A married couple in Wisconsin needs a divorce attorney:
A Chippewa Falls man who repeatedly tried to block his estranged wife from driving to the polls Tuesday was hospitalized with head, neck and back injuries when she struck him with her sport utility vehicle.
Jeffery Radle, a Gov. Scott Walker supporter, was on foot.
Amanda Radle, a recall proponent, was in a Dodge Durango.
The pair had been arguing early Tuesday afternoon over who she was going to vote for in the gubernatorial recall election primary, said Chippewa Falls Police Chief Wendy L. Stelter.
“She was planning on voting for a certain candidate, and it wasn’t the candidate he wanted her to vote for,” Stelter said.
When Amanda Radle, 30, attempted to pull out, Jeffery Radle, 36, stood in front of her, according to a police department statement. She nudged him with the vehicle several times.
Each time he would “retreat and re-establish his ground,” the release said. “At one point he climbed onto the hood.”
When she finally attempted to drive around him, Jeffery Radle jumped in front of the vehicle and was hit. Amanda Radle left the scene and went to the police department to report the incident, the release said.
“These crazy liberal nuts are always pulling this crap,” said Radle’s brother, Mike Radle, describing himself and his brother as firm supporters of Walker, the subject of the recall.
I love the brother. Yes, we crazy liberal nuts are always running over our spouses with cars. We just love to pull crap like that.
Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett easily won the Democratic nomination to take on Governor Scott Walker. It will be a rematch of the 2010 contest. The election will be June 5th, and the Koch Brothers and their like-minded allies have something like a 20:1 money advantage, so give a dime to Barrett if you can spare it.
Booman,
this is def OT, but since we are kinda discussing the elections tonight, I’ve been discussing on twitter just how “Inaccurate” these gay marriage polls have been lately. I think there is a “gay Bradley” effect going on with the polls because for all the increased acceptance, ALL BUT ONE was passed. Even over the phone, people don’t want to come off as homophobic.
Something is not right and the polls are giving people false satisfaction that just by twitting about it or posting on FB about a subject means that there is no need for “boots on the ground”. The lesson learned from CA Prop 8 was ignored again…GROUNDGAME IS KEY
When voters say they aren’t sure if voting yes mean no or does no mean yes, that is a problem with the ground game.
the meme is that if Obama came out for gay marriage then he’d gain youth support. I call BS, yeah, maybe it would increase support, but support without ya know actually getting out to the pols and voitng don’t mean shit. youth support without actual voting mean bupkis! Besides, if marriage equality was as important to the youth as has been reported and used by proponents to say why Obama NEEDS to come out now, then a statement from Obama wouldn’t be needed. If you REALLY care about an issue YOU GO OUT TO VOTE ON IT, when it’s on the ballot…period.
Who is mobilized by the issue of gay marriage?
And how many of those people are likely to change their behavior next November based on Obama’s (or Biden’s) comments on gay marriage today or in the debates or in he campaign?
The people who are most motivated by the issue are gays on the left and the religious conservatives on the right. Are there more gays or Southern Baptists in North Carolina?
From a purely political point of view, Obama’s ambivalence is a no-brainer.
As for being the right thing to do? That’s much harder to defend. But since he’s the first president history to actually follow through on his promises to the gay community, I think he’s earned their trust.
Gay marriage is possibly the worst issue POLITICALLY in the current arena. The estimate of LGBT voters varies but is small. The number of voters opposed is large.
So, we have an issue which attracts a small proportion of voters and is opposed by a large proportion of voters, majorities in 32 states and counting. We have an issue which is supported by the smallest constituant group in the D tent (LGBT) and opposed by many in the much more important groups (blacks and hispanics).
So, again, why should Obama take up this cross? Politically, it is a total loser.
I am a Unitarian, and support gay marriage. As a Democrat, it’s just as radioactive as gun rights.
This community does seem to have a lot of clout in the media though. Their megaphone is pretty loud.
You do know what the “tyranny of the majority over the minority” is, right? And what percentage of the population was black back in the 1950’s? 15%? 20%? Yet people felt strongly enough that they deserved equal rights. But you know, this new NC law doesn’t only just outlaw same sex marriages. it outlaws civil unions and partnerships of any sort(yes, including heterosexual!!!). So it was more than just hating on gay people. And in fact, polls showed a lot of people had no idea what exactly this bill said.
