Talk:Tammy Duckworth

Debates

Information about the debates which Ms. Duckworth has declined should be added. These are noteworthy and important information regarding the November, 2006 election. see...[1] [2] [3] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.94.134.222 (talk • contribs)

I think that would set a new precedent in Wikipedia. An encyclopedia lists what a person has done, usually not what they haven't done. Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't been investigated by the Illinois Attorney General? Should we mention that Duckworth hasn't violated FEC reporting requirements? How about the article for opponent, Peter Roskam, should we mention that he has refused to articulate his position on Social Security? That sounds like the mother of all slippery slopes to me. For now, I will delete your tag, unless you can come up with a very compelling argument. Thanks. — Possible single purpose account: Propol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Propol 14:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Based on your precedents, the Eric Zorn blogs entries on the Roskam pages in particular, should you decide to remove the Tom Beven blog ( Mr. Beven has a website for his commentary, as Mr. Zorn does) entries from the Ducktworth page. Propol, you can't have it both ways, either you allow or disallow such entries. You can't chose only positive ones for Duckworth and the negative ones for Roskam.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs)

Also, the Beven information is corroborated with Chicago suburban news paper article. So it's citation is correct.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.195.254.185 (talk • contribs)

This is an encyclopedia not her campaign web site

This article reads like it was written by her campaign staff. I will probably be attacked for "attacking" a disabled veteran, and I acknowledge that Maj. Duckworth is a true American hero, but this article is very POV. --rogerd 02:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

What specific changes would you like to see made to the article? I'm certainly willing to work with you. Propol 05:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

MY answer is most of it... every thing below "Military service" read like a Tammy Duckworth campaign flyer with absolutely no balance or NPOV. Now, for starters, and one that defies logical argument is the simple question... How do you Swiftboat..see Swiftboating for details, a real live war hero??? The implications are made with staining allegations and unverified speculations from bloggers and left leaning editorial commentators. No verified facts, just pure Ad Hominem attack with a good dose of | Non Causa Pro Causa .

Finally, Why is there is nothing about the nasty Campaign flyers Friends for Duckworth have sent out on this or Roskam Article, again ..Why? See WP:SENSE and try to add that factual information, it will be removed off this article very quickly as Popol lovingly protects this article from any negative contributions. Don't take my word or even believe me, look and see the entry logs and histories for your self. Joehazelton 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is completely filled with glowing campaign flyer copy about her and bashing and negativity about Roskam. It should be noted that Propol is a single purpose account, mostly editing on the Duckworth and Roskam Page. Propol protectes the Duckworth page, and dumps any thing negative and near slanderous entry on the Roskam article. It is painfully clear what is happening and should be noted that most of the information on both article is not encyclopedic and conforming to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV Also, Propol is very smart and aggressive to use wikirulez to get his way. See his histories and confirm, don't take my word for it. Beware, to question means geting bad from those that protect this article Joehazelton 11:12, 15 September 2006 (UTC) — Possible single purpose account: Joehazelton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.

Joehazelton, please stop your personal attacks against me. I have edited a couple of dozen articles and am hardly a single purpose account, you on the other hand...

I removed the section below from the article. I don't doubt it's accuracy, but I think we should try to find more authoritative sources. The unhinged press release deserves some kind of mention in the article. Making a play on words to ridicule an opponent and point out their prosthesis is utterly shocking. — Possible single purpose account: Propol (talk • contribs) has made few or no other contributions outside this topic.Propol 15:33, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

A target for swiftboating

It has been alleged that the same group of political consultants, media strategists and communication experts who swiftboated, John Kerry in 2004 will reportedly now target, among other veterans, Duckworth.

The Washington Post has confirmed that "Republicans are planning to spend the vast majority of their sizable financial war chest over the final 60 days of the campaign attacking Democratic House and Senate candidates over personal issues and local controversies."

The headline of a press release released by the Roskam campaign on September 7 2006 described Duckworth as "unhinged". The press release described the language used in a Duckworth direct mailing as "shrill"

According to James Boyce, The Patriot Project was founded to defend John Murtha, Duckworth and others from being smeared as disloyal or unpatriotic.

Propol, this is not the first time that Roskam has made oblique reference to his opponent's handicap. Check out the results of this google search — goethean ॐ 16:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)