Talk:John McCain presidential campaign, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.
Image:Splitsection.svg This subarticle is kept separate from the main article, John McCain, due to size or style considerations.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 article.
Article policies

Contents

[edit] Re: Campaign Advisors

I know that it isn't common to include a section on campaign staff/advisors, but I think that in the light of recent developments (ie: Carl Rove, Harriet Miers, Michael Brown etc.) there is a growing concern over a candidate's ability to choose staffmembers. Some of these advisors are potential cabinet members should the candidate be elected. I am proposing the inclusion of prominent staff/advisors (and a short bio) to all candidates' campaign entries in order to help voters better understand each candidates' ability to judge character. I believe that attention is inordinately focussed on individual candidates, when in fact, the major influence on any new administration will be in the advisors surrounding the new president. Your input would be greatly appreciated. ----Rawkcuf. (This is the same 'form letter' I've sent to all the other dicussion pages for candidate' articles. I understand that there is some major upheaval going on with John McCain's staff, so that it may make this issue irrelevant. I noticed that there was a lot of mention given to departing staff members-- perhaps it would help to put things on a more positive note, and mention those that remain. Just an observation. -R.) [04:39, 20 September 2007 Rawkcuf]

[edit] Graphs, Diagrams, polls, I am getting dizzy

I noticed these on Thompson's, Romney's and Guliani's articles as well. As far as I know normal articles don't present these many graphs in excess. You don't write scientific articles this way. You refer to images in the text. These images are just pasted blatanly filling more than half the article. It is very annoying, disruptive for reading and actually not very informative either in the context and layout they are presented. Lord Metroid 21:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. There are plenty of references which include those graphs. It's hard enough to keep up with the poll numbers without throwing all those charts and graphs in there.Paisan30 (talk) 20:51, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Smears in South Carolina

As some of you may know there have been flyers found around South Carolina which make "claims" that John McCain was a "songbird" who turned on other POWs while imprisoned in North Vietnam supposedly in order to get better treatment. Following the smears that happened in the 2000 campaign against McCain he set up a "truth squad" in South Carolina and quickly disavowed these "claims". The following are the front and back of these flyers both in pdf format:

In the bottom-right of the back of the flyer there are two links which take you to the following sites:

The first is run by Jerry Kiley and the second is run by Ted Sampley. Here is an AP piece on CBS News that talks about the Kiley connection to this incident and also here is the Sourcewatch article on Ted Sampley. I don't regularly edit the John McCain article but I thought I might as well leave this information here so that other regulars on this article could consider how to add this information on the article. Thanks.--Jersey Devil (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've incorporated a mention of this junk. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ross Perot

Ross Perot attacked McCain pretty badly. Shouldn't this be added? --STX 04:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This goes back to Perot's feud with McCain (and even more with John Kerry) during the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs hearings in 1991-1993. I need to work on that article more when I get a chance ... Wasted Time R (talk) 04:43, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Radio Talkshows

Can anyone comfirm that the radio talkshows like Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have been attacking John McCain lately? I don't get it. Spongefan (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they've been ripping into him. There's a snarling lunatic on at night who's been even worse. Why? McCain's departed from movement conservative orthodoxy too many times. And the talk show guys fear they're losing their influence on the Republican part of the process. The section on South Carolina in this article discusses the talk show role a bit, but it may need further treatment. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC) mod Wasted Time R (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Much of talk radio is against McCain. John and Ken in California had the "Hour of Rage Against McCain". Bytebear (talk) 05:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fix

I think that the fact that the Florida Governor endorsed John McCain, this should be added to this article or another one.

Reed Ebarb —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.105.179.35 (talk) 00:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Was subsequently done. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Louisiana?

I thought McCain won the closed caucus in Louisiana; how come it isn't mentioned in this article? -134.50.75.114 (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Last I saw, nobody was sure who had won in Louisiana. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expansion

Trying to figure out how to set up Super Tuesday... this article is already pretty long. If McCain gets the nomination, are we going to separate into primary/general election articles? I guess this applies to whoever gets the nominations. Paisan30 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd say, keep all of Super Tuesday in one section, and just give results in succinct form ("McCain won a majority of delegates in New Jersey, New York, blah blah, while losing in delegate counts in Georgia, Alabama, blah blah"). And yes, I agree there may need to be a separate general election article for the two that move on. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Too much like a story"

User:Bytebear has placed a cleanup tag on the "Caucuses and primaries 2008" section of the article, with the edit summary "sounds too much like a story, and not an encycolpedia article". Which raises the question, what would be a useful encyclopedia article about McCain's campaign? Most encyclopedias don't have separate articles on campaigns, so there isn't much prior art to go by. But to me, it should read like a narrative history of the campaign, describing what happened when and outlining the general themes and strategies of the campaign and why they led to eventual success or failure. Wasted Time R (talk) 05:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I read this and it is very well-written, informative and encyclopedic. This is exactly how these sections should read. On an unrelated topic, I placed a "fact" tag on the bit about Schwarzenegger being a Giuliani supporter before he endorsed McCain. Is there a source for that? --STX 20:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
NYT had quote from Ahnuld saying he was friends with and admired both Giuliani and McCain, and so didn't endorse anyone. Once one dropped out, he was happy to endorse the other. Don't have the url but you should be able to find it. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think my biggest issue is that things are presented as facts, when in fact most of the things written are more opionion. I would like to see more "according to so-and-so..." and "comentators say..." Bytebear (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] California Primary

