Talk:Bob McDonnell/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

"After campaigning as a centrist"

While I can see why some would conclude that McDonnell campaigned as a centrist, I would argue that he campaigned as a pragmatist. He purposely avoided social issues and focused on jobs and the economy. Had he confronted social issues and took neither a left nor right side, he could be considered a centrist. But because the issues he addressed (with the exception of some, which he took the conservative side on), were bipartisan concerns (not to be confused with centrist, as the bipartisan concerns transcended party--and by definition, centrist lines), the term centrist is not accurate. That said, I know a lot of political "talking heads" will not concern themselves with definitional issues like this, and refer to McDonnell as a centrist; so I'd like to hear discussion on the topic. Centrist? Pragmatist? Something else-ist?

I don't think that phrase should be included either. - Schrandit (talk) 23:06, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

How he campaigned may be useful within the section related to his campaign, so long as it is a notable aspect of the campaign, it is definiately not appropriate for the lead. It smacks of BLP violations by implying that he lied. Arzel (talk) 23:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

The current lead paragraph fails to summarize the article. We need to find a way to summarize the article in one or two paragraphs, which the edits were intended to accomplish. Racepacket (talk) 06:02, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

How he campaigned is largely opinion and outside the scope of the lead, and is not very relevant. Arzel (talk) 23:09, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

The scope of the lead should be co-equal with the scope of the article and should summarize it. So we can summarize McDonnell's campaign positions in a phrase in the lead, or we can decide that it is all irrelevant, in which case we should delete it all from the article. It is reasonable to summarize McDonnell's campaign as "After campaigning as a centrist" and providing the details later in the article. Clearly, he did not campaign as an extremist. Racepacket (talk) 00:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Without further clarification, "centerist" is such a fuzzy and subjective term as to have no clear meaning here. Such squishy terms are best left out of the article.Plazak (talk) 01:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that "centrist" is unsupported. Look at references 23, 24, 25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 33, 34, 40, 41, 42. 43. and 44. Do you have a better term to summarize all of this for the lead paragraph? Racepacket (talk) 16:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I checked the first three and was unable to find the word centrist. I stopped looking after that. Your assertation of centrist would appear to be synthesis of material and therefore OR. Perhaps it would be better if you stated why he should be labled as campaigning as a centrist. Arzel (talk) 16:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I believe you are misreading the synthesis and OR policies. Wikipedia policy requires summarization in the lead paragraphs. If the lead paragraph repeated verbatim the body of the article, there would be no purpose served by having a lead paragraph. Please review: WP:LS "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." The lead paragraph of this article fails to do that. I want a balanced lead paragraph, but User:Arzel apparently does not. Hence, he says "It smacks of BLP violations by implying that he lied." The lead must summarize both his campaign and his actions as Governor. If his supporters are gratified by those, they can read the full article to learn the details. If his opponents draw their own conclusion that "he lied", they can read the full article to learn the details. But Wikipedia is not in the business of sanitizing the lead paragraph to say nothing so that the read will not draw any implications from the facts. Racepacket (talk) 13:09, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Since the article does not talk about him campaigning as a centrist I am not sure where you get your logic to begin with. Even if it did, which it doesn't, the lead must be written from a NPOV. There is only one possible interpretation to the sentence that you wish to include, and that is he is not really a centrist and was lying. Such leading sentences are a clear violation of WP:BLP. So, lets look at where we stand. The references you mentioned don't talk about him campaigning as a centrist, the body doesn't talk about him campaigning as a centrist. The only logical conclusion is that you have decided that he is based off the positions he took during the campaign and your personal belief of what he really is, which is original research. Additionally, several editors disagree with your assertation about this belonging in the lead, and you pattern of editing is now WP:DISRUPTIVE. Arzel (talk) 17:15, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a disagreement, but at least User:Soxwon agrees that the phrase shouild be included. The counter argument is not convincing. Nobody is advocating text which says that McDonnell is lying. The proposed phrase is a fair summary of the campaign paragraphs, which can be summarized as "centrist." Racepacket (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why is this being re-inserted into the article? - Schrandit (talk) 18:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Why are we now saying "pragmatist"? - Schrandit (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I see I no reason/consensus for calling him a "pragmatist". I'm also very sure I can find a million, billion, news sources that characterize his run as "conservative".

Education

I have four times consolidated the education budget debate and the discussion of McDonnell's withdrawal from round 2 of the Race To the Top into a single section labelled Education. I thought that this would be non-controversial, but it has been reverted four times without explanation. Racepacket (talk) 07:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

I think that is a good change Racepacket to consolidate the education info into one section. But deleting sourced info about Malek is where I disagree as it leaves the section unbalanced.Boromir123 (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Malek Paragraph

It seems like we aren't really getting anywhere by going back and forth regarding the Malek appointment section. Racepacket said that the praise of Malek does not belong in this article. Perhaps we can delete both the criticism and praise as this is too much info. I propose that we leave a sentence on why the appointment was controversial and a one sentence reply from the McDonnell campaign.Boromir123 (talk) 07:00, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I am willing to explore that. However, a major objection has been the temporal nature of Boromir123's formulation. The time sequence of events is:

1. 1970s - well publicized Nixon Administration actions
2. 1988 - Malek forced to resign as deputy Chair of Republican National Committee when his Nixon Admin. memos come out
3. 2007 - well publicized SEC investigation and settlement (all of this is summarized in Fred Malek article.)
4. 2007-2009 Malek donates $27,000 to McDonnell for Governor Campaign
5. 5/7/2010 - McDonnell appoints Malek Chair of an advisory commission on government efficiency
6. 5/10/2010 - two Va legislators criticize the appointment on both the grounds of the SEC violations and Nixon Administration actions
7. 5/12/2010 - Malek donates $25,000 to Opportunity Virginia PAC
8. 5/25/2010 - McDonnell On WTOP "Ask The Governor" says that he is not aware of the Nixon Administration issues
9. 5/25/2010 - McEachin says McDonnell's claim that he didn't know is not credible

Malek's problems did not "come to light" after his appointment was announced. A fair reading of the media coverage focuses upon a) that McDonnell would appoint a chair without proper vetting (assuming that he honestly did not know) and b) that some members of the legislature think that it is Malek's past actions should be as much of a disqualification for chairing this panel as it was for disqualifying Malek from the deputy Chair of the RNC. There is also some argument that someone who has tried to politicize the Federal civil service in past, may be trying to politicize or press an agenda other than government efficiency when he chairs a Virginia Commission in 2010. Everything else is really not relevant to the Bob McDonnell article and can be moved to the Fred Malek article. Racepacket (talk) 07:34, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree wih Boromir123; this is getting out of hand and needs to be condensed, especially considering this is an article about Bob McDonnell, a section about his governorship, and a subsection about an appointment: we should not be puuting much emphasis on it. Therefore, I propose the following for the Malek subsection:

McDonnell appointed former President of Marriott Hotels and Northwest Airlines Fred Malek to chair a 31 member bipartisan commission on reforming state government, drawing criticism because of Malek's role in allegedly demoting Jews in the Bureau of Labor Statistics while working as personnel director in the Nixon White House and being accused of defrauding the Connecticut Pension Trust Fund. McDonell, who stated that he was not aware of Malek's role in the 40-year old scandal, defended Malek's character and refused to replace him as Commission Chair. Whereas some democratic legislators called McDonnell's claim "beyond belief," others called the issue as a "not valid."

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

How about,

On May 7, 2010, McDonnell appointed Fred Malek to chair a 31-member advisory commission on reforming state government. On May 10, 2010, members of the Legislature criticised the appointment due to Malek's actions as personnel direction in the Nixon White House and due to a 2007 SEC investigation settlement. On May 25, 2010, McDonnell was asked about the Malek appointment and stated that he was not aware of Malek's role in the Nixon Administration, a remark which State Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond) told the Washington Post that McDonnell's claim was "absolutely stunning and, frankly, beyond belief."

