Talk:Dan Quayle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Politics and government work group.
Indianapolis Portal
Dan Quayle is within the scope of WikiProject Indianapolis, an open collaborative effort to coordinate work for and sustain comprehensive coverage of metropolitan Indianapolis, Indiana and related subjects in the Wikipedia.
B This article has been rating as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Please explain ratings on the ratings summary page.
This article is part of WikiProject Indiana, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Indiana, in an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Indiana on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Indiana Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
To-do list for Dan Quayle: edit · history · watch · refresh

Contents

[edit] name

Why is Dan Quayle redirected here? We don't have the main pages at William Jefferson Clinton or James Earl Carter, Jr.. Isn't it Wikipedia policy to keep article names at the most common version? RickK 20:39, 24 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] current events

What does Dan do these days? this article does not tell us. Kingturtle 08:04, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

[edit] information

Pheeeb!

Dan Quayle owns, dawg! [[User:I<3Danforth]] 12:21, 20 Dec 2004.

I like to use the name Dan Qauyle when I play online games. --216.45.139.148 01:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name

According to Mr. Quayle's memoirs, his full name is James Danforth Quayle. Not James Danforth Quayle III.

Sincerely

User:Sara 10:23, 28 Nov 2004

To III or not to III.

I agree about the name. According to the elder Quayle's obituaries [1], [2], [3], Dan Quayle's father was James C. Quayle, so the former VPOTUS could not by convention be called James Danforth Quayle III. Great Scott 21:37, 8 Jul 2005.

If Quayle had a grandfather or uncle who was James Danforth Quayle II (or Jr.), then he would, by convention, be James Danforth Quayle III.

[edit] image

Chris, The image of Dan Quayle that you want to use is credited to Carl Cox, and his website says "Copyright © 2003 Carl Cox". We will need to get an authorization from Mr. Cox to allow us to use the image.

We have to be very careful about copyrights. We need to err on the side of caution always.

Sincerely, Kingturtle 04:00, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

  • Excellent that you have an email for verification. I assume it is from carl at carlcoxphoto dot com. Could you please place a copy of it on Image:Danquayle.jpg. Thanks! Kingturtle 04:17, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)
In any case, Wikipedia-specific permission is inferior, for the purposes of a free-as-in-speech encyclopedia, to a public domain or other free image. Reverted to freer image. Martin 22:48, 28 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Little progress has been made since protection. We have permission to use both images. A compromise solution is to use both. Unprotecting, but please discuss changes here! Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 17:02, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia-specific permission is not enough. We are building a free encyclopedia, and the non-free images should be deleted, as we have viable replacements. Anthony DiPierro 17:13, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Someone re-protected the page, on the free version. I think this is the correct version to protect on - Anthony has put forward his reasons on this talk page, whilst Chris doesn't appear to have contributed to the talk page at all. Chris - can you get permission to use that photo under the GFDL? If so, the problem goes away. Pete/Pcb21 (talk) 09:02, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)
I certainly think that Chris really must come here to discuss the matter. I'm concerned that he doesn't understand the importance to us of being a free encyclopedia. Martin 18:39, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Danquayle.jpg

From what I gather in my conversation with Anthony in IRC, Anthony maintains that Image:Danquayle.jpg needs to be released to Wikipedia under GFDL. If someone could contact the owner of the image and get a GFDL release, maybe edit wars over this issue would cease. Keep in mind, taking such action could be a waste of time, because other problems/complaints about Image:Danquayle.jpg might be voiced/expressed by editors later. Kingturtle 19:06, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Murphy Brown business

Hi Gazpacho - some notes on the Murphy Brown changes that I made.

  1. Quayle wasn't criticizing an episode of the show, he was criticizing the character herself and I changed the text to reflect that.
  2. You are right to emphasize that the murphy brown business was incidental in a larger speech, I added "in an aside" for this purpose
  3. The actual quote is only a sentence long, I don't see why we can't include it since it is the most historically significant part of the speech and since it describes what Quayle said better than we can.
  4. "commentators and late night TV hosts mocked Quayle's remark (out of context) for supposedly confusing fiction and reality." Although I agree that we should specifically say what they were criticizing, this feels way too POV to me.
  5. Lets compromise and say that the speech and the media's response damaged the GOP ticket. I don't think it was 100% the media's fault.

