Talk:Charlie Dent

Paragraph removed by User:143.231.249.141

Just noting that User:143.231.249.141 (the United States House of Representatives proxy IP address) recently removed the following paragraph:

Dent is a pro-choice and pro-gay rights Republican. He is a member of The Republican Main Street Partnership (a group that strongly supports stem cell research.) He is also a member of Republicans For Environmental Protection, The Republican Majority For Choice and Republicans For Choice. He also is co-sponsor of legislation to provide the District of Columbia with voting representation.(HR 2043).

If possible, someone should examine this paragraph's accuracy, and whether it should have been removed. — TheKMan^talk 05:25, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well I can't find his name on the RMFC webpage list of members[1]. Republicans for Choice does not have a list of members. I do know that Charlie is pro-choice, but that doesn't mean he is required to join any outside groups. He was endorsed by RMFC and received a donation from the group [2] in 2004 but if they don't list him as a member then I guess he isn't. He is a member of the Republican Main Street Partnership. [3] I can neither confirm nor deny that he is pro-or anti-gay rights, pro-gay marriage or any thing else in that realm. The 'Federal Marriage Amendment' was voted on before he came to the House. A bill was introduced in 2005, but has not been brought to the floor so Charlie has not had to take up the issue.

One note: there is a current issue in PA where the Republican Majority for Choice came out and invited pro-choice candidates to run against Senator Santorum. Their current campaign implies that pro-choice politicians are 'Real Republicans'. Now I don't want to get into a debate on this page. However, I will say that the organization stoked up some emotions here in PA with the Pro-life folks and Reps. who are not already members of RMFC might not want to identify themself as such right now.

While (as always) I would prefer that folks coming in and deleting stuff wholesale would at least offer some explanations, I can't find fault with the actual deletion. There is no evidence that Charlie is currently a member of the Republican Majority for Choice, Republicans for Choice.Montco 03:53, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Section on 2008 elections

I notice my section on the 2008 elections has once again been removed from this article.

I'd like to know why this has been removed again. Although I do feel it's a valid point that Dent won re-election by ten points in a year that was bad for Republicans, I also feel that it's equally valid to note that his challenger was under funded and relatively unknown. Furthermore, it is also just as valid to note that the Democratic Party seems to feel that Dent's seat is vulnerable, and that it is likely he'll be a target in 2008.

My section was actually based on a newspaper article from The Morning Call that discussed Dent's perceived vulnerability among the Democrats. If someone feels that this perception is incorrect, I feel that the proper thing to do would be to make note of why that's the case in the Wikipedia article. Simply removing all mention of Dent's alleged vulnerability from the article will NOT make it go away, especially as it's something that the local press in his district has reported on.

Any thoughts on this? --WayneNight 20:39, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Don't take any offense, but I think you tended to belabor your point on the 2008 race. The section for that was nearly bigger than for 2004 and 2006 combined. If I had to make a suggestion, I would say that its probably sufficient to say that the "narrower than expected margin of victory has encouraged Democrats to target the seat in 2008. One candidate, William Roth, has already emerged and Lisa Boscola, a popular senator, is considering a run." That's all you need. Who cares about Roth's positions in a Charlie Dent article? Nor would most even care about his press spokesman's response. If they want direct quote, they can open the link and read the article. For all that stuff, go ahead and build a 15th District 2008 article. Montco 21:04, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. Your suggestion is appreciated. I've added a much smaller segment on the 2008 race. I'm hoping this one won't be deleted. --WayneNight 01:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

If it does. I'll revert it. What you have out there looks fine. Thanks for your willingness to change it a bit. Montco 03:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Budget Vote