Racepacket (talk) 13:29, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. Just a few tweaks. How bout: On May 7, 2010, McDonnell appointed Fred Malek, former President of Marriott Hotels and Northwest Airlines, to chair a 31-member advisory commission on reforming state government. On May 10, 2010, several members of the Legislature criticized the appointment due to Malek's controversial actions as personnel director in the Nixon White House and due to a 2007 SEC investigation settlement. On May 25, 2010, McDonnell was asked about the Malek appointment and stated that he was not aware of Malek's role in the Nixon Administration, a remark which State Senator A. Donald McEachin (D-Richmond) told the Washington Post that McDonnell's claim was "absolutely stunning and, frankly, beyond belief." Boromir123 (talk) 18:15, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that we should characterize Malek regarding his past roles in Marriott and Northwest. If you must frame him outside the Virginia role, you should list his present employment as a hedge fund operator. Racepacket (talk) 19:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

We should go with whatever employment he is most known for--I'm not sure what that is. Or we could leave it out entirely. Since we're also trimming it down, I'd like to also leave out the McEachin quote, which just wreaks of partisanship. So how about:

On May 7, 2010, McDonnell appointed Fred Malek to chair a 31-member advisory commission on reforming state government. On May 10, 2010, several members of the Legislature criticized the appointment due to Malek's controversial actions as personnel director in the Nixon White House and due to a 2007 SEC investigation settlement. On May 25, 2010, McDonnell was asked about the Malek appointment and stated that he was not aware of Malek's role in the Nixon BLS scandal. (just as a side, I'm sure McDonnell may have been aware that Malek was in the Nixon Administration, but not involved in the scandal, hence the last change). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 22:52, 9 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Your version sounds good 173.53.60.89.Boromir123 (talk) 05:46, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. McEachin, who ran for state-wide office and is not given to overstatement, rarely uses such strong words which made the quote quite remarkable. I think that the current version in the article is a fair depiction of the media coverage. We are not including Malek's contemporaneous $25,000 PAC donation; the Del. Scott Surovell (D-Mount Vernon) remark; or the fact that this scandal forced Malek to resign as Deputy Chair of the RNC in 1988. This article is about Bob McDonnell, who is responsible for vetting his appointments. How can he say that he didn't know, when the controversy drew media coverage for more than two weeks prior to his call-in radio show? Hence, one comment (McEachin's) is appropriate to maintain balance. The other details can be covered in articles about Malek, the Commission, or Virginia politics. Racepacket (talk) 14:34, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

"How can he say that he didn't know, when the controversy drew media coverage for more than two weeks prior to his call-in radio show?" This quote leads me to believe that Racepacket may be misinterpreting the issue at hand. As this source http://voices.washingtonpost.com/virginiapolitics/2010/05/mcdonnell_says_his_vetting_is.html indicates, when McDonnell said he didn't know about Malek's past, he was referring to the time prior to his appointment ("he didn't know about it before choosing Malek to head his panel earlier this month"), not in between the announcement and the radio show. The McEachin quote, by itself, draws too many wp:syn violation conclusions--the vetting process is inadequate, Malek would have never been appointed had McDonnell known about his past, Malek has an unethical character, etc. The quote only serves to inflame one side. Unless anyone other than Racepacket disagrees, I believe consensus is to leave it out. [Where did this come from? It is unsigned and was not here when I left the response below.]

I have replayed the archived recording of the May 25 radio program which ended by reporter Mark Plotkin asking McDonnell about Malek. Plotkin asked McDonnell separate questions: did he know about the Malek's role in the Nixon Administration with respect to the BLS, did he know about the recent Slate Magazine revelations documenting Malek's wider role and did he know about the SEC civil enforcement actions. McDonnell denied knowlege about all three in separate answers. I am very troubled that 173.53.60.89 could propose a change limiting it to the BLS matter. Any fair minded person checking this source would not reach that conclusion. Racepacket (talk) 19:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the change I proposed was from "Nixon Administration" to "BLS scandal" simply for grammatical purposes. Whether or not McDonnell knew Malek had a role in the "Nixon Administration" is irrelevant (many people had a role in the Nixon Administration); what the sources are concerned with are the controversies both in and outside of the Nixon administration. Word it how you will and seek consensus. Sorry you had to replay a recording for a misunderstanding. — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

The point is that McDonnell claimed that he did not know about any of the three problem areas. 173.53.60.89 obviously has some undisclosed relationship or interest in the subject of this article. (In many SPA cases, the SPA turns out to be the subject of the article or a member of his/her family.) Racepacket (talk) 05:08, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we can claim that a BLP knew about something that they have not known about. I don't know who the anon is nor do I claim to vouch for him/her but if you think there is an inappropriate relationship you really should take it to ANI. - Schrandit (talk) 06:53, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket, please explain how I've done anything other than attempt to correct errors to the article and provide NPOV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 11:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

By the way, this was definately a great article to choose for my first--I'm learning a lot about NPOV, good faith, and weasel words like "In many SPA cases. . ." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 11:58, 11 June 2010 (UTC) — 173.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

We have given 173.53.60.89 a lot of slack due to his purported inexperience. However, he has been asked repeatedly to sign his comments, which he has refused to do. He should also consider getting a sign-on and joining in the effort of building an encyclopedia (rather than in spinning the biography of one individual who may be his family-member for all that we know.) He can also take some time to learn Wikipedia etiquette so that if he finds a sentence that he feels requires better sourcing he should either a) find and add a source or b) use a {{cn}} template to mark it, rather than delete the sentence. Many SPAs learn that their efforts are counter-productive, because they merely motivate other, neutral editors to work twice as hard to bring the article back into balance. Racepacket (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I am still waiting to hear why SPA 173.53.60.89 has not obtained a Wikipedia sign-on and whether he has any conflicts of interest with the subject of this article. Racepacket (talk) 16:34, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Well, the username I really wanted--Racepacket--was apparently already taken, so it took me awhile to come up with a different one. No, I'm not Bob McDonnell, nor am I a member if his family. I would hope that the Governor has more important things to do in his spare time than edit his own Wikipedia page. . .(vetting perhaps?--haha). I hope we can now move on from personal accusations and continue to better this article. Mondo nuovo (talk) 06:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC) (formerly 173.53.60.89)

Labeling people

We need to be careful about labeling people. For example, the Malek issue to me, has very little to do about being Jewish. Malek did not bother to investigate and find out which BLS employees were Jewish, he just compiled a list of people with "Jewish sounding names." Hence, I could see how Viriginia state employees with funny sounding names could now be nervous regardless of their membership in any particular minority group. That is why I find it strange that political figures' religious beliefs are suddenly being identified. I honestly don't know the religion of any of the members of the State legislature, and I don't think it is relevant. Their praise or criticism of McDonnell must stand on its own regardless of their religion. The critics are asking, does McDonnell properly vet his appointees? Does Malek have the judgment and background to lead a restructuring of a state government? The critics are not arguing that Malek is today or was in the past an anti-Semite. They are arguing that he does not have the judgment and sensitivity to maintain a tallented, non-partisan civil service.

Similiarly, a lot of these issues affect citizens' rights regardless of political party. Labeling critics as Democratic or Republican may be signficant to some editors who view everything through partisan glasses, but may be POV in the long run. Racepacket (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

While I do agree that these issues do affect individuals regardless of gender, race, religion, politically affiliation, etc., I'd be a little surprised if Racepacket is implying that the individuals involved in politics--those the media quotes and we requote--are not motivated politically, from both sides. Identifying political affiliation of politicians maintains NPOV by presenting that information--whether a critic or a supporter is from the same or an opposing party, any combination of which can happen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 14:42, 12 June 2010 (UTC) — 73.53.60.89 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Many issues are "good government issues" which people should consider regardless of party. I don't mind designations after someone name like (D-CA) to indicate that the person is a Democrat from California. But to me, I could care less whether a particular politician is Jewish or Catholic. A politician's religious affiliation merits discussion when religion become the issue (which is not the case with Malek). For example, I do not object to John Kennedy being identified as Catholic or Doug Wilder as black because there was significant bias against them based on their religion and race and their elections represented a landmark against prejudice. The problem is when we are implying that X said Y because he is of religion Z, or we imply that X said Y because it is a partisan member of party Z. We have to be careful about such synthesis. Racepacket (talk) 16:33, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree; but some issues are partisan, and therefore, identifying party affiliation of politicians is important. Additionally, while you are correct, we are not here to determine what is or is not a "good government" issue. So for the sake of consistency and neutrality, I'm in favor of identifying all politicians in the standard form mentioned above by Racepacket, and mentioning other differences--religion etc., only when absolutely relevant and necessary to the content. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.53.60.89 (talk) 06:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Homosexual marriage and the Daily Show as a source

The Daily Show can be funny but it is not a source. Durring the debate and through out the campaign McDonnell made stated in no uncertain terms that while he would do his job as AG upholding the current law he thought Kaine's sweeping executive order was unconstitutional. To use only a fraction of that statement for some sort of a "gotchya statement" (God I hate that term) to make it appear as though McDonnell lied is disingenuous and cannot be tolerated. - Schrandit (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Show can be a source but likely better ones should be used. Want to try to wedge in the Vatican here as well? McDonnell had statewide protests against his alleged discrimination against gay marriage and the Daily Show found it newsworthy enough to make fun of just as Saturday Night Live lampooned Sarah Palin circling the drain. Deleting content and sources because you don't like them is very poor form Schrandit, please stop. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

