Talk:2006 United States Senate election in Virginia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Government Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as Low-importance).

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

U.S. Congress Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Text and/or other creative content from this version of United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006 was copied or moved into Controversies of the United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006 with this edit. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Cleaning Up

The article was clearly written about 2 months ago so i updated the info for the race.

--James E. Martin

Someone added that Sabato refuted the rumors... Can we get a citation?

--James E. Martin

Cleaned up the language of the Ethnic Community Rally. joshua. 17:43, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Name changing

I don't know why this page keeps "moving" or what exactly the naming convention should be, but "Virginia Senate election, 2006" is absolutely the wrong name for this article because Virginia has both U.S. Senators and a state senate. The current title implies that it should be about 2006 Virginia state senate campaigns (and is inconsistent with every other article about a Senate race). --Ajdz 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Polling

Does anyone do polling on the primary races? I don't see that in articles very often but it many races it would be more relevant and timely. --Ajdz 19:45, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My sense is that huge amounts of the money (and interest) for Senate campaigns is at the national level. So the concern is on the general election. If two (say) Democratic candidates are fairly close, the pollsters can just double up: ask questions about BOTH the Republican incumbent against Democrat A and the incumbent against Democrat B.

Plus the pool of (continuing this example) likely Democratic voters is different (and narrower) than those who are likely to vote in the general election, so a pollster almost has to do two separate polls, one for the primary, one for the general election, if both are to be covered.

In other words, polls on the primary are likely to be done either by candidates (and generally kept quiet) or occasionally by local papers or universities. Or so I speculate. John Broughton 00:56, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. That does explain the rarity of that kind of information. --Ajdz 04:48, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article Title

The title is fine. Yes, Virginia has both US and state Senators; however, there are no state senate elections in 2006; therefore, it should not be confused. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DTfromDC (talk • contribs)

Immigration Lobbyist

Harris Miller is not a "hi-tech" executive as he portrays himself. In fact, his understanding of the internet is extremely basic. He was/is an immigration lobbyist brought in by the ITAA to increase the amount of H-1b visas issued, outsource certain hi-tech jobs, and generally reduce workers' wages. This is common knowledge among hi-tech workers. For this reason I have added the word "immigration" in front of the job title lobbyist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richmond Democrat (talk • contribs)

Do you have a good source for that "common knowledge"? Self-portrayal is probably more accurate than rumors and the last time I saw that kind of change was a recent series of edits to his bio that looked like they came from his primary opponent's campaign. --Ajdz 02:22, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a source in which Miller himself describes lobbying as "much of what we do" see http://bbyo.tantrika.net/profiles/NKaza_HarrisMiller.htm

For sources on Miller actions as an immigration lobbyist visit this website, owned by Rob Sanchez, and type in "Harris Miller"

http://www.zazona.com/shameH1B/SearchSite.htm

"Self-portrayal is probably more accurate than rumors" does not really apply to someone like Miller, who is deliberately trying to obscure his past in order to appeal to Democratic voters. Please remember, he is a politician. Richmond Democrat 17:13, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webb a Republican?

Webb served as a high exec-branch official under a Republican president at a time when that didn't necessarily mean you were a member of the GOP. If you want to call Webb a former Republican, kindly cite your source.Hornblende 19:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would this help? Webb said he defected from the Democratic Party in 1976 because of its stance on foreign policy but said he has a long history of supporting Democrats, including former senator Bob Kerrey during his short-lived presidential run in 1992, and former senator Charles S. Robb against Republican Oliver L. North in 1994. [1]

