Is Charlie Wilson (D, OH-06) aiming for a NOW endorsement*?

Not the patriotic Charlie Wilson from Texas.

Judging from what that group has been tolerating in its endorsees lately, surely a little wife-beating won’t be a disqualification. Or not so little, at that. From Charlie Wilson’s (D, OH-06) 1990 divorce proceedings:

Charles admits that early in the marriage he kicked and struck Plaintiff and accused her of adultery (Defendant’s Desposition, pp. 190, 192, 194). Clara shall confirm the beatings, slappings, and kicking at the early stage of her marriage to the point where she was afraid to anger the Defendant and instead yielded to his demands. She also lied to third parties as to the causes of her injuries. Mrs. Wilson was the typical battered wife.

…And Mrs. Wilson eventually ended up in the emergency room as a direct result of her attempts to finally assert herself (all of this is admitted to by Charlie Wilson, by the way). Her attacker went on to have a ten-year career in the state legislature, prior to being elected to Congress in 2006. No word of whether he regretted anything; the campaign clammed up the second this document came to life. Still, if the female members of Wilson’s staff were in the habit of wearing sunglasses indoors and long sleeved shirts all the time surely we would have heard by now; so that’s something at least, right? Continue reading Is Charlie Wilson (D, OH-06) aiming for a NOW endorsement*?

Kitzhaber (D CAND, OR-GOV) supporter(?) punches cameraman.

I got tipped on this by RedState diarist BigGator5, who is as gobsmacked as I am that this happened to a (presumed) Chris Dudley (R CAND, OR-GOV) supporter.  Short version for those who can’t see/haven’t seen the video: a guy was filming Democratic candidate John Kitzhaber at a political event held in a church.  He was asked to turn off the camera: he refused, on First Amendment grounds.  Now, let me establish, for the record: this is a shaky argument, at best, when it comes to private property – even when the site is hosting a public event.  So, I can easily enough concede that a duly-authorized representative of the church, Kitzhaber campaign, and/or group hosting the event may have indeed had the right to demand that the man turn off his camera.

I do not concede that said representative had the right to smash the guy’s camera in his face.

Note the use of a second camera, which is useful for establishing that no violent activity on the cameraman’s sparked the assault and battery. That was pretty much an unprovoked attack, there: and I’d like to know whether or not the assailant was involved with the Kitzhaber campaign or not. I’d also like to know whether the Democrats quite understand that if you want to punch back twice as hard, you have to wait for your opponents to actually punch you in the first place…

Moe Lane (Crossposted)