GabrielF 16:53, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hello even though Quaile can't spell my name I stopped by to help. Rather than retype what I wrote before (which probably should have gone here instead), Please see my other comment in the Vice Presidency: NPOV? section. By the way, any comment about expanding the Murphy Brown business to its own little section? Mashed Potato

I removed the unsupported statement that Quayle's criticism of "Murphy Brown" had "damaged the campaign." The remark actually appealed to the conservative base of the party; the following sentences already in the article remind us that Quayle's remark catalyzed a long-lasting public campaign against media indecency and family-undermining themes in popular culture. That campaign was even contributed to by Tipper Gore, wife of the next Vice President. The fact that Quayle's remark stirred up intense liberal outcry does not indicate that it damaged the Bush-Quayle campaign; giving the opposition a lot of talking points does not equal driving away supporting voters.

In my role as a journalist, I have never heard anyone say they changed their intended vote in the 1992 election because of the Murphy Brown statements; I've heard many say they abandoned the Republican ticket because of Bush's reneged promise not to raise taxes, and because of their attraction to the reform party, and some that they were reassured by Bill Clinton's posturing as a "New Democrat" (tough on crime, less likely to raise taxes, e.g., "The era of big government is over."). Clinton's moves to grow government (Hillarycare) and mainstream homosexuality (his first executive action was to allow gays in the military) led directly to the 1994 Republican Revolution, and as mentioned, Tipper Gore found it useful to show support for family values by criticizing Hollywood's attack on "family values."

Thus, I believe there would need to be either some statistically supportable evidence, or a clear line of reasoning, to support the statement that the Murphy Brown remarks damaged the GOP ticket. The fact that Bush/Quayle lost is far more attributable to other, major forces, and attributing that loss in any significant way to the Murphy Brown remarks is just a new way of creating a storm in a teacup. Preston McConkie 22:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law School

While serving in the Guard, he earned a law degree in 1974 at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis through an experimental program intended to offer "equal opportunity" to minorities, the economically disadvantaged and other students of different viewpoints and backgrounds.

Since when has Quayle been a minority? It doesn't sound like he was particularly "economically disadvataged," nor do I see how his background is notable. (I don't know quite what the "different viewpoints" is supposed to mean.) Quayle may have went to law school at the same time as this program started, but I don't see how he would have benefited from it. Does anyone know anything about this? --BDD 20:00, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I always thought the Guard paid for it.--User:Sara 7:58, 14 July 2005

In the early 1970's, the GI Bill did not pay for graduate school / law school / medical school, etc. It only covered undergraduate studies. As a matter of history, I was discharged from my first tour of active duty in 1973 and used the GI Bill beginning in 1975 to help finance my undergraduate studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison resulting in an engineering degree. Contrary to popular opinion (and serious misunderstanding) the GI Bill does not finance a veteran's education. The veteran received a monthly stipend, at that time about $300 for a single student. I'm sure (I can't cite references) either the Quayle or Pulliam families financed his law school degree. Due to his family's wealth, he would have been disqualified for financial aid (the honest way) Engineer1234 23:18, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


I attended IU School of Law-Indy, and I believe Wiki is referring to the CLEO program (Conference for Legal Opportunity). The program is directed at minority students (I do not know of any Caucasians that participated in the program. However, I will not change the page as I am unsure of DQ's legal education. J.

[edit] Vice Presidency: NPOV?