So he was a Democrat, then a Republican, and now he is again a Democrat. John Broughton 21:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. He also endorsed Allen in 2000 and it looks like his flip-flopping party affiliations will be an issue (maybe an issue that people will try to hide). --Ajdz 02:44, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. My impression is that Webb has been an independent thinker who has supported candidates as he saw fit, and I'd still prefer to cite a direct quote ("I am now a Republican") than this WPost paraphrase. Nevertheless, I will yield to "former Republican." Hornblende 03:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's an interview transcript here. He kind of avoids the question but it sounds like he jumps parties based on single issues. --Ajdz 03:58, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Not to jump right back into the debate, but I don't read the transcript that way. Webb mentions the changing Democratic stance toward national security as the main reason he shifted away from the Dems in the 1970s, but cites his positions on social issues and economic unfairness as two reasons he was never comfortable with GOP thinking. More recently, he perceives the GOP to have turned from good fiscal and national security policy, and so has (apparently for the first time in his life) declared an official party affiliation. A political opponent could portray that as flipfloppery, but a Wikipedian striving for NPOV might say that the parties have changed more than Webb's personal philosophy. This in itself argues against tagging him with any formal affiliation — until now, for the first time, he has formally allied himself with a party: the Dems. Hornblende 06:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever your take on it, I think the issue should be in there somewhere. Some Democrats will oppose Miller for his work as a lobbyist, others will oppose Webb for lack of commitment to the party. --Ajdz 16:14, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poll numbers

The poll cited is from April 19, over a month ago, and before the endorsements of Congressman Murtha, Generals Newbold and Zinni, or the Senate Democratic Leadership. Have any polls been taken since mid-May?

Text removed from Harris Miller page

Anything worth sticking into the main campaign article? At least (most of) the links seem worth keeping. John Broughton 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I don't find anything of the below interesting, or all that relevant, actually. What's news (and relevant) about the election is that:

the voting rate was abysmal (approx 3.4%!) -- as opposed to 16%? in the 1996 primary (which was the last contested primary) (granted, it's 3.4% of all voters, GOP included, because there is no party affiliation with registration in the state -- still, it was very small)
the policy positions seemed pretty irrelevent -- the overriding two issues here were: (a) electability; and (b) who's a true Democrat (indeed, with respect to (a) some Republicans came to the polls to vote for Miller, thinking that Webb would be much stronger against Allen)
the voting patterns were quite striking -- the most hard core Dem areas (nothern Va), as well as the liberal blogosphere (and National Dems) overwhelmingly supported the conservative Webb; while the state organization and the rural areas supported the long-time active liberal Dem Miller, as did cities and counties with large percentages of African-American voters (outside of the northern Va).
the campaign was fairly negative (see the PS below)
Webb was outspent 2-to-1

some good analysis in this WaPo story, and even better in this CQPolitics story.

In summary, the above is the story, and none of the below mattered one whit in the election. -- Sholom 13:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. "Miller, 54, put nearly $1 million of his own money into the campaign. He portrayed Webb as a sexist who had questioned women's fitness for combat and had criticized affirmative action. In a televised debate, Webb called Miller "the anti-Christ of outsourcing," accusing him of pushing Internet industry jobs overseas." [2]

P.P.S. So now that I've written all the above, I think _it_ should be incorporated into the main article! -- Sholom 13:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hear, Hear. Go for it. John Broughton 02:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! OK, I'll go for it. But, tomorrow. I've just finished doing a massive data-culling-and-dump into User talk:John Broughton/Lewis-Lowery-Shockey-White lobbying controversy, and I'm finished for this evening! -- Sholom 03:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stated goals as senator

Alternative energy investment is proposed by Miller. He favors incentives for development and use of renewable energy sources, such as wind, solar, and biomass. He would increase CAFE standards for fuel economy of cars, trucks, and SUVs. He supports increased research and development expenditure for hybrid, hydrogen, and fuel cell vehicles. [3][4]

Economically, he favors an increase in the minimum wage. He opposes extending the Bush tax cuts. He would place a windfall profits tax on the recent record-setting revenues of the US oil industry, while providing incentives and extending tax breaks on alternative energy, such as the Renewable Energy Production Tax Credit (PTC). He supports fiscal responsibility through "PAYGO" rules, meaning that if Congress approves new tax cuts or spending increases, they find a way to pay for them, paying as they go. [5][6]

