Sherrod thing.

        Of course he’s not at all unique – I’d probably struggle to come up with a handful of pundits/talking heads types who I bother to even read/listen to.

        • Locke says:

          OK so as I said, I had no idea what all that stuff was about – first I heard of any of it was in this thread & since I really didn’t give a crap about any of it, I complete ignored it. Until yesterday when I caught a brief piece on it on the radio – and no it wasn’t Limbaugh or Hannity or somebody, I don’t listen to any of them either, I think it was an ABC News piece. Can somebody please explain to me how/why Weiner can’t conclusively say, “That’s not me.” It sounds like he’s said, “photos can be doctored” and “I don’t know what photos are floating around of me,” but give me a break. Seriously – I have no problem absolutely & without any caveats, saying, any photo purported to be of my junk is fake. All the photoshopping in the world doesn’t matter – “taking elements of a photo out of context”? Whatever – if you’ve never taken a photo of your stuff, you don’t have to worry about carefully phrasing your words.

          • Locke says:

            And now, we know why Weiner refused to deny the photos. They were him, he sent them. He was not hacked, that was a lie.

            Where’s Zuma on this? All those Daily Kos articles posted? Utter and complete fabrication.

            Crickets…

            • Zach says:

              Locke, without sharing too much, I’ll just note that Zuma is dealing with some rather serious personal things (he emailed me over the weekend).

    • Zach says:

      I have the spam filter set to not allow anything with more than 10 links in an entry, so I’m not sure what happened.

  16. Jeff Simpson says:

    http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/123267843.html

    Kim Simac, a Republican candidate in one of the recall elections expected this summer, said Monday the fact that her ex-husband married her current husband’s ex-wife is “one of those quirky American stories.”

    Over the past week or so, websites have picked up a report by PolitiScoop.com, a liberal “citizen journalism website,” that said Simac “swapped spouses.” The report says she is a hyopcrite because she promotes family values.

    Court records show that both Kim Simac — then known as Kim Maillette — and Arthur Simac filed for divorce from their spouses on Dec. 15, 1993, in Vilas County.

    So she is a family values champion after all, just a little “quirky”…move along nothing to see here….

  17. Jim Fosdick says:

    Interesting thread. All the talk about the Breitbart Congressman Weiner “hoax.” Where are the mea culpas? Then an attack on a political candidate for her divorce. Mrs. Simac made a choice for her own well-being and that of her children. She has demonstrated a commitment to family values ever since. I’ve been her pastor for almost five years and can attest to the fact that she lives both her faith and her family values. Ad hominem attacks are the last refuge of those who know their opponent, Mrs. Simac in this case, has the overwhelming advantage on the issues. Someone once said, “When the devil tries to remind you of your past, remind him of his future.” Let he (or she) who is free from sin cast the first stone.

    • Zach says:

      I don’t know about Kim Simac, but part of my marriage vows included a line about “until death do us part.”

      Maybe Kim Simac’s were, “until death (or I get sick of you) do us part.”

    • A S says:

      I really don’t think Kim said that “mate swapping is traditional”. its not her fault that her ex husband ended up marrying her current husband’s ex wife. If they didn’t then you wouldn’t really have anything to write about would you? do you not have any friends that went through a bad marriage? you only have friends that have perfect marriages? I think that given her values that if she could of stayed in her marriage she would of chose that…you guys have WAY too much time on your hands analyzing other people’s lives. Are you saying you’re perfect? because that’s what I’m getting out of it….

  18. Jeff Simpson says:

    so when you do it its a sin when I do it its family values? seriously?

    Can you tell me what issues she has the “overwhelming advantage” on?

    Looking on her website I just dont see it. So you cant spend more than you take in? seriously? so no good business has debt? should people not have houses?

    The “traditional family” seriously? mate swapping is traditional now? please dont live the life she has lived and then tell others about “protecting marriage” that played well in the 50’s but not now. The nshe wants to “refrain from infringing on the rights of others” so she supports gay marriage? She is against the end of collective bargaining?

    WHere exactly are the parents NOT the ultimate decision makers for their childs education?

    That was just a quick 2 minute run through on her website. But to be fair jim, i will email her and see if she wants to do an interview.

    • Steven Reynolds says:

      If she wants to do an interview, could you ask her for me if it is true that the plural of “spouse” is “spice?” Enquiring minds want to know, after all.

      Anyone else old enough to remember Fritz Peterson and Mike Kekich?

  19. kc says:

    Why didn’t she show up for the debate on 6/20/11?

    Kim Simac on integrity issues:

    If elected, I will work tirelessly for the people of the 12th Senate District, and will respect the obligations that come with the Office of State Senator as you have elected me to do. I will go to work every day, debate the issues and then vote on the legislation before me. I won’t run away when times get tough.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    I only see same old tea party talking points! Elect Kim because she won’t run away…….she just won’t show up!!!!!!!!

    • A S says:

      Kim has horse camp. She asked them to reschedule it for the following week and they wouldn’t. Horse Camp dates were decided way before they decided to put this debate together. Don’t worry I’m sure she’ll debate Holperin soon, somewhere, sometime. Why wouldn’t she? If you think she’s scared or something you’re wrong. She’s obviously not scared, she’s running against him, dealing with harassment and embellished stories all while sticking up for the values that not JUST her but the people that support her have!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Set your Twitter account name in your settings to use the TwitterBar Section.