Talk:Thomas M. Davis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Thomas M. Davis article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This page is about an active politician who is running for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some political conflict or controversy. Because of this, this article is at risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. See comments

Thomas M. Davis is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. You can help by editing this article. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject U.S. Congress articles.

Contents 1 Seeking higher office 2 Pro-Life? 3 Recent Changes 3.1 NRCC 3.2 Developers support 3.3 Redistricting and voter tendencies 3.4 Government Reform Committee 3.5 Terri Schiavo 3.6 Funding for Wilson Bridge; DC College Access Act 3.7 Vote-smart links 3.8 Favoring federal workers 4 edits are thorough 5 No Term Limit Promise 6 Redistricting and voter tendencies 7 NPOV 8 Response 9 Schiavo 10 Controversies 10.1 Executive Oversight 11 Corruption Allegations 12 Changes to the article 13 Examples of Bias: #1 - MLB 14 Copyvio 14.1 Jeannemarie Devolities Davis 15 Biased 15.1 Davis staffer?

[edit] Seeking higher office

WillC added:

His banging of the drum in the Major League Baseball steroids controversy also lends one to believe he is seeking publicity for higher office.

I don't know if that is a good indication that he is necessarily seeking higher office.. anyway, if anyone can find the reference where Davis was talking about his desire to advance to George Allen's Senate seat if Allen wins the Presidency in 2008, please add that link. I know that it was a 2005 interview. It may have been exclusive to the DC Examiner. Thanks, 24.54.208.177 19:03, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pro-Life?

I did not know that Tom Davis opposed the legalization of abortion.

[edit] Recent Changes

Acham, you made a lot of changes. I am questioning many of them.

One might conclude that you are attempting to insert a negative POV here. A more neutral article would be much better. -- Sholom 13:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Given that no one responded, I will intitiate changes. -- Sholom 15:04, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Acham, would you please have a discussion on these changes rather than just making them with no comments? -- Sholom 19:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I am learning about Wikipedia so I hope you'll forgive me.

Permit me to give you a few tips or two then. (1) create a home page. Simply click on this and put something there; then people can have discussions with you; (2) you need to sign your comments. Simply put four tildas at the end, i.e., ~~~~. (Also, you can answer questions by indenting with a ":") -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I am reading about he importance of negotiating on Wikip but unsure if I do that on this page or somewhere less public.

Yes, this is generally the place to negotiate the contents of the page -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Look, as I said before, I'm not even a Davis supporter, I've voted against him. But let's be fair, and WP should be NPOV -- Sholom 16:58, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I agree the site can should be neutral but that does not mean the facts should be removed. These facts speak for themselves without editorial comment and I did not add comment.

Well _someone's_ been adding editorial comment. When a sentence starts with "despite x Davis receives support from y", that is an editorial comment.

If there is additional information that explains or presents another side, I agree it should be added. FYI, I did remove information in another editor's version that one of the daughters of Davis is in jail for murder. I do have support for everything I included, I am happy to talk more but I hope you will not remove anything just because you don't know where the support is.

Look. You were the one who added 'His aide and supporters frequently edit this page to remove positions he supports that have lost popularity.'. Do you have support for that, or is it just a political attack? (And for the record, I live in Davis' district and I have always voted against him.) You also removed, more than once, the following statement: "His positions are generally favorable to federal workers, even if they are opposed to general GOP sentiment.". That statement is completely accurate -- that's precisely why he gets re-elected by such overwhelming margins despite that (as you point out) that his district nearly voted for Kerry.

My goal here is simply to be fair and accurate.

I look forward to your responses, because I want to make some changes as oulined in my responses to you. -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NRCC

During his service as Board Chairman, he was financed heavily by develpers in rapidly-growing Northern Virginia. Recognizing his ability to raise funds from lobbyists, Davis was named Chairman of the National Republican Congressional Committee from 1998 to 2002.

Do you have any source for that?

I did not put this in but I did include some links and expand. The fundraising of Davis is quite high from business interests, PACs, and lobbyists including those with no interests in his district like $9,000 from Jack Abramoff. OpenSecrets.org. [As with Howard Dean earning the Democratic post for his successful fundraising , using the 'Net to bring in new donors, Davis earned the post with his own fundraising skill.

I'm afraid that's not responsive to my question/criticism. The fact that he received $9K from Abramoff is certainly not indicitive that he is good at rasising funds from lobbyists. Further, your answer is that his fundraising is quite high from "business interests, PACs, and lobbyists", but the passage in question states only lobbyists. Finally, most importantly, nowhere do you cite any evidence that he was named chair _because_ he was good at it. (BTW, you did indeed insert that line. Or at least someone registered as User:Acham did). -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Developers support

Despite an admitted transportation crisis in Northern Virginia with some of nation's worst traffic, Davis has received a 93-100% approval rating from developers who benefit from the congestion,

This is POV as well as misleading. First of all, developers do _not_ benefit from congestion, because when congestion is too high, people move away. They may cause congestion, but they don't benefit from it. Secondly, Davis has secured funding for transportation projects, Metro, etc. Do you have any support for that?

