Talk:Ernie Fletcher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ernie Fletcher article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:


Contents

[edit] Executive Imunity

I deleted reference to Impeachment under Executive Imunity and deleted quotation marks. The citation link no longer works and the quotation impllies bias as it notes impeachment but not other causes for the governors term to end such as resignation or poor health and implied that there was currently an expectation that the governor would be impeached. (Daveswiki 14:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Previously unsectioned comments

I removed "When Jim Bunning was re-elected to the Senate in 2004, questions were raised about his age and mental fitness. There are suspicions that if Bunning were to retire in the middle of his term, Fletcher, who has appointment power in that situation, would nominate himself to replace Bunning."

Suspicions of what he might do in a possible future situation and speculations as to the fitness of another individual for public office - especially without any external source for either - are not appropriate in a biographical article. Holford 23:11, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

6/2/05 - So, who is the Republican who keeps coming on here and deleting references to Fletcher's poll numbers dropping and the investigation into circumvention of the state merit system? Fletcher has gotten about as much press over the merit system scandal as for anything else in his entire life, yet you want to delete it from the article? Agenda, anyone?

So who is the unregistered user who keeps coming on here and violating NPOV? I think if "6/2/05" (signature, anyone?) will examine the history logs there isn't one person, Republican or otherwise, who keeps cleaning up this article. Holford 08:25, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

6/10/05 - Facts are facts; why do you keep deleting them? Why do you believe that his earlier 50+% approval rating should be in the article but not his lower, later rating? Why do you believe the merit system investigation, which has dominated news coverage in Kentucky for weeks, moreso than any other event of the Fletcher administration, should not even be mentioned? How on earth can you claim that mentioning those two things = NPOV? That's ridiculous. Quit trying to keep the article fawning and praising and put in facts that are positive and negative about him.

6/14/05 - nice to see that positive and negative things have been left in the article - especially now that three significant members of the governor's administration have been indicted over the incident that you were cutting out of the article.

06/21/06 Returned the word Partisan to the KSC. The KSC is made up of 2 Contributors to Fletcher's campaign, and two members that were appointed to the KSC to SPECIFICALLY HEAR his case on the Merit controversy after four others Recused themselves. The two appointees were ALSO campaign contributors. (an unsigned comment from 161.6.41.146 (talk · contribs))

Um, that the supreme court is partisan is a viewpoint, not a fact. I've removed it. FeloniousMonk 22:57, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Creationism

Comrade Fletcher suggested Creationism is the correct "answer" regarding the existance of life on Earth. http://news.kypost.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060114/NEWS02/601140336/1014 Surely this is significant and ought be mentioned in the article. Desertphile January 14, 2006, 2:18PM Local Mean Time

Calling him "Comrade Fletcher" kind of hints at a POV that may be clouding your good judgment. Thanks for the link. I read the article and it appears that rather than speficially siding with the 44% of Americans who believe in creationism, by supporting Intelligent Design, the governor is inclusive of the 38 percent who adhere to a theistic evolutionary cosmology. Holford 03:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Why is there even any discussion of intelligent design on what should be a biographical page? Seems to me like people are intent on injecting politics into what should be a purely informative and unbiased website.

This article doesn't discuss ID per se; it merely quotes enough of Ernie Flether's words to make his opinion clear on the subject. As far as why his opinion matters - there are a lot of people who think that teaching ID is just another way of teaching religion, and that teaching religion shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars. (In other words, this is a controversy that should be reported in an unbiased way. If the article said that Flether was stupid, or that he was being devious, or something similar, then, yes, it would be biased - not NPOV. But that isn't what the article says.) John Broughton 04:15, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Is this a controversy you have assumed by speciously arguing that since some people opposed the teaching of ID and Fletcher supports ID, it should therefore be included in his bio? If this is a controversy that has been raised by the general citizenry of Kentucky or even by repeated coverage in the biased news media causing Fletcher to make several statements clarifying his views, then I can see it being a genuine issue. However, if you are going to edit the biography of every politician that supports ID, just to mention that, because some people disagree with teaching it, that seems pointless and not serving the purpose of the encyclopedia. Holford 20:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Teaching ID is a controversy worth mentioning, for Fletcher, because he is perhaps the only state governor who has come out strongly in favor of this, and because education is a state, not federal, responsibility. (I haven't checked all the ID advocates listed at this page, but none of them seem to be a governor.) Even Sam Brownback, a conservative candidate for President in 2008, won't go on record as supporting the teaching of ID.
As for your statement that I can see it being a genuine issue if this issue has been raised by repeated news media coverage: for a Google search on "Ernie Fletcher" and "intelligent design", the first ten results include the AP wire, several newspapers, and a link to the speech where Governor Fletcher argued for teaching ID in schools. So this is hardly an issue that a few wikipedia editors have decided is important. (And my memory may be faulty, but I don't believe that I was the one who added the topic to the article in the first place.) John Broughton 01:41, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
Republicans really seem to be on the rampage on wikipedia lately.-Laikalynx (talk) 04:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change references to <:/ref>

I'm going to switch the ref system. It may take me a few hours to complete. Please bear with me. --FloNight talk 21:58, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 6/12/06 NPOV/Citation edit

On 6/12/06 I excised the following text:

"On February 24, an ethics complaint regarding the appointments was filed, requesting the Judicial Conduct Commission to recuse the two appointed judges on the grounds that their prior political contributions to Fletcher and association with him and his staff were violations of the Kentucky Code of Judicial Conduct. [1] [2]"

That ethics complaint was rejected, almost summarily.

