Talk:Bob Casey, Jr.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Bob Casey, Jr. is part of WikiProject U.S. Congress, an attempt to build a comprehensive guide to the United States Congress. |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale. The options are: "FA", "A", "GA", "B", "Start", "Stub", "List", "Disambiguation", "Template", or "Category." |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. The options are: "Top", "High", "Mid", and "Low." |
| ??? | This article has not yet been assigned a subject. The options are: "Person", "People", "Place", "Thing", and "Event." |
 |
Bob Casey, Jr. is part of WikiProject Pennsylvania, which is building a comprehensive and detailed guide to Pennsylvania on Wikipedia. To participate, you can edit the attached article, join or discuss the project. |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale. |
 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. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group. | ||
"Some Pennsylvania journalists and political pundits have expressed concerns over Casey's long term health." Who? This smacks of POV. Unless there's a link I think it should be removed.
Contents |
[edit] POV?
The link is: [1] Robert Casey Jr. is in "excellent physical condition," but has decided not to have a blood test to determine if he carries the gene that caused the incurable disease which afflicted his late father, Gov. Robert Casey Sr...
Casey will not know if he is predisposed to the disease even though there is a 50-50 chance he has the gene. Half of those people who inherited the gene will get the disease..
another link:[2]
Casey must contend with another of his father's legacies.
His father died of a rare bone marrow disease known as familial amyloidosis, which forced Gov. Casey to undergo a life-saving heart and lung transplant...
Casey doesn't know if he is predisposed to the disease because he has never been tested...
Casey said 50 percent of the people with a relative who has the disease are likely to have the gene that causes amyloidosis and half of those will get the disease.
another:[3]
[Governor Casey] died five years later after frequent transplant-related infections. Mr. Casey lives with the possibility he'll have the disease, but is uninterested in taking the blood test...
"I guess I'm at an age where I don't want to know," [Bob Casey] says. "Ultimately I probably will (have the test), maybe when I'm in my 50s." Maybe by then, he says, gene-altering drugs will increase chances of survival without a transplant.
It's a legitimate topic being discussed in the Pennsylvania media. Excluding information about a topic cited numerous times in the press is NOPV.
I believe that the following statement is very subjective and open to different interpretations:
"However, Casey's views on abortion will help him gain the votes of moderate Republicans in the Philadelphia suburbs. Such moderate Republicans have played a pivotal role in many of the Democrats' recent victories in Pennsylvania."
This sound like pro-Casey political propaganda and would definately be challenged by both Sandals and Pennacchio, because Casey will lose just as many (if not more) votes from pro-choice Republicans and even more to the point, Democrats, than he would pick up anti-abortion votes from people who would probably vote for Santorum anyway.
I (meuu) believe that this page is too slanted in Casey's favor, and have challenged the neutrality of it therefore, with the "POV" graphic. It makes it sound like an undisputed fact, which it OBVIOUSLY IS NOT, that Casey will do better against Santorum than either of his primary opponents. Those who present this argument on this page make the obvious assumption that the issue of who can best defeat Santorum is the only relevant issue as to who is the best candidate; this line of reasoning is clearly rejected by many.
It is also implied that all Democrats are behind Casey, no matter what. The leaders are, true, but not all the voters are. Hoeffel, has made the issue of who can beat Santorum as the paramount issue even though Casey, unlike Hoeffel is extremely anti-abortion. Casey's father was not a loyal Democrat and refused to support Bill Clinton, solely because of the abortion issue.
Furthermore, it is implied that it is only the abortion which separates Casey from his primary opponents and that is clearly not the case. Certainly not in the minds of Pennacchio or Sandals.
Exactly how far to the right Casey really is, is certainly open to debate. Whether he is actually any less conservative than Santorum is open to debate. Casey has so far ignored both of his primary opponents entirely and therefore has not responded to the argument that he himself is far to the right. How can we know where he stands on the issues with this silence?
Why exactly is it surprising that Casey opposes school vouchers?
[edit] Updated article
I have updated the article to reflect the fact that Casey is now the Democratic nominee and have removed an entire section about what a "controversial" candidate he is. Most of it read like POV pushing by primary opponents suggesting that he is too conservative or Santorum supporters trying to portray him as a secret liberal. Most of it was also rather repitious and just generally didn't make for a good encyclopedia article IMHO. I have condensed it into a few paragraphs about his senate bid with a link to the main article on the senate race. TMS63112 21:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Changed reference to homosexual adoption, which stated Casey opposed it, to accurately reflect his statement that he would oppose legislation that would prohibit it, and added link to PA Catholic Conference survey to give primary source (and see also here). Not sure why the same survey as linked later gives a different question and a different answer.