With all due respect, you are out of your depth, until you have something constructive to contribute jog on. - Schrandit (talk) 04:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

No Schrandit, we rely on sources not your opinion, and you are not the gatekeeper of knowledge and continue to exhibit bad judgement. If your deleting sources and content have consensus then they would be reverted on some many articles including every one I've seen in the last three months or so. Please use only quality sources. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 22:17, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

So here is the thing. None of that edit relies on my opinion and I actually added sources in it. I'm pretty sure you didn't read any of the sources or the text in question and on a BLP that just can't stand. - Schrandit (talk) 22:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Your judgement on sources is very poor, again. The Daily show is directly quoting other sources all of which are reliable as are the two other newspapers who sources you deleted. Please stop pushing your anti-gay POV by removing content and sources you don't like. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 23:11, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

John Stewart is a comedian. He took a quote out of context to make a joke. I rather like the Washington Post, I have no opinion of the News and Advance. Their articles do not match the text you insist on re-adding. We can not have false, inflammatory material on the Biography of a Living Person, particularly one in the public eye. - Schrandit (talk) 23:39, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

The Daily Show's coverage includes McDonnell's own statements and clips from other news coverage, we are not misquoting anything or using quotes out of context. His actions were reported in national news so please stop deleting this. Please try to find independent and reliable sources for the gun content you wedged in there. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 23:46, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

I have to agree with Schrandit. Editors at the Daily Show (an entertainment source, not a news source) edit clips specifically for comedic value. To avoid POV, find the original source (I may have even posted it somewhere in this talk page--the October AARP (?) or Women's Group Debate?), and cite that so readers can see the full picture, not what Daily Show producers produce. Mondo nuovo (talk) 23:50, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

If the Daily Show shows a clip of McDonnell statement at a news conference then we certainly can trust that McDonell stated it. The answer would be to see if any reliable sources dispute the content, not to delete as Schrandit prefers. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 23:59, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

John Stewart is a comedian. The Daily Show is an entertainment television program. Bob McDonnell uttered those words but not in the context that the text you keep re-adding alleges. This is vandalism of a BLP. Stop or I'll have to take it to ANI. - Schrandit (talk) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't try to rewrite history, they showed a news conference and let McDonnell speak for himself. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 00:03, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Per The Daily Show's own website: "bring you the news like you've never seen it before -- unburdened by objectivity, journalistic integrity or even accuracy."[1] ... by its own admission, it does not qualify as a reliable source for most news events. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

71.139.29.193 you can't be serious. The papers say different. We're not taking John Stewart over the Washington Post. Stick to the talk page or I'm going to ANI. - Schrandit (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Schrandit is correct. After rewatching the Daily Show clip, I've found that it does in fact drastically distort what actually occurred t the debate (not a press conference). My posting from the Controversies and Criticisms section of this talk page has more information: Just some info on McDonnell's long-time stance on workplace discrimination: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRZ5hwIzu9Q&feature=related

While the video's poster is very anti-McDonnell, it demonstrates that even before governor, his position was to not sign an unconstitutional executive order, but to also not discriminate based on any irrational factors--hence not signing the same executive order as Kaine, but instead issuing an executive directive prohibitng those under him from discriminating based on sexual orientation. Mondo nuovo (talk) 00:07, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"The controversy first emerged when McDonnell, who was sworn in in January, signed his first executive order that, unlike those issued by two previous governors, did not include specific protections for gay state workers. Soon thereafter, Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II, also a Republican, sent a letter to public colleges in which he stated that they had no right to impose their own bans as only state legislature can extend such protections, according to The Christian Science Monitor. The ensuing uproar has led McDonnell to backtrack on his own order and on Cuccinelli’s interpretation by announcing an extension of protections to homosexuals, citing their constitutional rights. “The Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution prohibits discrimination without a rational basis against any class of persons [including] based on factors such as one’s sexual orientation,” he wrote, quoted by Falls Church News-Press. Therefore, “discrimination against any class of persons without a rational basis is prohibited,” he added. In the meantime, there have been individual acts of defiance across the state, including the City of Falls Church School Board, that voted to add language to its anti-discrimination policy to protect lesbians and gays at its most recent meeting on Tuesday night, the news provider further reported." This seems a fair summary. So removing this national news generating item seems to be yet another move by Schrandit to edit off uncomfortable information altogether rather than simply get it right. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 00:19, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

1 - Stop making assumptions about me. Stop commenting on what you think I think. Stop making unsightly comments on my religion.

2 - Thats nice and all but it does not jive with the text you keep re-adding. - Schrandit (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

I think this can be rewritten: "The ensuing uproar has led McDonnell to backtrack on his own order." McDonnell never "backtracked;" he issued an additional executive directive, thus complying with his own legal opinion Attorney General and belief that no state worker should be discriminaed against on an irrational basis. Also, "ensuing uproar" seems vague and overly verbose. Mondo nuovo (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2010 (UTC) [Mondo nuovo and its predecessor 173.53.60.89 have made no other edits outside this topic.]

This already has a whole paragraph later on the article. - Schrandit (talk) 00:29, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

So it does; then one of them (probably the newest) should go. Thanks for pointing that out, Schrandit. Mondo nuovo (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC) [Mondo nuovo and its predecessor 173.53.60.89 have made no other edits outside this topic.]

But unlike an executive order, an "executive directive" does not have the force of law. Racepacket (talk) 14:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Donations

I'm a bit confused by this statement: "Many of these donations came from industries regulated by the state." The donations, according to the source, are from private individuals and businesses, though the implication of the statement is something much more sinister. The source merely directs the reader to VPAP, so the vagueness of "industries regulated by the state" is not really fleshed out. I think we should remove the statement.Mondo nuovo (talk) 07:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. What industries are not regulated by the state? Plazak (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

For example, the State Corporation Commission sets electric rates, and Dominion Virginia Power and its executives and PAC are a big donor. There is a difference between a regulated industry and merely getting a business license from the state. Racepacket (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

June 2010 edit war

Please use this space for discussion. User:71.139.29.193, you preferred version, that you say is better, is producing tags every time all stating BLP issue/vandalism. That means, however we decide to have things, there must be an amendment of some kind to yours.Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:02, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

That's an automated tag likely because the word gay. 71.139.29.193 (talk) 00:04, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, where did you learn about automated tags? - Schrandit (talk) 00:09, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that's the only reason? I didn't think "gay" was that bad since the term is used as the only decent alternative to homosexual. Evlekis (Евлекис) 00:06, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please stop deflecting, I just added two more sources so can the removal of content desist Schrandit? 71.139.29.193 (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

And neither of those sources back up the text you insist on re-adding. - Schrandit (talk) 00:23, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Please let me know if my opinion is not wanted, but I would also argue that in addition to adding sources, the Daily Show source should be removed, as it manipulates the events for comedic value and presents an untruthful account. Mondo nuovo (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that really is poor form for a BLP. - Schrandit (talk) 00:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The problem is that the Daily Show is the only source that shows the actual clip of McDonnell's response to the question regarding whether he would repeal the Kaine executive order which prohibited discrimination in state employment based on sexual orientation. The Washington Post merely has a blog summary of the October 12, 2009 debate, and the WETA video encountered technical problems and ended before the end of the debate. If someone has the full video of the October 12, 2009 debate, please let us know the reference. Racepacket (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www2.timesdispatch.com/rtd/news/gubernatorial_election/ 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:34, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Mondo nuovo (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Also, though the poster itself is bias and it is not the full debate, the full McDonnell quotation can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vRZ5hwIzu9Q&feature=related 173.53.60.89 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2010 (UTC)Mondo nuovo (talk) 02:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Race to the Top

I apologize in advance for the long post. I have several issues with the Race to the Top paragraph that I'd like to discuss before making substantive changes. The way it reads now, McDonnell did not understand the application process. Though, according to the sources, McDonnell said "The problem is one of the criteria is to adopt a common core set of standards -- academic set of standards -- to get the points you need to be competitive and we can't do that." So essentially, McDonnell rightfully believed that in order for VA to be competitive in the application (remembering that in the first round, VA finished 31 out of 41, so every point counts), they did need to adopt a core set of standards. Another source points out that the current standards can be used with the common core set, provided that the additional standards do not exceed 15 percent of the State’s total standards for that content area. This last phrase is especially important for our purposes. As we're unaware of the common core set of standards, and whether current the Virginia Standards of Learning do exceed those common core set of standards by 15 percent, we can't call the Governor's rationale "erroneous" in such a matter-of-fact way, especially when the main-stream media (which is generally quick to point out error of any high-profile individual) hasn't identified this as a error. Which brings me to my last concern: I've never heard of "The Wonk Room." Is this a reliable source? Mondo nuovo (talk) 08:13, 13 June 2010 (UTC) [Mondo nuovo and its predecessor 173.53.60.89 have made no other edits outside this topic.]