Is the Vice Presidency section of this article from a NPOV? I don't think so. There is only mention of two things in his actual Vice Presidency (Space Council; Competitiveness Council), taking up maybe a couple sentences, and a huge section of text basically speculating about and deriding Quayle's intelligence. The section is frankly insulting to this reader's intelligence. What about his professional relationship with President George Bush? What about the Gulf War? What about his position on taxes? Not a word on any of this. There is mention however of an obscure 'satirical' award (that I doubt many people at all have heard of); and a poke hinting that George W. Bush may be a simpleton just like his father's Vice President (as parts of this article certainly seem to be strongly implying). But then why no mention of Al Gore and his own numerous verbal gaffes, ones that like Quayle's could also certainly be construed as 'dumb'? I wouldn't like to say but it seems like there is a less than subtle anti-Republican bias present. Quayle was criticised for misstatments and many did question his intellectual abilities. That should definitely be mentioned - but within reason. Currently it's masquerading as downright offensive. [10 July 2005]

Another example... Potato was 'allegedly' misspelled on the card? 'Allegedly'? Quayle and the teacher have both said that the card was handed to him misspelled by her. When two parties agree on something it is not 'alleged'.
You simply don't understand what alleged means. Sorry.
Your odd decision to define when something is not alleged as "when two parties agree on something" confuses me. Two people saying something does not make it true and a teacher could certainly feel political pressure to agree with Quayle when he claimed the card was misspelled (not that I am saying that pressure was placed purposely, just that it would be present). It does not negate the fact that he did not know how to spell potato and certainly isn't proof that the card was misspelled (though I personally believe it was). This portion of the article isn't very biased (at least not as of the time of this writing) but it does reflect negatively on him because his Vice Presidency has reflected negatively on him. Whether that is deserved or not is not really at issue. There is a very large public perception that Quayle was not a good Vice President and the article simply outlines that. If you wish to add Quayle's accomplishments, by all means do so. But as the section is now it is not biased. - 69.3.92.118 17:34, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste time arguing simple logic. I remember reading somewhere that this is an encyclopedia, not an op-ed page. If "the section...is not biased," and the mention of only two positions of his Vice Presidency versus various yellow-journalistic irrelevancy passes for being unbiased then it is no wonder that the statement that "his Vice Presidency has reflected negatively on him" has been made. That is a seriously biased position to write an encyclopedia article from. Name one person who thinks that. And there will be others who will think the opposite. Let the reader decide. But to hold the reader's hand and guide him down the path that there must be no doubt Dan Quayle made a terrible U.S. Vice President is simply insulting to readers and writers alike. That is what I call a stealth article. And one cannot conduct an article solely based on perceived and, yes, alleged public opinions. In my opinion that is not an unbiased encyclopedia article and that is precisely the reason the tag is on. Secondly, there has hardly been any positions of his Vice Presidency even mentioned to reflect negatively on. On the other hand, Vice President Al Gore receives a remarkably glowing article for the most part (with no mention at all of his own various verbal gaffes), which I don't wholly object to (though it certainly needs some editing). It is fairly in-depth and that is very commendable. I think that the depth that Al Gore's article receives should be reflected in all the modern U.S. Vice Presidents, including Dan Quayle. The main question here in the Quayle article then is a shortage of fact in the face of an oversurplus of undue criticism. By all means state the criticism but it must be reasonable and balanced with at least an equal grounding in fact. Therefore, I challenge someone to clean up some of the yellow journalism in this article. I wish to be an observer right now (and avoid sure and wasteful revertations), and therefore remain unbiased, but I will also do some research and hopefully contribute some facts soon.
Hi 12.77.45.223, why not try making some changes to address those issues? Most of the time, edits are tried out before a blanket NPOV tag is placed on an article. Fuzheado | Talk 05:10, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
I've re-read the section you have issues with and more content could be added. But two things come to mind - 1) the Ig Nobel awards are not an obscure prize - they are pretty much featured in the American news each year in the "lighter side" segments. This year I recall it being a spot on ABC World News Tonight. Of course, with the tech-heavy crowd of Wikipedia, it's even more likely to be known by the community here. 2) The Bush I administration, knew of the liability that Dan Quayle was after the debates, flubs (Murphy Brown) and media ridicule that they themselves downgraded the role of Quayle in the public eye for the latter part of GHWB's presidency. So if he did not have many accolades and public achievements because, well, he wasn't put forth to do much. Also, related to Al Gore, you can't simply bring up another VP and claim "equivalency" to either drag Quayle up, or Gore down. That said, feel free to edit the article, and propose some more balance in your eyes, and the wiki way will take its course. Fuzheado | Talk 06:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)


