Talk:Tommy Thompson

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tommy Thompson article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page.
If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] V-chip

Maybe someone should pare down the section on v-chip in this article. (unsigned comment by User:162.129.236.17)

  • The vchip section is sloppily written and in need of wikification, but it is the only attempt made so far in this article to provide political balance. The rest of it is pretty laudatory.--Hraefen 20:37, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vetoes and edits

I followed a link to this page that mentioned Tommy Thompson was involved in a controversial line-item veto of a bill that effectively introduce a new passage. I'm curious as to why this isn't actually mentioned anywhere since the preceding page implied the information was here. Does anyone know anything what the line-item veto was about?

  • I'm not sure, but I've noticed that this article has had some major info purges in the past that seem to have been motivated by a desire to make Tommy seem like the number one guy in the universe. If it was controversial (i.e. if it made Tommy potentially look bad) I would guess that it got erased. If you really want to know, go through the history (Yeah... I know... I don't care enough to to that either).--Hraefen 20:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, it looks like 71.145.181.46 posted some (mostly unsourced) negative stuff back in December 2005 that OCNative then removed in March 2006 (even after Hraefen left that remark). I've reposted it, and will now look for sources. --BaronLarf 22:32, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm no Thompson fan, but the so-called "Frankenstein veto" (cutting out parts of words and numbers to build a new budget creature) is a feature of Wisconsin politics as shaped by our Supreme Court's rulings; can't blame this one on Tommy, although during his years in office he sure used it. --Orange Mike 18:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

-I came here looking for some criticisms of Thompson but found absolutely none--and Thompson is certainly not universally popular. The article as it stands reads more like a campaign ad than an overview of his political career. I flagged it NPOV. - Jarrett

By all means, please be bold add some sourced criticism then. Or, if you just want unvarnished criticism, check out his profile on the SourceWatch.org wiki. Cheers.--BaronLarf 22:22, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm looking for some now. (I'm no expert on him, which is why I came to this page. So it will take some research.) But I've discovered something odd. A lot of text from this page, particularly the W-2 stuff, matches that on many other site, notably the White House's:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/government/thompson-bio.html
and:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=17356
http://www.deloitte.com/dtt/employee_profile/0,1007,sid%253D80772%2526cid%253D86217,00.html
http://www.healthnewsdigest.com/site/thompson_mccurdy.html
...the list goes on. I found these by a casual Google search for "welfare-to-work legislation, which served as a national model for welfare reform". I'm not sure about the policy for this sort of situation--what to do? - Jarrett 6 May 2006

Gah. Probably copyviolations. I'll have a look at 'em myself, too. Since it's not the whole page, the easiest thing to do is just remove everything that looks like its been copied and then just rewrite it, putting references to our sources. See also Wikipedia:Copyrights#If you find a copyright infringement--BaronLarf 23:37, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I've removed all the copyviolations that I could see; now to rewrite the sections in an unbiased, referenced way... --BaronLarf 23:50, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Any objections to removing the POV tag?--BaronLarf 14:06, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Most of this entry now seems to be objective and NPOV to me. I would be happy to remove the tag. Richardjames444 03:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I took the tag off. This debate has been cold for several months now, which suggests that no-one cares overmuch. Richardjames444 03:40, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] the downside

Leo Wanta was framed for state tax evasion with the connivance of Tommy Thompson when he was Governor of Wisconsin and was part of the CIA's reputed operation Children's Defense Fund, Hilary Clinton's $250,000,000 personal slush fund.

After Thompson left office thousands of pages of documents mysteriously went missing or were destroyed.


What in the hell? The Governor of Wisconsin framed some unknown goofball with the help of the CIA, Hillary Clinton, and the Children's Defense Fund? Wikipedia really 'is' an experiment doomed to failure. Time to get the tinfoil hats. 70.226.145.36 00:47, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Wis Native
Documents mysteriously destroyed...yeah by his Democratic gubernatorial successor Jim Doyle, who apoligized on behalf of the incompetant hourly warehouse workers who did it. Get real

[edit] HEY

quote from CNN:


GOP Sen. John McCain on Thursday will launch exploratory committee for the 2008 presidential race, CNN learns. AP reports former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson also plans to join the race.

[edit] Debt?