McDonnell made two media appearances where he misstated the Race to the Top criteria. The criteria are applied by an independent panel of education experts who are hired to review and score applications from various states. Full or partial credit are awarded under each criteria.

• The actual criteria is that up to 40 points (out of 500) are awarded if the state adopts educational standards that are a part of a multi-state "common" effort to adopt educational standards. (The Washington Post article misreported this as 20 points.) This does not have to be a nationwide effort, just more than one state. However, 49 states have worked together to develop a set of common standards.
• McDonnell's first announcement said that because the Race to the Top program requires adoption of the "common standards" VA would not reapply for round-two funding, because it already has the 15 year old "Standards of Learning" for student performance. He misstated the criteria as an absolute requirement, and not just 40 points out of 500.

I don't see how he misstated it as an absolute requirement; I see him stating it as a criteria absolutely necessary to be competitive--40 points can break Virginia's application, especially when it finished in the bottom 24% in the first round.Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

He said it was a requirement on May 27, but reversed that on June 1. The round 1 application was filed with the concurrence of Governor-elect McDonnell. The application stated:

"In 2009, the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and the National Governors Association (NGA) initiated a state-led effort to develop common core standards in mathematics and English language arts for grades K-12. In May 2009, Governor Timothy M. Kaine and Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Patricia I. Wright signed a Memorandum of Understanding (See Appendix (B)(1)(I)) with CCSSO and NGA, committing the state to the process of developing the common standards. Virginia has participated in the review of the drafts of the common core standards and submitted comments at each opportunity offered. Additionally, Virginia’s English coordinator is on the committee to develop the K-12 learning progressions in the English/language arts common core standards."

So, Virginia participated in the development of the common standards. Racepacket (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• McDonnell then appeared on Morning Joe on MS-NBC on June 1 and was again asked about Race to the Top. At this point, he seems to acknowledge that it is only a matter of points and not a requirement, but he incorrectly stated that Race to the Top prohibits a state from adopting standards more stringent than the "common standards." That prompted a follow up question asking if that was correct. In fact, adopting standards more rigorous than the common standards will not cost the application any points so long as the additional standards are not more than 15% of the total subject area curriculum. So for example, a Virginia could say that students must learn all of the items in the "Standards of Learning" as well as all of the items on the "common standards."

This means that 85% of the curriculum must fall within the common standards. If Virginia's SOLs are >15% better (or cover >15% more information) than the common standards, then they cannot be used. This doesn't prove McDonnell wrong--if anything, it emphasizes how correct he is.Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

The above comment is exactly the falacy that McDonnell has propounded. Any state can use any standard they want, and nothing is prohibited. McDonnell stated twice on Morning Joe that the Race to the Top program prohibited a state from using standards that are more rigorous than the common standards. All that happens if a state's standard has additional topics that are more than 15% of the total number of topics in the common standards for a subject area is that it might loose a point in the score. It is not a disqualification. Racepacket (talk) 14:04, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I just re-watched the Morning Joe segment. McDonnell never used the word "prohibited." What he said was that one of the criteria was the adoption of the common standards, which Virginia is not willing to do. Assuming we agree on that, VA has 2 options: continue with the application and not receive the points, or discontinue the application. Having finished 31 out of 41 in the first round, and with only 10-15 states receiving grants, losing those 40 points would ruin VA's competitiveness. VA could still use their own standards, but the ceiling for those standards would have to be = common standards + 15%. Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

The result is that McDonnell has never offered a clear explanation of why he held up the filing of the round 2 application. I had a much more moderate forumulation of the paragraph, but Boromir123 made it more confused. Racepacket (talk) 15:14, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

The link you have to Boromir123's changes doesn't show anything substantive.

Finally, is their a reliable source (I still don't know what "The Wonk Room" is), that cites McDonnell as being mistaken or in error, or is this wp:original research?Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:06, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.mytimesdispatch.com/index.php/virginiapolitics/saslaw_defends_the_sol_against_common_national_standards/ Multiple sources refute this section of a BLP article. So far, Racepacket has not been able to identify any reliable sources to back up his/her argument. This is clearly a wp:syn and wp:or violation. Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:02, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

BLP or Criticism Page?

As a new editor (using this sign-on and IP 173.53.60.89), I've been learning my way around Wikipedia policies by attempting to bring NPOV to this article. That said, as I look at it now--specifically the Governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia section--I find that nearly every paragraph has a criticism, veiled or stated outright, of McDonnell, and most of the section is written from a critical POV. I see original research, wp:syn, poor sources, weasel words, and all-around bias.

As this is my first article, and since Racepacket has already assumed my quest for NPOV means that I have ulterior motives, I'd ask third parties to review this section as a whole and evaluate it (possibly rewrite it as well). In the mean time, I'll be shifting my efforts from editing what others have written to providing additional relevant information. Mondo nuovo (talk) 02:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC) — Mondo nuovo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Nobody owns particular Wikipedia articles. This is not your article. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, I suggest that you refocus from burnishing Bob McDonnell's image to building an encyclopedia. Special Purpose Accounts (SPAs) pose special problems. Since February 2010, you have done nothing but add pro-Bob McDonnell comments to this article. Most SPAs find their efforts counter-productive because they have the effect of prompting editors who are committed to buidling a serious reference work to redouble their efforts. By the way, everyone appreciates that you are finally signing your comments (after months of requests to do so.) Racepacket (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket doth protest too much, methinks. Look through my history--I've attempted to bring provide NPOV by editing what is already written and adding relevant information. I've tried to maintain good faith, but Racepacket's clear bias against McDonnell is astonishing. Lastly, I've never claimed to "own" the article. . .I'm merely trying to obtain outside help for NPOV purposes. Mondo nuovo (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2010 (UTC) — Mondo nuovo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Read your comment above where you have for the second time referred to the Bob McDonnell article as "my" article. If you want to join our effort at building a reliable and useful encyclopedia, please consider working on a variety of topics or tasks. For example, you might want to join the new page patrol, or the category patrol. There is obviously a definitional problem here. You claim to be a knight riding on a white horse making NPOV edits exclusively on this article since February 2010, while other people can view the same set of actions as an SPA making biased pro-Bob McDonnell edits. You claim that you really don't care about Bob McDonnell one way or the other, in which case, the actions could be viewed as simply trolling. Racepacket (talk) 03:19, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

There is criticism woven throughout the article, but McDonnell is not exactly a non-controversial politician. I don't see this article as an attack piece though.--204.75.125.136 (talk) 22:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Budget surplus

User:Soxwon as well as an IP want to add quotes from a BusinessWeek website which quotes an Associated Press story about Virginia's budget surplus for the fiscal year July 1, 2009 - June 30, 2010. The story contains quotes where McDonnell appears to take credit for the budget surplus and said Senate Majority Leader Richard L. Saslaw said, "The new governor had zero to do with this." because the Kaine Administration proposed the budget and the legislature adopted it long before McDonnell took office. At first I deleted the paragraph because of the way the IP used quotes from McDonnell's office rather than stating the facts. Soxwon then restored it with the notation "rvv" which means that he considered the deletion to be vandalism. I then added an explanation of the budget cycle and a quote from the Virginia Democratic Party Chair to restore NPOV. He then reverted it back to the IP's text with quotes. I don't see a logical connection between the year end budget surplus and McDonnell. McDonnell's first buget took effect on July 1, 2010. Racepacket (talk) 18:07, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

If you wish to add the quotes from the Businessweek story fine, I have no problem with that. However, using a blog to try to get NPOV isn't the way to go. Soxwon (talk) 18:19, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

• • User:Boromir123 asks how quotations "backed by neutral sources" can be unencyclopedic. Here we have an Associated Press article that quotes Governor McDonnell as verging on taking credit for a $220 million budget surplus and the Virginia Senate Majority leader saying that McDonnell had "zero" to do with it. The McDonnell quote was then presented out of context creating the impression that there was a real budget surplus and that he created it, and the IP editor did not include the quotes from the other side. To serve Wikipedia's readers, we should explain in neutral terms both sides of the debate as to whether there was a real budget surplus. Whether both sides can be quoted as taking credit or assessing blame is really of secondary importance. My first inclination was that there was nothing notable relevant to McDonnell, but so much controversy has appeared in the press that I agree we should include it in the article. Racepacket (talk) 15:37, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Check out the editorial in the July 30, 2010 Washington Post entitled "Virginia's budget surplus:* Nice, better than the alternative, but based on ephemera" which found, "Both those maneuveers will cost the state when it returns to a regular sales tax collection schedule and replays its retirement system. Nonetheless, they allowed the governor to sidestep some extremely unpleasant budgetary choices for the time being. Without them, Mr. McDonnell would habe had to raise across-the-board taxes, which he vowed not to do, or made further draconian cuts to a budget already pulverized by the economic downturn."