Developers benefit handsomely from housing shortages, although perhaps not small businesses. Developers like the "Sand and Gravel," lumber, and building materials trade associations have no reason to care about traffic after they move on to the next neighborhood. They don't care if people eventually move away, only if they first pay premium prices. As for Davis, he showed up at a LOCAL zoning meeting to stop the sale of Metro land to for a high-density Smart Growth plan in favor instead of more sprawl.

I will repeat again, nobody benefits from congestion. Yes, Davis did try to stop that Metro sale, but he's also done a number of other things to help reduce congestion. (Those things listed below). In any event, wouldn't "Sand and Gravel" also support more roads? (Which may or may not lead to congestion). -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

His latest filing for 1Q2006 is here - keep in mind he doesn't even have an opponent in a primary yet. FWIW, You'll see lots of developers (and their wives separately under the "homemaker" title). [1] Acham 15:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)A

[edit] Redistricting and voter tendencies

For redistricting, areas of Prince William County were added to the district joining the remaining Fairfax County portions. Despite the Repblican-friendly redistricting of the 11th Congressional District in his favor, voters of his new district continue to move toward the Democratic Party.

I don't think this is accurate. A large part of the reason that , e.g., PW County is tending Democratic, is because so many Dems are moving into the area. In any event, it's irrelevant to the subject of Davis, it's only relevant if one wants to study the demographics of the district. What is relevant is that while Bush and Kerry were close, Davis won in a landslide.

For redistricting, areas of Prince William County were added to the district joining the remaining Fairfax County portions... I don't think this is accurate.

I did not put this in but I know the Republican Congress redistricted some areas out of part of Fairfax county to add parts of Prince William after the 2000 Census, in order to maintain Republican control over the seat in Democratic-leaning Fairfax.

That's not the part I was objecting to. I was objecting to your assertion that the voters were moving more Democratic. Given that some parts of the district are the fastest growing counties in America, the shift towards blue may be simply because of people moving into those counties. It is true that the district is moving more Democratic. (BTW, you did indeed insert that line. Or at least someone registered as User:Acham did)-- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Government Reform Committee

Davis is head of the Government Reform Committtee, which despite the scandals involving Abu Garib prison, WMDs, Jack Abramoff, and Hurricane Katrina, has issued no subpeonas for these investigations.

Do you have any source which states that the Govt Refrom Committee has jurisdiction over Abu Gharib, WMD's, or Abramoff? AFAIK, those are the juridictions of other committees.

He is Chair of the Government Oversight committee which has issued no subpeonas despite much to investigate (Katrina, DeLay, federal workers forced to remove scientific information on global warming and women's health from the agency websites). How do I prove no subpeonas, or the absence of action?

The jurisdiction of the Government Reform Committee includes the investigation of Federal Agencies, employees and contractors. This includes Army contractors and the CIA (Abu Garib), release of Classified Information (Valarie Plame leak), Congressional employees (Abramoff), Homeland Security and FEMA (Katrina) as well as health, science, and the supression of Federally-funded data (global warming, NASA).

Thanks for providing that link. Nevertheless, that link also says: 'Government Reform may, at any time, conduct investigations of any matter regardless of whether another standing committee has jurisdiction over the matter.'. I think it is potentially unfair, and potentially POV, to criticize one committee for not investigating something that another committee is investigating. For example, Abramoff was investigated by a number of committees, so to criticize Davis' committee for not also investigating is unfair. -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Sholom - are you sure that Congressional committees investigated Abramoff? I was under the impression that DOJ was essentially the only ones doing investigations of him. John Broughton 23:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Terri Schiavo

Davis supported the Terri Schiavo legislation to "subpeona" the brain-dead Mrs. Schiavo over her husband's objections.

I know he supported federal intervention, but am unaware he supported a subpoena. Do you have a source for that?

The position of Davis now only seems to be on the site of the Minority Members, who opposed the action. The Government Reform Committee, under Davis' chairmanship, launched the investigation into Schiavo's case and issued the subpeona without any Republican objections. Davis said it was "a legitimate legislative inquiry."

Thanks for that cite. You've answered my question. -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Funding for Wilson Bridge; DC College Access Act

Why did you remove references to Davis' involvement in getting funding for the Wilson Bridge? Or his work on the DC College Access Act?

The statement that he has some responsibility for the Woodrow Wilson Bridge is unsupported. It may be true. Is there a bill number?

Fine. You could always ask for a source here. FWIW, a source that you yourself listed above, [2] mentions that Davis works together with Wolf and Moran on Wilson Bridge issues. But the fact that Davis has been a major supporter of it is well known and all over the place. (I mean, doesn't every Congressman want money for road projects in or around his district?). See, e.g., [3]. In fact, he introduced the 'Woodrow Wilson Bridge Financing Act of 1999', http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-2563. He was also the primary sponsor of the DC College Access Act as noted at http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h106-974. -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote-smart links

You don't need 13 links in space of two sentences to vote-smart

Thank you. Good point. Done.

Let me be more direct. You've reduced it to six links to the same place in one sentence. You only need one. -- Sholom 14:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Favoring federal workers

I see no support that he "generally favors" Federal workers.

