Talk:Tom Daschle

Vandalism

i noticed that this page is being vandalized - i just fixed two instances.Lurgis (talk) 02:40, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Recent ongoings

Daschle joined the board of directors as Mascoma, a Cambridge, MA alternative energy company in early June. 15 June 2007 PS

Where is Tom Daschle now living? 24 May 2005. Ed Cabaniss

According to the Washington Post, has joined into the same Atlanta HQed lobbying group that Bob Dole works for. Keeping a home in South Dakota and one in DC still. Naraht 13:15, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

"Many" staffers

Wouldn't "several" be a better term? IIRC, it was just a handful, like four or five, not scores or dozens as this seems to imply. Anyone care to fact-check this? Rlquall 16:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

His wife's lobbying is controversial. Although technically permissible, it does raise ethical issues. Yet it is not even mentioned in this article. Also, if you want to reach him, try the law firm's email system.75Janice 17:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC)75Janice 17:38 UTC 2 January 2006

Economic development director

The article says "To enhance his state's economy, Daschle also became the first U.S. Senator to be a full-time economic development director." Is the word "be" an error? I'm guessing this should say that Daschle was the first U/S. Senator to hire a full-time economic development director for his staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.178.128.206 (talk) 12:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

• You're correct. I've fixed the article accordingly.Dcmacnut 17:05, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Dachle's current job = Lobbyist

I understand that this is controversial for reasons connected to the Obama campaign, but, as the links I've used show, TD's job at A&B *is* as a lobbyist. He accepted this title himself in an interview - linked! - with NPR, and Dole said publicly that he (a lobbyist at A&B) had recruited TD because their contacts in the Senate were complementary - ie Dole would lobby the repubs and TD the dems. Again, this is linked. If people don't agree with this reasoning, they should use the discussion page and contact me - just deleting "because I think you're wrong" is not good wiki practice, and in this case stinks of partisanship or a PR firm. I won't be afraid to make a fuss about this and appeal to Higher Authority. So if you disagree, ***discuss***.

"cleaning up refs, and you need a reference that says it's a lobbying firm, and that senior policy analyst = lobbyist" -There were TWO such references. The first one contained a quote from Dole (a registered lobbyist) saying that he had hired TD to complement his own contacts - ie to do the same job with Dems as Dole does with Repubs. The second was an interview with NPR where Dachle had been booked to talk about his job with AB as a lobbyist. If you're going to "clean up" references, please read them, then, on a topic as controversial as this, unless the situation is VERY clear discuss . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Umptious (talk • contribs) 15:16, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Who said "I think you're wrong?" No one. And I changed it to "he signed on as a lobbyist, with the title of Senior Policy Advisor." Before, it seemed like his job title was in scare quotes, like it was a fake job or something, then it said "(i.e. lobbyist)". By cleaning up refs I fixed a broken link (the one to the law firm), and I put them in Wikipedia:Footnotes style, (<ref>), as opposed to a [1] link. And anyway, the article says he's a lobbyist now, so what's the issue? --AW (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Daschle not a lobbyist

Daschle is not a lobbyist and I've edited the article to reflect that. The word lobbyist only appears in the summary of the NPR article. Nowhere in the main article or the audio program does Daschle identify himself as a lobbyist. To the contrary, he unequivicoly states he is not a lobbyist. To quote Daschle in the audio program.

• NPR reporter: "You're a lobbyist now."
• Daschle: "I've got a very clear understanding with Alston and Bird that I won’t be lobbying . . . that isn't my intention. I've indicated all along that I don't see a particular role for me as a lobbyist."

Go to sopr.senate.gov, the official Lobbyist Disclosure Act site and search for Tom Daschle. His name is not listed. While some may use lobbyist in general terms, the word has an official meaning in federal statute. If you are not listed in the official disclosure rolls, you are not a lobbyist. His official title is Senior Policy Advisor. If Daschle ever registers as a lobbyist or someone can find a source where Daschle himself states he is a lobbyist, then feel free to add the term back.Dcmacnut (talk) 19:46, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks. --AW (talk) 15:39, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Bot report : Found duplicate references !

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

• "Alston" :
  • [http://www.alston.com/tom_daschle Alston & Bird LLP]
  • Alston

DumZiBoT (talk) 06:07, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Views on abortion

Got a RV. Try to re-edit this. We know that his conflict with Bishop Parsons is on public record. [1]

In 2001, he had a public disagreement with Roman Catholic bishop Robert Carlson over public funding for abortion ; the bishop publicly scolded him over his stance, which overtly supports partial-birth abortion and also extends to post-partum infanticide.

