Convicted domestic violence offender to face Democrat Hansen in recall election

Earlier today the state Government Accountability Board (GAB) voted unanimously to disqualify Republican State Rep. Jon Nygren from the ballot in a recall election against incumbent Democratic State Senator Dave Hansen. Sen. Hansen is facing a recall after he raised the ire of some of his constituents after he left Wisconsin along with all thirteen of his Democratic State Senate colleagues in order to slow down Republican Gov. Scott Walker’s attempts to repeal virtually all collective bargaining rights from Wisconsin’s public employees. Rep. Nygren was disqualified from the recall ballot after the GAB found he had collected only 398 valid signatures, with 400 needed to gain ballot access. Nygren had submitted 424 nomination signatures from voters, but a number of those signatures were challenged by Democrats, leading to the GAB’s ruling that 26 of the signatures were invalid.

Rep. Nygren’s disqualification from the recall election leaves David VanderLeest as the only Republican candidate to challenge Sen. Hansen. VanderLeest, who organized the recall effort against Sen. Hansen, has a lengthy court record, including convictions for domestic violence-related offenses.

If you’d like to read all about Dave VanderLeest’s “domestic difficulties” with his ex-wife, CLICK HERE.


Related Articles

22 thoughts on “Convicted domestic violence offender to face Democrat Hansen in recall election

  1. I am seriously surprised how Nygren didn’t get that. That is incompetence at best with the Nygren campaign.

    1. Yeah, that’s a bush-league mistake, and I can’t believe Nygren submitted just two dozen extra signatures.

  2. Too funny. Republicans were so concerned about fake candidates in Democrat primaries that they did not get a real candidate in the election that counts. Did I spell “buffoons” correctly? WI Republicans are a joke. I don’t live in WI but can’t wait to see these fools get what they deserve.

    1. freedom, Republicans did get a real candidate. David VanderLeest is a real Republican; he also just happens to be a convicted criminal.

      1. I forgot. People actually might vote for this thug. I swa that he made a statement that not having a primary would strengthen his campaign. I take that as meaning he might not have been out on parole by the primary but will be out for the real election.

  3. Don’t underestimate the stupidity of people in that district. After all, people were stupid enough to vote for Walker and Prosser. And, Prosser is one step away from a possible violence charge. Violence, hatred, and lies—That’s the Republican Party, ladies and gentlemen.

    1. I don’t think people who voted for Walker and/or Prosser are stupid; they just have a very different set of beliefs.

  4. By the way, I’d like to point out that a lot of the progressives who post here are identified by their full names, myself included. I’m not afraid to use my real name. I’m not worried about anyone looking me up and finding out anything derogatory, like I’ve beaten up a spouse or robbed a bank or choked a judge.

    However, all of the rethugs who post here go by a pseudonym or first name only. Cowards.

    1. However, all of the rethugs who post here go by a pseudonym or first name only. Cowards.

      Unfair attack, Jan.

      a) A lot of progressives that post here are also pseudonymous (like me! like T! like GT!) Everyone has their reasons, and speaking for myself and I’m sure the others, we have our reasons.

      b) Now that the bloodthirsty sociopathic commenter who is Not a Liberal (he’ll have you know!) has been banned, the remaining conservatives who regularly comment here are, for the most part from what I can tell, decent people, if wrong about absolutely everything. Your ad hominem attack on them is unfair as well.

      1. I’ll agree with what JCG wrote. Having been the target of a rather nasty troll, I can understand why some folks want to retain their anonymity, and I don’t begrudge anyone for wanting to keep some measure of privacy.

      2. I think that was uncalled for as well, most of the conservatives here are decent people who I often can understand their perspective on the fact in my teenage years I had a conservative view point. Strange, I know with such a liberal family but I swung back being a liberal after a while. Huh.

        My name is fairly uncommon which is a reason why I prefer being anonymous. I’m frankly afraid of attacks or someone finding my home or hurting my family since I have received that in the past. It’s their choice whether to use their names or not.

        1. My name is fairly uncommon

          Knew it was you, Thornberry!

          But I feel your pain, T. I was conservative in my early years as well.

      3. The only thing I’d add…I do respect people willing to post under their real name (though just assuming that’s the case because it doesn’t look like a nickname is probably foolish as well).