Is there a bill number? I think he won because he raises so much money* he scares off competition, not because he is a supporter of Federal employees. For example, there are pending bills to protect Federal Workers from political censorship, including HR. 839, an Act to Restore Scientific Integrity to Federal Research and Policy Making, which has 73 co-sponsors. Tom Davis is not one of them. The CIA is in McLean, VA, in this District. Davis is chair of the oversight committee and he never issued any subpeonas on the Valarie Plame leak. From: Washington Post, Sunday, 12/18/05; Page A07 The House Government Reform committee issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the NDC, 1997-2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, under Davis it issued three subpoenas to the Bush administration, two to the Energy Dept over nuclear waste disposal at Yucca Mountain, and one 12/05 to the Defense Department over Katrina documents." EPA has been prohibited from using allocated funds to enforce certain Clean Air regulations. The military has inadequate armor. Where is Davis on these issues? I see no white knight for Federal workers here.

Here are some quotes: "A former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman with a history of bucking his party to support federal workers and Washington residents" [4];

I see some cherry-picking here. Actually it goes on to say, "A former National Republican Congressional Committee chairman with a history of bucking his party to support federal workers and Washington residents, Davis has enjoyed relatively good relations with federal employees' unions. But they were angered by his support for the Pentagon's personnel changes. Davis said he "went out on a limb" for those changes [for] Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld..." Other cites are P.R. sheets from the unions or from "Federal Managers."

he's been a relentless supporter of higher pay for federal workers: "National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association (NARFE) President Charles L. Fallis today praised the House Government Reform Committee, especially Chairman Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), for favorably reporting legislation that would allow federal and military retirees to pay their health insurance premiums with pre-tax earnings." [5], "Voted NO on subjecting federal employees to random drug tests." [6], "ENACTMENT OF OVERTIME PAY CAP INCREASE FOR MANAGERS – Congress passed the fiscal 2004 National Defense Authorization Act (H.R. 1588), and President Bush subsequently signed the legislation into law on November 25, 2003. Sec. 1121 of H.R. 1588, drafted by House Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA), modifies the overtime pay cap for Federal managers and supervisors." [7]; "Congress approved a 3.1 percent average annual pay raise for federal civilian employees... During an earlier committee mark-up on June 21, 2005, the House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment offered by Representatives Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Frank Wolf (R-VA), and Jim Moran (D-VA) to increase the average annual pay raise for federal civilian employees to 3.1 percent in order to maintain parity with their military counterparts." [8];

And there's more: pushing for increased telecommuting [9]; "Today, Congresswoman Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY), Dem. Chair of the Congressional Caucus for Women's Issues, along with Reps. Tom Davis (R-VA), Steny Hoyer (D-MD) and Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) introduced the Federal Employees Paid Parental Leave Act of 2000" [10]; "On behalf of the more than 150000 federal employees represented by the. National Treasury Employees Union, I am proud to endorse you"; "Davis supports granting federal employees some form of legal standing to protest competitive sourcing decisions, and was not satisfied by the new language the administration pushed through." [11]

I see in his 2000 campaign, he got money from the following federal worker unions: National Assn of Letter Carriers $10,000; National Assn Retired Federal Employees $10,000; International Assn of Fire Fighters $6,500; Natl Star Route Mail Contractors Assn $4,500; American Federation of Govt Employees $3,500; National Assn of Postmasters $3,500; National Education Assn $3,000; National Rural Letter Carriers Assn $2,500; National Treasury Employees Union $2,500; National League of Postmasters $2,000; American Fedn of St/Cnty/Munic Employees $1,500; National Weather Service Employees Org $1,500. [12] Why are all those fed worker unions giving him money? Why do they support him?

Sometimes organizations give donations to prevent worse things from happening. For incumbents with no opponent, organizations that need legislation cannot afford to make incumbents unhappy. That may or may not be true for Davis. However, since this is the decade of "pay to play" politics, the fact that someone felt compelled to pay a politician does not mean the politician has their support.

You can call him lots of things -- but you can't accurately call him unfriendly to federal workers. I live in his district. I know what goes on here.

[edit] edits are thorough

John Broughton's edits did a fine job of leveling everything out and making much of his very long discussion mostly obsolete. I will add anything contrary as per NPOV policies. Detractors would note his failure to take strong action as head of the House Government Reform Committee on the leak of Valerie Plame, an undercover agent in the CIA, whose headquarters are in his District. He is not one of the 45 cosponsors of the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act H.R.3281 [13]. In the effort to limit employee bargaining, especially in Department of Homeland Security[[14]], his response has been cautious [15] or he has not participated in efforts by other local politicians such as Chris Van Hollen to maintain employee bargaining rights.[16]. Also Davis is not one of the 93 co-sponsors of H.R.398, an Act that would provide for full voting representation in Congress for the citizens of the District of Columbia [17] Always glad to know someone who knows what goes on in their District. Sorry you missed the jurisdiction of Davis' Committee and all the fuss over the Schiavo subpeona. I hope you found the new information interesting. Acham 02:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I still think you're cherry picking. You yourself said "detractors would note" -- well how about trying to remove POV completely? In other words, rather than "balance" some POV with some POV from the other side, the appropriate thing to do is to remove all POV as much as possible.

• According to the NPOV policy, if a claim is going to be made -- that someone supports federal workers -- it is perfectly acceptable, in fact encouraged, to add what "critics note." So when I saw an unsupported statement that had been in the text before I became involved, it seems clear it would be perfectly acceptable to add the contrary information. If it doesn't belong there, then I don't understand why the Federal workers POV shouldn't also come out.