Reply and proposed compromise

Partisan or one-sided editorials are generally not considered reliable sources. While Biship Carlson's general views on the Daschle question are well known, Carlson himself has continually argued that his specific conversations with Daschle on the matter are private, so what we do know tends to come second hand from individuals close to the situation and published. The original addition did not accurately reflect the situation. The dispute wasn't over public financing over abortion, but rather over Daschle's views on the matter in general. Also, Daschle's views on abortion do not "extend to post-partum infanticide." Even if the sources given stand as reliable, none of the statments in the paragraph proposed appear anywhere in the editorials provided. I do not dispute that Daschle's views on this matter are part of his public record. My main concern is providing undue weight to the matter. The dispute with Bishop Carlson is just one aspect of the debate, and Daschle's views are included in the 2004 election section. If we are to leave this particular heading in, it should be expanded to provide an neutral point of view.

How about this for a proposed edit. I think this provides a balanced view on the issue, and if there are no objections I will add it to the article.

In 2003, Roman Catholic bishop Robert Carlson wrote Senator Daschle regarding the senator's views on abortion, in light of proposed legislation Congress was considering that would ban the late-term prodcure known as partial-birth abortion. Carlson reportedly told Senator Daschle that his stance on such issues were in conflict with Roman Catholic teaching, and he told Daschle that he should no longer identify himself as a Catholic. Neither Carlson nor Daschle would confirm the existence of such a letter, citing any conversations as a private matter. Daschle had previously described Bishop Carlson as being "more identified with the radical right than with thoughtful religious leadership." A mixed voting record on pro-choice issues led the organization NARAL to give Daschle a 50 percent vote rating. In 1999 and 2003, Daschle voted in favor of the ban on partial-birth abortion, and supported legislation making it a crime to harm an unborn child when someone attacks a pregnant woman. Investigators into the 2001 Anthrax attacks, which included Senator Daschle's Capitol Hill office, suspect that alleged anthrax mailer Bruce Ivins may have chosen to target Daschle over his views on abortion.

References

SHHS Designate

DO NOT add United States secretary of Health and Human services designate! Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, and it is only unverifiable speculation!Saberwolf116 (talk) 03:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Tom Daschle has already been nominated by President-elect Obama as Secretary of the Health and Human Services and this has been reported by the press. See link from Bloomberg:

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=akIkz9Ue.xTc&refer=home

"Former South Dakota Senator Tom Daschle has accepted Obama’s offer to become Health and Human Services secretary, though the selection hasn’t been formally announced."

So STOP reverting this change, they just haven't held the press conference yet but he has been offered the position and accepted. 192.234.99.1 (talk) 00:43, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

It does't matter if every news source in America confirms it, it's still speculation until he's announced.Saberwolf116 (talk) 14:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Disagree, Daschle has been announced by Obama as HHS secretary. Rbc224 (talk) 01:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I give up, go ahead and put it there.Saberwolf116 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Post-Senate career

I've edited the description of the law firm's health care lobbying clients to say health fraud lobbying clients. I expect some snake-oil supporter will revert this, but it's a matter of public record that all those firms have been caught out in the business of medical quackery and fraud.

Purely coincidentally of course, during his congressional career Daschle lent strong support to the quack industry.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

• I changed it back as regardless of your opinions of the industry, it is called the health care industry. It will be called that even if they have commited fraud. The would not change the name of the industry. If you wish to push the matter further I suggest that you first get your references in order and then go to a more relavant article to fight about the subject on. Spiesr (talk) 15:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

So I suppose it's also not relevant that a person who declares the intention "to strip the politics and ideology from the FDA" has a track record of supporting the quackery and medical fraud industry, which is no more part of the health care industry than identity theft is part of the banking industry or piracy part of the shipping industry.

The distinction between the two industries has nothing to do with my opinions. Activities in one industry can earn nobel prizes, in the other can earn big fines and jail sentences. That is due to objective differences, not opinions. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes difficult, to tell which is which. A great number of people are totally lacking in the knowledge and the research and analytical skills required to make the distinction. That is why there a laws and administrative bodies like the FDA to protect citizens from harm and exploitation. As Daschle has in the past acted to remove that protection from citizens and replace it with protection for quacks, it is reasonable to fear that the "politics and ideology" that troubles him is that same legislative and administrative protection that he has undermined in the past.

