Talk:Nancy Johnson

}}

Removed "Controversial" from MoveOn.Org description
All political organizations in a democracy are almost by definition controversial -- the DNC is controversial to Republicans and the RNC is controversial to Democrats. I don't see a particular reason to lable MoveOn.org "controversial" in this article, although a discussion of any controversies would be appropriate at moveon.org.--129.133.125.2 08:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

whitewashing Newt Gingrich's ethics violations
"She won narrowly in her re-election bid in 1996, defeating Democrat Charlotte Koskoff 50%–49%, her only close race for re-election.[3] She attributed her decreased percentage to the time she had spent on the House ethics panel, dealing with ethics allegations against Speaker Newt Gingrich, which prevented her from getting around in her district."

Or so she says. It could be because she largely destroyed her reputation by protecting Gingrich, refusing to disclose documents, and shutting down the investigation early when the panel's special counsel (and two fellow Republican members) said more time was needed to finish. 68.196.10.68 (talk) 01:15, 14 May 2023 (UTC)captcrisis

Moderate?
I understand that Nancy Johnson calls herself a moderate, but the label is subjective and whether or not she is a moderate remains an openly debated question. Certainly Chris Murphy says she isn't, and while some of her positions on social issues appear to the left of the Republican mainstream, she has been a steadfast conservative on other issues. It may make sense for Wikipedia to present arguments pro-and-con the moderate label, but labeling her authoritatively as a "moderate" seems arbitrary and definitely non-npov. Thoughts? --129.133.125.2 08:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Geography lesson:

Perhaps the DNC posters from Washington could get a map and realize the present 5th District comprises most of the towns in the old 6th District. The "new" 5th District is also more conservative than the old 6th District.

Efforts to provide context from a local perspective are invariably edited out as not representative of national political groupthink —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.9.141.171 (talk • contribs).


 * I'm really not sure why you're so paranoid (or so insistent on making this page so politicized). I'm not "a DNC poster from Washington," I'm from Meriden CT, and the new 5th District was formed out of portions of the old 5th and 6th Districts. Simply stating that NJ voted to impeach Clinton isn't POV. But going out of your way to point out that "that's ok, because the good residents of the 5th or 6th or whatever don't care about it" is neither informative for the reader nor fulfilling of Wikipedia's npov mission. Your attempts to hijack the bio of NJ by posting silly partisan charges on the main page are disruptive and not helpful.--Francisx 02:07, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

How about "Movingon" to another District.? If you want this site to be considered completly noncredible keep posting their crap in bios. Perhaps I'll cite Drudge for most nasty posts about Dems?
 * Go ahead and cite Drudge so long as the information is accurate, substantiated and POV-free. I honestly don't see how you can have a problem with the Cook Political Report, which is, along with the National Journal, generally the most respected nonpartisan election analysis. On the question of the Survey USA poll, I agree that the findings are surprising and definitely not settled -- if you want to post another poll in addition, please go ahead, and if you want to criticise it directly, feel free to link to serious criticism. You shouldn't however use the main page for your own editorializing as you've been doing.

Only Democrat opinions are NPOV. Thanks Mr. Orwell.

When a college or news organization pays for a poll and publishes it It will be NPOV. Otherwise it is propaganda for the group that commissioned the poll. Would a poll paid for by Pat Robertson showing a Republican in the lead be NPOV? Not!
 * So a Gallup poll is inadmissable? I think that's silly. SurveyUSA is a respectable polling agency, it isn't Democratic, and it's polls are cited all over the news media. For this poll, they released their internals and their methodology, which I think legitimizes it as a source.

It's like a bloated appraisal used to justify an above value refi ..."MAI"- "Made As Instructed" Go peddle your interest group agitprop elsewhere
 * Have any proof of that assertion? Didn't think so. You're clearly trying to erase anything from this article that doesn't reflect perfectly on Mrs. Johnson. Why don't you take your agitprop elsewhere? I've been fair and I've made attempts at compromise and yet consistently you have fought reasonable efforts to ensure a balanced appraisal, railing against the slightest mention of criticism or dissent. I think you need to get a life. The poll is fair game -- it may not be accurate, and you can discuss that possibility if you cite a source to back you up (I've seen them, they're out there). But there's no compelling reason I see for excluding it. I think you know that too.--Francisx 15:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Guess you wanted Katherine to win AI, sorry, Mr. Orwell

Conceded
Nancy Johnson just conceded the election to Chris Murphy -Elipongo 03:11, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Nancy Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121111102457/http://www.itif.org/content/board to http://itif.org/content/board

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 00:13, 12 February 2018 (UTC)