Requesting return of language to "In April of 2011, Dent voted in favor of a 2010 budget proposal authored by Paul Ryan entitled "The Path to Prosperity". The legislation converts Medicare to a "premium-support payment system" through which beneficiaries would receive vouchers to pay for coverage from approved private insurers. The Congressional Budget Office, or CBO, found that privatizing Medicare under this plan would increase the out-of-pocket costs to seniors, though supporters of the legislation maintain that the program is similar to the coverage for federal employees, and a necessary step in reducing the deficit. By 2030, the CBO found, the out-of-pocket share for standard medical expenses paid by a typical 65-year-old would rise to 68% under the Republican plan, as opposed to 25% under the existing Medicare system. The CBO also found that the legislation would actually increase the deficit for at least a decade because it also includes personal and corporate tax cuts.[8][9][10] However, supporters of the legislation have noted that it proposes to keep tax revenues at current levels, and pays for tax cuts by, "...cleaning up the tax code [by] getting rid of loopholes and deductions..."[11]"

--Only a summary is needed. Unlike the IP user, I see no need for an extended back-and-forth in this article. The vote was controversial, and I think that this gets that point across. EATC (talk) 13:20, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

We agree that the Medicare vote was controversial, but apparently not about whether that controversy should be explained clearly. EATC has repeatedly expunged basic factual info about what makes it controversial, while inserting more euphemistic/less specific phrases, partisan arguments, and also trivial info that is strictly irrelevant but which tends to distract from the controversy. It is not the purpose of this site to shield Charlie Dent from controversy, as EATC seems to believe.

Specific criticisms of wording in EATC's version:

Name of Ryan and rhetorical title of his proposal - Why are these really needed?

"premium-support payment system" - obscure rhetoric; says nothing more than "voucher"

"beneficiaries" - why not simply "senior citizens"? The goal is rhetorical I think, to suggest that seniors are being given a "benefit" whereas in reality the plan takes away their option of enrolling in Medicare

"vouchers to pay for coverage" - false. The whole point of the proposal is that the vouchers will pay only a part and increasingly less of the costs of coverage, forcing seniors to pay for the shortfall themselves. That's exactly where the supposed savings in this plan come from, a basic fact that should not be obscured.

"approved private insurers" - rhetorical; suggests rigorous government involvement in monitoring private insurance companies, whereas nothing in the plan backs that up

"converts Medicare" - specious language, only true in so far as one "converts" an automobile by sending it to the junk yard. What the plan does is eliminate Medicare and replace it with something else that is essentially and fundamentally different (so different that the plan does not even offer seniors the option of choosing between Medicare and private insurance). It would falsify the controvesry to use euphemistic and partisan language like "convert" or "transform", when factually accurate words are available ("eliminate" or "abolish" or "replace").

"though supporters...." - this clause is jammed in here illogically, disrupting the discussion of increased out-of-pocket costs. It's strange placement here evidently is meant to soften asap the impression (true) that seniors will pay a lot more under the plan.

"similar to the coverage for federal employees" - so what? It's "similar" to lots of things, including Obamacare. Retirees obviously are not anybody's employees, which is why Medicare was created. Thus irrelevant info, added evidently to soften the negative impression of eliminating Medicare.

"necessary step in reducing the deficit" - no one thing is "necessary" in reducing the deficit. Sure, partisans can assert that something is necessary, just as their opponents can assert the opposite is necessary. Using "necessary" is unnecessarily biased. If a point is worth making, it's that supporters justify eliminating Medicare as "a" or "one" step toward reducing the deficit...which is as I put it.

Specific criticisms of EATC's omissions:

EATC's version omits or obscures the info that the vote was highly partisan and that it was very controversial (contrary to the image Dent usually cultivates); that it would abolish Medicare and go back to coverage via private insurance (the very problem Medicare was created fix); and that the vouchers are designed to be for less than the full cost of the private health insurance. In other words, EATC omits or elides the crux of the controversy on this vote.

Also worth noting that after I added this paragraph to Dent's page, EATC began adding Republican justifications for the vote regarding the plan's supposed deficit-reduction benefits. I responded by adding the factual info that CBO says the deficit will actually go up because of tax cuts. EATC responded by adding that proponents argue tax cuts will be paid for by closing loopholes. I added the factual info that there are no loopholes identified and no guarantees of loophole-closing in the plan. EATC responded by deleting the latter facts and complaining that tax code details are beginning to distract from the real Medicare controversy. Yet it was EATC who wanted to divert the discussion toward tax code, and still wants to retain the one-sided partisan arguments he/she inserted.