Polling data

User:Boromir123 posted "approval rating" poll results in the article. It engendered the following discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Is polling part of a Campaign article or a mandatory part of an Election article?:

What about including "approval rating" polling data in an article about an incumbent who is term-limited? For example: Bob McDonnell, is it relevant biographical information from a secondary source, or is it OR synthesis? Racepacket (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

• Obviously it shouldn't be included. So what the hell is your point?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:41, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Bobby Thompson campaign contributions

User:Boromir123 edited the article to read "Bobby Thompson, who was directors of the U.S. Navy Veterans Association and who has made large contributions to certain Republican and Democratic candidates." However, the sources say that of the $67,500 contributed to Virginia candidates in 2009, $66,500 was contributed to Republicans and there was one, unsolicited $1,000 donation to a Democratic Senator. [2] So, I think that it is a fair summary of the sources to say that the large contributions were made to Republican candidates. Racepacket (talk) 11:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I see no reason why this section should be in the article. It was a relatively minor event in McDonnell's governorship, and has no real relevance. Though I'm open for arguments otherwise. Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Passive voice and general problems

The governor section is a mess. The last paragraph that I deleted read like a gossip column (exempting certain veterans' organizations; made donations to certain Republican candidates; questionable practices caused a sponsor) Either skip the innuendo and put down actual names or just leave it out. There is also a problem with using the passive voice: During the last week of August 2010, McDonnell was criticized for outsourcing the state's computer. Sure he was criticized, BY VIRGINIA DEMOCRATS, who normally engage in partisan criticism. Also, the link to Bob McDonnell is that he rehired and/or failed to manage the repair service, not that the computers failed! Honestly, if certain editors wish to add criticism about McDonnell, they should at least try to show some impartiality. Soxwon (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• I don't view the discussion in the press with the same partisan perspective that you bring to the issue. The Washington Post ran a number of stories on the plight of the the 45,000 who were getting traffic tickets for driving without a license, but who could not renew their license due to the computer problems. The problem is that he advocated the outsourcing of the state's computer systems in a $2.4 bilion contract. Although the hardware repairs were made quickly, the failure to bring the system up for over a week is inexplicable. Since McDonnell made the computer outsourcing contract a campaign issue, I think that it is fair to include it in the discussion of his Governorship. As a factual matter, both Republicans and Democrats were opposed to the confirmation of Robert C. Sledd for Secretary of Commerce due to his insistence of retaining his outside directorships. Racepacket (talk) 21:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Then you need to back this up with sourcing. The source provided for the appointment:

“The Senate Democrats are going to be as difficult for this governor as the House Republicans were for Governor [Timothy M.] Kaine.”

He called the Senate opposition “an opening skirmish in the battle” to see who is in charge in state government.

Howell said the Democrats were not playing politics. “Serving on corporate boards is totally inappropriate,” she said, adding that she expects Cheng to have an easy time of being confirmed.

It's painfully obvious that the source is saying that Democrats were criticizing McDonnell.

As for the computer crash, again:

Democrats are using the incident to call into question McDonnell's management style and his propensity for privatization.

Again, it's Dems making the criticism of Mcdonnell, the other blame is attributed to the company itself. You can only say what the sources say is relevant. As for the last paragraph, it is littered with passive voice and weasel words such as certain veterans' organizations, questionable practices, and certain Republican candidates to name a few. You need to either get specific with who is who and who said what or take it out of the article, as biographies are not the place for shoddy editing. Soxwon (talk) 21:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

• • We discussed the identification of Republican candidates on the talk page above. They are given on VPAP and in the news stories so there is no need to enumerate them in the article.
  • There have been dozens of news stories on TV, radio and in the papers crtiticizing the computer shutdown -- including average citizens (with unidentified political party) and not just politicians being quoted. You seem to assume that only politicians speak out on issues of public concern and that they are motivated for only partisan advantage rather than public policy concerns. I hold the opposite view.
  • The amendment to the charity disclosure law targeted a class of veterans groups, so it is logical that the article would refer to the group generically rather than list every verteran charity by name. We discussed why the article characterizes the donations as being made to Republicans here.
  • I added the Richmond Times Dispatch article yesterday as a service to Wikipedia readers and there is no reason to delete it.

Please discuss the issue here and propose alternative langauge, rather than arbitrarily removing portions of the article that have been in place for months and forged from earlier discussions. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 11:59, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Appeals to tradition don't work here. This is a WP:BLP and you posting once on the talkpage is not a discussion. As for the power outage, I'm not seeing a whole lot of criticism of Mcdonnel over it except from Dems. Sure there is criticisim, but not much leveled at Mcdonnell. The way you have written it makes it seem as though all of these things were being attributed to Mcdonnell, yet they are not (or at least not in the sources you have cited) Soxwon (talk) 23:22, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that you are unfairly criticising Republicans with an unfounded claim that Republicans support a full-time state employee who wants to earn most of his income from serving on corporate Boards of Directors. The world is not neatly divided into Republicans and Democrats. For example, when the Washington Post runs an editorial, into which column would you try to place it? Racepacket (talk) 15:15, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

The "questionable practices" pertain specifically to the U.S. Navy Veterans Association and Bobby Thompson and are spelled out in the newspaper articles. Bob McDonnell quickly donated Thompson's donations to charity. After months of criticism, Ken Cuccinelli finally decided to do the same thing. We may never know exactly what happened because Bobby Thompson has disappeared and even his lawyers quit because they don't know where he is. Racepacket (talk) 15:32, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Then spell them out in the article without weasel words. Soxwon (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I have gone back and took a hard look on the phrases that trouble User:Soxwon, but I don't see "innuendo." The passage is very clear that the sponsor of the bill asked McDonnell to veto the bill, and McDonnell did not. What is relevant is that McDonnell could have vetoed the bill, and he did not, even though a number of states were investigating the charity and Bobby Thompson who pushed to have the bill introduced. Again, the Bobby Thompson episode drew press attention over several months, which is why it should be included. Racepacket (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

You need to reread, it honestly sounds like a gossip column b/c no one is named. I shall work out a wording below. Soxwon (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps it is overkill, but I have added more details about the actions taken by the Ohio Attorney General to seek the arrest of Bobby Thompson and the recovery of the funds collected for charitable purposes. So we are explicitly attributing to the Ohio AG that there has been identity theft and the misappropriation of money. Racepacket (talk) 00:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

After finally tracking down the article that the charity paragraph is based around (I had to get access to a newspaper archive), I don't even believe that the paragraph really needs to be re-inserted. Mcdonnell's involvement was as follows: he signed a bill into law before before he knew about problems with a charity. He had already given away the money that had been donated to him. He later rescinded the law after he found out that the charity was suspect. Straightforward, minor incident, and unless there is more coverage, not really that noteworthy IMO. As for the computer crash, again, the sources used all indicate Dems criticizing Mcdonnell's management, not the entirety of the crash. Find sources that say otherwise or quit trying to make it sound as though he is being blamed for the entire crash. Same for the appointment that failed, sources given indicate partisan opposition, nothing more (granted there was other opposition, but that was if he failed to give up his private sector positions, which he offered to do). Soxwon (talk) 20:35, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that we disagree on what is encyclopedic content and how much context can be included to avoid confusing the reader. McDonnell had a duty to perform due dilligence on the bills that he signed and the people from whom he is willing to accept $5,000 campaign contributions. User:Soxwon is wrong about McDonnell's role in the bill. McDonnell specifically signed a new law that exempted Veterans' charities from the requirement of filing annual financial disclosure forms. He did not "later rescind the law after he found out that the charity was suspect." I added more details about Bobby Thompson at the request of User:Soxwon, to avoid his vague "innuendo" accusation. Note that McDonnell did not donate the $5,000 Thompson money until a month after signing the bill.