Why don't you mention when Aquino (leader of the Philipines) called up Quayle and he needed to lead her through a coup attempt while Bush was away? I don't remember the specifics but it was mentioned in the debates, Quayle's memoirs and probably elsewhere. Sara 14 July 2005
That seems somewhat questionable. While Aquino may have contacted the US for aid in dealing with a coup, I highly doubt Quayle himself was involved in instructing how to deal with the coup. I don't doubt this because of any bias towards Quayle but rather because I don't believe the individual politician gave military advice and think it much more likely it was a military advisor who gave the advice even if it went through the VP to Aquino. - 69.3.92.118 17:24, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Here's what Quayle said in the VP debate:

"Qualifications. I've been there, Hal. I've done the job. I've been tested. I've been vice president for 4 years. Senator Gore referred to us being elected to the Congress together in 1976. I've done the job. I've done many things for the president.

But even as vice president you never know exactly what your role is going to be from time to time, and let me just give you an example of where I was tested under fire and in a crisis.

President Bush was flying to Malta in 1989 to meet with President Gorbachev. It was the first meeting between President Bush and President Gorbachev. They had known each other before.

A coup broke out in the Philippines. I had to go to the situation room. I had to assemble the president's advisers. I talked to President Aquino. I made the recommendation to the president. The president made the decision, the coup was suppressed, democracy continued in the Philippines, the situation was ended."

Sara

The Murphy Brown thing is probably the most significant thing about Quale (he sometimes misspells my name so I sometimes misspell his) - a hundred years from now, it's what he will be remembered for, if you ask me. People might not remember the name of the forgetable (if you ask me) t.v. show he was talking about, but they will remember that there was a backlash against the suppposed degredation of the family and Dan Quayle will be an important footnote. Murphy Brown could be it's own section, I think. And Oh ... please comment about my edit if you don't like it.Mashed Potato 05:08, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 1996 Presidential election

"Quayle would have been a logical opponent of President Bill Clinton in 1996."

Really? I understand that the former VP is usually a candidate but Quayle had made way too many political blunders to possibly survive. If this statement is to remain, I think that it needs to be backed up by something. As it stands, the sentence appears to have been thrown in at the last minute.

Andrew

[edit] Dan Quayle and phlebitis

I am surprise the Quayle article made no mention of Dan Quayle suffering from phlebitis and being in the hospital.I believe this happen in the early 1990s. Thank you-207.230.192.179 19:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Sorry about this I forgot to log in-RFD 19:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Early political career

This statement:

he became an effective Senator, respected by colleagues on both sides of the aisle might be problematic for non-US readers. Can it be rephrased? Also, I think this section could stand to be expanded. I often wondered just how the heck this guy got to be vice-president; maybe a little more elaboration on what he did before becoming VP nominee would be good. Or did he really not do that much? Mashed Potato 11:24, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The stuff about margins of victory is potentially misleading. When he won re-election to the House "by the largest margin ever" he was unopposed. And his re-election to the Senate "by the largest margin ever" only saw him win by 61% to 39%. Surely that can't be an Indiana record. --Lincolnite 00:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


While the Quayle family was very wealthy, Dan Quayle was not; his total net worth by the time of his election in 1988 was less than a million dollars.

And I thought I had it bad... Maybe a revision of wording?

[edit] May 1991

In the first week of May 1991, hadn't President Bush suffered a heart fibrilation, nearly making Vice President Quayle the Acting President? Shouldn't this be mentioned in the article? GoodDay 00:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious question

What are VP Quayle's favorite cereal? Vice Crispies! No, I'm just kidding. How does it not cite its sources, there's 8 footnotes and no one marked any "citation needed" tags. I think some people are just being overly paranoid. Aaрон Кинни (t) 22:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Potatoe incident

Why is there no mention of his world famous Potatoe spelling incident. Its what he is most famous for worldwide!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.250.220 (talk • contribs)

[edit] Hobbies

watching children bathe? is this vandalism? something that ridiculous needs a citation.