Um that’s not totally true is it. There was alot of people saying the “right things” just like now in terms of supporting gay marriage, but when ballot initiatives and laws were being voted on, we got Jim Crow laws, poll taxes and all manner of things all voted in by a population that for the most part said one thing to cameras and newspapers but when voting occurred they voted for exactly that which they claim to disagree with.
So, again, why should Obama take up this cross? Politically, it is a total loser.
They probably said that in the 1950’s, also, too. Most politicians are too chickenshit to lead from the front. And most times when they do lead from the front, it is for awful policies.
you really should be careful how you craft your sentences.
The LGBT community is not less important than the black or Latino communities. They are less numerous, and so less powerful. We may have to put a priority of theirs somewhere down in the stack in the interest of serving some other (perhaps more timely, perhaps more urgent) interest first. But the way you wrote that is insulting, even if wasn’t intended to be.
You also discount the importance of seeing gay rights as “rights” and not mere issues. Most people would acknowledge that Obama’s reticence is politically prudent. That doesn’t mean it is necessary or correct. Is it worth risking his presidency over? Probably not, but they know better than we whether it would really be such a big risk to show some leadership on the issue.
here’s the thing, I’m seriously beginning to believe that the polls on gay marriage are not reflecting what happens in at the ballot box, because the no one seems to take into account that of the peoploe who actually ya know go to the polls an vote are the opponents to gay marriage…older voters and evangelicals and yes SOME (notice I said SOME) AA and Hispanic voters.
Here’s the thing if the youth of America who largely support gay marriage can’t be bothered to go to the polls in large enough numbers to offset the older voters in support of this right that they believe in, then no manner of statement by Obama will do shit.
Say what you will about my fellow African Americans, but when we feel our rights are gonna be trampled on, we get on urban radio, urban media, twitter, FB and we rally the troops and we DO go out and vote in substantial numbers (see ’08) I just don’t think the same can be said of the youth vote.
Oh and another thing Booman, as you say let’s not be naive, so Obama issues a statement supporting gay marriage, I can tell you it won’t change support in AA one iota for Obama, but it would affect downticket races and energize the GOP base and also does absolutely nothing for the cause.
It’s NOT Obama you have to convince to come out for gay marriage it still about getting the pro-gay marriage voters into the polls in large enough numbers to offset it.
Plus as you know once Obama does come out for gay marriage, the goal post will be moved again by the same people who wanted Obama to reach that point in the beginning.
You don’t have to convince me that a pro-gay marriage statement would result in a net-loss of votes, particularly in some swingy states like North Carolina, Indiana, Colorado, and Arizona.
But my point is that:
a) advocates for gay marriage aren’t running his reelection campaign; they’re advocating for gay marriage, and:
b) we don’t, but the administration does have polling data that tells them whether this net loss of votes would be pretty small or big enough to imperil his reelection.
My unformed guess is that the net loss would be pretty damn small. Yet, picking another fight with the Bishops might just seem like a reckless move to them at this point. I’d worry less about the evangelicals than the Bishops because Catholics narrowly skew to the Dems, and they are totally critical to our success in the Midwest.
On one point, I agree with you completely. His position on gay marriage isn’t going to change the law one way or another between now and November.
Still, it’s unfortunate that he isn’t taking the clear progressive position on this.
see this is where I disagree. I suspect the admin internals are showing what most polls internal prob show. that yes as a overall measure gay marriage is becoming more popular mainstreamly, BUT when broken down into voters who have actually shown action at the polls, the numbers are not as pro-marriage as people think. It’s just true that Old people vote more consistently and in more numbers than the major proponents of gay marriage can compensate for without an increase presence of youth voters at the polls.
are you really disagreeing with me? I basically stipulated to that fact.
All I am disputing is the size of the net loss, not that it would cost him votes.
ya know what, I’m probably not, but I am at work, so I’m unable to proofread as throughly as I like. so disaregard what I wrote.
Jesus, Booman, you know it’s easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than it is to get lamh to say something unkind about the President’s positions or performance.
If the President randomly tossed off some Bidenesque “I don’t have a personal problem with gay marriage, but it should be left up to the states to decide” statement, would it really amount to anything electorally?
Yeah, probably not. But politicians are afflicted with cynical cowardice and rank narcissism. So the downplayed support before an election is plainly not in play.
In late 2013 or 2014, there will be a gay rights dinner or celebration or whatever, and Obama will be the speaker and he will declare his “evolution” on the issue complete. And it will be a complete fucking fraud. But people in attendance will weep with joy anyway, because hey, it’s the fucking President of the United States endorsing their full human rights for the first time. That’s kind of a big deal.