User:Soxwon is absolutely wrong about Sledd being willing to give up his corporate directorships. After bipartisan concerns surfaced in December about a full-time Virginia employee continuing his outside directorships, Sledd offered to work for $0 of Virginia salary; he did not offer to give up those directorships. Specifically, he wanted to continue as a paid director of Pool Corp. As a result, I believe McDonnell took the reasonable step of withdrawing Sledd's nomination. It is User:Soxwon rather than the Republicans or McDonnell who is trying to defend Sledd's insisting on holding on to his corporate directorships.

Many of the changes proposed by User:Soxwon today do not match his edit summaries or his discussions here. Racepacket (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Chronology on Bobby Thompson

Date	Event
Feb. 23, 2009	the Virginia Division of Consumer Protection barred USNVA from soliciting for donations because it had failed to register as a charity and to make the necessary financial disclosures.
2009	Thompson donate $5K to McDonnell, $55K to Cuccinelli & $1K to Ticer
May 2009	Wright meets with Attorney General Mims to get bar lifted
Aug 18, 2009	the USNVA received a letter stating that the Attorney General concurred with the bar.
Fall 2009	Because the USNVA is barred from soliciting in Virginia, since it is not a registered charity, USNVA lobbyest suggests a law to exempt all 503(c)(19) veteran organizations from the registration requirement.
Jan. 13, 2010	Ticer introduces the bill, SB 563, during the 2010 Virginia General Assembly session.
Jan. 27, 2010	The Senate General Laws and Technology Committee approves the bill 15-0, with amendments.
Feb 2, 2010	The Virginia Senate passes SB 563 by a vote of 40-0.
FEb. 15, 2010	Cuccinelli met with Wright to discuss the legislation which had passed the State Senate
Mar. 2, 2010	The House General Laws Committee approves SB 563 by a vote of 22-0.
Mar. 4, 2010	The bill passes the House of Delegates, 100-0.
Mar. 21, 2010	The St. Petersburg Times publishes the first part of its continuing series on the U.S. Navy Veterans Association and Bobby Thompson.
Late March	Someone from Florida e-mails Ticer’s office about the story. Her legislative aide, Peggy Papp, grows suspicious and recommends Ticer withdraw the bill. But it’s too late. Ticer suggests Papp contact the governor’s office and request he veto it.
April 1, 2010	NM Attorney General bars USNVA from soliciting in New Mexico
April 10-11	E-mails and calls to the governor’s policy office come in from Ticer and others requesting the bill be vetoed. The governor’s policy advisers become concerned and unsuccessfully look for the bill amid a rush of last minute legislation.
April 11, 2010	unidentified person (probably within the Governor's office) calls Wright about Ticer's veto request. Wright calls Ticer and asks her to drop the veto request.
April 12, 2010	Gov. Bob McDonnell signs SB 563 into law. McDonnell says it will benefit charities other than USNVA, all of which could already solicit in Virginia at that time. It took effect July 1.
May 17, 2010	McDonnell's office announced that he will donate the $5K Thompson contribution to charity.
July 28, 2010	Cuccinelli donates Thompson contribution to charity
Aug 5, 2010	Ohio Attorney General announces arrest warrant on Thompson

Bias

Seems like some of the language is very Anti-McDonnell and biased. That doesn't seem to be in accordance with Wikipedia's goal of being an objective source of knowledge. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.127.120.12 (talk) 16:43, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Teresa Lewis

An IP has left several edits regarding McDonnell's refusal to commute Lewis' death penalty to life imprisonment. Each edit was reverted for a lack of sources. In fact, the case has drawn international press coverage and wide-spread public attention. Accordingly, I have added sourced statements to the article. User Soxwon has reverted them claiming that there is no consensus. However, I believe the prior edits were out of a concern for lack of sources, rather than advocating that it should be excluded. I welcome more views. Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

This has little to do with McDonnell, and seems to be nothing more than a partisan attack. In fact, most of what you added in your most recent edit was WP:COAT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV. Arzel (talk) 21:01, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Under the VA Constitution, the decision to execute Lewis was exclusively McDonnell's to make. I don't see the WP:COAT, WP:UNDUE, and WP:NPOV arguments, as I am mostly summarizing front page newspapers stories. The edit also restored deletions by user Soxwon who deleted a number of passages that were in the article for some time. Many articles on political figures cover notable events during the subject's term of office. For example, the Ronald Reagan bio discusses: the air traffic controllers strike, the savings and loan crisis, repeal of the Windfall Profits Tax, Lebanon and Grenada invasions, the Space Shuttle Challenger crash, and the immigration reform law. Obviously, a lot of people were involved in those issues, and they are covered with more detail in separate articles, but the Reagan bio properly summarizes them with enough context so that the reader can follow what happened in the Reagan Administration and what Reagan's role and polcies were. We are trying to do the same thing here. When the Virginia government is shut down for eight days by computer problems, that is a notable episode in the McDonnell administration. When the governor gains world-wide press for his decision to execute a woman with a low IQ, that is also a notable episode. Wikipedia does not pass judgment on whether it was good or bad or McDonnell's fault or credit. We just report in an NPOV manner. Racepacket (talk) 21:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Except that you are presenting it as if he purposely executed a woman with a low IQ. Let us please not turn WP into an organ to promote a specific point of view (in this case the morality of execution). You make it sound like he is the person that acutally executed her. I made the Coat arguement because many of those specific issues are tangental to his life in general. They were largely things that happened while he was in office that he had little control over. Now perhaps you could add some of it back into an article that expressly talks about his term as govener, but for the BLP, BLP policies have to be maintained. Arzel (talk) 16:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that we should uphold NPOV. I don't seek out grounds to criticize McDonnell, but rather when he makes the front page of the newspaper, I consider whether the event is worthy of inclusion. The Teresa Lewis case drew international press coverage, and McDonnell received more public comments than he does in other capital punishment cases. That warrants inclusion. I disagree with the argumentative inserts made by 92.8.2.40 and tried to summarize the press coverage accurately. The full details are left to the Teresa Lewis article, but enough facts should be included so that the reader will understand why the case drew so much attention (e.g., that it was the first woman executed since 1912 and that she was borderline mentally retarded.)

If WP:COAT is misapplied, then every leader's Wikipedia biography would be "He was born. His mother loved him, and he was leader of x from years y to z." Wikipedia needs to cover notable issues, events and challenges during the leader's administration. Racepacket (talk) 23:27, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Arzel. The section is not written in a neutral manner.Boromir123 (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the previous editors; this section seems very one-sided. It gives the pro-commutation arguments while saying McDonnell declined to intervene. Because those arguments are better suited for the Lewis article, I propose the following for the section in this article: "In a decision that drew international controversy, McDonnell declined to intervene in the case of Teresa Lewis, who was executed on September 23, 2010. She became the first woman executed in Virginia since 1912." Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: "the decision to execute Lewis was exclusively McDonnell's to make" is not an entirely accurate statement. The decision to execute Lewis was initially Pittsylvania County Circuit Court's to make in 2002; the decision was upheld in appeals courts. McDonnell's decision was not whether or not to execute, but rather a determination of whether or not there was enough cause (whether an error or omission in the judicial process, for example), for his intervention. The role of the Governor is not to circumvent the judicial system and make the "exclusive decision," but rather to ensure that the decision reached is just. Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:44, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Racepacket, if I did not know any better I would think you are actively campaigning against McDonnell. If you cannot edit this page without trying to push a political point of view then perhaps you should not edit this page. Arzel (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

I have tentative, mixed feeling about McDonnell, but I am certainly not "actively campaigning against" him. I am just incorporating press coverage as it comes up in order to keep the article up to date. Again, I came across this page when I noticed that an SPA (first the IP address 173.53.60.89, who later became Mondo nuovo) was drastically distorting the article. That prompted me to get involved in working toward keeping it accurate, timely and neutral. We have worked through most of the text of the article line-by-line, and I don't think that Arzel's repeated blanking of entire topics is the solution to whatever people may perceive is a problem with the article. I believe that some editors are misapplying the WP:COAT essay in order to selectively delete areas of media coverage that may be less than flatering to Governor McDonnell. Mondo nuovo is correct that I my talk page remark was a misstatement. The Governor has the exclusive decision to commute the sentence prior to execution, not to execute Lewis. Racepacket (talk) 14:47, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