In any event, here are some of my problems with your edits/comments:

• The article complains -- twice -- that his committee did not investigate the Plame leak. There's a valid question whether his committee should investigate the Plame leak, since doing so could jeapardize the criminal investigation. You might recall that Oliver North, who was guilty as heck, was able to get his convictions overturned because an overzealous Senate committee investigated the criminal acts before the prosecutor was finished. The point being, it's important that the activity get investigated, and it is. If his committee investigated, there's be tremendous pressure to offer immunity to some of the players to get to the bottom of this, and Fitzpatrick's investigation would get all messed up.

• Isn't this an awful lot of speculation about the thoughtfulness of the committee? This committee never cited interference as a justification. In fact, the scope of an investigation proposed would not have jeopardized an ongoing criminal investigation; it was on procedures for classifying the information, not a "who-done-it." (Also, they could always go into secret session and granted limited "use" immunity.) This is a committee that issued 1,052 subpoenas to probe alleged misconduct by the Clinton administration and the Democratic Party between 1997 and 2002, at a cost of more than $35 million. By contrast, the committee under Davis has issued three subpoenas to the administration, including only one to the Defense Department over Katrina documents. I do mention the Plame leak twice, first in the context of what the committee doesn't do - and it has the biggest staff of any House committee and lately seems not to do an awful lot - and what he has not done for the Federal employees in his district, since the CIA is located there.

• You write: This committee never cited interference as a justification -- fine. What did it cite as justification. This ought to be known before it is included in the article. Tell me, did you think the 1052 subpoenas were proper? If not, should Davis' committee be criticized for following a different path? (And, note, Davis was not the chair during that time period).

• The first time you complain about what his committee hasn't done, you cite the same web-site four times in one sentence. Further, that website is a creation of his opponents, hardly non-biased. I.e., quite POV. I find this type of criticism to be unfair unless placed in a broader context. Not all committees can investigate everything -- just as not all good people can be involved in all good causes. Should we criticize, e.g., Pulitzer Prize winning NY Times writer Kristoff, who spends a lot of time trying to raise the consciences of the world about what's going on in Darfur, because he hasn't spend much time talking about the political repression in Uzbekistan? In short: (a) I don't like this kind of criticism; and (b) it should come from source much less biased than an official Dem web site.

• I wish it could come from the Committee web site but it seems that the Committee has decided not to mention these little headaches. Insofar as I can gather from your comment you are recommending a single link, that's unobjectionable; I'll make it a single link.

• That is not responsive to my complaint. Can you find any news source for this?

• To denigrate his support for federal raises is utterly ridiculous. He has supported the maximum raises that are politically feasible during his entire tenure. Furthermore, some of the raises have kept up with inflation. Last year, which was a replay of many previous years, Bush proposed a 3.1% raise for the military and 2.1% raise for the rest of federal workers. Davis was able to get the fed worker raise bumped up to 3.1%. To complain about that is to live in a dream world. Again I'll ask, why in the world do you think so many fed employee unions keep endorsing him?

• If you want to use the argument that he supports paying federal workers an extra 1% during one year, I think you could put that in but that's a pretty weak argument.

• No, that's not my argument, and to claim it is shows that you have a bias.

• And I'm not sure why you've pronouced the raises as high as "politically feasible." Are you suggesting 3.5% is not politically feasible? The voters would rise up and vote the rascals out if they did that?

• I'm saying that when there are massive deficits, and the GOP Prez puts in a 3.something raise for the military and a 2.something raise for federal workers, that the best that is politically feasible is to raise the federal worker salary to the same level as the military raises. The point is that the fight for the raise, above and beyond what Bush submitted in his budget, was led by Davis.

• Also, Federal Unions endorsements don't influence the average Federal worker much

• I never said it did. I offered it as proof that Davis is generally supportive of federal workers.

• and this is especially true for Davis since he ran unopposed in 2002 and without a serious opponent in 2004. Having said all that, actually, one of his opponents claims all the union endorsements for 2006.

• So, add that in. With an appropriate news cite.

• You are complaining that he is not a sponsor for HR 398 to give full voting representation to DC . . . yet he does support HR 2043, a different bill to provide the District of Columbia with voting representation.

• Yes because he is only supporting a bill that would assure the vote of DC residents would be "canceled out" by another new District, rather than one that gives people the vote for the vote's sake. The differences inthe bills is notable.

• Again, you miss my point. To say that he doesn't sponsor HR 398 without mentioning his support of HR 2043 right there is misleading. Furthermore, the latter bill creates a *temporary* new district; one that would go away after the next decennial redistricting. So it's a trade of a single temporary district in Utah for permanent representation for DC. It's a way to get more support of DC representation. HR 398 will never ever pass while the GOP is in control.

• You write: "Despite an acknowledged transportation crisis in Northern Virginia, Davis appeared at a local zoning meeting to object to "Smart Growth" plans [19] around Washington Metro stations." This is complete cherry picking, as well as a misrepresentation. He is opposed to a single Metro station sale, not "Smart Growth plans" in general, which is how you worded it.

• The transportation crisis in VA is especially worth noting because it is unlike anything in the country. AAA had to develop a category worse than "failing (F)" to describe NoVa.