Being President means getting to have your cake and eat it too. It means getting rewarded for your pathetic, obvious lies.
In today’s news:
“President Obama today announced that he now supports same-sex marriage, reversing his longstanding opposition amid growing pressure from the Democratic base and even his own vice president.
In an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an “evolution” that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters.”
Clearly, my crystal ball is cloudy. I sure hope there is a little less gnashing of teeth today.
And if we are waiting for the youth vote for much of anything, we are not being smart. While the youth vote was important in 2008, most of the time, the youth vote is more in the promise than in the voting booth.
The issue is that many black and hispanic voters are not for gay marriage. There is plenty of evidence that this issue loses these voters. There is substantial evidence that Prop 8 in CA went the wrong way partially due to black and hispanic voters. And they DO vote.
the idea that Black voters were the cause for Prop 8’s passage has been debunked by many people more willing than I am to get into at this point.
The fact that this persists is either due to people’s need for some scapegoat other than the fact that the grounds game for Prop 8 or this amendment in NC was targeted at the wrong people. Black churches, neighborhoods, universities, etc saw neither hide nor hair of the organizers.
This deep seated idea that it’s the Blacks and Hispanic voters holding back gay rights is ridiculous and has got to stop especially within the liberal community. All it does is lead to self-fulfilling prophecies, like “blacks and hispanics are against gay marriage, so why make an effort to even target these voters”. You will miss the water for the trees cause guess what, there are more Blacks and Hispanice than you think who are perfectly fine with gay marriage.
Also, please, tell me how a group of people who are less than 15-20% of a state registered voters (and thanks to GOP obstruction are being disenfranchised daily) are always the cause of these amendments passing, the answer, they are not, a whole lot of white people voted overwhelmingly in support of these amendments too, but somehow it’s always on the backs of Black churches and religious-minded Hispanic when they pass let’s forget about white evagelicals and in case of Prop 8 the Mormon church which poured tons and tons of money into adverts for their side.
It’s the old tactic of setting groups against each other. The Left is almost as bad at it as the Right. The simple thing is that evangelicals vote and with ferocity.
It’s a matter of assumptions. They blame us because they take us for granted – since we vote for Democrats over 95% of the time they presume us to be lockstep with them on every issue when that simply is not the case, and when that bites them in the hindquarters they blame us for not acting according to their assumptions.
It’s a lot like the 2008 primaries – some people assumed that every Black voter would support Obama, but if you assume that people are voting primarily or exclusively based on their identity then what about Black women? Would they vote for the first Black president or the first woman president? Assuming race trumps gender would be an ignorant assumption, and I didn’t fault Black women for choosing one over the other (although I believed Obama to be the better choice).
So the problem is with people’s assumptions, thinking they can always bank on 95% of our votes. That’s probably true in most partisan elections; it’s absolutely false in an issue referendum.
FWIW The Booman’s Mom has pretty consistently cancelled the Booman’s Dad’s vote since they married in 1954.
I know because she tells us that all the time.
🙂
But do they get physical?
Never in my experience.
I also think there has been less vote-cancelling that my mother would have us believe. They probably voted the same way for the first sixteen years of their marriage and the last eight. And some of my Dad’s votes were third party so they didn’t really cancel out.
Nope. She voted for Ike. Dad Stephenson. twice. right out of the gate.
So she proudly claims
Really? Hmm. I knew Dad was madly for Adlai, but I thought Mom was, too. I don’t think she’s voted for a Republican since then. At least, not for president.
Probably. I think they both voted for Kennedy, but Dad has made it easier to split their vote since then because he often votes Libertarian.
I’m betting they both voted for Obama though.
Both good choices. That was a win-win election.
20:1? Then Walker is going to get re-elected for sure. And a re-match is not good news, it means people have to admit they made a mistake last time. With a new opponent former Walker voters (casual voters not hard core) can tell themselves,”Oh, Walker was OK, but the new guy is better.”
Annie Hall was from Chippewa Falls, was she not? I can just see the Radles sitting amongst the Halls at the dinner table in the movie.
Thanks be to brother Mike for blaming Amanda’s craziness on her politics rather than on her sex.
Maybe having a big car gave the lady big ideas.
What makes you think he didn’t do that, too?
We’ve already established that the brothers seem to think a woman doesn’t have a right to independent thought. As misogyny goes, it’s not much of a leap from there.
I love this story for the fact that it is voter suppression at a personal, domestic level. The Walker supporters can’t see that of course. It’s the Dem supporter who’s got crazy ideas.