[edit] List of Offices that Casey Ran For
Can someone get a list of all the offices Casey has ran for?The article says that this is his 5th election in 9 years, but can we get a list of what the elections were for?
Bcody 01:27, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
His elections were for Auditor General (1996, 2000, won both), Governor (2002, lost in primary), Treasurer (2004, won), and U.S. Senator (2006). However, I think that all these races are already mentioned in the article and do not need to be listed after the referenced sentence. Bridge Partner 02:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there a source for the 2002 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary results? These numbers don't make sense outside of Chicago:
Ed Rendell (D), 57% + Bob Casey, Jr. (D), 44% = 101% —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.125.6.132 (talk) 15:31, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
[edit] PA Senate History
The article currently says that Casey is the first Senator elected "in his own right" since Joeseph Clark. I'm not so sure that this is accurate. Harris Wofford was appointed by Governor Casey in May of 1991. But, he won a special election in November of that year, defating former PA Governor Dick Thornburgh. As Wofford won the 1991 special election, couldn't he be considered as winning a U.S. Senate seat "in his own right"?
WayneNight 06:42, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That statement is in fact, incorrect. Wofford did indeed win a term in his own right over Dick Thornburgh in one of the most exciting Senate elections in PA history. Wofford was appointed by Governor Casey. The next Senate election was held, and Wofford won. Next go around he was defeated by Santorum. USER:lawrence142002
That special election was for the right to finish the last four years of John Heinz' third term. Wofford did try to run for a full term in '94--only to be defeated by Santorum.
On the other hand, Bob, Jr. was elected to a full six-year term. So he gets the nod.Blueboy96 20:04, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
I added "to a full term"... best of both worlds, I think.
I took out the part about the "Red Roof Inn" story because it had no references, and the last line was blatantly POV. But if a reference can be found, I didn't have a problem with the presence of the story itself. --69.72.22.28 18:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Stusutcliffe 13:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to have made its way back into the page, so I added the proper wiki tag.
[edit] Naming
Would "Bobby Casey" be considered a significant name in addition to the three listed? His opponents, like Santorum, have frequently used it (claiming that it distinguishes him from his father, but it also acts as a diminutive because it sounds less serious; sort of like Republicans using the term "Democrat Party" as opposed to Democratic.) -Thermal0xidizer
[edit] Neutral?
The line "Casey might be best known for the acts of sabotage that he committed against Green Party Senate Candidate Carl Romanelli" doesn't seem very neutral. - Jord 15:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Eeep, how did that escape our radar for so long? That line is unsourced, is not supported by the rest of the content, so needs to go per WP:BLP. The rest of that pragraph is dubious at best: speculation and innuendo, with the only source being a self-published source (so much for "best known" in the first sentence). I am going to clean up that paragraph pronto, unless you beat me to it.
- Good catch there. And thanks for elaborating the POV tag here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- ---
- Done. I'll take off the tag too. You can revert if you like but point out whatever else needs fixing here. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- ---
- I also left a welcomeanon tag and an npov1 tag on the contributer's Talk page to welcome, encourage them to get an account and a gentle reminder to have a neutral point of view. Fortunately, that paragraph has only been around for three days. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No trivia section please
Please refrain from re-adding the trivia section into this article. Such sections are discouraged and the one snippet of information is, as far as I can see, totally unencyclopedic; rather it seems somewhat flippant and could be seen as a weaselly way of disparaging the subject without violating the biographies of living people policies. If someone can provide a reliable source for this factoid, and demonstrate its encyclopedic value (e.g., some context), then its can be incorporated into the appropriate place in the article (not into a trivia section). Baccyak4H (Yak!) 12:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
- I agree entirely, and have removed the sentence (again). I think we would need to see some independant coverage of the comment in a different publication than where the comment was published. That would indicate notability of the comment itself. Cheers Kevin 04:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
[edit] No Coverage of Casey's Failure to Do Anything About the Flood of Illegal Immigration into Pennsylvania
Whatever else one may say of PA's US Senators, Casey and Spector, they have both displayed a stunning lack of leadership in entirely failing to take any steps to protect PA from the flood of illegal immigration which has driven down wage levels, increased crime, resulted in many children of illegal aliens in PA's public schools, filled hospital emergency rooms with illegals, and generally altered the quality of life in many PA towns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.145.224 (talk) 00:47, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
- Who let Lou Barletta on WP? Tomdobb (talk) 15:10, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