McCain won all the delegates? I thought this primary was proportional? GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

The article says "winning nearly all of California's 173 delegates." According to the cite given for the paragraph, McCain won 155, Romney 6. Not sure about the other 12, but "nearly all" certainly seems an accurate description. Maybe you're thinking of the Dems.... Wasted Time R (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Vicki Iseman

So--which section of the article should be put her in? 4.246.120.240 (talk) 05:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a subsection of the "Caucuses and Primaries 2008" section, since it's another occurrence in the campaign at this point. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:48, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal from Vicki Iseman

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the bio article on her still exists. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:23, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


We have an article at Vicki Iseman. I have proposed it should be merged here, as she is unremarkable outside of gossip in this campaign, interested parties may wish to comment on the talk page of that article.--Docg 20:12, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Oppose: One of Wikipedia's strengths is immediate access to breaking news, and Iseman is real news. Readers want details of her life that illuminate access to political power. Time will tell whether her entry bears removing. Immediately consigning her identity to the heading John McCain lobbyist controversy is premature and does a disservice to readers.˜˜˜˜maestrodad, February 24, 2008
Support: I do not believe that Vicki Ismeman is all that notable sans the John McCain controversy. One controversy does not make a person notable, and I feel that the content can be merged here with no consequence. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:14, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Your argument: She is not notable WP:INN. Why? She wouldn't be notable without McCain? Where is that policy/guideline? Brian McNamee is one of 1000s of valid articles where person X wouldn't be notable without person Y.
Your recommendation: Merge. Could you state what you want merged? All of the text concerning Iseman to be included in this article? If so, then I can see your argument. If merging = redirecting = de facto deletion with little carry forward of information, then this process is already happening at the AfD. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Support: Presently a textbook Wikipedia:BLP1E, barring future events. Quatloo (talk) 09:37, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Could you clarify your understanding of WP:BLP1E? It reads: "such as for a particular relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election". Is your argument that she falls under this category? Are you arguing that the information in the Iseman article, personal, career, clients, lobbying activities, be merged into a section in this article to provide the reader with her background? WP:BLP1E makes these exceptions: "unless the information is so large that this would make the article unwieldy", which it woruld, or "sources have written primarily about the person" which in the Iseman article, is the case. Thoughts? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Support: She's not notable on her own unless she starts writing a book about it, or making the daytime talk show circut or makes news beyond this McCain thing (which may or may not be true anyway)Mr mark taylor (talk) 20:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Books? Oprah? Where is that requirement in WP:BIO? I see:

is presumed to be notable if he or she has been the subject of published secondary source material which is reliable, intellectually independent, and independent of the subject.

Where does she fail the test of notability? Should we have waited for Brian McNamee to appear on Ellen before including an article? What is the relevance whether the "thing" is true or not? Which part are you referring to? The ethical conflicts or the report that two advisers feared that she was romantically involved? The source doesn't state she was romantically involved. Regardless, The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. And the details of the controversy are given only a mention in Iseman. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Most of the material is now at John McCain lobbyist controversy, however attempts to redirect the so called "biography" are being resisted and reverted. Active support welcome.--Docg 20:10, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Let me put forward an alternative framing: a merge discussion at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 was initiated by the good doctor who then participated in the discussion along with TS -- no mention that a parallel discussion was occurring here. Doc failed to come to consensus. He and TS then attempted to redirect it here (i.e., deleting all the information on the page, including the biographical and controversial material and not redirecting to John McCain lobbyist controversy which didn't even exist yet) on their own and were, yes, resisted as consensus had not yet been reached contrary to consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Doc justified his actions by saying, uncivilly: "We remove them, until/unless there's a consensus to keep them - a few politically motivated users on a talk page is not a consensus." As one of the editors who worked diligently to add in criticism of The New York Times and balance throughout the article, I presume he believes that I'm a conservative and hence doesn't have the right to participate in consensus. I, respectively, disagree. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Support merging the article on Ms. Iseman to the article John McCain lobbyist controversy, which is a more appropriate arget than this article. This merge proposal should be terminated in favor of a proposal to merge to that article. Edison (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, (as a compromise position) to merge the Iseman article to John McCain lobbyist controversy as long as merging means, well, merging. That all the salient biographical material is shifted to this article and "Vicki Iseman" is redirected. Doesn't seem necessary and personally, as the Iseman article stands, I think it is fine. WP:BLP says:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events ... biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