Among his national security goals is doubled funding of the Nunn-Lugar Cooperative Threat Reduction program for the destruction of nuclear warheads and materials, which he would geographically broaden beyond its past work in the former Soviet union. On Iraq, he criticizes Pres. Bush and Sen. Allen for "misleading us into a war that is costing hundreds of billions of dollars and thousands of American lives." He wants to specifically link benchmarks in autonomous Iraqi security to US troop withdrawal. He calls for the resignation of Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld. [7]

For Virginia, Harris stresses transportation matters. He would encourage greater use of passenger rail and movement of more freight by rail. He is in favor of telecommuting, and would broaden the definition of which federal employees are eligible, and support private telecommuting through tax incentives. [8]

Political contributions

Sites such as vpap.org and opensecrets.org show that Miller has been one of the top financial supporter of Democrats in Virginia and Democrats across the country. However, he has also recently faced heat in the primary because of donations to Republicans such as Spencer Abrams and John Sununu. The ITAA PAC, of which Miller was President and Treasurer donated 38% of its PAC Income to Republicans in 1998 [9], 96% to Republicans in 2000 [10], 87% to Republicans in 2002 [11], and 85% to Republicans in 2004 [12]. Miller was top donor in 2000 and 2002 but not listed as a ITAA PAC donor in 1998 or 2004. [13], [14].

Harris' website professes his intent to "restore fiscal responsibility to Washington, make smart investments in our future, and reward the hard-working Americans who drive our economy." In Iraq he would "establish a clear exit strategy to bring our troops safely." Among his Virginia goals, he wants to "lead the way in smart planning and growth, and promote transportation alternatives." [15]

The Internet Technology Professionals Association of America has criticized Miller for support of offshoring technological jobs. [16]

The Washington Post reported that Miller courts local activists likely to weigh heavily in the primary while his opponent Jim Webb has been successful with high-profile national endorsements, including Senate minority leader Harry Reid. [17] On the fundraising front, the Federal Election Commission database [18] show that Miller has outraised Webb by more than 2 to 1, showing net receipts through March 31st.

Describing an appearance of Miller and Webb on the nationally-televised Hardball program, the Washington Post stated that host Chris Matthews criticized Miller for his early support of the Iraq War and Webb for his statements on immigration. [19]

Independent Greens

According to the article: "In a July 28 Rasmussen poll, Parker, who calls herself a common-sense conservative, appeared to be within the 15% threshold to get into the two scheduled live TV debates"

I've looked at the poll in question and it doesn't mention Parker at all. In fact, only the two SurveyUSA polls include her, and she only has 2% in each - hardly near 15%. Seleucus 01:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macaca Controversy

The text change was me finalizing the move of this passage from George Felix Allen to this article to avoid undue weight in Allen's article as well as stopping duplication of information. Now the section is fully here, and only summarized there. If any information was lost in the transition, feel free to add it back in.--Rosicrucian 21:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The entry says "The word has different meanings in other languages, for example, the word macaca/macaco means fool, clown, simpleton in Italian.[22]". Well, I'm Italian, and in Italian the word "macaco" ("macaca" is the female form) means a particular type of monkey, and so it's used as an insult in two senses: 1. "fool, clown, simpleton" (as the entry states), but also 2. "black person", so it's really a racial slur in this case (being used against a person of Indian anchestry). I hope that this could be fixed by an authorized user.

