Talk:Matthew Dowd

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Is his change of heart really a "Controversy"? Doesn't that marginalize or trivialize it too much by putting it under such a heading?

Is this person noteworthy in some way? What is the purpose of this article?—Preceding unsigned comment added by Pkoden (talk • contribs)

The article mentions the following roles: Senior adviser to the Republican National Committee, close presidential aide, Simon & Schuster author, visiting professor at a respected university. That is enough to establish notability. Although the article should elaborate more on his role in the 2004 presidential campaign, I don't think a "notability" or "importance" tag is in order. Also, I don't quite understand in what respects the text "resembles a fan site", please be more specific. Regards, High on a tree 21:36, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
"Close presidential aide"? Care to cite something to that effect? I get the fact that he was paid almost a thousand dollars, but there are many consultants who get paid more than a thousand dollars without being terribly close to their employer. Jamesofengland 07:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I had already cited the Washington Post article, which says: One after another, aides who have stuck with [Bush] are heading out the door. [...] Others who have left have publicly castigated the president. Bush was particularly hurt, friends said, when reelection strategist Matthew Dowd disavowed him. This is clear evidence that Dowd had an important working relationship with the president, in the view of Bush himself and in the assessment of the Washington Post. Regards, High on a tree 23:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
I still fail to see how this person is noteworthy. The article reads like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia entry. Unless the role in an election campaign was somehow critical to success, and that can be documented, then it's not really noteworthy. Is it? Most of the article is trivia. The article references do not note any accomplishment. Simply saying "I don't think a 'notability' or 'importance' tag is in order" does not justify their removal. The onus is on proponents of the article to prove its importance. I'll refrain from reapplying them, but unless something noteworthy, that meets at least one of the biographical criteria, is added, then I will submit this article for removel in the future. pkoden 01:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote George Bush: "He was an integral part of my 2004 campaign." He was the chief strategist of the 2004 re-election campaign. The suggestion that he is not 'noteworthy' is ludicrous. Dlabtot 07:41, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal

Why is his defection from the Bush ranks included in this section? It's clearly related to his career, not his personal life.

And how can Sidney Blumenthal's speculation as to his sincerity be considered 'encyclopedic'? Dlabtot 19:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

There were a number of articles quoted from and referenced that took Dowd's claims at face value. Blumenthal's speculation is based on some solid facts and quotes. Amongst other things, he notes to any Republican political or ideological principles was has tended to be ambiguous at best, although his strategy was to make a number of those positions more extreme. While that does not necessarily mean that he was acting in bad faith (consultants, like attorneys, can reasonably advise clients to take actions that they do not personally disagree with without acting in bad faith), it does raise the implication. It did not seem like an excessively intrusive sentence in the entry, although I'm comfortable with your edit. It does seem as if an article that presented the disconnect between his various public statements and positions should be included in the article, though. I'd be happy to see a different one than Blumenthal's replacing it if you do not feel it comes up to Wiki standards.Jamesofengland 19:13, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll simply note that your original characterization of the Blumenthal article was inaccurate and leave it at that. Dlabtot 20:22, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Dude! Does that not strike you as the kind of claim that deserves a little more textual support? As you note, the piece repeatedly charges Dowd with opportunism, with some evidence. Do you feel that it does not also suggest a manufactured narrative? For example: "As the pollster who helped bring Bush to power and sustained him there, Dowd is expert in framing stories, and he has framed his own as a classic conversion narrative. But the political consultant cleanses his story of politics, so it is hardly surprising that there are gaps in the telling and characters missing. Dowd does not offer any explanation of why Bush has changed, only how he, Dowd, perceives the changes." Or, later "His self-involved and tortuous explanation of his disillusionment helps cast light on the banality of his motives in his original defection from Democrat to Bush Republican." In other words, the high drama of the narrative that he put forward contrasted with the "banality" of the actual events. The rest of the article is a large collection of ways in which Dowd demonstrates his lack of commitment to the principles that he claims motivated them. It might not be correct, I don't know mr. Dowd, and it's certainly not a balanced piece. Perhaps it shouldn't be in Wikipedia, although I think it probably should be, but I don't see how my statement regarding its contents was inaccurate. Jamesofengland 16:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)