This article is properly sourced, pared down and entirely neutral. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Question Oppose (plus my rationale for action) Why wasn't a similar "vote" conducted at Vicki Iseman? I want to make clear I'm not invested deeply in the "so-called" biography, I was just an editor studying speedy deletion policy when I saw Vicki Iseman get speedied twice in a few minutes, and I clicked on the still extant talk page just as an editor started rewriting. Still disinterested but intrigued, I googled and found a few links, and decided if the page still existed, that we'd build it responsibly, to provide rocky ground for vandals (just like I normally try to do in 19th century biographies, my field of interest; I edit BLP pages rarely). I have resisted, but not reverted the redirect, because no consensus had been reached at Talk:Vicki Iseman (as a matter of fact I was unaware of this discussion until hours after the AfD was nominated; it might have been linked at the appropriate section on talk to gather consensus of apparent outliers like myself and User:Therefore). I agree 100% in moving the controversy stuff to the John McCain lobbyist controversy space, and I assert the bare bio stub which remains after is well-cited and contains very little of harm to the pedia or to the subject. In its current version, the article represents exactly what most bio stubs represent: a good-faith attempt to depict a life based on reputable sources. BusterD (talk) 23:38, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Your question seems to ignore the fact that the discussion was conducted at Vicki Iseman, and Doc's announcement asks people to conduct it there. Just to make it plain: there is no vote, and those who think there is a vote are wrong. --TS 23:55, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
"Your statement seems to ignore the fact that" you and the Doc created and participated in the discussion at Vicki Iseman, giving no indication that a parallel effort was made here. I wish that your answer to the merge question at the Iseman talk page, was more than "Yes. --TS 20:18, 21 February 2008 (UTC)"; might give you more credibility about not being a vote. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I sounded a bit terse (and used the v-word), but as I was reading the discussion, consensus there for merging seemed quite mixed, yet the redirects were applied anyway. As I've said there, it appeared to me that page consensus was reached here to redirect the page. I don't doubt for a moment the importance of experienced page editors here in deciding whether to absorb material of any kind. I'm glad that Doc called my bluff and nominated Iseman to AfD. I have confidence that consensus will resolve this dispute. I reserve the right, however, to agree with arguments to review deletion later. I suspect that eventually en.wikipedia will have an article on the subject; I just want to make sure if so, it's a fair article. So we're all doing the right thing. BusterD (talk) 00:08, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia consensus is based in policy. If a bunch of us one day decided,for instance, that the content of a given article must never be sold for profit, that would not countermand Wikipedia policy and would not prevail even if a thousand or so of us said that it should. There were some opinions compatible with existing policy and they prevailed. --TS 00:15, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
On the other hand, Wikipedia policies and guidelines document communal consensus rather than creating it. Thank you all for your indulgence. I'll now return myself to my normal 19th century programming. BusterD (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
It appears, given the extended discussion, that the previous repeated attempts to merge were premature and aren't supported by consensus at either talk page; neither does it seem likely as of this timestamp that either the Vicki Iseman or John McCain lobbyist controversy will face deletion. All this written knowing that any crow to be eaten might eventually be gnawed by me. BusterD (talk) 15:11, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose For all the reasons stated at Talk:Vicki Iseman#Merge this with John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 and at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vicki Iseman. Unless this merge proposal is to actually merge the two texts together so that the information on the Iseman page is preserved, then this is a third attempt at a de facto and de jure AfD. Let the AfD take its course as this is the proper avenue for deletion. Here are my specific reasons for keeping the Iseman page as is: The article provides background personal and career information on Iseman referenced from other sources that are not in the two other pages. Iseman is a public figure and now notable per WP:BIO. WP:BLP1E addresses the case when "relatively unimportant crime or for standing for governmental election" is discussed which is not the case here. Paula Jones and Brian McNamee similarly are "one event" articles but have risen to notability. WP:COATRACK relates to "a cover for a tangentially related bias subject." The controversy receives only a mention in the Iseman article. There is no bias nor cover. ∴ Therefore | talk 17:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
If Afd decides not to delete the page, a consensus to merge may still be constructed here.--Docg 17:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That is true -- and it may still occur at the Iseman talk page. Or at AfD 2 or or at John McCain lobbyist controversy etc. There are many avenues an indefatigable editor may take to delete this page. What would be helpful is if you could define what you mean by merging -- de facto deletion or do you have a concrete proposal on preserving her biographical and professional information? ∴ Therefore | talk 17:38, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
A merger means we redirect the page to the target. How much of it's text goes on the target is matter for those working on the target to decide. Whatever is put on initially can be increased, or decreased over time. The information on the merged article remains accessible in the history for those who wish to use it. A merge has no static effect, it is entirely a variable editorial decision as to what to include.--Docg 17:42, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
That is your take of the merge process. From WP:MM:

You may find that some or all of the information to be merged is already in the destination page. That is fine; you can feel free to delete the redundant information and only add the new stuff [emphasis mine].

If you are proposing to bring forward the personal and career details of the Iseman page, then you are recommending a merger. I'm all for a merger discussion as long as we are actually stating that the "stuff from the Iseman page be brought forward -- at this point, there is little redundancy. It is best left where it is per WP:BLP:

When writing about a person notable only for one or two events, including every detail can lead to problems, even when the material is well-sourced. In the best case, it can lead to an unencyclopedic article. In the worst case, it can be a serious violation of our policies on neutrality. When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic.

