Talk:John M. McHugh

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Wow, you're pretty far off on everything you wrote here. I'm a moderate Democrat, and McHugh's voting record is not really what I'd call 'highly conservative'. His voting record is what I'd call a conterarion one, like John Hostettler, I do believe I mispelled that though. Nor is his district solidly Republican. According to CQ Politics, [1], this district favored Bush by only a very narrow 4 point margin, 51-47, and has been trending more Democratic, as it is far less Republican than it was in 1992, when McHugh was first elected. NcHugh regularly wins with landslides exceeding 70% because of his more moderate voting record, his incumbency, his ability to bring pork home to his district, and weak Democratic opposition. -- 17:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC) Robert Waalk


There are some serious flaws with this article I'm working to fix; the people who this article says preceded and succeeded him are completely off -Iudaeus (talk) 17:55, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Fixed -Iudaeus (talk) 17:58, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

POV implications[edit]

I edited a section that came across as very dubious agenda-pushing and innuendo. A sentence stated that McHugh voted for the "controversial" cap and trade bill a few weeks after the President nominated him to be Secretary of the Army. Then, two sentences later (in the political positions section), it states he never served in the Army. It's bizarre to juxtapose the nomination and the nomination, unless one is pushing a quid pro quo accusation. There's no reliable source cited of a notable political figure making that accusation. The never-served-in-the-military sentence is out of place in the political positions section. The only reason I see for that is agenda-pushing and innuendo. It's not a political position. The innuendo seems to be that serving in the military is a pre-requisite for the job and not having done so is extremely odd. But I checked the articles of recent Secretaries of the Army. Out of the 6 who were the Secretary or Acting Secretary during the Bush Administration, 4 have articles that make no reference to military service. The "controversial" characterization seems more to do with applying a stigma than conveying facts. There's no citation for it. Furthermore, cap and trade was a policy supported by many Republicans a few years ago. --JamesAM (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)