More info

Here's a recent article on this campaign that contains some new polling data. I'm too busy to add the information in now, but I will do it later if no one else gets to it first. [20] 12.4.123.125 13:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edits regarding google search

Ma ca ca, the edits you have don't seem to be well supported by the source you have provided. This source doesn't say that he apologized because of the term's widespread usage on Google. Perhaps try rewording somewhat, to make it sound less like original research. Also, I think the Google search is superfluous information; maybe if you could find a before/after search frequency for "Macaca" or for "George Felix Allen", that might be more relevant, but I'm still not sure if it would be relevant enough. Ufwuct 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Macaca and associated socks have just been indef blocked for vandalism and attack articles regarding George Allen.--Rosicrucian 17:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rally

When the quote was deleted in the rally section[21], what was remaining seemed to be floating without providing any context. I've added back a small part of the quote, plus the quote of another supporter, plus information on the protesters, plus 2 quotes from the protesters. This seems to be pretty balanced. It shows that two people (both minorities, though I left this part out) support George Allen despite his gaffe. It also shows that people protested the rally, one of whom did not believe Allen's attempts were sincere or genuine.

If Allen's poll numbers change because of this rally or if it generates any substantial new development, we could probably add that, but the section seems sufficiently detailed for now. Thanks. Ufwuct 18:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Reagan, "Women Can't Fight"

To keep this article balanced, I've added in a fairly interesting Webb incident regarding his recent campaign ads.--Rosicrucian 03:07, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've also added the recent controversy and subsequent appology of Webb regarding the "Women Can't Fight" article he wrote in 1979. There is a reason this will be a very acrimonious and close race, and while Allen is riddled with scandal, Webb won't have an easy time of it either.--Rosicrucian 19:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meet the Press

Someone should add information from the recent Meet the Press debate [22]—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Remember (talk • contribs) 13:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Did my best to summarize.--Rosicrucian 19:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Odd video clip

I don't know how relevant this is, but there is an interesting exchange on video about a question regarding Allen's ethnic heritage. See [23]. I haven't figured out how to add this information or even whether it should be added. So I'm looking for some opinions on the matter. Remember 21:28, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is an article about the event too [24]

Women in the Military Controversy

While I can appreciate broadening this section to address Allen's remarks as well, we need to follow the WP:MOS for the references added. If nobody else manages to clean it up, I'll try to do so this evening if I can find the time.--Rosicrucian 15:47, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've finally gotten a chance to tidy it up. I trimmed the new material significantly, as much of it was copyvio from Webb's campaign site blog and/or the Media Matters article.--Rosicrucian 15:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three former teamates say Allen called blacks N*ggers

I took out the following:

Three former teamates say Allen called blacks N*ggers http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/24/allen_football/

because all it did was add a link and not state anything but an inflamatory header. I'm not saying that this information shouldn't be on the page, but it should be written out in some form in case the link becomes broken. I don't have time to fix this, so if someone could type this up in some form, I would appreciate it. I will check back later and help out if I can. Remember 02:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I quickly summarized the key information from the article, but forgot to give an edit summary. Seleucus 02:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-biased source...

For the women in the military section... the quotes by Allen ("should not be in foxholes", etc.) should reference the original article (The Washington Post Robb's True Colors on Defense Showing, Allen Says; GOP Challenger Woos Veterans With Funding And Flag Amendment Author: Craig Timberg Date: Oct 9, 2000 Start Page: B.07 Section: METRO Document Types: News Text Word Count: 696) rather than a biased secondary or tertiary source (Media Matters). Contrary to popular belief, we are actually allowed to use non-web based sources. And a neutral one, The Post, is always better than one with a stated bias. Thanks... --198.185.18.207 17:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Why don't you change it to include that citation. That being said I think it is also nice to have a link to the actual article or excerpt from it so that those without access to the Washington Post's archive can check out the article for themselves. Remember 18:01, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the link where this info is here or maybe here, but I have no idea if either is just clickable to get there. I had to search the archives. The quote does not appear in the preview, however. You can see the google archive search results here. --198.185.18.207 18:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements?