• I commute in it every day. You don't have to explain that to me.

• Also, it is notable because this was a County Zoning Board, not Congressional business.

• Your completely missing my point. He objected to a single sale, not smart growth plans in general. What you wrote is inaccurate as well as misleading.

• it seems like you're willing to speculate on his reasons for not using the committee to investigate something within its jurisdiction (Plame) but you're not willing to believe the news accounts of his interference in a local matter involving county zoning.

• What are you talking about. I'm not speculating anything. I was well aware of (and strongly objected to, btw) his interefence in this local matter. But it was a single sale; you wrote in the plural. Further, adding in "despite" is decidely POV.

• FWIW, I could also add his interference in the sale of the Nationals baseball team to Democrat/philanthropist George Soros.

• And that's relevent how?

In short, it still seem like you are trying to do a political hack job. I'm just trying to be fair to the guy. -- Sholom 13:32, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

• I understand you didn't vote for him; but could you be trying so hard to be fair you are willing to leave out unflattering facts?

• No -- it's that listing every unflattering fact, without context, is poisoning the well, so to speak, and is leading to a POV article. To make a list of every single thing that his committee hasn't done is completely unfair. Has any committee looked into the atrocoties of Nepal? Uzbekistan? Khazikhstan? etc etc.? -- Sholom 13:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

• Those are not unusual in the political pages here. Even Bill Clinton has a balanced page. NPOV says "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves."

Acham 01:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)A

• Highlighting every perceived wart, without context, or, worse, in a misleading context, as well as assertions of non-actions, as well as leaving out many positive things, is POV, even if what you cite are mere facts. -- Sholom 13:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Term Limit Promise

There was no term limit promise. Davis doesn't make promises or committments unless it is in favor of himself. The legislative piece the label at the top of the talk page is refering too was one that Davis signed as a political stunt. He knew very well when he signed it that it would not pass nor did he want it to pass. And as he predicted, it failed. I am removing the tag. DTfromDC 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redistricting and voter tendencies

To respond to an earlier post... yes, the redistricting was all planned out. Davis, Moran, and Wolf sat down together and dealt out what they wanted. It was all planned to be in favor of the incumbent. It just so happens to be that at that time,JM, Tom Davis' current wife, was in the VA House in Richmond and was in charge of the bill that dealt out districts and the maps. It was all planned. DTfromDC 23:50, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

Sholom sent me this note on my talk page:

Hey there. I was wondering if you might take a look at Thomas M. Davis (particularly Talk:Thomas M. Davis). I am in the weird position of defending a congressman who I always vote against, because of what I perceive as somebody else trying to do a hack job. Since you feel similarly regarding Conrad Burns, I thought you might be helpful with Davis. Lemme know what you think? -- Sholom 14:07, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

My impression is the same. The article was riddled with empty partisan talking points that offered no context at all. Please note my edit summaries. BTW, thanks, Sholom, for the note.

I made handful of edits in an attempt to NPOV the article. 172 | Talk 20:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I have some trouble with your changes because you took out the recent incidents I added to support the recent changes in positions by Davis, but you left in the arguably pro-Davis information I added at Sholom's request for balance. If the recent info I added is POV, then so must be the list to offset it that Sholom asked for. I was negotiating with Sholom and considering everything he said, although not fast enough for him, I guess. It'll be good to have your outside opinion. Let's discuss so this doesn't become an editing war.

Also, no one is pro-abortion like they can be pro-environment, unless you know some activists who are chaining themselves to pregnant women as if they were trees and begging them to try out an abortion clinic. People are for abortion rights or against it.

I haven't read through all the changes, but I agree with Acham on this last statement. He's either pro-choice or pro-abortion rights, but not pro-abortion. -- Sholom 23:24, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Schiavo

The Schiavo subpeona continues to be important information. Also, without information connecting Davis's tenure on a Board with its ranking, there is no reason to include it. Your source is not firsthand but is the "Design-Build Institute" quoting City and State magazine in a piece of lobbying information.

Since when is a secondary source not allowed? In any event here is a better cite, it's the actual minutes of the Fairfax Board meeting when the text to the City and State magazine were entered into the record. As the Chair and Board run the county, I fail to see how there is _not_ a connection. -- Sholom 17:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversies

Sholom, You argued with me a time you made changes to the Davis page that a 15-year-old recognition of Fairfax county was worthy of the Tom Davis page because he was Chairman of the Board of Supervisors -- although not the Executive - of Fairfax County. I relented and left it in, although nothing suggests Davis deserved credit for the recognition.

Now you remove current news about criminal activity and conflict of interest in a controversy raised in a minority report of a committee that he chairs.

I fail to see how this information is not relevant and properly included. Please explain. Proposed insertion:

[edit] Executive Oversight

Davis is head of the House Government Reform Committee, which is the chief investigative and oversight committee of the House, and which has been granted broad jurisdiction. [18] Among notable recent controversies involving the Committee under Davis was in the Terri Schiavo case. The committee subpoena, signed by Davis, ordered the appearance of Schiavo, her husband, Michael, and her doctors. The subpoenas specified that the witnesses bring to the hearing "all medical and other equipment that provides nutrition and hydration ... in its current and continuing state of operations." Davis issued a joint statement with House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) and Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert (R-Illinois) that stated: "This inquiry should give hope to Terri, her parents and friends, and the millions of people throughout the world who are praying for her safety. This fight is not over." [19] [20] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Acham (talk • contribs).

