Image courtesy

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:

    She will debate soon? Does she have a date when she does NOT have horse camp? Could she maybe set a date ahead of time where she will actually show up?

    Any examples of the harassment she is dealing with?

  2. kc says:

    >>>>Don’t worry I’m sure she’ll debate Holperin soon, somewhere, sometime. Why wouldn’t she?<<<<<
    Where? When? What's in the works? I think it's just more lips moving, nothing being said!

  3. lauren says:

    translation: i hate gay people and think that abortion should be illegal because im christian/catholic/religious. i think the earth was created by god and dinosaurs didnt exist. no gay marriage will be allowed under my reign, and poor mothers should have WIC taken away. you know, because im all about “what would jesus do”

  4. Judith says:

    She may think she’s right for WI. But not for the folks on s.s. or for that matter the State of WI. We are the people and we have spoken.

  5. Kim's sister says:

    I’m surprised with all of your amazing “vetting skills” you didn’t find out the real reason why Kim left her ex-husband Jim. Or perhaps you did and you realized what a jerk you’d look like if you bothered to include the pertinent information about how she endured years of emotional abuse and how difficult it was to have the courage to leave him and raise their 6 children on her own. Did you ever stop to think that her personal story might resonate with a lot of the voters up there (particularly women) who have been through a similar situation?

    Compassionate liberals do not exist.

    • Zach says:

      “Compassionate liberals do not exist. ”

      Gross generalization, anyone?

      • Locke says:

        You know I have a lot of respect for the job you do with this blog in general, Zach. But on this point, you simply have no leg to stand on. I have no problem at all with you calling out gross generalizations. But talk about selective enforcement – comments and posts from a number of people here are routinely filled with statements every bit and more excessively broad and stereotypical as this one.

        • Zach says:

          I’ll try to do my level best to call out both sides in the interest of fairness.

        • JCG says:

          Time out.

          Without either generalizations OR selectivity, the world would grind to a hopelessly micromanaged halt.

          Time in.

    • Jeff Simpson says:

      compassion like writing a chidlrens book “with my rifle by my side”? no thank you for that kind of compassion!

    • Jan Tessier says:

      How is it that your “sister” raised 6 kids on her own when she filed for divorce simultaneously with her current husband, Mr. Simac?
      And…If one gets divorced and marries someone else shortly thereafter, one is not on one’s own. One is married.
      One last point: If your “sister” endured years of emotional abuse, why is it that she feels it’s okay to emotionally abuse citizens of her district by proposing cuts to programs for poor women and children?
      The hypocrisy charge stands. Your “sister” is a jerk.

      • Jan Tessier says:

        What did the previous Mrs. Simac endure? I mean—other than a philandering husband?

        • A S says:

          Jan, the only jerk is you. There is no getting through to someone as yourself. You have fallen off your rocker. Attack issues not personal problems-get a life.

          • Jan Tessier says:

            “Attack issues not personal problems…”
            Sure. I’ll do that. Just as soon as you apologize for the personal attack.
            And…I won’t hold my breath.

    • Zach says:

      But I do want to say thanks for your compliment about my amazing “vetting skills.”

    • Zach says:

      Why won’t your sister debate Jim Holperin?

    • Zuma Bound says:

      Compassion is an enduring value on the Left. On the Right, not so much.

      Example: I still remember how many people on the Right justified the actions of the firefighters in Tennessee who watched a guy’s home burn to the ground, rather than save it, over the guy’s inadvertent failure to pay an $75/$80 fee, a fee which he said that he would pay once the firefighters told him that it had not been paid, and before his house had burned down,.

      In any event, Kim’s sister, the issue here is “family values”. The implication created by the timing of the divorce filings, whatever the abuse was to which Kim may was purportedly subjected in her first marriage, suggests a less than a “family values” kind of connection between Kim and her future/second husband before she was divorced from her first husband.

      Assuming what you say is true, I have compassion for her personal travails. No woman or man should be subjected to physical, psychological or verbal abuse in any relationship. Some people deal with such abuse in a positive, proactive way. Many don’t. Many, for example, cheat. If Kim cheated cheated on her abusive first husband with her future husband, it may constitute an understandable reaction to a difficult reaction, but it certainly wasn’t a “family values” kind of reaction.

      So, Kim’s sister, suck it up. If Kim wants to play the “family values” card in the political arena, and she did, it’s all fair game.

    • Steven Reynolds says:

      Boy, I’d like some of the inside scoop there. Please have Kim get in touch and I guarantee any one of the folks ont his blog will take an interview and help tell the world about the issues from her first marriage. Please have Kim Simac send me an email.