Could an endorsements section be added (for both candidates)? I have noticed this on other Senate race pages, like the PA one [25]. 208.200.11.155H

Sure, why not? Just don't include Republicans, Democrats, and respective party organizations who are endorsing their own - it's not noteworthy, for example, that (say) Hilary Clinton would endorse Jim Webb, or that George Bush (either of them) would endorse Geroge Allen. John Broughton | Talk 16:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My revert of explicit passages section

I reverted some of the changes to the explicit passages from Webb novels section for the following reasons:

Drudge Report does not say the press release comes from an Allen "campaign operative", which may suggest a rogue individual. Drudge says "Sen. George Allen, R-VA, unleashed a press release..." and "the Allen Campaign".
The press release was not posted generally "on the internet", it was posted only on the Drudge Report. This is relevant in that it suggests that Drudge may know whether it truly came from the Allen campaign or not. Specifying that it was posted on the Drudge Report also removes ambiguity; "on the internet" may be inferred to mean on the Allen campaign website, which would not be accurate.
Characterizing Webb's book as having been glowingly reviewed by John McCain does not seem especially pertinent here. Note that the source, itself a (perhaps liberal) blog, attributes this point to "liberal bloggers". Considering how short the discussion of the incident is, this inclusion strikes me as undue weight.
"Webb brushed off Allens campaign's tactics explaining he does not aprove of all the things that he writes about" — this is not contained within the source, the CNN article. Schi 07:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regard #3, Here's info from a Washington Post article:

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a Vietnam war hero who has endorsed Allen, praises "Lost Soldiers" on the book jacket. "It captures well the lingering scars of the war," he says. "A novel of revenge and redemption that tells us much about both where Vietnam is headed and where it has been."[26]

I'm not adding that to the article because I agree it's less important than what is there already, but I want it noted so that people don't think that liberal bloggers have this one wrong. John Broughton | Talk 14:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webb's name truncated on ballots

Can someone explain why this matters enough to be included? It's not a material difference and anyone smart enough to vote ought to be able to figure it out. What makes it encyclopedic, other than the faint odor of a conspiracy theory? Dubc0724 20:08, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say this merits inclusion in the Wikipedia article not so much because of the material of the issue as its notability. There's only one source cited in the article section, but the issue has gotten a fair amount of publicity (aside from the WaPo, it's been covered in Time, ZDnet, the Charlottesville Daily Progress, Richmond Times-Dispatch, Roanoke News, as well as an Associated Press article carreid in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer and other papers, etc.) I think the considerable attention it's received makes it a bona fide controversy within the scope of this election. Schi 20:32, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I agree about the publicity. But does a newspaper's effort to sell papers during Election Week merit its inclusion in the encyclopedia? I guess, I'm just asking, what's the BFD with the truncation? Dubc0724 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue itself is noteworthy in this particular election (especially if it ends up having some sort of effect), but maybe the inclusion in the controversy section implies that there is some sort of malevolent force at work, which there is no evidence of. Truthfully, this seems to belong more in an article about technical problems with voting machines. Remember 20:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This section states that the "election ballot" was truncated. However the cited article states that only the summary page of the election was effected, not the ballot page. This seems like a significant difference. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.142.130.12 (talk • contribs) 20:30, November 20, 2006 (UTC).