Acham: Please sign your posts.

• First of all, as the Schiavo case is very famous, I didn't say anything about deleting that paragraph.
• You write that you fail to see how the information is not relevant. If you look at the history log, you'll see that my comaplint was not about relevance. I wrote that it was biased, selecting, and out of context presentation of info
• The paragraph I did delete was the stuff about Safavian and his wife. There are so many POV problems with it I hardly know where to begin . . . let me list a few:
  • As we debated earlier, there are many reasons why the Committee might not have investigated Abramoff -- primarily among them that other committees were investigating him. To attribute this solely to the presence of Jennifer Safavian is speculation (or original research) with no citation.
  • Davis' committee has issued subpoenas. See [21]. (Indeed, note that soon after McCain's committee finished, David's committee started.)
  • A good example of out of context (on a trivial point): Safavian is the fifth person to be convicted (the first convicted at trial), but you'd never know that from your wording.
  • Your sentence that "opponents attribute this at least in part to this conflict of interest" is unsourced (even if it is sourced, might be from a biased source). Citing places like the DCCC is not proper for a political figure of the opposite party.

-- Sholom 12:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikip policy says nothing about requiring sources for "opponents," and I followed its model. As long as the web is buzzing with the news I see no reason to pick one site as an example. For you, I limited to 3 reputable sites, including the Hill paper. For Davis fans I can see a need to rationalize a single subpeona after years of critical minority reports, criminal indictments, and convictions, and the fact that the Reform Committee was shamed by the 370+page INDIAN AFFIARS report that shows 50 +persons and 37+ sham organizations created to hide contributions, including some to Davis himself. Indian Affairs has no jurisdiction over this matter, so the fact that Davis let the Abramoff corruption continue is no excuse for holding off. Moreover, I am not persuaded by the fact that Davis refused requests to put the subject on the Committee agenda for 4 years while baseball and Shiavo got plenty of Committee time - both subjects do not fall under the core responsibilities of the committee that is supposed to oversee integrity of Agencies and Executive Branch officials. Davis finally puts it on the agenda when polls show his party's electability is under 50% due to corruption well, it's not very complelling. If you want to balance the Controversy section with a section on all the wonderful work the Committee has done under Davis, I'll write that. Let's see, I can cover the multi-million dollar investigation into whether people who got Clinton XMas cards were also solicited for donations. Not a single indictment came from that. Or how he threatened MLB that if they sold the Washington Nationals to a Democrat he would abuse his position on the Committee to investigate baseball's monopoly exemption. MLB sold the team to a donor of Davis instead. Or how his staff was found to have taken more luxurious trips paid for by lobbyists and private interests than any other Representative, and he suggested it was because his Committee staff were taking investigatory tips -- to Italy. Maybe there isn't anything to balance it out.Acham 03:56, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears as though your bias is showing through. Furthermore, your facts are wrong. Davis' committee has been investigating Abramoff since March. [22]

Davis's committee is investigating Greenburg Traurig, not Abramoff himself. [23] They are covering 1998-2001; a 5-8 year time lag. I guess it took an election year to get them interested. Forgive me for not being impressed; I'm unclear why you would be. Shall we change it to say he waited 8 years and for McCain's Report? That would be accurate with omitting critical facts. Acham 04:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In any event, I have come to the view that much of this stuff in this part of the article ought to be in the Committee article (analagous to the situation that most candidates who are running for re-election just have a small amount of election information in them, with most of the information in a separate election article). That would reduce a lot of duplicate stuff, don't you think? (Further, then we'd need to debate this only in one place). -- Sholom 06:25, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

He is the chair of the committee. Its larger scandals certainly seem appropriate here. If you take out the unflattering things, you should also remove the flattering facts, such as the Fairfax County information that in the past you argued was important. Why wouldn't that also be moved to the Fairfax County page? Acham 04:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Corruption Allegations

• • What was the investigation on that you refer to? If you mean the hiring of his wife by someone with a matter pending in his office to conduct almost no work, and the work she did have was to get her husband to speak at an annual meeting? Taking the most expensive junket of any Representative in the region? If an investigation cleared Davis, we can link to that. What I read was that Davis asked for an ETHICS OPINION[24], not an investigation, and not till after his wife had been getting paid by ICG for at least a year. That Ethics Opinion said there might be nothing wrong if she didn't invoke his name at work. However, her company bio DID invoke his name, and her job involved planning the annual meeting, where her husband spoke. The Ethics Opinion had nothing to say about what the two actually did, just how they should have proceeded if he had asked BEFORE the Post started working on the article. The whole point is, if there was an investigation to be done, it would be HIS committee who would do it; as Chair he decides what should be on the agenda.
  • These allegations are not from any opponents website. The links are to Washington Post articles of Davis threatening Metro officials and MLB, from his own committee's subpeona of Mr and Mrs Schiavo. The list of investigations requested and denied (WMDs in Iraq, Abu Gharib, Valarie Plame, Halliburton, etc) are from the minority committee members who made the investigation requests. The fact that the same abuses inspired others to oppose him is irrelevant.
  • Please frame any your objections in light of Wiki NPOV policy to "Let the Facts Speak for Themselves."