I removed that, since it is slanderous and had no citations to back it up (and I doubt it will). Kurt Wagner 02:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Avoiding the Draft

There is a bit of a disagreement on the article page about whether or not Quayle pulled strings to avoid the draft. This is, I believe, caused by misrecollections of what was known at the time (mid-1988) when this was in the news. It was unambiguous that Quayle had used connections, specifically that he had asked Wendell C. Phillippi, managing director of the Indianapolis News, a paper owned by Quayle's grandfather, who happened to be the former Adjutant General of the Indiana National Guard, to help him out. Phillippi gave it a shot, making at least one phone call on Quayle's behalf, and Quayle entered the National Guard in the summer of 1969.

Quayle's 1988 defense of this was (a) that lots of people tried to avoid going to Vietnam (certainly true), and (b) he might well have gotten into the National Guard without Phillippi's help (which is also true although unlikely; all surviving evidence suggests that there was a long waiting list). In any case, the latter claim seems disingenuous, because the fact that Quayle might not have needed Phillippi's help doesn't change the noteworthy fact that he asked for it, and got it.

By the way, after initially denying that he had asked for help at all, Quayle admitted to getting Phillippi's assistance, which led at the time to a secondary scandal about whether or not he had initially been lying about his past.

Uucp 21:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

It is interesting that an author for Wikipedia admits that Al Gore had a position reserved for him in the Tennessee National Guard so he could avoid possible service in Viet Nam, but he turned it down. Engineer1234 23:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
At the time of the draft for military service in the 1960's (not everyone entering active service went to Viet Nam) there were considerable waiting lists to get into Reserve or National Guard units. A draft age male could always put his name on a waiting list. If you were well heeled or connected, you could get your name bumped up on the list). Anyone surprised? It's the way of the world. I was one of those who entered active duty instead. Engineer1234 23:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Early life statement

"Now he spends most of his time complaining about Al Gore and how he is jealous that Al Gore invented the internet."

That line appears under the Early Life section. Does not seem to part of his early life, cited, etc. Cannot seem to edit it out though. Maybe I don't know what I am doing and someone else can fix it.

Edit: Never mind, its gone now.

[edit] Handcuffed naked to a pole? What??

There was one bit of "information", in Dan Quayle's article here that stated he was "once handcuffed naked to a flag pole, outside of DePauw University in frigid winter conditions", or something very similar. It was on here a while back, but it was taken off very quickly. Is this "rumor" even true? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.135.1.214 (talk) 08:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Murphy Brown speech link

Overall, the Murphy Brown section seems well done and objectively presented. However, clicking on "Murphy Brown speech" took the user to a rather POV editorial[4]. I removed this link; it would seem more appropriate to link a page with the text of the speech or a mainstream news article about it instead. Does anyone know of such a page? Alki 20:14, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Golf

Isn't he a very good golfer? Does anyone have specific information (for a trivia section, of course)?

[edit] marilyn quayle

Polish wikipedia has an article about Marilyn Quayle, but english not

See Marilyn Quayle Tabletop 09:31, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 44th and best Vice President of the United States

Took out the word "and best" from the opening line; "James Danforth "Dan" Quayle (born February 4, 1947) was the 44th and best Vice President of the United States".

Hope no one minds. Dexta32084 17:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You did the right thing. GoodDay 00:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This article is mostly ridiculous

It's heavily skewed toward the leftist view of Quayle, especially in the viewpoint that he was "buffoon" or an object of ridicule. Certainly he was viewed as such by those who held leftist or opposing viewpoints. There's nothing wrong with pointing this out. Most conservatives certainly didn't and don't define him by what the left believes and publishes. As another edit pointed out, AlGore is an object of ridicule by the right. He's about as funny, twisted and weird as they come. But we're not trying to impose our political viewpoints as "truth".

