We found documents on the La Crosse County Democratic Party web site showing Tara Johnson and her husband Tim Padesky hosted a Democratic Party fundraiser with Herb Kohl in October of 2007.
"Thanks to Vicki Burke, John Medinger, Sharon Hampson, Margaret Wood and Tim Padesky and Tara Johnson for sponsoring the LCDP Pizza Fundraiser with Herb Kohl on October 9 at Big Al's. It was a great financial success for the LCDP."
Not only was Tara Johnson - Padesky a Democrat in 2007, but she was fundraising for the Democratic Party
She has lied to the press and the public. Does Wisconsin really want a senator who would LIE to win an election?
Source: La Crosse County Democratic Party Web site.
return to Johnson Watch
13 comments:
Do you have a direct quote from her, or do you have it from the newspaper?
Right from the Tribune article, "Johnson, who is running against incumbent Republican Dan Kapanke, noted that she didn't have a "D" after her name until she ran for Senate."
As the editorial has been out for almost a week, and she has not disputed it, we believe it to be valid.
If the La Crosse Tribune has miss quoted her, we will gladly make a correction upon the Tribune publishing an updated editorial.
Check it: http://www.opinionatedjerk.com/node/14 Through her own lying teeth.
It's obvious that this is in reference to her work on county board, which is non-partisan.
Actually, this is about her RUNNING from the extreme views of the Democratic Party because she realizes their views don't play well in this area.
She wants everyone to think she is an independent when there is absolute proof she has been in the Democrat camp for years.
This is about her trying to mislead the public, by LYING.
The democratic party views don't play well here?
I thought this was a LaCrosse based blog?
Tara Johnson should have an (L) behind her name. Not for the obvious reasons but, because she's a 'left fielder'. I mean by that, she is so left of center she doesn't have a grasp on how some things actually work. She's way beyond being a democrat.
By the way. Maybe someone can explain to me what Tara means by windfall profits? What dollar amount does that start at for oil companies? Does she despise every industry or does she just have it out for some? I'm glad she's a "friend" of business. We need more like her (yeah, right). When we all get to stand in line for our monthly ration of bread, hopefully Tara will lobby to let us all get the same size loaf.
Tara, and to all of your (L) followers... Follow Obama and spread the wealth to the poor. Make sure TD Padesky electric doesn't have to pay any windfall taxes. Choose another company to do the work instead & keep them safe!
The price of milk has gone through the roof. I've switched my kids to water. At least it's still partially free. Shoot the cows... they cost too much to support. Or better yet tax them, and they'll die on their own. That way we can get around future windfall profit taxes and save us all a bunch of paperwork.
Your finger pointing at Kapanke is horrendous. Get your feet back on the ground so you might escape any future embarrassments about your comments. Educated voters can see through your radical leftist attacks. They are only half-truths at the best.
And oh, I did use the word 'radical' during the last paragraph.
We will again reiterate this site exists for the sole purpose of exposing the dirty political tactics of one Tara Johnson – Padesky.
To that end, YES we have removed the previous comment, as it has no probative value regarding Miss Johnson.
I am sure this will be deleted, but let me tell you a positive story about Tara Johnson. And to clarify the issue on county ballots, for those who have ever voted on county elections. When you vote for county board members (check to make sure this is true--this is the official county web site: http://www.co.la-crosse.wi.us/countyclerk/Election/2008/AprSprElect/Summry.HTM)--results of the "non-partisan" county board ballots. Both democrats and republicans did not have affiliations by their names, as by the election rules. Believe what you will, but the fact that she stated the truth in that she never ran as a democrat is true, just like the members of the board who are republicans or other parties, or independent, due to county rule. Say what you will, but please do not call her a liar based on her actual vote. You may disagree with her views on many other things, but this assertion is not true. If you are a registered Republican, then run for the county board, you will not have an "R" after your name either. Ask other county board members this or anybody who voted in the county board elections in the last several years.
Thank you. Now, we can again debate the issue.
We agree 100% that Tara Johnson - Padesky has not run as a Democrat for any office until now and we agree, that it is impossible to get elected at the state level without a "D" or "R" behind your name.