If every potential controversy regarding Dent has to be turned into a partisan back-and-forth of talking points, then all relevant ones need to be included - especially those that are simple facts. You don't exclude facts that are particularly awkward to face up to.

Not surprising that nothing else on Dent's page is even remotely negative regarding his career or positions. No info about his major corporate donors. No info about controversial votes (e.g. deregulating electric rates in PA?!) It reads like a Dent press release. If it is this difficult to add the info that he voted to eliminate Medicare, the most popular federal program, then it's probably well nigh impossible to get any critical info past the busy partisan bees who stand guard at Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.133.118 (talk) 14:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

And regarding my statement that many of EATC's editorial changes incorporate Republican talking points, here is specific evidence from a Bloomberg news report:

>>Before the House vote, Republican leaders circulated a package of charts, talking points and fact sheets supporting the budget to members, including links to a document countering the main attacks on the plan.

The document encourages lawmakers to highlight how the budget “saves Medicare,” and offers “future beneficiaries access to the same kinds of health-care options now enjoyed by members of Congress.”<<

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-13/obama-s-debt-cutting-plan-will-confront-sweet-spot-challenge.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.146.31 (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

EATC, it was your own edits that expunged the info that the plan is controversial because it abolishes Medicare. That's what started the edit war, the substitution of GOP talking points for the basic info about why the vote is controversial. 72.86.144.133 (talk) 20:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Request from EATC

I have pursued third-party mediation. Per a suggestion on the editor assistance page, I would like to submit to an admin that the text be changed to read: "Dent voted in favor of the 2012 budget plan entitled "The Path to Prosperity"." I would suggest that the bill title be wikilinked so that users are directed to the bill's article for more info. As the third-party mediator said, the text the way it is now seems to have Coatracking and Undue Weight issues. I find this compromise acceptable. EATC (talk) 20:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Could you leave this request for a couple of days so that other interested editors can comment. Also, it might help if you could link to the discussions you have had in other places about this issue. Regards — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The Editor Review thread is at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests#Charlie Dent Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor who wandered in from the ANI thread I observe that there is a very in depth recounting about the bill. I endorse the recommendation that the section be reduced to a short blurb about him voting for the bill and any direct commentary that he made on the issue. Hasteur (talk) 12:43, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi Martin. Happy to do so. Here is one third-party suggestion, and another supporting it. Both opinions jive with what Hasteur suggested above. EATC (talk) 13:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

The edit ought to note that the plan is controversial, and why. Otherwise why should readers take any notice of just another budget vote? 128.180.109.202 (talk) 16:24, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I would that this is a fair point. However, I would say that by providing the wiki-link to the article about the bill would provide a way for interested users to read a very thorough presentation of the bill's perceived ups and downs. Indeed, the bill's article provides very thorough coverage, with an entire section just about changes to Medicare. My original thinking was to simply try an provide a rough overview of the bill in the article, and provide the wiki-link to the rest. However, feelings being what they are, I sought third-party mediation, and those individuals suggested that the vote be mentioned, with a link to the actual article. That way, the bill would not take up an inordinate amount of space in a biographical article (and avoid WP:COATRACKing, and giving undue WP:WEIGHT). This seems reasonable to me, which is why thinking has evolved somewhat. EATC (talk) 19:01, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of a basic description of his vote for the bill, with a link to the article on the bill itself, which can elaborate on the assessments, popular opinion, etc. of the bill. The pages of representatives aren't the place to elaborate on commentaries of individual bills. Trilemma (talk) 19:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

