"I believe an individual has the right to use force as a means of protecting themselves, their families, and their homes from aggressors."

So says Wisconsin recall candidate Kim Simac, as quoted in a Capital Times editorial titled "Unlike Simac, Holperin respects the whole Constitution." (Jim Holperin is the Democratic incumbent, representing the Northwoods, where a recall election will take place tomorrow.)

The quote is sound, and I'll bet a lot of people of the Northwoods love it, but the Cap Times is using it to leverage a whole theory that Simac only cares about the Second Amendment.

The pathetic Madison newspaper — does anyone in the Northwoods read it? — begins by joking that Simac is "apparently a graduate of the Sharron Angle School of Constitutional Scholarship" and reminds us that Angle — the Nevadan who tried to unseat Harry Reid in 2010 — once referred to using “Second Amendment solutions” to deal with the excesses of government.  Note, Simac didn't say "Second Amendment solutions." Her quote is about defending life and property from "aggressors," which would make most people think of criminals — attackers and home invaders. If "aggressors" makes you think of the government... you might want to think about joining the Tea Party yourself.

The Cap Times touts Holperin's "record of taking the whole Constitution seriously."

He has championed the right to speak, to assemble and to petition for the redress of grievances. 

Is there any evidence that Simac doesn't respect First Amendment rights? Of course, Holperin has a record: He's been the Northwoods senator for decades. But what has Simac ever done to deserve this smear?

He has worked to protect the right to privacy.

Now, that's a specific aspect of constitutional law that conservatives and liberals disagree on. But it has nothing to do with "the Sharron Angle School of Constitutional Scholarship" and whether one loves some clauses of the Constitution and ignores others. It has to do with how expansively one ought to interpret the Due Process Clause and whether one supports finding constitutional rights when there is no explicit constitutional text. That's a difficult area of constitutional law that is a perennial issue in American political debate. It has nothing to do with Sharron Angle, enthusiasm for gun rights, and the failure to respect the entire Constitution.

The Capital Times — I've said it before — is a rag. It should be ashamed of itself. As we say in Wisconsin: "Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame. Shame."