However, Tara Johnson - Padesky has played a significant role in the local Democratic Party as the evidence shows. Tara Johnson - Padesky was RECRUITED by the Progressive Majority, a far left liberal organization, in 2007, something she has never disputed. Tara Johnson - Padesky made the statement about not having a "D" behind her name to imply she is an independent, when in reality she is an extreme left liberal Democrat.
Had she said, "I am a 'Progressive Democrat' but never ran for a partisan office before," that would have been the truth, the statement as she said it, is a lie.
Please, quote me the statement where she implied that she was an independent. I noticed the quote from the Tribune ..."noted that she didn't have a "D" after her name until she ran for Senate." What does this quote imply? She has never denied being a Democrat; this is just a quote from the paper. Kapanke didn't have an "R" after his name until he ran for Senate either, until his name was on the ballot. And, here is a much bigger excerpt from the article, which is actually an editorial from the Tribune staff on Sept. 11, 2008. It's not a direct quote from her at all.
"At a public forum Monday, Tara Johnson, running as a Democrat for state Senate from La Crosse, felt it necessary to distance herself from Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, D-Weston.
The topic at that moment during the Greater La Crosse Area Chamber of Commerce’s breakfast meeting was economic development including the vital role played by higher education in training tomorrow’s workforce.
Johnson, who is running against incumbent Republican Dan Kapanke, noted that she didn’t have a “D” after her name until she ran for Senate.
Before that, as executive director of the United Way and later as a La Crosse County Board member, Johnson worked on a nonpartisan basis with people of both political parties.
That’s in the tradition of the La Crosse area’s legislative delegation, which has a long record of working in a bipartisan fashion for issues of importance locally."
Please, if there is a direct quote such as "I was never a Democrat until I ran for Senate" from Tara Johnson, then by all means, that is most likely false and you can use "LIED" and it would be OK. Slightly rude and there are other ways of saying it, but still OK. (I can't deny I wouldn't use "LIED" about someone I didn't like either.) But a statement from the Tribune featuring a synopsis and not a direct quote? If you differ from her on core issues, then focus on those, but to call someone a liar because you inferred it from a synopsis, not a direct quote, from an article, then please don't call it a fact.
If you have a direct quote from the newspaper or a statement from someone directly, then that's fine, and should be pointed out. But to call her a liar (or just stating she lied) from something you inferred and make it an issue on your reports, is false. You can call it misleading if you believe, but to state it as a fact and not an opinion is wrong. What you infer from an article and what is written are two different things. Just please make sure you state it is your opinion she is a liar, based on this quote, not a fact.
In fact, I personally inferred from the editorial that she was trying to distance herself from the current Democratic leadership, not that she was trying to hide her Democratic past. Senator Kapanke has distanced himself from the Republican leadership on some issues (such as funding more dental care from the state), but I would never call him a liar if the Tribune said "Kapanke never had an "R" before his name before he ran for state senate." I am pretty sure he was a Republican before he ran, be it a moderate or highly conservative (I don't know so I won't imply either way). He is a nice person, and I might say some things are misleading, but never a liar until I had complete proof against one of the statements that he said.
You make an interesting argument however, we believe in looking at the whole of a person and their actions to try and determine their intent when making a statement. To that end, please consider:
1. Johnson – Padesky was indeed recruited by an out of state pac, something even you have not disputed.
2. Johnson – Padesky did indeed use a push pole, again something not disputed.
Lie: Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
1. Johnson – Padesky makes a claim of lowering the tax rate (true) but when coupled with the actual evaluation increase the average taxpayer saw a TAX INCREASE, the intent here was to mislead the public into believing she lowered taxes when that is not the case.
2. Johnson – Padesky makes a claim of holding the line on taxes, but voted FOR over a $1 Million increase on average, to the tax levy every year from 01 – 05.
3. Johnson – Padesky claims to have "created jobs," when in fact it was a transfer of jobs. Creating jobs would lower unemployment, not increase it.
4. On her web site, she uses the term "Representing Us," but votes YES to house criminals in a North Side neighborhood, in direct opposition to the constituents. That certainly wasn't representing them.
5. Johnson – Padesky states there wasn't a "D" behind her name until she ran for state Senate, but has been a Democratic fundraiser for years.
Such statements, when taken individually, say one thing, but imply another. When taken together, they show a patter of statements "meant to deceive or give a wrong impression," a lie.
Post a Comment