        Were I to meet most of the the other posters here in person, I’d have no problem introducing myself & buying them the beverage of their choice. Posting on internet message boards is something I choose to do with a moderate degree of anonymity.

          1. Me too. I’ve been going through their others as well – Dancing Man Wheat is probably my favorite right now. Crack’d Wheat, Yokel, Totally Naked & Fat Squirrel are also good.

            Of course the advantage of Cow is that you can get it on tap in a lot of places.

        1. OK, I’m pleased to see you used the liberal pseudonym “Locke,” and just love the firt couple of the Ender books, but didn’t Orson Card go off the deep end after 9/11, eh? Some deeply spiritual books, thought-provoking, etc., and then that nasty 24-like crap. The politics is oh so confusing.

          You may like Locke, and among the state of nature theorists of his day I’m prone towards Locke myself, but I’ve been fond of Bill Watterson’s take on 17th and 18th century philosophy, too. . .

          1. A very good read on my handle – Ender’s game was exactly my inspiration for it. I went back & forth over which one to use. Though I’m more fond of Valentine & generally found Peter to be a monster, and even though I found their taking opposite pseudonyms & public positions was brilliant, I simply didn’t want to take the hawkish positions of Demosthenes. That and at the time, Lost was just starting out & I figured most would assume that was the source of the name.

            Yeah, I’ll agree about Card. I’ll admit to being inconsistent about that sort of thing – there are times where I can objectively separate the works from their author and times where I try but just can’t. With Card, I don’t care for his politics at all, but can separate that out & not let it ruin my appreciation for books – at least the better ones. Polanski on the other hand – I just can’t do it.

            but I’ve been fond of Bill Watterson’s take on 17th and 18th century philosophy, too.

            …man I miss Calvin & Hobbes. My kids recently discovered my collection of books and it’s been fun to rediscover them myself and share the experience. It’s been really fun to see how they take them – my daughter is 9 and is a very gifted reader…very book-smart, but more naive & naturally pacifist. My son is 6 and more “street-smart”, aggressive, physical & into potty humor.

  5. In a previous stint blogging out of Philadelphia I used an alias. Then we stumbled on a really hot story about a woman who went missing, but alas, not in Aruba and not while blond. The woman was of color, Latoyia Figueroa. to cut to the chase, the story got picked up about these crazy bloggers in Philly who were blaming the major media of focusing on a rich white girl while the poor girl, Latoyia, who was pregnant at the time, was ignored.

    Tucker Carlson and a couple other talk shows called, and I went on them to represent the blog, as I lived about a mile fromt he studio. Great experience, except for Tucker, who introduced me as Steve Reynolds, alias “SpinDentist.” The better part of the experience was G. Gordon Liddy insulting me. I’ll treasure them thinking me a crazy blogger while taking seriously a nutcase who was convicted of crimes, as Liddy was.

  6. Back to the topic at hand. John Nygren’s laziness. RPW paid for a recall, they paid thousands of dollars to to get 15,000 signatures. Nygren’s campaign couldn’t find 400 of those 15,000 to sign one more petition?

    Yipes, that’s some laziness right there.

  7. I stand by what I said. If you disagree with me, that’s fine. I made that statement because, on another thread, F Stephens decided he didn’t like what I said in the thread so he called for a boycott of one of my previous employers, Union Cab—information he obviously dug up about me from the internet. I call the rethugs “cowards” because that’s what they are. I understand completely why those who oppose my attack on them choose to remain anonymous. I understand the safety factor, especially when it comes to exposing oneself and one’s family to people like them, who support violence and hatred.

    I choose not to use an alias because I don’t fear them. If only you knew the dangers I’ve already survived in my life. A handful of nasty anonymous posters don’t scare me. Let them find me first. Then let them survive the encounter, secondly.

    I shall stop posting voluntarily because I seem way too aggressive for this particular blog. I’ll continue to read and enjoy the other posts.

    1. Jan, you’re free to post comments; no one is saying you can’t or shouldn’t. JCG and I were simply voicing our opinion on what you said and expressing our own opinions. If you want to be aggressive, so be it; that’s your prerogative.

Comments are closed.