Acham 03:03, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to the article

Acham, 70.187.212.137 (same person?), and/or others: since I stopped engaging in this article, the article has really gotten out of hand. To wit: as of this writing, there is a section entitled: "Abuse of Position on Reform Committee". That is nowhere near "letting the facts speak for themselves." There is a section called "Other controversies", which contiains in it a single sentence, which is a vague, unsupported allegation with no citation. Material has been restored on which I have other complaints that I made earlier (taking positions out of context, etc.). I have been too busy to engage much on this article (and will continue to be busy through the election), but, rest assured, my plans are to be back in a serious way come Nov or Dec, to make this article more fair and less biased. -- Sholom 16:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

--I understand your feeling that every negative statement has to have a positive one, or an offset. That is NOT the definition of unbiased writing. Some facts are more important than others. That being said, if you can think of nice things to say about this Abramoff-connected, wife-hiring, best-friend paying, investigation obstucting, PAC sponsored Congressman, feel free to offer it. Perhaps it is important enough to add somewhere. I hear, for example, he likes puppies. On September 19, he voted that Cancer was bad. (9/19/06 Passed Roll call 451: On Motion to Suspend the Rules and Agree, As Amended Supporting the Goal of Eliminating Suffering and Death Due to Cancer by the Year 2015 )....Acham 19:35, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the "feeling that every negative statement has to have a positive one, or an offset", and never indicated as such. As for the rest of your statement, I thank you for demonstrating so clearly to anyone else where _your_ biases are, while ignoring my specifics. -- Sholom 20:42, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

I am biased against corruption and the people who promote it. I would be happy to learn how you know he is an ethical politican, or even any fact you think is omitted that's worthy of including. I have answered your specifics int he past and we can do that again if you want to revisit it. However, so far you have not pointed out a single erroneous fact currently on this page. You also haven't identified any information that has been omitted in error. We can discuss it; that's what this page is for. So far on this thread you seem to suggest only that evidence of corruption must be removed. This page is comparable to Tom DeLay's page in that regard that it lists the many controversies the politician is associated with. Acham 21:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Please don't compare this article to Tom DeLay. The latter has elements such as reliable sources and neutral section titles, while not including things like an overarching "Controversies" section. I've cut a bit of the bias out of this article, but I plan to take a closer look at it fairly shortly. NatusRoma | Talk 07:10, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive help. I modeled the headers more after he current DeLay headers to be more neutral as you suggested, and I have no objections to your improving that effort.

[edit] Examples of Bias: #1 - MLB

Let me start with a small simple one. You have entire section called "Major League Baseball Team in Washington", and you have a single sentence: "Davis threatened Major League Baseball with an investigation when a Democrat offered to buy the Washington Nationals." This is misleading, biased, and inaccurate, for a number of reasons:

• The citation is from an opinion piece, not a news source
• The opinion cited says nothing about a threatened investigation (rather, it mentions an already ongoing steroid investigation)
• Your sentence seems to imply that Davis' complaint was that a Democrat offered to purchase it
• Even the phrase "offered to buy" is inaccurate: the person Davis objected to (Soros) was to be only one member of only one of eight bidding groups
• Davis was one of a group of folks who made comments
• This section describes (in a misleading and inaccurate way) an extremely minor incident, which I would argue doesn't even merit inclusion. This is not a diary of his life. Furthermore, you leave out major incidents (e.g., that his committee did investigate steroid use in baseball)
• This single sentence does not merit an entire subsection heading

-- Sholom 16:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

• • Thank you. The steroid hearings are discussed in the House Government Reform Committee entry. That investigation was performed by the entire Committee, and the discussion seems appropriate there. If you want to add it here also that should not be a problem. On the other hand, if you raise it as an example to show the difference in coverage of issues between Soros and steroids, I can see that point. Davis's reaction to Soros was something he did as an individual, not through the Committee so it seems better here. However, if I can't find a better source soon I will remove it. Thanks again.Acham 19:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Reporters from Washington Post and USA Today both get to publish stories indicating that Davis was out of line (and remember, that means that those reporters got the stories past their respective editors) and Wikipedia cannot talk about it in the manner that the stories were reported? The section is not perfect, but it reflects the reports from the top-end news sources accurately. Davis is already HGR chairman (he is also a wealthy incumbent Republican and enjoys several other major advantages in terms of influence); he has had plenty of turns to speak and he should have kept his mouth shut about Soros rather than pretend that Davis the public figure can suddenly speak as a "private citizen" in the Halls of Congress. He knows that he should be more careful and judicious, but he choses not to be more careful and judicious. I say we should remove the NPOV tag.-- PinkCake 21:48, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • I am not hearing any response from you guys. I will wait another 48 hours for you to respond. If you do not, then I am going to pull the NPOV tag. -- PinkCake 04:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