Plus, the citation is to a notoriously partisan and anti-Fletcher blog, the credibility of which is often seriously suspect. Throughout Fletcher's term the operator of that blog has constantly attacked Fletcher, often getting the facts wrong. The operator of that blog also is a serial filer of ethics complaints which are routinely rejected - including the one for which the blog is cited as a source!


1 BluegrassReport.org is NOT notoriously partisan, and 2 you might just want to put that back now that the NYT has written a FRONT PAGE ARTICLE about it.--Owenaprhys 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter and other wingnut fruitcakes get coverage in the mainstream press from time to time too. So did the Swift Boat Vets. That doesn't mean they aren't extremely partisan, or that they are at all credible.

BluegrassReport IS notoriously partisan. Just take a look at the front page on ANY DAY of ANY WEEK. It will be covered with slams on Ernie Fletcher and other Republicans, always tossing in bolded adjectives like "corrupt" to describe them. Democrats are not treated similarly, ever. It is run by the person who was the losing campaign manager for Fletcher's Democratic opponent for governor. There is not a person in the state who does not recognize BluegrassReport as being notoriously partisan.

Right. Tell that to Lunsford and the KDP. Just out of curiousity, do you LIVE in Ky? I do.I'll admit, there isn't a person in the state who still supports Fletcher that does not call BGR partisan (all 50 people) --Owenaprhys 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for displaying your true colors and agenda, Owenaprhys. I'm sure with those comments, people will trust your assertions as to who is or isn't partisan.

Anyone who wants to should check the blog out for themselves - if anyone even cares about it. The front page is always covered with partisan screeds and attacks on Fletcher. Give it a look and decide for yourselves whether it is credible, or a partisan attack vehicle.

BTW, your ad hominem attack has no relevance to any of this, but yet, I live in Kentucky, and probably have for longer than you. Not that it matters.

That is doubtful. And no, it was not an ad hominem attack, it was a simple question based on the fact that you are clueless about Kentucky and Kentucky politics.

BTW have you seen the latest attack posting against Kentucky DEMOCRATIC PARTY Chairman Lundergan.--Owenaprhys 23:43, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, how come you don't sign?? Sorta makes it seem like you are hiding something.--Owenaprhys 23:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The bottom line is that BluegrassReport.org is a notable critic of Governor Fletcher; therefore, it's safe to assume it belongs in this article. That it is in the See also section is rather innocuous anyway. —  Stevie is the man!  Talk | Work 18:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
BluegrassReport.org is not a credible source. It is a blog full of accusations without evidence, gossip without basis, and frequently false facts. If that blogger likes someone (like state Treasurer Jonathan Miller, who got him to start it) then only good news about that person appears; if that blogger dislikes someone, he regularly smears them, usually for no good reason. Beyond that, that blogger is currently under indictment for felony tax evasion; it is hard to think of an indicator of dishonesty greater than that. Citing that blog as some sort of reference is pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.120.174 (talk • contribs)
It's irrelevant whether BluegrassReport.org is seen as a credible source. It is not being used as a reference in this article. Rather, it is listed as a related topic under "See also", as it is indeed related. And it's also clearly notable. Since that article and its listing here make it clear it's a partisan blog, I don't see what the issue is. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I had to point out what (above) is probably the most hypocritical and laughable posting ever put on Wikipedia:

"And no, it was not an ad hominem attack, it was a simple question based on the fact that you are clueless about Kentucky and Kentucky politics."

Why didn't that guy just post "Allow me to deny that my prior ad hominem attack was an ad hominem attack and then try to justify it with yet another ad hominem attack"?

Pathetic. 20:08, 6 August 2006 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.225.120.195 (talk • contribs) .

Welcome to Wiki Ernie. Congrats on your Revisions of History. Do it enough and I bet most people will forget that you are tainted and will vote for you............Yeah, right.

Comments like the one above, among others, demonstrate why pages like this have to be protected against partisan hacks with agendas. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.225.120.174 (talk • contribs)
There are no restrictions on who can participate as long as policies are followed. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 02:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Plea deal?

Why would the events of August 23/24, 2006 be labeled as a 'plea deal'? No plea was entered. 'Agreement to dismiss' is more accurate.

you're right, it wasn't a plea deal. thanks for correcting it. Anthonymendoza 01:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

We need an image of Ernie Fletcher for fair use in this article. If anyone can please find a pic and upload it with the correct tag, that would be great. Veracious Rey talk • contribs • review 20:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pardons at end of tenure in office

Governor Fletcher issued some very questionable criminal pardons at the end of his term in office. I think they are at least as significant as some of the things discussed in this article, such as the Cumberlands issues. That's especially true given Fletcher's controversial use of his pardon power earlier in his term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.224.111.28 (talk) 20:01, 27 December 2007 (UTC)