IDK, everything seems to be phrased to portray the Gov in the most negative light possible (ie, why does it read "refused to commute her sentence" rather than "allowed the execution to go forward", Kaine's article reads that he "oversaw" executions) and why doesn't it mention that Lewis arranged for the murder of her husband and his child for financial gain. If this even warrants coverage that seems like relevant detail. - Schrandit (talk) 15:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That is a valid point and I will add it now. Racepacket (talk) 15:43, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

User:Racepacket stated "I came across this page when I noticed that an SPA (first the IP address 173.53.60.89, who later became Mondo nuovo) was drastically distorting the article. That prompted me to get involved in working toward keeping it accurate, timely and neutral." Looking back at the page's history, we can see that this statement is blatantly false. My first edit to this article appears to be adding additional information on the topic of the non-discrimination policy on 24 February 2010. My next edits came nearly a month later (18 March 2010) to the same section, with the intent of maintaining the original neutrality my initial edit had obtained. During that month, User:Racepacket made several edits to an entirely different section. Clearly his involvement is not a result of my edits; the question then remains: why falsely point your finger at me when accused of bias? Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:25, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Anti-abortion vs pro-life

The article described McDonnell's campaign position as "pro-life." IP 92.8.2.40 objected to that because McDonnell supports the death penalty. Many people view "pro-life" as involving a number of subjects other than abortion, such as opposing embryonic stem cell research and capital punishment. Since the references addressed only abortion, I went with the anti-abortion terminology. However, Arzel seems to change it back to pro-life. Again, we are limiting our discussion to just the paragraph describing McDonnell's campaign. What phrase better fits his position? Thanks, Racepacket (talk) 21:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

The phrase "pro-life" is overwhelmingly seen as abortion-specific. That said, the argument can be made that the phrase, like the phrase "pro-choice" is considered political framing. The question is--do we allow political framing for an article about a political figure? I'm neutral on this one. Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:32, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

We don't need to say McDonnell "is pro life" rather we can say he campaigned as a pro-life candidate.Boromir123 (talk) 04:11, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

I can't find campaign materials on capital punishment or embryonic stem cells at this point, but I will continue to look. I don't think that IP 92.8.2.40 was worried about "political framing." I'm proposing "opponent of abortions" Racepacket (talk) 19:29, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

NG Criticism?

The article currently states "Subsequently, McDonnell was criticized when the Northrup computer systems experienced a week-long computer outage from August 25 through September 2, 2010." The source provided doesn't state or show anyone criticizing McDonnell, only Northrop Grumman. Is there a reliable source that actually does criticize the Governor for the NG failure, or should this statement be removed? Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:43, 28 September 2010 (UTC)— Mondo nuovo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I think it should be removed, let the facts speak for themselves.Boromir123 (talk) 04:10, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. - Schrandit (talk) 14:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

The commentary pointed back to the decision to extend the contract for 3 years, to increase the annual fee, and to have VITA report to the Governor rather than to an independent commission. There were also press references to $75,000 in campaign donations by Northrop Grumman employees to McDonnell's campaign. Racepacket (talk) 19:31, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

"The commentary pointed back to..." uuummm. . .you do realize that the source is the article itself, right? There's no way that a comment's section can be used as a reliable, NPOV citation. I agree that it should be left out. Mondo nuovo (talk) 12:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)— Mondo nuovo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

I have stated as much before, but was ignored by RP, it seems that concensus is to leave it out so I will again suggest it be removed. Soxwon (talk) 18:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting question. A number of media outlets provide public feedback including talk radio and comment section on news web pages. There were also quotes from specific political figures. Sufficient criticism of McDonnell appeared to warrant reaching out to Northrop Grumman and asking them to apologize. While I agree that Northrop Grumman is both legally and pragmatically responsible for the long shut-down, we are trying to report on what happened both on the political and functional level. 1) Was it a big deal - yes, it shut down many government functions for 8 days. 2) Did folks criticize McDonnell for it? Yes. 3) Has he taken steps to hold NG to account? Yes. NG will pay for an independent investigation. The article needs to cover all of these topics. Racepacket (talk) 13:03, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

"Sufficient criticism of McDonnell appeared to warrant reaching out to Northrop Grumman and asking them to apologize." Do you have any reliable, NPOV sources to back up your claim that criticism (that we still haven't seen, outside of the RTD comments section), caused McDonnell to reach out to NG, versus McDonnell, as Governor, recognizing a bad situation and demanding an explanation? The phrase should be left out. Mondo nuovo (talk) 02:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)— Mondo Nuovo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

My reading of the many media accounts indicate this stems from a combination of factors: 1) There was widespread dissatisfaction with the NG contract and Virginia had a monetary claim against NG for prior underperformance. 2) McDonnell presses for legislation to transfer VITA from reporting to an independent commission to reporting to him as part of the Executive Branch. 3) McDonnell plays a visable role in negotiating an extension of the NG contract for 3 years, rather than terminating it early and dropping the monetary claim. 4) VPAP announces that McDonnell received $75,000 in NG campaign contributions. 5) The computer outage, instead of being immedately fixed keeps agencies down for as much as 8 days. 6) Some may have viewed McDonnell as slow to announce a plan to give people a break on expired drivers licenses, promising to extend DMV hours, etc. (although he did so days later.) So, these people were not illogical in making a connection between their unhappiness and McDonnell (as opposed to just NG.) Racepacket (talk) 09:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

"4) VPAP announces that McDonnell received $75,000 in NG campaign contributions." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you didn't mean for that to be a chronological listing of events. VPAP doesn't make "announcements;" they merely report the money coming in and out and the time financial reports are posted. Because McDonnell's donations from NG were incremental, they would have been reported on VPAP throughout the campaign, not suddenly "announced" after the NG contract was revised. Mondo nuovo (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The other issue with your argument is "My reading of the many media accounts indicate. . ." Information needs to be based on reliable, NPOV sources; not commentary sections, and certainly not your own WP:SYN. Mondo nuovo (talk) 12:12, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

The facts stated in the article should be based on reliable secondary sources. However, there are times when quotations, self-published sources, and POV publications can be validly used in specific contexts. For example, the article Intelligent design is a featured article that deals carefully with highly-debatable POV content. Wikipedia's voice should not be used to repeat unsubstantiated rumors about people, but it is permissible to report in an article that "McDonnell was criticized..." for doing X. As a second example, Barack Obama cannot personally fix the Gulf oil spill, but his biography states, "As multiple efforts by BP failed, some in the media and public expressed confusion and criticism over various aspects of the incident, and stated a desire for more involvement by Obama and the federal government." Racepacket (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The issue is, the source cited for "criticism" was the anonymous commentary section of a news article. Find a reliable source that criticizes McDonnell for the fiasco, and we can go from there. Until then, the point is moot. Mondo nuovo (talk) 06:06, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Results from 2010 Fiscal Year

Let me try to dissect this erroneous section:

"The first budget enacted under the McDonnell administration took effect on July 1, 2010." True.

"Two of McDonnell's legislative initiatives did increase the surplus for the 2009-2010 fiscal year." Ummm. . .not really.

"First, the budget bill accelerated the payment of state sales taxes resulting in a one-time shift of revenues that would otherwise have been collected in July 2010 into the old fiscal year." False. This is (1) not one of :"McDonnell's legislative initiatives" (he's actually opposed to the policy), and (2) not a contributing factor to the surplus. http://www.governor.virginia.gov/News/viewRelease.cfm?id=319

"Second, the budget bill deferred a $620 million payment to the Virginia Retirement System to future years." False. The VRS rate reductions are part of the FY 2011/2012 budget and had no bearing on the surplus.

The surplus came from 175 million in savings, and 228 million in collections above what was forecasted. I'm not sure if McDonnell's own words are a reliable source; but nevertheless, in order to keep the section as-is, you would need to provide a reliable source that says otherwise (which the sources associated with the article don't). Mondo nuovo (talk) 23:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)— Mondo nuovo (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• McDonnell was saying that they were projecting higher 2009-2010 revenues because of the acceleration, he does not disagree that the 2009-2010 revenues would have been lower without the acceleration. That is why he is arguing to phase out the acceleration over several years. The problem is that under the new plan, retailers pay sales tax in advance based on estimated sales. If the actual sales are lower because of a slower economy, the state owes the excess to the retailers. The VRS deferrals involve both direct state payments for state employees and indirect state payments to school districts who make VRS contributions for school employees. I think I can work out some language within the budget sections to make these items more clear. I am on the road, and will do it next week. Racepacket (talk) 04:47, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

From McDonnell: "Let me note briefly what did not contribute to these results. The surplus did not come from the accelerated sales tax." Mondo nuovo (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I am not convinced that he meant it literally, and he is a POV source, while other sources took the opposite view. Racepacket (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Not literally? It seems pretty clear-cut to me. You said yourself, "there are times when quotations, self-published sources, and POV publications can be validly used in specific contexts;" while I'm not convinced that this is a POV source (I would argue that it's simply the government reporting the surplus via its representative), if it were POV, it is nevertheless reliable. "other sources took the opposite view;" I haven't found a reliable source that proves the accelerated sales tax contributed to the surplus. Please provide a link. Mondo nuovo (talk) 03:35, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Title above image reads "His Excellency"

Looks like that might be someone's political views, not reality. Still learning the ins and outs of how to take down something like that, but wanted to point it out first.