  6. marblejack says:

    At first glance, why would any self-respecting campaign press person return any contact from a liberal character assassin? This is the depth to which the lefties have to sink in order to save a political featherweight like Hopeless Holperin of the North.

    I suppose it would have been better for the children if Simac left an abusive spouse and became a welfare queen, because that’s the Democrat version of success for women in AmeriKa.

    • Zach says:

      You spelled America wrong.

      And I’m not a “liberal character assassin;” I’m just a guy with a blog.

    • Jan Tessier says:

      Kim Simac may have left an abusive spouse, but she left to go into the arms of another woman’s spouse—so that is hardly heroic. That’s the Rethuglian way.

  7. I won’t make any comment about Kim Simacs “family values hypocrisy” but I believe there was a ” Kim” on this blog not long ago stating that David Vanderleest is a great man. If that was Kim Simac making that comment I’d be a whole lot more worried about her judgment than her family values.

  8. Larry Sherwood says:

    I would bet that 99% of you wouldn’t have the guts to say the ignorant and slanderous things that you are saying about Kim to her face. It doesn’t matter what the facts are, you’ll sink to smear her because you don’t agree with her politics. Go ahead and criticize her for standing up for innocent unborn babies, struggling small business owners and hardworking taxpayers in the Northwoods trying to make ends meet on a salary of $14,000/year. But the only thing that your personal attacks reveals is that you think Simac will beat Holperin because he chose the “values” of the big unions (and their $$$ millions in campaign contributions) over the hardworking taxpayers in Wisconsin when he left the state instead of doing his job. What kind of example did he set for everyone else? When tough decisions need to be made, run away? Spin it any way you like, but this reality remains: How many people in the Northwoods would keep their jobs, their homes and their families if they followed Holperin’s example?

    • Zach says:

      So are you Kim’s sister or Larry Sherwood? Just curious…

      As to your point about having the guts to say what I’ve written here to Kim’s face, I’ve never written anything I wouldn’t be willing to say to the person’s face. Obviously I’m speaking for myself and no one else, but I stand behind everything I’ve written about Kim Simac.

      I’ll also note that the unions that Jim Holperin stood with represent tens of thousands of hardworking, middle class folks (like yours truly) who happen to be Wisconsin taxpayers.

      Nice try though.

      • A S says:

        Zach are you one of those people that sit in your mom’s basement and check your blog all day?

        • Zuma Bound says:

          “Erudite” wingnut “analysis”, at its best, courtesy of AS.

          The irony is that AS is probably sitting in his mom’s basement right now working that dial-up connection for all its worth.

          • Jake formerly of the LP says:

            It always is funny to see righties post about “jobless liberals” at 10:15am on a weekday. Irony isn’t their strong suit, is it?

        • If Paul Ryans’ Medicare reforms ever become law, future moms will be blogging from their sons basements.

        • Zach says:

          I haven’t lived with my mother since I was 17 years old, thank you very much, and what’s more, my mom doesn’t have a basement where she lives.

          Thanks for your concern though.

        • Jan Tessier says:

          Projection much?

    • Jan Tessier says:

      You set up the meeting and I’ll show up and tell her to her face exactly the same things I’ve posted here.

    • Steven Reynolds says:

      Two things. Why do facts not matter to you? Second, which ones are the guilty unborn babies? Third, what do unborn babies have to do with small business owners? (Are they both raking in $14K per year? What kind of job pays a fetus that much?)

  9. Jeff Simpson says:

    I’ve never written anything I wouldnt say in person either! just an FYI AS…if Kim wants to do an interview let me know and i will let her address everything from here.

  10. kc says:

    She arranged a press conference to discuss her unpaid tax issues that are suddenly paid in full, however had to cancel due to another scheduling conflict. How convenient!

    She did release a statement on the issue of paying state income taxes at a zero rate – poor economy – for ten years? She can’t even run her own business…………… or a little tax evasion goin’ on here? And you want her to help run our State of Wisconsin?

    • Zach W says:

      Good points, kc. I find it hard to believe that between her small business, her childrens book writing and her other ventures that she had no tax exposure, but then again, maybe she’s got the same tax attorneys as former Republican U.S. Senate candidate Terrence Wall.

  11. concerned citizen says:

    One of her family members just came to my office to talk about her level of hypocrisy. The person is planning to contact news outlets who may be interested in the public assistance her whole family received while she raised her kids and other benefits she now seeks to eliminate. The person also mentioned she has had two abortions. Sounds like she’s benefited from a right to privacy she would not grant other women.

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