Talk:David McSweeney

Untitled
Adding back the note that McSweeney is a Lutheran. He mentioned it in an interview for a cable news program. 04:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

1998 abortion position
"In this race McSweeney favored abortions in the first eight weeks." This is a false statement has been debunked by many news papers. It's part of a smear campaign run in the Republican primary. McSweeney is solidly pro-life. Removing statement.Walden2000 03:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I summarized the position noted in cited reference. If you have a better reference, please provide it and we can consider removing the abortion discussion altogether.  However, as it stands, it seems to be the defining issue of his 1998 campaign.  (BTW, welcome to Wikpedia, Walden 2000.  To yourself and all the other newcomers editing this article, I'm not an American and have no interest in American politics.  I do care that the integrity of Wikipedia is preserved.  You can't just arbitrarily remove material without justification.  Thanks for taking this issue to the talk page and providing some explanation.) Samw 03:46, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I revised the section about McSweeney's abortion position in the 1998 race. I attempted to be balanced in the presentation. I feel very strongly that some discussion of the 1998 abortion stance is critical to an accurate article on McSweeney. Any arbitrary deletions will be reverted. 03:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the specific source of criticism on the life issue in the 2006 primary, changeing "other" to "Al Salvi."20:09, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 Primary
I removed the word "only" from the sentence "David McSeeney won with only 43% of the vote. The runner-up was Kathy Salvi." McSweeney won with 43% in a heated 6 way primary, this is a very respectable victory. He finished a full 10 points ahead of his closest competitor, Kathy Salvi, inspite of a million dollars in negative TV ads.20:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Opposing Radio Show host Al Salvi's quote is not neutral or remotely factual. Quoting Al in a tempertantrum calling McSweeney names is poor form. Walden2000

Possible Vandalism
70.224.134.134 made a highly questionable edit, possibly vandalism. The user deleted important information; Republican Bob Churchill refused to endorse McSweeney in the general election. There was a source cited. Furthermore, and of even greater concern, 70.224.134.134 listed "spelling" in the edit summary. This is very poor form! I reviewed his/her user contributions on this page and others, and I found them to be highly concerning. I will monitor this user and request everyone else's assistance in doing so. 05:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * There were 7 or 8 deletions today by anonymous users. They did not provide any edit summary, and did not discuss on the talk page. I know we should assume good faith, but this smells bad to me. Seems like a campaign worker is censoring any content they don't care for. I reverted the deletions. 68.252.191.128 03:13, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * 70.216.211.155 deleted the majority of the article. There was no edit summary provided. There was no discussion on the talk page. This is vandalism. This seems to have increased in the last couple of days. I ask my fellow editors for their help. Please assist me in monitoring this page. Thanks. 68.79.55.76 13:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Jason Heffely
The quote from Jason Heffely, Salvi's campaign manager, is a completely subjective smear. There's nothing factual about this extreme sound bite. Walden2000 18:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that Mr. Heffely's quote has some subjective elements; however, it does raise a legitimate issue - the fact that McSweeney has engaged in negative campaigning. This has occurred more than once, in 1998 vs. Crane and in 2006 vs. Salvi. He violated the 11th Commandment. I'll see if I can find other sources. I know there have been newspaper articles on the negative campaigning. 21:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * This Heffely quote is as partial as you can get. Compare Al and Kathy Salvi's vitrolic personal attacks with David McSweeney's defense. If anyone was guilty of attempted character assanination, it was the Salvi smear campaign. Again, Heffely is a horrible source for McSweeney under any circumstances. Walden2000


 * McSweeney hasn't run clean campaigns either, even according to conservative bloggers. See this link

Peter Roskam
Peter Roskam supported Kathy Salvi, which makes since because are former law partners... but he never got involved to the degree of opposing David McSweeney.

Establishment opposition
I read Roeser's article, written during the primary, portraying McSweeney as a non-establishment candidate. He's right, McSweeney is a independent Republican, but there are no post-primary republican leaders now opposing McSweeney.

Position
You can't use a Democrat political website as a credible source (ie the EDDI organization). that last paragraph is silly. In particular McSweeney does not support raising the retirement age for social security; this is a plain lie. If anyone can produce proof of this charge from an unbiased source, then go ahead and put it back up. Walden2000 16:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Second, McSweeney supports giving local schools the choice to teach intelligent design along with science programs, but he does not support a requirement. I'll correct this sentence accordingly. Walden2000 16:20, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone who can't, or won't, spell Democratic is either illiterate or partisan. Septentrionalis 18:22, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

STEMCELL RESEARCH: "McSweeney is pro-life and opposes embryonic stem cell research, instead favoring research on umbilical cord blood, despite the National Institutes of Health claiming embryonic stem cells have greater potential." I've never heard of this position from the National Institute of Health. In fact, although I don't have anything to cite directly, I've heard umbilical cord research has proved far more useful than than the controversal alternative, stem cell research on aborted fetuses. Anyway, I challenge someone to find the National Institute of Health's position. Walden2000


 * Hey Walden2000, there's a source cited on NIH's position on stem cells. In fact, it's a direct link to a government web site which states the following,


 * Why not use adult stem cells instead of using human embryonic stem cells in research?
 * Human embryonic stem cells are thought to have much greater developmental potential than adult stem cells. This means that embryonic stem cells may be pluripotent—that is, able to give rise to cells found in all tissues of the embryo except for germ cells rather than being merely multipotent—restricted to specific subpopulations of cell types, as adult stem cells are thought to be.


 * I hope that is not too confusing for someone with a political background like yourself. 05:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Fundraising
Throwing around false legal accusations is definately crossing the line. If you can't site a credible source you have no business posting an FEC violation. This clearly violates wikipedia standards. fowl Walden2000 03:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed, its not up to us to make conclusions on data. Please don't remove the whole section over that one statement though.  I've removed the legal speculation and restored the section. .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 04:01, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw that someone correctly noted in an edit summary that a campaign can receive two contributions up to $5,000 each from a PAC / committee, one for the primary and one for the general election. That's accurate. However, FEC records show McSweeney received both donations from the John S Fund after the primary had already occurred. In Illinois the primary was 3/21/06, but the contributions occurred on 3/27/06. This does not seem to be merely a clerical error, as both the contributor (John S Fund) and the recipient (David McSweeney) reported this in a consistent manner. There are proper sources cited. To call this a possible violation of federal election law is a stronger statement that I would have used, but it does not appear to be a subjective statement. By the way, I'm not one to throw around accusations lightly. I think it is entirely possible that the violation was inadvertent and without any nefarious intent. The likelihood of an honest mistake seems greater, especially since the John S Fund's treasurer resigned. Perhaps the new parties involved are not quite up to speed yet. I will follow the issue to see if the McSweeney campaign returns the second donation. If they do, I don't see how it would be much of an issue. I think there should be some mention of a possible violation, but I am unsure as how to present this in the fairest manner. Any suggestions? 70.131.81.204 21:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Also, how much did the primary campaign owe after the election? if the first donation can be defended as paying off primary expenses anyway, it may be legitimate. Septentrionalis 03:11, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Verify and convert references
I'm in the process of verifying the sources, fixing dead links, and converting to new ref system. Be patient, it will take me some time to fix them. -- FloNight  talk  14:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

embryonic stem cell research
I reverted this sentence :

Because it's not the place to speak about it. We will not write arguments in favor of abortion in all articles about pro-life politicians, or against same-sex marriage in articles about gay-rights activists. It violates the neutrality of point of view. if a reader wants to make his mind about the opinion of David McSweeney, he will click on the link about stem cell researches, and make his mind with the pro and cons hell find there. --Revas 21:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)