I'm not going to start a war over this. If he's given more power in the matter than previously, Daschle will either do better, or he'll do worse. Either way we'll soon have much more evidence of where he stands now, which is more important than what he did several years ago.--Alkhowarizmi (talk) 12:06, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead section

Wikipedia's WP:LS guidelines on the introduction or lead section of articles states:

The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies that may exist. The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources, and the notability of the article's subject should be established in the first sentence of the lead.

The lead should neither emphasize controversies nor contain excessive detail. As the article itself must be balanced and not give undue weight to any particular aspect of a person or that person's career, neither should the lead, which is to be no more than an overview. Kablammo (talk) 13:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawal as candidate for HHS Secretary

As with Governor Blagojevich, Wikipedia must report the truth and not become a spokesman for the subject of the article. This doesn't mean that WP tries to smear the person. BLP requires we be as accurate as possible and neither promote the person nor attack the person.

The previous version stated "On Tuesday, February 3, 2009, Daschle withdrew his name from nomination for the HHS Secretary position, saying that he did not wish to be a distraction to the Obama agenda"

This gives undue weight to the person's official explanation. It does not portray the real picture. The real picture is that he was forced out. However, no newspaper is going to say "Congressman xxx forced him out". But the British press reported "led to a swirling controversy that made his appointment politically untenable. Mr Daschle had apologised abjectly for the "completely inadvertent" oversight and Democrats had enough votes to confirm him but the political cost to Mr Obama eventually proved too much. "

This is a very neutral summary of what happened. So I've summarized that reference as follows: "On Tuesday, February 3, 2009, Daschle was forced out because, even though he had a sufficient number of Democratic votes for nomination, he became an untenable political liability for the President. He withdrew his name from nomination saying that he did not wish to be a distraction to the Obama agenda"

Farewell, Mr. Daschle. You will be successful in life and probably make tons of money over what you would have made as HHS Secretary. Chergles (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Daschle quote on tax cheats

I posted the following quote as the last para in the lead:

“ Make no mistake, tax cheaters cheat us all, and the IRS should enforce our laws to the letter. -- Sen. Tom Daschle, 1998 ”

Ref: Congressional Record, May 7, 1998, p. S4507.

Reverted by Kablammo , who wrote: "undue weight, out-of-context, and there is no evidence underpayment was deliberate"

This seems encyclopedic and in-context to me. Direct quote, impeccably sourced, certainly pertinent to his withdrawal. Other opinions? Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 00:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The quote was juxtaposed to the text on underpayment of taxes. The quote is relevant only if Daschle was in fact "cheating", which implies deliberate dishonesty. (Look at the common dictionary definitions of "cheat"). Tax fraud has not been established , and in fact there has not even been an assessment of civil penalties on the overdue taxes.

Our task here is not to repeat or respond to the talking points of the day or to join in "gotcha" journalism, but rather to write an encyclopedia article. What partisan advocates for either side emphasize today has little relevance to what will be viewed as a balanced and objective summary of his career in an encylopedia article which will stand up for years. There are plenty of websites available for partisan advocates; we should state only the facts, and be careful in their selection in order to avoid undue weight. It would be a BLP violation to claim that he cheated, and we should not imply it by the juxtaposition. Kablammo (talk) 02:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

The limo thing and the charitable deduction thing seem like honest mistakes. But not reporting the consulting income - that doesn't seem like something that could have been a mistake. Of course I do agree that we would need very reliable proof to make any such claim in the article. Perhaps Daschle is so rich that $80,000 is insignificant to him? Grundle2600 (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Catholicism