George Bounacos (talk) 13:28, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that honorific applies to any past or present Governor of Virginia. Mark Warner often reminds people, jokingly, that they can still call him that. Rklear (talk) 13:34, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Military History Assessment

I have added this article to WikiProject Military History due to his military career which is mentioned in the Article intro, but with a Start-class assessment due to that WikiProject's more stringent standards for B-class articles. Any assistance from a more experienced WikiProject Military History member in checking this article against the relevant B-class assessment criteria would be most appreciated. --TommyBoy (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Sir: I have just re-read your truly impressive biography as it is posted on Wikipedia. And I remember your sober and prescient speech following the 2010 State of the Union Address. As one who regards the nation as founded to be great peril, allow me to urge you to stand as a candidate for the Republican Party nomination for President in 2012. The internecine warfare now gripping our party threatens to tear asunder the very roots of the opposition to the statist government that is being imposed on us by staggering debt, energy dependence, and a weakness in our foreign policy. It is now incumbent upon someone of your character, ability, and distinguished record, both in the military and in government, to come forth as the conservative alternative to the present crop of candidates, none of whom in my estimation can defeat President Obama. I live in California and Arizona, and thus do not hear about the achievements of your administration very often. Nevertheless I am convinced that your candidacy will mark a new beginning in this critical campaign and will electrify not only those in our party, but independents and even some moderate Democrats, just as it did in 2009. I note that in a few short years you have produced two budget surpluses, greatly expanded higher educational opportunities for Virginians, reduced unemployment and supported policies that have led to job growth, all of which are a testimony to a highly successful administration and are now badly needed on the national stage. I imagine you receive many such urgings but I do hope you this one will provide you with the impetus to consider this appeal with the seriousness I believe it deserves. Sincerely, Harold Boyer Berkeley, CA Tucson, AZ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.106.10 (talk) 04:19, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

This is not Mr. McDonnell's inbox. You'll have better luck with this link http://www.governor.virginia.gov/aboutthegovernor/contactgovernor.cfm . This is a talk page for wikipedia's article about this person, and such content is inappropriate.VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 20:22, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Removed Section About the Executive Order Concerning Employment Practices

The section, while containing sources, was not accurate without context. Reading the sources would provide the context however, the viewpoint of most articles was biased. In particular, and the easiest to point out was that Governor McDonnell's Non-Discrimination Order did not remove the Executive Order created by his predecessor Tim Kaine. Tim Kaine's executive order expired. Governor McDonnell renewed the Executive Order on Non-Discrimination using a Bill from an earlier Governor, before Gay rights were acknowledged as the important factor they, and rightly should be, are now. The uproar arose when the Attorney General of Virginia was asked by Delegate Marshall of Prince William about the missing provision. Due to Public colleges and institutions of higher learning being state entities in Virginia they could not create a non-discrimination policy under their own authority but must instead follow the guidelines of the Governor(That is a very rough synopsis of what occurred). If someone wishes to rewrite it highlighting the context of the situation that would be appropriate, but unfortunately in its current form it is inaccurate. There is an accurate version under the page for current Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.244.48 (talk) 04:05, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Potential edit war: scandals involving McDonnell

Editor B-watchmework has repeatedly reverted a one-sentence summary in the lede paragraphs about the recent controversies involving McDonnell. These controversies, involving alleged illegal gifts to McDonnell and his family, have been reported frequently in national media, including multi-page reports in the Washington Post. B-watchemework claims that this material is not notable and should not be included in the lede. I dispute this. A well-documented, much reported controversy impacting the political survival of a person sometimes mentioned as a candidate for President is worthy of inclusion in the lede of a wikipedia article. I'm no wiki-lawyer so I don't know how to resolve this dispute, but assistance from somebody out there is requested. Smallchief (talk 23:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

To assist, following is the exact text and references that B-watchmework has repeatedly reverted. "An investigation is underway over allegations that Gov. McDonnell failed to report over $140,000 worth of improper gifts he and members of his family received from Star Scientific CEO Jonnie Williams". The references are: http://www.timesdispatch.com/news/state-regional/government-politics/mcdonnell-won-t-answer-questions-on-rolex/article_b4fabf2e-8429-5692-bdb0-96f97da93a16.html and http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va-politics/mcdonnells-corporation-wife-benefited-from-120000-more-from-donor-sources-say/2013/07/09/79b29880-e5b4-11e2-aef3-339619eab080_story.html

More references could readily be located. Smallchief (talk 23:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

It's obviously not reliant in the lead, McDonnell hasn't broken any laws, yet; what your justifying violates WP:Undue weight. Under your argument - Obama's birth certificate controversy should have been added to his page's lead. You also reverted my restructuring (e.g. fixed grammatical errors and added subsections) of the controversy section without explanation. B-watchmework (talk) 04:39, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Smallchief, I believe its time to consider WP:Third opinion, and I think you agree.

Note: I returned page to the original form (i.e. before this discussion took place).

I have no objection to seeking a third opinion, although as described by wikipedia a third opinion is sought when there is a disagreement about a fact. There is no disagreement here about facts. The controversy involving McDonnell's receipt of inappropriate gifts is a well-attested fact. Thus, the only question is whether this is notable enough to be including in the lead paragraphs. I believe it is.

My objective for inserting material about the controversy surrounding the governor was an attempt to balance what is an overly laudatory lead to the article. The one sentence concerning the controversy which I added is as notable as the material you and others added to the article stating that McDonnell is a "popular and respected governor." {You also reverted my factual insertion that his popularity has fallen below 50 percent according to a recent poll. If we are going to include in the lead paragraphs a statement that McDonnell is a "popular and respected governor", balance to that laudatory statement is needed.) McDonnell's term as governor has not been without controversy, and "popular and respected" is a characterization that requires qualification. What you are proposing is to bury all negative material deep within the body of a lengthy article and highlight all positive material. That is not neutral.

In the meantime, as a temporary compromise and pending resolution, I have allowed your revert to stand -- but I will delete the sentence saying that McDonnell is a "popular and respected governor." I will make other edits, if needed, to achieve a neutral tone in the lead to this article. I will also revisit the issue of including material concerning the scandal in the lead as additional information comes out. Smallchief (talk 11:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm ok with the current solution, seems fairly balanced, however, I believe subsection of opinion polls should be included. B-watchmework (talk) 20:15, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Are we going to wait until charges are no longer pending?VmZH88AZQnCjhT40 (talk) 20:30, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Self identified as embarrassment

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/07/23/mcdonnell-loans-apology-virginia-governor/2579601/

Surely we can note that he has called himself an embarrassment? Hcobb (talk) 23:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Who's Not Answering?

One must give notice though to an article in the Washington Post: "A state prosecutor found no evidence that Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli II broke the law when he failed to disclose substantial stock holdings in Star Scientific and some gifts from the company’s chief executive." That is, Ken complained of Bob but has not answered the questions posed to him as well as Bob has, according to news sofar. (bob answered with appology rather than argument, and repayment)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/virginia-politics/investigation-cuccinelli-did-not-break-law/2013/07/18/9ac18f7e-ef2b-11e2-a1f9-ea873b7e0424_story.html

I think bob is a loved Virginian polititian we'll all remember. If there was a spending problem it was kicking the can down the road by allowing State (and County indirectly) employees sprawl with luxury homes while hanging up the phone on people calling for assistance. Not Bob's doing really. Infact I'm sure I saw he at times objected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.209.222.174 (talk) 20:32, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Highest Percentage of any Gubernatorial Victory? False.

Several governors have been elected to high office with over 60% of the vote e.g. Democrat Jim Hunt in North Carolina in 1980 and Republican Terry Branstad in Iowa in 1990. Since, this claim is false and reflects poorly on Wikipedia's credibility, I have removed it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.113.249.184 (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)