Manhandling of heckler

Get ready for another controversy section. CNN just had video of Allen aids manhandling someone who tried to ask him heckling questions. Allen was in a hotel lobby when the person tried to approach Allen. Several staffers pushed and shoved him to the ground. We'll probably have stories at the major news sites within the next hour or two. --StuffOfInterest 20:20, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you get your Wikipedia and Huffington Post bookmarks mixed up again? Dubc0724 20:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the video [27]. Can't tell from this if there was anything damaging. It just appears as if some (supposidly Allen supporters) were trying to remove the man from the scene, he wouldn't cooperate and it got a little heated. But I don't see how this should reflect on the campaign at all. Remember 20:40, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It still even remains to be seen if they were Allen's staffers (as is being reported), or just Allen supporters (as is also being reported). There is a big difference between the two. --198.185.18.207 21:12, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on how it plays out in the media. If nothing more comes of it then it certainly isn't worth mentioning, which is why things like this should be discussed on the talk page first. If it gathers steam, then it may warrant mention. So far, Associated Press has picked it up[28], but that could well be the end of it. We'll have to see how (or if) the Washington Post handles it tomorrow. --StuffOfInterest 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like to expand on that, Dubc0724? And please keep WP:CIVIL in mind. --StuffOfInterest 21:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little humor. Guess it wasn't appreciated. My apologies. Dubc0724 13:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone tried to add this information to the George Allen entry. I deleted it because I thought it would be more appropriate for this article and we were still debating whether it was noteworthy. Any other opinions? Remember 03:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If it belongs anywhere it is in this article and not the candidate articles as it is definitely a campaign issue. As for whether to include it at all, I'm drawn both ways. It did get picked up by the Washington Post this morning ^[1], but back at page 8 of the A section. The Associated Press is still putting our versions of the story^[2]. My concern is that within two days the story will be gone and forgotten, in which case it probably isn't worth putting in the article. I'd say we hold off for a day or two to see if anything else develops. The reference links are here, so we can always get back to the stories to build something later. --StuffOfInterest 12:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With the latest story regarding Allen refusing to denounce his supporters roughing up the heckler, and actually blaming Webb for the incident^[3], I think there is enough to create a new controversy section. I'm going to be busy most of today, but if someone else feels like tackling it you have the references included here to work with. Good luck. --StuffOfInterest 12:59, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... I still don't see a lot of controversy here. Some dude yelled some stuff, some other dudes tackled him. Neither (it seems now) were really connected with the campaigns of Allen or Webb, just supporters of them. It is an interesting tidbit, but nothing really notable. If anything, I still think it's too early to include. Perhaps if and when charges are pressed, and the entire story is told, it might pass notability, but for now, it's just another random story. Now if Allen had tackled the dude himself... now that would have been newsworthy! ;-) Thoughts? --198.185.18.207 14:25, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Totally newsworthy, imo. The person was not a heckler. The person had attended a rally that was open to the public, had sat respectfully and quietly all through the comments by Allen, Dole and others, and rose to ask a question at the appointed time. The person is a Virginia resident and contituent of George Allen. After the initial question, which Allen REFUSED to answer, the person followed along with the other reporters to ask his question again. Unlike the other reporters, however, several individuals (two with the area GOP and one with Allen's campaign) shoved this person and denied him access where others were not likewise denied. When the person tried to get in position to ask a question, he was shoved and subsequently wrestled to the ground. All of this occurred within feet of the Senator, who made no comment and did nothing to stop the attack on one of his constituents. If that's not newsworthy I don't know what is. Moreover, the characterization of this person as a "protester" or a "heckler" is inaccurate in that he was not protesting and did not heckle during Allen's remarks. This controversy should be included if for no other reason than WP allows a forum to set the record straight when the mainstream media erroneously gets it wrong. Rena 19:51, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And hate to break it to you, RenaRF, that's not actually what WP is for. It is an encyclopedia. Nothing more. It isn't some "cool new way to fight the power", or place to document "all the stories the MSM is too biased to report." Encyclopedia. I know it's a tough concept. Thanks. --198.185.18.207 20:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rena, have you watched the video [[29]]? I'm personally rooting for Webb based on my personal political views (and especially after the macaca comment), but the law student was totally acting inappropriately. He was yelling what basically amounts to obscenities at a public official, in a very unprofessional manner. So it's not really surprising that people thought he was a weirdo and it might not be safe for him to remain in the building. Jonemerson 20:11, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're 100% right, but I suspect we'll see it in the article by the weekend. Dubc0724 14:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it beacame a campaign issue when Allen accused Webb of orchestrating it. Before that I did consider it not likely to be worthy of inclusion but when Allen made an issue out of it, while making no statement regarding how his supported handled it, then the issue gained prominence. --StuffOfInterest 15:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree with StuffOfInterest. The significant media play along with Allen's response has made it noteworthy. I don't think there should be a large section on this. Just a brief not of its occurence, Allen's response and links to the articles about this. Remember 16:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Democratic Activist Claims Abuse by Allen's Staffers". The Washington Post. November 1, 2006. p. A08.
^ "Heckler subdued at George Allen event". Associated Press. November 1, 2006.
^ "Va. Senator blames opponent for scuffle". Associated Press. November 2, 2006.

