You're entirely incorrect. She did address this, she apologized. Considering this is an on-going (and sealed) divorce case, assuming that persons involved are bound by confidentiality agreements, I highly doubt she's able to respond much more than that.

Her attorney said she had no EVIDENCE of discrimination. Tarantino never claimed to have evidence, she was only answering how she FELT at the time.

There's a very good chance the information was released by her former husband.

Regardless, she is a public figure and should have known better. We are all better for having known this information.

Shameful remarks. Fact is she went against The Party and therefore we are obliged to make sure she is drummed out. Total victory and running all those who disagree out of the public discussion is top priority. Clearly if she will question governor Walker or any one person within the administration, she's unfit to call herself a fellow conservative or fit to hold office or to claim she's an actual republican.

What? Now we're calling exposing "lying under oath" as bullying? So the liar is now the victim?

@Mr. Lundt
The end never justifies the means.

Here's my best guess of the election results. The male votes will be split between 4 silent bystanders. The female vote will support Jeanne Tarantino in raised opposition to dirty politics, sexism and an ugly divorce.

I'm basing this on conversations I've had with female conservatives expressing to me concerns over the lack of diversity in the Republican Party of Waukesha County.

Steve
We agree the end never justifies the means.
To date there is ZERO evidence of sexism. There is ONLY evidence that it was used as cover for a divorce proceeding. Watering down legitimate cases of sexism. Keep in mind NOT one person supports her claims including her own attorney. So the means used by Tarantino are inexcusable. If she has supporting evidence or makes a case---have at it.

The fact that a few women claim that there is an issue of diversity does not make it so. I would love to see evidence...not "feelings" again that are unsubstantiated.

Hiding behind the messenger? Tarantino has apologized. Why isn't anyone pointing out that the lawyers asked her "do you FEEL you were discriminated?" Feeling one way and having evidence of it are two entirely different things. Belling is accusing her of being a liar - I don't think feeling a certain way at the time is a lie. Anyone in her position who is let go from a high up job and replaced with a younger person of a different gender while being transferred to a lower paying position would probably question the motive! She never took action against them. She simply stated what she felt at the time.

@Mr Lundt,
Hey, I'm just parroting what women voters shared with me. That's the perception. Whether you agree with it or not, the tactic of releasing a personal family divorce proceeding to cause harm to the only female candidate probably amplified that perception.

The male candidates have done nothing to improve the sexism image by keeping silent. That's my opinion.

@Forester

On the contrary, if you read the transcript, Tarantino volunteered the information that they wanted someone that was younger and a male. That alone is an accusation of discrimination.

Tarantino was then asked if she felt discriminated against. The attorney was asking her what her opinion was, not inquiring about her emotional state. Tarantino understood the question exactly as I have described, as evidenced by the the lengthy description she gave as to how older women are typically demoted and given less important jobs as a way of discriminating against them in favor of younger males.

I think it's time to put this issue to rest.

@Luke...what transcript? As far as I know no transcript of the deposition has been released to the public.

@Forester

No, until recently it was viewable online. In addition, excerpts are in JSOnline, and both Mark Belling and Charlie Sykes read the entire section in question over the air.

@Luke you are incorrect. The deposition was never available online. If you read Jessica McBride's column in the Freeman, it was never available to the public PERIOD. And Belling read parts of Bice's article, which took partial quotes from various areas of the deposition - typical Bice. No one read the deposition.

@forester

Here us the article with direct quotes.

http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/188389991.html

@Luke those are excerpts and partial quotes. You can't make judgements without seeing the entire thing in context IMO.

@Forester,

As I already said, I've heard the entire section read over the air a number of times from different sources. In addition, Tarantino herself does not deny my interpretation, so I find it odd that you disagree with me and Tarantino.

Carroll University recently suspended Beta Pi Epsilon fraternity citing "a record of disruptive conduct" and the inability to find an adviser.

Perhaps a past president of the Greek fraternity would be willing to be that adviser?

Credit: http://waukesha.patch.com/articles/carroll-suspends-beta-pi-epsilon-fraternity-indefinitely

@Karen

Yes, it is about who the best candidate is, which is exactly why we should take her comments and her refusal to directly answer questions concerning them into account.

@Luke

I am glad we agree on that aspect. However, Jeanne did issue an apology and said that she regretted making those statements as soon as she said them. What questions has she been refusing to answer?

Again, the release of the deposition at this time seems to reek of dirty politics to me. Yes, Jeanne misspoke during a private deposition in a personal matter, but whoever released that deposition acted with intention, publicly, and, if I'm not mistaken, illegally. This seems to be a far greater transgression.

@Karen,

Yes, she did apologize for saying those things, but she did not retract them or say that they were false. That is sort of like a coworker finding out that I said that he is stupid, and then apologizing for what I said. By doing so, I cannot possibly mean that I have changed my opinion of him; rather, I am saying that I should not have said those things.

A number of people have asked Tarantino if what she said is false. Simply saying that she is sorry dies not answer the question. Either she lied under oath or she still claims that she was discriminated against.

Finally, the deposition was not sealed until a couple days ago. That is why people have been able to get copies. That's all there is to it.

No, Karen, that isn't what we should call it. It's called lying under oath. Either Jeanne Tarantino stands up like a leader and addresses what she did, or she isn't qualified for the office. If she comes clean to acknowledge her lie and why she did it, along with answer why she supported/worked for liberal Democrats in the past (Levin, Moore, etc.), it is up to voters to decide if she's fit to serve and really represents them.

Setting aside your veiled, vicious, and vacuous attacks and negative innuendo on the Governor, it's important to stick to facts and what we know. Ironically, even as you write about "evidence," you cite no evidence and spout opinions and hearsay. The fact that Tarantino lied under oath and hasn't adequately explained this is the problem.

@ImaCon

Your tin hat is on too tight.