There doesn't seem to be any mention of the ~$3 billion debt Tommy Thompson left Wisconsin with when he went to Washington, even though it was a major point of the successor elections that brought Doyle to power. Personally, I think the massive debt is what Thompson is most remembered for around here. --64.24.181.157 23:53, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, debt. Hmmm, would you have any sources on that? $3 Billion. Are you talking debt (Bonds, and state borrowing) or (as I suspect) are you talking of a "structural deficit". Wisconsin state law requires that the budget be balanced, and it is. The 'but' is that each governor since at least Lucey has built-in a certain "structural deficit". It wasn't anywhere near $3 billion under Thompson and I suspect its not more than $1.5 billion now. However you may have a good citation. We all look forward to your next post.-- 70.226.145.36 00:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Campaign Website

Hello. Did we find Tommy Thompsons camapign website? If someone finds it, please add it. I can not seem to find it anywhere. Thanks, Asher Heimermann 02:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw it. It is www.tommy2008.com.70.226.159.181 01:38, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Accuracy Issues

This section has severe accuracy problems:

Additionally, HHS falsely reported the cost of the Medicare reform by over $150 billion. Thompson’s appointee, Tom Scully, threatened to fire staff if they revealed to Congress the true cost. Investigators determined that the data was improperly hidden from Congress, and that Scully’s threat to fire the actuary was in violation of federal appropriations law. Accordingly, federal money could not be used to pay Scully's salary after he made the threats to the actuary in May 2003 [6]

1. HHS did not falsely report the cost - it was a dispute over estimated costs. If you go back and look at the actual costs, the actuary's costs were far off. In fact, the New England Journal of Medicine has a story this month (no link, as it is a fee service) that says the first year was $13 billion less than those estimates - due to lower drug costs.

2. The New York Times story that is linked to the Scully item does not say that Scully broke the law. The inspector general said she could not determine if laws were broken. Federal money DID pay Scully's salary after May 2003. This is simply wrong.

3. Finally, the title of this section: "Medicare Mismanagement and Conflict of Interest" is highly misleading. Medicare wasn't mismanaged. This was a dispute with Congress over costs of a bill - not an actual program. At the time of the dispute it was still a proposal. As for conflicts of interest, he was not in office at the time he advocated changes to the Medicare law. He was a private citizen working for private companies. He has every right to advocate for changes beneficial to whomever he pleases.

Galloway28 05:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clean-up

I have just tagged this article for clean-up, since with him announcing presumably there will be more people checking the article. Could somebody do this who despises the man less than I do? This isn't a license to cover up scandals, but as a patriotic citizen of Wisconsin I fear for my ability to avoid NPOV violations on the.... expletive deleted... fellow. --Orange Mike 01:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Allegations of cronyism

Somebody posted this, complete with sourcing in the increasingly-conservative Milwaukee Journal Sentinel; somebody else removed it with snarls of "libel". I'm not just gonna revert it, but seriously, can anybody tell me why we shouldn't restore it to the article? Allegations of cronyism His indicted former aide, P. Nicholas Hurgen, now with Bear Stearns in Illinois [1], is among the many Thompson "friends" whose deals with the state have raise eyebrows in Wisconsin for years. --Orange Mike 03:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Orange Mike,
--Why shouldn't we use that particular news piece? How about the guy mentioned was completely exonerated by a Federal judge several months ago. It's ok to slam people for corruption, but if it turns out not to be true then ya stick with the truth. Badgerfan 01:32, 7 June 2007

Well --Orange Mike, it seems that this site is being used as a campaign platform for www.tommy2008.com. Why else does it look so glowingly pro Tommy? There lots of articles about Tommy's dealings- but none here. There are also allagations about his personal life written by Jay Rath of the Capital Times and Isthmus but I don't see them here. Or what about the fact that Scott "Scooter" Jensen, also indicted, was Tommy's Campaign manager back in the 90s? Where is that thread? Since when did Wikipedia become a platform for political operatives, with nothing else but paid time on there hands, to sit and delete bonafide threads? Kind of defeats the purpose of an open forum no?

[edit] Employer rights regardign the firign of homosexuals.

per [2], (source is HuffPo, article is AP), should this recent gaffe, more important in light of previous offenses to other minorities, be added to the article? It even looks like a pattern of behaviors - Say something stupid, blame it on a cold/flu, and should he fail to get the nomination, such repeated behavior can be used as one of the reasons why. ThuranX 00:43, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

As usual, if you can find a reliable source saying it’s a pattern, then go ahead and edit the article to say that the reliable source says such-and-such about Thompson. But if you can’t find a reliable source, then it’s nothing more than an editor’s speculation, which of course isn’t welcome here. And if this supposed pattern is going to be cited as a reason he lost the nomination, then there would also need to be reliable sources quoting voters who claim they would have voted for Thompson had he not had a habit of putting his foot in his mouth. --Rob Kennedy 19:35, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Hows this for a reliable source [[3]]? Also links to credible news papers have been deleted by operatives, do they consitute reliable sources? How are links established by Tommy2008 more reliable? walkingdogs (UTC)
That’s terrible as a reliable source of someone claiming that Thompson exhibits a pattern of making verbal blunders. It’s a clip of Thompson in the debate and doesn’t include any commentary at all. It’s not a source for the topic ThuranX asked about including, so the issue of whether it’s reliable in its claims is moot. I’m not sure what your other two questions have to do with this discussion. If there’s something you think has been included or removed inappropriately, then please start a new discussion and include links to what was included or removed. --Rob Kennedy 02:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate Confusion