The bio is pared, sourced, neutral and on-topic (re: Iseman). ∴ Therefore | talk 18:17, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, many others seem to think a merger is better.--Docg 18:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is true. But not a consensus. You think merger = redirect. It doesn't. Redirection is one of the technical elements of the process. Merging means combining the text of the two articles to avoid redundancy and not an end run around AfD. Adding Iseman's bio details here wouldn't make much sense. It would make more sense to merge (*merge*) to the John McCain lobbyist controversy. Even so, I see no problem with the bio as it stands since it follows the guidelines of WP:BLP as noted above -- sourced, neutral and on-topic and falls within the guidelines of WP:BLP1E (sources independent of event and too much to merge into the event article).∴ Therefore | talk 18:31, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
You've stated your case, let's see what emerges. I'm happy with a merge to either the campaign or controversy article, indeed I agree the controversy one is perhaps better. And yes, we can indeed move all the information there. But from that point it will be for those working on that article to decide what to do with it, and to trim it if they wish. A merge (even if it is only a redirect) is not a deletion, for the simple reason that it can be reversed at any time by any editor. It is just like any other edit, anyone can change it, but if controversial one should seek talk page support to do or reverse. It is not an end run about AfD.--Docg 18:46, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
CommentHere's another one; and they both do look,quack and walk like a de facto and de jure AfD, in my opinion. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:46, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose for the reasons stated on the AfD. Important information about this newly-notable individual - who will continue to surface in prominent places in the major media for a good while to come, and will likely play an individual role in future events - will be lost in a merge, as always. People will be looking to the encyclopedia for specific biographical, past, and career information on this woman who has suddenly been catapulted to prominence. Everything from her birthdate to her lobbying history will be sought out specifically, and that is the sort of individual information that is best covered in a biographical article. Mr. IP (talk) 19:16, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. The Iseman events happened long before this campaign and belongs in the main article. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 02:25, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong Support - She's not notable except as part of the New York Times's attack article on McCain. Enigma msg! 03:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Despite all the statements that the Iseman bio is a coatrack, the article, if one actually bothers to read it, is about her career as a lobbyist as it should be. The "controversy" discussed here is a minor part of Iseman's career and I think it is far more respectful to have a full biography for her, covering her real importance (i.e. her lobbying activities), than to reduce her importance to a single, minor, and fictitious event by redirecting to this article. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:50, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    • In fact, I consider the "controversy" so "minor" and "short-term news story" that I have supported merging THAT article here. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Should we merge every person's whose primary notability related to the McCain campaign into that article? His campaign staff? Wife? This is one merger that really doesn't seem very rational. Dgf32 (talk) 20:30, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Strong Oppose. It's not just gossip: she is a central figure in what was for at least a few days a major news story. And the original story in the New York Times was credible and well-researched. Ironically, if the story wasn't politically controversial, no one would be calling for its deletion. The mere fact that so many are calling (for political rather than encyclopedic reasons) for its deletion proves that she is a figure of enough significance to warrant at least a small article. (I might add by the way, that Obama's infamous acquaintance Tony Rezko still has his own article, as do numerous individuals associated negatively with Hillary Rodham Clinton.) Timothy Horrigan (talk) 05:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Material about age in the lead

Does this really deserve such promenence in the article? Same for his birthplace? I would rather see those maybe at the end of the introduction as they appear more as trivia rather than details about the actual campaign. Thoughts? Thanks, --70.109.223.188 (talk) 20:47, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

This material establishes "what's different about this campaign" before getting into the actual campaign itself. The age is likely to be a real factor in the contest, especially if it's contrasted with Obama's much younger age. The place of birth attracts a lot of interest from WP commenters here and in the main article, who think he isn't constitutionally eligible to become prez. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Merge proposal from John McCain lobbyist controversy

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Wrap up — this grew inactive; there was no consensus to merge; the lobbyist controversy article still exists. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