Media errors about Virginia recount law

There seems to be conflicting and inaccurate information about Virginia's policy on recounts for 1% or 0.5% differences between candidate results. First, here is the relevant Code of Virginia:

"When there is between any candidate apparently nominated or elected and any candidate apparently defeated a difference of not more than one percent of the total vote cast for the two such candidates as determined by the State Board or the electoral board, the defeated candidate may appeal from the determination of the State Board or the electoral board for a recount of the vote as set forth in this article."
- ""§ 24.2-800. Recounts in all elections."". Code of Virginia. Virginia General Assembly Legislative Information System (LIS). Retrieved 2006-11-08.
"When the contest is decided, costs shall be taxed against the candidate filing the complaint if he is unsuccessful, or, if he is successful, against the counties and cities included in the area in which the election was held."
- ""§ 24.2-811. Costs and issuance of certificate of election."". Code of Virginia. Virginia General Assembly Legislative Information System (LIS). Retrieved 2006-11-08.

(See Title 24.2 - ELECTIONS: Chapter 8 - Recounts and Contested Elections for the overall Virginia Code on recounts.) There is no mention that I found in the Code that says anything about 0.5% differences or state-funded recounts. I did find two relevant statements in another document mentioned at Virginia State Board of Elections : Election Laws:

"In Virginia, there are no automatic recounts. Only the apparent losing candidate can ask for a recount, and only if the difference between the apparent winning and losing candidate is 1% or less of the total votes cast for the two candidates." [emphasis mine]
- ""Virginia Recounts -- The Basics" (2nd paragraph)" (DOC). Election Laws. Virginia State Board of Elections. November 2006. Retrieved 2006-11-08.
"The counties and cities involved in a recount are responsible for paying the costs of the recount if the margin of difference between the apparent winning and losing candidates is a half of a percent or less or the candidate requesting the recount is declared the winner. Otherwise, the candidate who requested the recount must pay the costs of the proceedings." [emphasis mine]
- ibid, last paragraph

Summarizing, there is no automatic recount, but the apparent loser can get the local jurisdictions, not the state, to pay if the difference drops to 0.5%. The problem is that, although this seems to be a State Board of Elections document, I couldn't find any mention in the Code of Virginia for this policy. Does anyone know what legal basis this statement has? ~ Jeff Q (talk) 19:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The three missing precincts

I just heard a story on NPR explaining the three "missing" precincts on the unofficial count site - one was because the workers couldn't open the machine to count the ballots (I assume that's been rectified now), one was because of some computer wierdness creating an entry for a non-existant precinct, and one was because half of a precinct was somehow created underwater (so I assume they just split that half into a separate non-precinct?). It's probably a little late to add into the article at this stage, but I'd still like to find the story again; does anyone know where it might be? —AySz88 \^-^ 00:11, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations of Allen's use of racial slur in college

I would like to move the Allegations of Allen's use of racial slur in college section of George Allen (U.S. politician) into this article. I believe that these allegations are more relevant to the election campaign than in George Allen's lifelong biography. The biography page is getting very large, and I don't think these allegations warrant 10 paragraphs of text there. But they do make sense here. Any thoughts? Jonemerson 04:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it makes sense to me. Schi 07:35, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the point, but let's not exaggerate the impact on Allen's article. It's one paragraph of four sentences, not 10 paragraphs. It shouldn't have a major impact on either article. (Wherever it goes, I'd be tempted to include it in a more general section of purported racial slurs, culminating in the more widely reported "macaca" incident. I don't see that each incident requires its own section.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff, it looks like someone already trimmed it down before you read it :). (And they didn't copy it over here -- oh well.) Jonemerson 21:03, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh! I see what you meant now. Looks like someone had gotten a little too involved in detail for a general biographical article. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Misspelling