I thought so too, until I got to the part about Mars. That's truly ridiculous and scary in a way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.208.166.89 (talk) 04:30, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

It scares me too, but it's still an encyclopedia, not a publication on how Dan Quayle amuses and offends us. Telarc 06:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Telarc (talk • contribs)

Having grown up during the years in question, I have a clear memory of plenty of Quayle jokes, and to not at least mention the ongoing comedy show - even if the details are tactfully left out of the article - is to betray history. While every politician and every candidate has their own detractors, the Quayle situation is notable for the reason that far more frequently than usual, a lot of the humor was shared by people who otherwise continued to support Quayle's remaining in office. Zaphraud (talk) 03:45, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post-vice presidency

"Quayle considered but decided not to run for the governorship of Indiana in 1994." Unlike most states, Indiana elects its governors in Presidential-election years. Was this bit intended to imply that in 1994, Quayle contemplated entering the 1996 race for Governor? Please clarify this section. EKMichigan 18:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)


EKMichigan: If he was considering running for the '96 governorship, then why would he decide to run for the presidency at the same time? -Nicole —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.135.1.214 (talk) 01:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is Quayle related to John Danforth of Missouri?--164.64.164.35 (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] VP Musuem

It is not true that no other American vice-presidents (who did not go on to become president) have museums. John Nance Garner was VP from 1933-1941. His museum (http://www.cah.utexas.edu/museums/garner.php) is located in his hometown of Uvalde, TX. It is currently managed by the University of Texas at Austin's Center for American History. Guanabana68 (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Council on Competitiveness

I don't remember the specifics, but didn't Quayle do some controversial things on the Council on Competitiveness? My recollection was that there was even some question as to whether he had broken the law.--Caleb Murdock (talk) 01:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Trolley Incident

Whatever happened to the San Diego trolley sniper incident? That was when Quayle was campaigning in San Diego for the 2000 elections (which no one mentions now), there was a sniper holed up in a motel along the trolley lines in El Cajon. Did that have something to do with his staff? The SWAT team was there, and the trolley service was halted and rerouted to the bus line. The bus line ran right by the motel where the sniper was, just on the other side of the motel.

If nothing else, this is a Quaylism that is unsurpassed. SWAT stopped the trolley, made everyone transfer to the bus, then ran the bus right by the very same motel where the sniper was. All the sniper had to do was change rooms and he could have shot at the same trolley riders he had a problem with by shooting at them while they were in the bus, as the bus driver had the interior lights on, and the standoff carried into the evening. The bus riders were all lit up.

I don't believe that Quayle rode the San Diego trolley at all while he was stumping in San Diego, so the sniper might have been someone who was supporting Quayle and Mayor Susan Golding's stance on running all the lower-income residents out of town. Guaranteed not to get either one many votes, but this was before the Bush/Gore recount.

Should Quayle have fired all of his staff and replaced them? Many politicians should have done that back then.--76.212.155.12 (talk) 16:05, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the San Diego incident was terrible. But no more terrible than the constant referral to the "severance" that happened with the Bersin/Krysiak issue. So many years ago, yet still all that San Diegans talk about, the ignored remands from the appellate court, the forged court documents. The manipulation in the federal court and Judge Huff was so blatant, was so corrupt, even the most untutored could spot it. And now the American government has been reduced to gutter politics, highly paid politicians go about town accusing their constituents of being "PCs" and telling them to "up" everywhere, and no one knows what they're talking about because it's their judicial system that's flawed. Their populace wouldn't have to "up" if their courts weren't so flawed.
Is this a gangster government? A country controlled by fear? No, not fear, by irrational law and ignorance? Has Quayle and his peers thrown the entire country into a jail of their own making? Freedom can never be abridged in this manner, can never be taken from those whose birthright it truly is.
Then where did it go?--76.244.160.95 (talk) 01:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Agent

Some years back The John Birch Society published a great deal of evidence that both Quayle and Bush I were Soviet agents of influence. This traitor was actively working to further the aims of the global communist conspiracy and enact a new world order, while posing as a 'conservative', working right from the White House. He was no dupe - he was a conscious, dedicated and committed communist idealogue taking orders directly from the Kremlin (or from whoever gave the Kremlin their orders). He was on the KGB payroll. This should be mentioned in the article. 92.10.45.150 (talk) 01:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)