The article prior to blanking and redirection

This event was too abruptly made into its own article. The media has already stopped covering it almost entirely. No major consequences occurred because of the Times' article. John McCain denied the allegations the same day; the media made a fuss for two days about the Times' credibility and John McCain's lobbying record; the controversy ended. It's not like, for examples, the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal or the Burr-Hamilton duel, which had a marked history and the events went on for a marked period of time and had lasting ramifications. Unless this story later proves to become a much bigger and important aspect of the 2008 elections, it should only remain as a subsection under McCain's presidential run and in the 2008 U.S. elections in general. --Mbenzdabest (talk) 21:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and was trying to get that across in the AfD debate. I dont believe that the full concensus was keep, but those decision are made above my head. I'm not doubting that this is a notable event, however it can be summed up easily in 4 or 5 sentances, and put into the main candidacy article. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 01:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The article just went through an AfD which had a 22-8 majority vote for it to be kept separate and not abbreviated nor merged. I actually prefer it to be in the main BLP but let's please just accept the strong consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 04:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - per what I said above. Enigma msg! 03:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - what is with people wanting to keep the controversy article? This is a presidential candidate, we need to be especially careful. Will (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support per my earlier comment referring to New York Times' own ombudsman's criticism concerning the insubstantiality of the piece run by the newspaper. [1] --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 13:17, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus to retain the article, and an administrative judgment that the article did not constitute a WP:BLP violation. Furthermore, the extensive coverage in third-party reliable sources cited in the article clearly establishes a presumption of the notability of this topic per the general notability guideline. John254 17:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose (1) This is procedurally wrong: Consensus to keep was already obtained at the AfD. This is forum shopping. Wikipedia editors should not be forced into going from forum to forum because some don't like the result. (2) Enough has already been written about this incident to establish that it is worth longer treatment than the section of an article can provide: (a) The issue of New York Times journalistic judgment is worth a section itself; (b) the Washington Post stated that it did an independent investigtion and came up with the same essential findings, so the basic facts of the case have reliable sourcing; (c) The more unreliable insinuation that there was an affair is not the only issue here concerning McCain's judgment: Simply being seen so often with this lobbyist (an attractive woman later able to boast about her access to McCain and who was a lobbyist with matters before McCain's committee and who did apparently get McCain's support urging the FCC to take a vote) should be explained in the detail that an article affords and a section doesn't, because (d) this is a campaign for the most important public office in the world, and a serious encyclopedia with our breadth needs to cover in detail the important matters that voters may use in deciding how to vote. No BLP conceerns that are present here override (d). None. Not one. We can revisit deletion or merger after the campaign is over. Before election day, we should lean toward inclusion.Noroton (talk) 21:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • oppose is a separate topic that deserves large discussion. To put it in here is essentially whitewashing for both McCain and the New York Times. Claims that the Times ombudsman criticized the Times article misses the point; that aspects of the NYT coverage were problematic doesn't mean this isn't a valid topic (indeed, it might almost make sense to retitle it something like the Mccain-New York Times lobbyist controversy to reflect the Times' role). Scepter/Will's comment above that this is a presidential candidate and therefore we need to be careful is correct but misses two points: First, we need to be careful about all content related to BLPs or anything similar - that isn't an argument by itself to delete articles. Second, we cannot cover this well in a short section in the general campaign article and to cover it with the appropriate level of detail requires a separate article. To do so otherwise could be unfair to a variety of participants, possibly including the Times, McCain, the reporters, and Iseman. Furthermore, there has been discussion about merging the Iseman artciel into lobbyist article which would make the section here unreasonably long by far in an already long article. Let's not go against a clear AfD consensus JoshuaZ (talk) 21:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • This matters: From the "Well-known public figures" section of WP:BLP: If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented by reliable published sources, it belongs in the article — even if it's negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If it is not documented by reliable third-party sources, leave it out. This can also be used as a justification for having a separate article, if important enough. Tne NYT and Washington Post investigations showed we have reliable sourcing that there was significant concern about McCain's relationship with the lobbyist (whatever the nature of that relationship), that McCain admitted to something "inappropriate" (either an affair or perpetuating the appearance of a conflict of interest -- especially given his image, that could be considered inappropriate). This is an appropriate matter for voters to consider when judging the character and judgment of McCain, and it deserves nuanced treatment not available in the short length of a section. This was basically Bill Keller's justification of the article to the NYT public editor, and it's a good defense of our own article. (It happens to be a lousy defense of an article on the lobbyist.) Noroton (talk) 21:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Strong support - merits a mention at the McCain campaign page but hardly requires its own article at this stage. Eusebeus (talk) 23:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If this level of coverage in third party reliable sources doesn't establish a presumption of notability per the general notability guideline, then what would? John254 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. Merging the content here would probably result in undue weight. The controversy itself is notable, with the underlying reporting being discussed and criticized in secondary sources. It's not just a part of McCain's campaign; it is a significant event in its own right, with plenty of reliable sources to meet verifiability standards. John McCain lobbyist controversy should remain a separate article, and (as per WP:BLP1E) Vicki Iseman should redirect to that article. *** Crotalus *** 00:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge or redirect - I've pledged to stop watching and stay out of this pagespace (because I admitted inherent bias as a page contributor on Vicki Iseman), but after both VI and John McCain lobbyist controversy survived AfDs, and both redirected and then put on DRV, I must state (again) that I've need no satisfactory consensus established on any page which indicates a community desire to merge or redirect. This additional effort to muster consensus, while I'm sure is undertaken in good faith, appears to many besides myself as forum shopping. BusterD (talk) 00:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    I wouldn't consider this to be forum shopping; DRV wasn't the correct venue for this discussion and I recommended that this discussion take precedence. --Coredesat 02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    The issue here is not forum shopping with respect to the deletion review for John McCain lobbyist controversy (which was closed without a decision with regard to the question of redirection), but forum shopping to overturn the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John McCain lobbyist controversy, in which there was a clear consensus to retain, not delete, and not redirect, the article. John254 02:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
    Thanks for that clarification, John254. BusterD (talk) 13:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose Merge Cortalus and Norton make very good points. Strong consensus at recent AfD, and no BLP violation so far as I can see. faithless (speak) 01:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge. The event is due to a single article in the NYT, which has been so thoroughly refuted that the presence of a huge article is distracting in the context of McCain's campaign. It is a minor part of the McCain campaign, and it is a minor part of Iseman's life (which is why I will be opposing merging the Iseman bio to this article in a minute.) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:47, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose this merge. The separate article on the controversy should remain. The merge should be the Vicki Iseman page to the John McCain lobbyist controversy page. The issue is notable, but of the two involved participants, only one (the one who is the major-party nominee for president) is noteworthy. Horologium (talk) 17:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose The article is long enough as it is. Yahel Guhan 06:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


[edit] Won the nomination

I just saw on Fox News that he won the Repub nomination; I'll provide a cite in a minute. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction: He has won enough delegates to get the nom, but will not bre projected the nomination winner until later tonight or tomorrow (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/04/obama-mccain-win-vermont-primary/) Might not want to include until it is official, but here's a heads up. Happyme22 (talk) 02:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The opposing forces section

This should not be there. Every candidate's campaign has a group of people who oppose it for one reason or another. Be it a political or personal reason those people are always there. However, they should not be mentioned in this article. There was a section in the Clinton campaign article about opposition to her campaign and it was removed becuase it was believed to create bias. The same set of rules should hold true for all candidates. If McCain has it Clinton should have and if she doesn't neither should he. ---