Allen's name is currently misspelled in the current paragraph. Someone who can commit the page should fix this error. Thanks. Paradoxian 23:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you meant the 2nd paragraph of the lead section. I've fixed it. Thanks for the heads-up. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 23:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong Date

I don't want to create an account to fix this, but the Washington Post article that is cited where Sen.-elect Webb opposes a war in Iraq is listed as September, 4 2003 (which would be after the war had occured) instead of the correct 11/4/2002. Please can someone change this. thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.254.57.22 (talk • contribs) 17:23, November 16, 2006 (UTC).

I've fixed it. schi ^talk 19:15, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Casting Aspersions"

I have heard that Allen responded to questions about his Jewish ancestry by saying something along the lines of "How dare you cast aspersions?" but I have not seen a direct quote or citation. Anyone got any info on this, with a source, and if so should it be added to that section? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.99.11.50 (talk • contribs) 19:49, November 29, 2006 (UTC).

The WaPo article ref'd for Allen's response also mentions his "making aspersion" comment, I just added it to the article. schi ^talk 19:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stark section

I edited the header to the section, because Stark is not a "reporter". I changed it to blogger, for lack of a better term, but if someone has a better characterization, feel free. But Stark is NOT a reporter. Also there was an unsourced claim that Stark filed charges, but the charges were dropped. I removed it, mainly because it was unsourced, but also because civilians do not file charges. They file complaints, and the district atty. decides whether or not to file actual charges. I would be surprised if the DA filed charges, and then dropped them, but since there is no source, we have no idea what the real deal is, but I am fairly certain that the sentence that I removed is technically inaccurate. Crockspot 21:25, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge discussion per AfD

Per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Macaca moment, it is suggested that Macaca moment be merged into the Allen's macaca controversy section of this article. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 01:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the merge proposal. Jonemerson 06:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why just Macaca

Is this article correct in that the Macaca controversy centred solely around the word Macaca? Considering the wider context of the comments, it seems to me that regardless of what he may have intended by the Macaca name (and given the context it likely was a racial slur) his little blurb on Sidarth was racist. At the end he said "welcome to America" which was obviously offensive (Sidarth is an American so why welcome him to America) and likely racist. Am I the only one who is doubtful he would have said this of Sidarth was white? Was the really no consideration of the reference in a wider context? (I should add he went on to refer to the war on terror just after that) 203.109.240.93 06:41, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if this is relevant or not, but I find it interesting that the article mentions that Sen. Webb's mother is a 'pied-noir'. If I'm not mistaken, isn't that a term used to refer to darker-skinned African people of mixed ancestry and is sometimes used a hate word or slur? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.227.153.56 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

In the last revision I edited, I found duplicate named references, i.e. references sharing the same name, but not having the same content. Please check them, as I am not able to fix them automatically :)

"mtp0817" :
- {{cite news | title=Transcript for September 17 Meet the Press |date=2006-09-17 |work=Meet the Press |publisher=MSNBC.com |url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14815993/ }}
- {{cite news | url=http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14815993/ | title=Meet the Press Transcript for Sept. 17 | publisher=MSNBC | date=2006-09-17 |accessdate=2006-10-28}}

DumZiBoT (talk) 02:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 15 external links on United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on United States Senate election in Virginia, 2006. 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:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:25, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Democratic Activist Claims Abuse by Allen's Staffers". The Washington Post. November 1, 2006. p. A08.

[2] "Heckler subdued at George Allen event". Associated Press. November 1, 2006.

[3] "Va. Senator blames opponent for scuffle". Associated Press. November 2, 2006.

[1]

[2]

[3]