Talk:John Thune

Validation of article performed by WIKICHECK. February 8, 2006 5:35pm. WikiCheck 22:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

weighted terms, unsubstanciated claims.

The author claims that Thune has been enveloped in controversy, yet fails to substanciate any of these claims. The text currently reads:

"Several controversies have surrounded Thune, including his lobbying activity on behalf of big beef importers before running for the Senate and the role controversial figure Jeff Gannon played in his 2004 election. Since much of South Dakota's economy is based on the beef industry, ranchers were not thrilled by Thune's aid to the suppliers of foreign beef."

What role did Jeff Gannon play in Thune's 2004 election? Associating a person with a controversial figure without justification of a relationship sends the message that Jeff Gannon played a direct role in the Thune/Daschle race. I do not believe this was the case. Gannon "reported" news about the race using his controversial style, but such coverage is indicative of interest Republicans placed in the race not proof that Thune authorized or promoted Gannon's tactics. The fact that Jeff Gannon is a controversial figure does not neccessarily mean that the personalities he covered are suspect themselves.

Who are "big beef importers?" Please be more specific.

confusing?

"paid bloggers to blog," seems there should be a better way to phrase this.

innacurate information?

To the best of my recollection blogging was not in the bloggers duties as paid consultants for the Thune campaign. As I understand it they were bloggers first, then hired as consultants with the campaign, and continued their blog in the same manner as before their hiring.

attention Wikieditors

Is the tone of the article appropriate for an encyclopedia? In my opinion the phase "perhaps destined to do even greater things for the people of South Dakota and the nation" be excluded; as should other statements of hypothetical nature.