I don't think that including an opposing forces section necessarily creates bias. I do agree that a uniform rule should apply to all candidates, but I'm guessing that not the same people visit (and thus edit) McCain's article and Clinton's, so that seems like wishful thinking. Regardless, I removed the "citizens" (which claimed that McCain was a racist and didn't care about certain states) from the list of opposing forces because that was clearly biased. Lv99redwizard (talk) 23:54, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this section is basically bogus. Gilbertine goldmark (talk) 22:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Split into two new articles

I suggest we split this article into John McCain presidential primary campaign, 2008 with information about the primary contests, and an article under the title John McCain general election presidential campaign, 2008 based on the general election. The article John McCain presidential campaign, 2008 should remain but should be very vague in its coverage and link to the two new more indepth articles. --STX 04:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree. Paisan30 (talk) 04:34, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. This article isn't that long right now, and we could probably pare it down a bit further. Not much is going to happen in McCain's campaign from now until the convention ... the next big event is when he picks a vice presidential candidate. I'd say we leave it as just one article and see how it goes. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:55, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Another approach is to split out the endorsements section into a separate subarticle, as was done for the Hillary and Obama endorsements. This would reduce the article size, and would especially reduce the number of references, which is the thing that impacts article load time the most. Wasted Time R (talk) 15:43, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I started paring down the primary results. I don't think it's necessary to have all that much detail, since those can be found in the cited sources. I'm also planning to start a General Election section, although the Primary sections can still be cut more. Paisan30 (talk) 20:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Veepstakes section

Seeing as McCain has a majority of the delegates pledged to him for the Republican presidential nomination. I wonder if it would be too early to have a section concerning speculative vice presidential running-mates (with reliable sources provided). I'm assuming a speculative based section isn't a good idea though. Any thoughts? GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

There's already a separate article on this, United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks WT. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I think that major developments, specifically announcements from the campaign, should get a mention in this article. I agree that for now it's best left in the other article since McCain has indicated that the selection process hasn't even officially begun yet. Paisan30 (talk) 20:57, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

This article doesn't seem to have a wikilink to United States Republican vice presidential candidates, 2008. Why not?Ferrylodge (talk) 01:46, 11 April 2008 (UTC) P.S. I went ahead and added it.Ferrylodge (talk) 01:55, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Endorsements

I think we can stop adding all of the Representatives, Governors, etc. McCain is the Republican nominee. Nearly every Republican on the national and state level will endorse him. Paisan30 (talk) 01:41, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; the last one that should be mentioned is GWB on March 5. The only significant endorsements now are from independents and Democrats, from celebrity figures, etc. And Republicans who explicitly don't endorse him would be significant too. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Plus yours, WTR.  :)Ferrylodge (talk) 02:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
Wasted is a Hillary guy. Or so someone says on her campaign talk page. :-) Redddogg (talk) 15:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

More importantly, List of John McCain presidential campaign endorsements was created on March 12 by User:Iamwisesun, akin to the breakouts that were done for Hillary and Obama. Good idea. But he/she failed to remove the contents from this article, or to do a "main" template link from this article to the new one, so people kept updating this article in ignorance of that one (while some people discovered the subarticle and were updating that one). I've now removed the endorsement contents from here, after reapplying those updates made here after March 12 (there weren't too many, fortunately) to the subarticle. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speeches as Self-Contained Articles

Just doing a comparison between various sets of articles on wikipedia. Does the McCain set of articles have anything like the Obama's set of A More Perfect Union (An apparently minor campaign development as its own article)? --Firefly322 (talk) 09:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Not on speeches. But then, he hasn't made any crucial, major speeches like that. There was a Mitt Romney's "Faith in America" speech article for a while, although it later was modified and renamed to Mitt Romney's Mormonism. But the McCain articles do have John McCain lobbyist controversy, which some argued was in the same class. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] John McCain presidential eligibility

The article John McCain presidential eligibility has been nominated for deletion by myself here. -- Naerii 20:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

As shown by the comments here, the consensus was to include the information in this article. Is that still agreeable or do some prefer to keep the reliably sourced information[2] [3][4] ,about the issue of McCain's presidential eligibility, completely out of the encyclopedia ? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, that was not the result of the deletion discussion. The result was to delete the article. Happyme22 (talk) 16:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think the decision maker chose delete because that is the 1st. step to be taken when the consensus is to delete and redirect/merge. Hold on, I'll count the comments: ok 22 people want to merge/redirect the info and 2 want to delete it entirely. This is starting to smell like a determination by a very small non-consensus to just keep this information out of the encyclopedia regardless of the general consensus. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not against putting it in the article; I am afraid that this issue is being blown out of proportion and is being given far too much undue weight. Only a slight mention of it merits inclusion, in my humble opinion, because McCain is already the presumptive nominee and this article will eventually cover upcoming campaign events and the general election; it cannot be bogged down by claims that he isn't even eligible in the first place. Happyme22 (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Where is the slight mention of it (in the article)? Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I just added some slight mention of it in the media section. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 01:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hagee

i was just wondering why this article contains no mention of mccain seeking and gaining the endorsement of controversial preacher john hagee. the obama article spends a while discussing jeremiah wright and i think its only fair that the mccain article contain information about this much looked over endorsement. ps sorry about the formatting issues with this post, im relatively new to wikipedia and havent completely gotten the hang of it yet. g.j.g (talk) 02:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it should be in here. Consider making it so, your first assignment. Wasted Time R (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