EATC, it was your own edits that expunged the info that the plan is controversial because it abolishes Medicare. That's what started the edit war, the substitution of GOP talking points for the basic info about why the vote is indeed controversial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.86.144.133 (talk) 20:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Again, the personal stuff is counter-productive, so all of this holier-than-thou stuff about the edit war is silly; it takes two people to engage in it. Unlike you, apperantly, I am willing to unequivocally own-up to my half of it as unproductive. Again, even your above statement does not indicate neutrality. The phrase "abolish Meidcare" could be debated endlessly. And again, I've already explained the evolution in my thinking; because the debate could indeed go on and on, I would agree with the other editors that simply providing a wiki-link to the vote that could, I would agree, be called "controversial", is best. Otherwise, it devolves into Coatracking, and Undue weight issues. If you look at the article for the bill, it enumerates the controversy thoroughly. But that is why I have opened this discourse, so others besides you and I can weigh-in. EATC (talk) 20:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Anonymous IP editor, thank you for your oppinions, as it was said before your vitriolic viewpoint is on the razor edge of "no personal attacks" and civility violations. Please provide sources demonstrating that Charlie Dent had an active role (besides voting for the bill) in stripping medicare benefits. If you can't then all that needs to be said is that he voted for the bill and the link to the bill will contain the information that is appropriate. Expanding the description beyond that becomes a overrepresentation of his career. To use a hypothetical, would you express the same desire to see the gorey details of the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" if he had voted for it? Hasteur (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Nothing "vitriolic" in what I said. It may not be flattering toward your opinion in the matter, but it's not my duty to fluff you up. Nor is it "uncivil" to point out that my original edit briefly pointed out the controversy, whereas EATC's intervention sought to obscure that controversy. Frankly I think you editors are digging in heels trying to justify a position already taken. Why in the world would Dent have to have talked about terminating Medicare, for this entry to be permitted to point out that he voted to do it? It's the vote that counts. I see nothing objectionable to telling readers what the basic significance is of this or any other vote a politician takes. Any political position noted must have SOME significance, right? Ordinary budget votes are a dime a dozen. Why is ending Medicare considered such a trivial issue around here? Hasteur, would you truly object to an entry stating that a politician's vote meant endorsing a plan to abolish, say, the Commerce Dept? I can't conceive of any reason to shield readers from such consequential info, as EATC wants to do - except heel digging. There are very major consequences for millions of Americans if Medicare is terminated. If you can't mention what's consequential, then why mention anything? I've yet to see any of you justify devoting twice as much space to the discussion of Dent's vote on the wholly inconsequential Terri Schiavo bill, as his vote to end a huge and extremely popular federal program. The policy seems to be you can fluff politicians up ad libitum, but don't you dare highlight what might embarrass them. 72.86.144.133 (talk) 00:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

2012 Election Results?

Why are the 2012 election results not listed here? I'm sure the numbers are out there somewhere. It's been over a year and everything. Somebody get on that. PokeHomsar (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 May 2015

Under the Tenure section: reference to voting record. In May of 2014 voted against Department of Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies Appropriations Bill, FY 2015 (http://mentally-physically-spiritually-strong.com/tag/charlie-dent/). This motion would strike a provision that prohibits the use of funds regarding certain poultry regulations.

According to John Oliver (Last Week Tonight) Congressman’s Dent failure to vote in favor of this Bill should label Mr. Dent a [redacted].

Kal drogo pa (talk) 15:25, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

 Not done Declined as a violation of Wikipedia's Biography of living persons policies. Dwpaul ^Talk 15:36, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Charlie Dent. 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/20160408124737/http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04411 to http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:h.r.04411
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140421032846/http://riponadvance.com:80/news/dent-bill-aims-protect-state-run-chips/6373 to http://riponadvance.com/news/dent-bill-aims-protect-state-run-chips/6373
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081211195608/http://www.cqpolitics.com:80/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-PA-15 to http://www.cqpolitics.com/wmspage.cfm?docID=district-PA-15

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) 12:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Charlie Dent. 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/20131021205547/http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/12/breaking-house-passes-dadt-rep.html to http://www.metroweekly.com/poliglot/2010/12/breaking-house-passes-dadt-rep.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160118070035/http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638 to http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/111/house/2/638

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) 10:52, 25 December 2017 (UTC)