• • • Thanks for your support, PinkCake, and for your good edits. I'd like to see the NPOV pulled. If you have any suggestions for future improvement, I'm happy to implement them regardless of the tag.Acham 22:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • This article is still extremely biased. All I see is Democrat... Democrat...Democrat...and Republicans did this and that wrong. There are one or two sections I think are ok. But this is most definitly not neutral. DTfromDC 00:22, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • Hmm. Maybe your sense of scale and your frequency of your use of the word "extremely" are different than mine. Davis, as a six-term incumbent, will obviously have a lot of accomplishments that are not going to be documented because it is, well, boring and so, for the general public, it does not appear to be notable. I suppose the content is a little more newsworthy than notable (there is a difference, but it is often lost in the popularity contest of what to leave in and what to leave out). That is typical. I do not think that this article is extremely anything. The only thing "extreme" about the story is the extremely large amount of money that Davis has at his disposal to communicate his self-promoting message relative to his opponent in this election: $2M vs. $35K as of Oct 2, 2006. Anyone with that kind of advantage, Rep. or Dem. does not need Wikipedia to fall on its sword if the article is not perfect. Only one issues-based objection was raised and, upon review, it became clear that the encyclopedia reports about what the high-end newspapapers reported. Davis' victory is a forgone conclusion and this article is not going to make a difference about that. I am taking off the NPOV tag until people present specific reasons for it going back on. -- PinkCake 20:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • I presented my reasons up above (in earlier sections). The MLB incident is just one example, and it's clear that people aren't reading carefully what I have written. I have never objected to its inclusion, but the wording, which is still not accurate. I don't know why I have to, and it is incredibly frustrating to, repeat myself, but (sigh) I will. For starters, at the beginning of this section, my first two objections were: (a) that the article cited is from an opinion peice; and (b) that "the opinion cited says nothing about a threatened investigation" (there are others reasons why I have still objections -- again: I listed them above, and most of them still exist). As for why this entire article is POV, see my myriad of complaints in earlier sections. (For crying out loud, that's why I titled this section as "example #1" -- there are plenty of other examples, again, noted above). My motive here is accuracy and fairness. If you look at my other edits in other articles (and I invite you to look at them here), you will not see a pattern of partisanship. (In fact, if you look at Talk:Virginia 2nd congressional district election, 2006 (as well as articles on Bob Ney and Katherine Harris) you'll see that I was accused of being a shill for the Democratic party). This is in contrast to another editor on this article, who, above, described Davis as an "Abramoff-connected, wife-hiring, best-friend paying, investigation obstucting, PAC sponsored Congressman"). -- Sholom 13:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• • • • • • • I am not saying there is anything partisan in our attempts to agree on article content. What do you want? A re-iteration of his voting record? We already link to three sites that do a pretty-good job in that department. Davis is well-financed six-term incumbent who did indeed show up for work. And what are we supposed to say in the article? Rah, rah? What is your assertion? That the MLB section is a hack job? The MLB section is primarily his words. He votes almost 90% of the times with his party, so are you going to argue that he is some sort of admirable innovative legislator? He has more than had his turn at legislative power and is exactly the kind of fat cat that the failed attempts at imposing term limits were intended for. Sorry: we are here to shine some intense light on him until he howls "Meow!" (which is not going to happen because of the pathetic opposition he faces at election time) The man lives and breathes plutocracy. If he wants to open his big, powerful wealthy mouth and hang himself, then I say: let him. I struggle with the notion of sending his opponent a $1 donation this late in the electoral process because it will dilute the historical impact of the financiing abomination that has occurred. What is his opponent going to do with that $1? Pay their astronomical electric bill because they have to run the fax machine because they cannot afford real mass-media advertisements like the Davis super-size billboards and radio/newspaper/TV ads? If maybe the Hurst campaign declared bankruptcy because they dared to go out to lunch at McDonald's once a week, then the electorate would figure out that something is a little, teeny bit out of kilter in that district. Sigh. Please: cite examples #2, #3, etc. and let's get into it. Let's find all that other bias. I'm game. -- PinkCake 20:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

• Look, I even added the YouTube spot so he can congratulate himself about helping a motorist whose vehicle had a Tom Davis bumper sticker on it. Rah, rah. Happy now? -- PinkCake 20:45, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

Please keep an eye out for the return of the copyvio of http://tomdavis.house.gov/davis_contents/about/ or other attempts to replace the encyclopedic content with verbiage from the subject's official web site. -- Phuongj 03:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jeannemarie Devolities Davis

Chap Petersen announced today he would run the VA State Senate against Davis wife Jeannemarie Devolities Davis. Husband Tom Davis already has reportedly taken steps to influence nearby races that would affect turn out. It will be a tough race. Please keep an eye out for return of her husband's staffers and her own to remove the encyclopedic content or replace it with words from the one of the couple's official web sites.Acham 04:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Biased

There is so much political information in here that is biased that there is hardly any value to this article anymore. I belive the purpose of this article was intended to be a biography containing information so that someone could reuse this information for research purposes;however, it is so saturated with partisan politics that I belive that was not accomplished. It used to be a decent article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.66.92.78 (talk) 04:48, 14 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Davis staffer?

Please sign your posts; don't you want to be associated with your work? I'm not sure why "political information" would be out of place in a "political biography." Speaking of partisanship, you keep forgetting to add the Boston Globe and Washington Post's coverage of the partisan ineffectiveness of Davis himself.

Globe here:

Post here:and here

Acham 04:37, 28 December 2006 (UTC)