i added a paragraph on it, im still not quite sure how to put in foot notes and linmks so here are my two main sources http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/29/john-hagees-mccain-endor_n_89189.html and http://www.democrats.org/a/2008/03/new_video_revea.php g.j.g (talk) 03:29, 2 April 2008 (UTC) also i think i kinda messed up with the formatting any advise would be appreciaed :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 03:32, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Haha, well I admire you, friend, for trying, but both the Huffington Post and democrats.org are blatantly biased sources. Take a look at what the Huffington Post said about Nancy Reagan and her husband after she fell two months ago, and tell me if that's neutral. Democrats.org is a site maintained by the Democratic party and should probably only be used on the article Democratic party (United States) to help define their postions. Again, I admire you for trying to include this, because it does merit inclusion, but you should probably find some more verifiable and neutral sources. --Happyme22 (talk) 04:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

the democrat homepage is for the "john mccain garnerd criticism from democrats" part of what i wrote. whether or not it would be considered a biased source normally is irrelevant what matters is that this IS what the democrats are saying. as for the huffington post it was just the first link that i could find. you want more ok http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSN2749859920080228?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0 , http://youtube.com/watch?v=HS9F7O2lhWg&feature=related (normally not a reliable source but its a video of cnn which is), http://thinkprogress.org/2008/03/11/mccain-hagee-hewitt/ (this (which i only used for 1 of mccains quotes is probabely not the most reliable so if u ccan get me another quotewhere mccain discusses hagges quotes being taken out of contest please do), for the controversial statements e said you can use the same things listed in the john hagee article if u need anymore please tell me and ill give you more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 11:09, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Good job finding more; I would go with the Reuters source, because the point is well covered. When writing, be careful not to give too much undue weight the subject. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 16:21, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
There's quite a bit of stuff in the John Hagee article itself that could be quoted here, or summarized with a link to that article or sections of it. Hagee has been accused of "hate speech" (in those very words) by William Donohue, the head of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights. ([5]) Donohue also expressly called the issue to McCain's attention. See John Hagee#Accusations of anti-Catholicism.
The Hagee article also includes this passage, cited to The Forward, which is not a blog or a partisan source:

Hagee has endorsed Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election. McCain said, "I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support."[1]

I've edited the McCain campaign article to include McCain's reaction to the Hagee endorsement, with the Forward citation. Alas, I don't have time right now to try to mine the Hagee article for citations for the various assertions about him in this article. JamesMLane t c 19:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

As i stated earlier in this discussion i have all of the nesscacary sources but im not sure how to insert them, if anybody else wants to insert them and/or teach me how to i would greatly appreciate itg.j.g (talk) 22:40, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

their are two things that confuse me about recent edits, first off perhaps the best place to put the hagee section wasnt under controversies but how IS the best place "allegations of innapropriate involvement with lobbyists"? and two i think that the george bush thing is very relevant, not only is it one of the main reasons that the dems r criticising mccain but it also helps provide background for why people are so angered by mccain. this is my personal humble opinion on the article but in order to avoid a revert war and actiong under the assumption that the people who editted this wouldnt have done so without a reason im going to wait for a day or so (or until i get a response) to give the editors a chance to explain themselves g.j.g (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay friend, the George Bush-McCain thing is not relevant. It is just another example of taking a shot at President Bush. It actualy portrays McCain as "the good guy", who called out Bush and launched a telephone campaign against him. How is that remotely relevant to this? If anywhere (if), it belongs in the John McCain presidential campaign, 2000 article. Happyme22 (talk) 02:13, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

first off its one of the leasing criticisms that the dems have towards mccain second off how is it a shot at bush, its saying that mccain scalded bush back in 2000 for doing the exact same thing that mccain did with hagee??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 02:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, my mistake; you are indeed correct. Perhaps it was worded poorly. I don't think this is the right place for the phrases, however, because it is not central to McCain's current 2008 campaign. Happyme22 (talk) 02:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

would you mnd clarifying on that statement please??? which phrases? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gavrielyosef (talk • contribs) 10:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Odd, ALL of Hagee's article does not mention anti-black, nor anti-women, however this article includes it (unsourced ofc) If you are having problems inserting references, use the last icon above the editing window or use: <ref>Insert footnote text here</ref> 195.216.82.210 (talk) 14:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

an encyclopedia is not interesting in who endorses who + this whole "who's your preacher" phobia is too silly and trite for words. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 00:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
If a presidential candidate calls one bigot a "spiritual guide", and says that he's proud to have another bigot's endorsement, then those are facts about the candidate that will interest enough readers to merit being reported. (Of course, we wouldn't assert that Parsley and Hagee are bigots, but we would report the facts that lead some people to accuse them of bigotry.) JamesMLane t c 06:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I agree. If Jeremiah Wright is notable, so are these guys. However, there is a matter of weight. Wright is more notable due to his close relationship with Obama. Hagee is just an endorsement. It would be more of an issue if Hagee and Mac are best friends and close like Wright and Obama. It should be included, but it shouldn't be more than one line as per weight. Arnabdas (talk) 15:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not "just an endorsement". If Charles Manson endorsed McCain from his jail cell, McCain would denounce him and that would be that. Here's what the Forward article reports that takes Hagee well out of the "just an endorsement" category:

My concern here is with Hagee and those who have endorsed him, but I pause to note that the Hagee-McCain association antedates Hagee’s formal endorsement last week. In fact, in South Carolina back in September, Hagee was invited to introduce McCain at a pre-primary rally titled “No Surrender”; his full-throated introduction was until recently featured on McCain’s campaign Web site.