A piece in The Cincinnati Post this morning (Aug. 11) misattributed a comment from Gov. Thompson to former Sen. Fred Thompson, who wasn't even at the event in question. 'Cancer touches all of us' McGehee 14:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Politicization of Science

Does anyone else find,as I do that this is not a valid criticsm? Here is the crux of the issue; Thomspson (a political appointee) chose not to appoint an opponent of his boss to a governmental board. This was a political and governmental creation. By definition those appointed to it would be political. This was NOT an academic board or 'pure' science foundation board. This was a governmental board created to give advice to politicians. No one should be SHOCKED, SHOCKED to find politics in such an environment.

And, truthfully, no one was. The Union of Concerned Scientists expessed outrage. It was the pro forma press release of what is admittedly a liberal pressure-group.

This hardly merits being allowed in the criticism secction at all,much less the FIRST listed criticsm.

Where is the discussion of "Vanna White" Vetos, massive deficits, profligate spending etc...? Those are valid criticisms. This 'controversy' seems more like the personal grudge of someone who didn't get appointed.70.226.139.69 00:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree about many of the other items you mention (the Vanna White/Frankenstein veto, though, crosses party lines). Nonetheless, most folks in the scientific community agree that he was eager to politicize science, and that the board in question is supposed to be above such political biases; that is the purpose of the board. --Orange Mike 18:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Can't comment on the relative importance of this issue, but I added this section initially, and I can assure you I have no connections or interest in the issue beyond being a scientist and being concerned! I'd be grateful if anonymous users could stop trying to smear other users with unsubstantiated innuendo. Or are you a politician too, User 70.226.139.69? Famousdog 14:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, Famousdog, I note that anon commenter said that "it seems more like a personal grudge" not that it was indeed a personal grudge. With apologies, I also personally believe that this is a weak criticism. Why do I suggest that? I judge the relative value of a criticism on two key areas. 1. Is this central to to wikipedia's biographical sketch of the individual? 2. (In the case of a political figure)Was this a major (multi-day/multi-week, recurring) scandal or issue. On both of these this criticsm falls short. Particularly if you compare to the other criticisms. They were prominent and continuing issues, the politicization of science just wasn't. I think we ought to drop this one off the page and insert something more central. What that might be perhaps could be debated.Capitalismojo 20:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I see your point regarding the centrality of this issue to Thompson's biog, but why must an issue be recurring or ongoing to merit inclusion? That seems rather arbitrary. Bill Clinton only had his "cigar smoked" by Monica once, yet it defined his presidency. Haven't checked, but I'm guessing that's on his page. Criticism of Thompson's office for these events is ongoing in concerned circles (but maybe not on CNN) and was seen as a politically-motivated slap in the face to several extremely experienced scientists including one Nobel Laureate. If that's not important enough for you, then gee, I dunno what to say... Famousdog 03:01, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Questions? Ask them through Wikinews

Hello,

I'm Nick Moreau, an accredited reporter for Wikinews. I'm co-ordinating our 2008 US Presidential election interviews. We will be interviewing as many candidates as possible, from the Democrats, Republicans, and other parties/independents.

I'll be sending out requests for interviews to the major candidates very soon, but I want your input, as people interested in American politics: what should I ask them?

Please go to any of these three pages, and add a question.

Questions? Don't ask them here, I'll never see them. Either ask them on the talk page of any of these three pages, or e-mail me.

Thanks, Nick

[edit] Name

Is "Tommy" his given first name? Surely he is "Thomas"? john k (talk) 04:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

His legal name is Tommy, not Thomas. We're not very pretentious here in Wisconsin.--Orange Mike | Talk 04:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Firstly: any evidence of this? Secondly, even given that it's now his legal name, is it the name he was born with, though? My understanding is that Jimmy Carter is more or less legally "Jimmy Carter," but we still mention the "James Earl Carter, Jr." in the article. (And how is the name "Thomas" pretentious?) john k (talk) 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
It's the only legal name he ever had. All I meant by "not pretentious" was that a lot of folks in rural areas have names like that. My father's legal given name was Jim, not James. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:03, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
To be meticulous, his full legal name is and was Tommy George Thompson. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, fair enough. (Source, though, would be useful). john k (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
New York Times good enough? [4] --Orange Mike | Talk 14:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say directly that he was born with the name "Tommy"? john k (talk) 07:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Where does it say—directly, indirectly, or otherwise—that he wasn't? -- Zsero (talk) 13:28, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it does not. I'm not saying we should call him "Thomas" unless we can prove otherwise - obviously, if we can't find any sources that call him "Thomas," we can't call him that. But it would be nice to find a source which explicitly says that "Tommy" was his given name, the name on his birth certificate, whatever. john k (talk) 17:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)