McCain’s immediate response, later partially modified, to the Hagee endorsement was all smiles: “I’m very proud to have Pastor Hagee’s support.” (Just imagine that Obama had invited Farrakhan for a joint appearance and had spoken of his pride in obtaining Farrakhan’s endorsement.)

They're not best friends (though I don't think Obama and Wright are, either), but McCain was actively seeking the endorsement and voluntarily chose to make Hagee prominent in his campaign. JamesMLane t c 21:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a problem adding a mention on Hagee, but I *know* that a large controversy didn't erupt over the endorsement, the opposite of what happened with Wright and Obama. So let's not try to blow this up into a large scandal and place undue weight on the matter. There is currently a paragraph mentioning the endorsement (I think it is POV and OR to label it as being "more than an endorsement") but that paragraph needs citations. Happyme22 (talk) 00:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
My comment that it was "more than an endorsement" was for the talk page only, for purposes of editorial decisions; I agree that the phrase shouldn't be in the article. As for the controversy level, you're certainly correct that the corporate media didn't give it nearly so much play as the similar incident involving Obama. Nevertheless, as detailed in the Hagee article, the head of the Catholic League for Civil and Religious Rights explicitly attacked McCain over the matter. Thus, a prominent spokesperson is on the case; it's not as if this is being manufactured out of nothing by POV-pushing Wikipedians. There's also been some media coverage of McCain's praise for Rod Parsley. Perhaps one section covering both these controversial religious figures would be appropriate, instead of giving each his own section. JamesMLane t c 08:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
If there's this much agreement about its low value/weight, I'd say just leave it out all together because as time goes by they'll be even less interest in this non-event. Mr.grantevans2 (talk) 15:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with a "corporate" media that is actually in love with Obama. Wright and Obama had an on-going relationship for 20 years, that's what it was about along with the public not knowing much about Obama and his core beliefs. People know who McCain and Clinton are because they have been in the national eye for a long time and have an extensive federal record to look upon. Inclusion of the Hagee stuff should be notable, but not overblown. Arnabdas (talk) 16:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Media "in love with Obama"? McCain himself has joked that the press constitutes his base -- an accurate assessment in light of the fawning portrayals of him and the glossing over of his negatives. My personal opinion is that his ardent pursuit of these two cretinous preachers is far more important than Obama's flag lapel pin or lack thereof, but you tell me which has gotten more coverage.
Anyway, my personal opinion of the candidates is irrelevant, as is yours. In terms of the article, we seem to agree that this deserves mention but not a major exposition. What would you think of a "Controversial religious figures" section that would address both Hagee and Parsley, as they relate to McCain? As to each, it would report the minister's endorsement, report McCain's praise of the minister, and summarize the minister's controversial views (with full exposition left to his bio article, but the reader here must be given some indication of why this minister has drawn flak). In the case of Hagee, the McCain campaign article should also include the Catholic League's attack on McCain and McCain's response (his disavowal of any anti-Catholic comments). JamesMLane t c 22:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't create a separate section at all because, as we all seem to agree, this is only a minor issue that deserves mention, but not an over-mention. So I would place it under the "Endorsements" section, because they were endorsements, and that's all they were. It can start out with a general sentence such as "McCain has received the endorsements of many high profile figures, including President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, former President George H. W. Bush, and former First Lady Nancy Reagan." and then go into "but some of his endorsements have also generated controversy." and then explain what was the matter with Hagee (the Catholic comments, etc.) and Parsley. Happyme22 (talk) 22:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Right, I forgot how the press just loves McCain. I need to read the New York Times more to understand how much they really do love him. That said, I agree with Happyme22's proposal. Arnabdas (talk) 14:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] McCain's Lobbyist Supporters

The Washington Times reports on April 11,2008,on page A1(top article),about the extensive and lucrative ties of John McCain's top advisors and fund raisers to foreign governments including Communist China and Saudi Arabia. The supporters include: Charles Black, who has received more than $700,000 to lobby for the China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Thomas Loeffler, who has received more than $10 million to advance the interests of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Rob Allyn, who was paid $720,000 to promote the cause of Mexican nationals who are in the U.S. illegally. Peter T. Madigan, a top Washinton lobbyist whose clients include the trade bureau of the nation of Columbia. Kirk Blalock, national chairman of Young Professionals for McCain, whose lobbying firm which was established in 1978 represents Peru, Vietnam and Bahrain. These ties are significant in any relevant context, from politics to macroeconomics, and speak to Mcain's fundamental goals and ethics. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind having this included, but I would prefer some other corroborative sources too. Arnabdas (talk) 14:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The current--May--issue of Harper's Magazine has a lead article entitled "My Lobby Myself: How John McCain's Hypocrisy Is Laundered as Reform. "The article deconstruct's McCain's Reform Institute and shows how it violates nearly every reform it claims to advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.26.106.9 (talk) 15:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Extra "|}" before McCain's name to begin article

My quick survey of the boxes didn't reveal what the problem was. Can someone please look into this and fix it? Thanks Enigma message 00:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

diff that screwed it up Enigma message 00:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I've gotten rid of the use of Template:MedalBottom, I have no idea why it was there. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:53, 23 May 2008 (UTC)