An edit by Dcmacnut on Feb 10 changed the infobox to list Daschle's religious affiliation as "Roman Catholic" rather than "Lapsed Roman Catholic" and removed the reference and footnote explaining the situation. The justification given for this edit was "Daschle still identifies as Roman Catholic. Discussion on Bishop's views is included in body of article." However, (1) Dcmacnut does not provide any evidence, and neither does the article, that Daschle continues (i.e., does so presently) to identify himself as Catholic, and (2) the "discussion on Bishop's views" is included in a subsection of the article about abortion and hence someone who came to the article looking for information about Daschle's religious beliefs could easily miss this controversy completely. I would be happy to concede that Daschle currently identifies as Catholic if someone can produce verification of it, but until then I am reverting Dcmacnut's edit and creating an opportunity for discussion here. Furthermore, regardless of Daschle's present self-identification, I believe that discussion of Daschle's conflict with his bishop, in as much as it relates to Daschle's religious affiliation, needs to be reflected somewhere in the article other than a subsection about Daschle's belief on abortion. Finally, I should note that it is not obvious to me that the infobox should privilege self-identification when it comes to religion rather than identification by religious leaders (for example, if Daschle had been excommunicated but refused to recognize his excommunication it would be at best disingenuous to have his infobox say simply "Roman Catholic" with no mention of the excommunication at all).Bojangles04 (talk) 16:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Lapsed Roman Catholic isn't an actual religion, and that term was added to the article for the first time on Feb 10 by an IP editor. I was merely restoring the form of the article to what it has been since it's creation. While I respect your desire for evidence that Daschle continues to identify as Catholic, I challenge you to find a source that says he has stopped identifying himself as such. Daschle is Roman Catholic based on the Congressional Directory biography from August 2004. That biography is dated after Bishop Carlson's statements in 2003, which is evidence that Daschle did not stop calling himself Catholic. Another source (not online) is the 2004 version of the Congressional Staff Directory, published annually by CQ Press. Just because a bishop said he should stop, doesn't mean he did or was required to do so. Moreover, several bishops have said that any politician who is pro-choice cannot call themselves catholic, yet we don't list John Kerry's religion as Lapsed Roman Catholic.

With respect to the religion issue being included in the abortion section, the whole issue of the bishop's comments is in the context of Daschle's views on abortion and pro-life/pro-choice issues, and is the appropriate place to discuss the controversy, not the infobox. I am going to restory my previous edit. If a source can be found which states that since 2004, Daschle has ceased being Roman Catholic, feel free to change it back.DCmacnut<> 17:33, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I have ten objections to your claims: 1) You say that "Lapsed Roman Catholic" isn't a religion. Perhaps. But for that matter, "Roman Catholic" isn't a religion either, it's a description of the liturgical rite that the vast majority of the Catholic Church follows. [2] 2) The fact that an article has said something for a long time does not indicate that it is now or ever has been correct: Wikipedia cannot be the source for its own claims, rather the claims that Wikipedia makes must be backed up by external sources. 3) You have not responded at all to, or apparently even considered, my suggestion that self-identification should not obviously be given preference in terms of religious affiliation. If Tom Daschle is mistaken about his being Catholic, then sharing with people that he thinks so without also explaining his illusionment violates the NPOV policy because it only explains the situation from a Daschle-centered world (and importantly with no consideration for the perspective of the Catholic faithful). 4) You suggest that the Congressional Directory from August 2004 (after the incident) demonstrates that Daschle was Catholic (or considered himself to be so) at the time. Given that his entry is word for word identical with his entry in the October 2002 (before the incident) directory up until the last few lines where he adds in his additional reelection [3] , I do not find credible the claim that anyone in Daschle's office (himself or one of his aides) had gone through the bio thoughtfully to consider whether there was anything in it that needed to be changed. (More incredible still would be the claim that Daschle had done this personally.) 5) You seem to misunderstand how Catholic hierarchy works when you say "Just because a bishop said he should stop, doesn't mean" he did or had to. Bishops have the power to loose and bind. If his bishop (and this is important, I'll get to why in my next point) told him he could no longer identify as Catholic this is indeed a meaningful event. 6) What "several bishops" say is not the same as what one's own bishop says. One's own bishop has spiritual authority over one like the way one's governor does, whereas other bishops have authority only in the way other governors do. So what "some" bishops may have said isn't particularly relevant in the way that what one's own bishop says is. 7) Given the persistent concern of the bishops that pro-choice politicians are scandalizing the faithful, I think we should consider relabeling politicians like John Kerry as something other than Catholic. (I'm not saying we should do it, but just that it should be considered.) 8) I do not object to the religion issue being included in the abortion section. What I object to is it not being included elsewhere in the article, i.e., in a context where it would be more obvious without reading the whole section that Daschle's religion was being discussed. 9) The "whole issue" of the bishop's comments extends beyond the abortion issue to the larger context of Daschle's relationship with the Catholic Church. Your argument for hiding this larger issue entirely within the smaller issue is to make a molehill out of a mountain. 10) Actually the burden is not on me to demonstrate that Daschle at some point after August 2004 stopped identifying as Catholic, but rather on you to demonstrate that at some point after his altercation with the bishop it became acceptable for him to identify as Catholic again. See my point 3 above: there is a larger issue here about whether it is Daschle's self-identification as Catholic or the Catholic community's rejection of that identification that is to be privileged. You have not even confronted this issue let alone answered it. And your supposed demonstration that Daschle was "still" (or "again") Catholic in 2004 (post-incident) is dependent on a source which is little more than a reprint of a 2002 (pre-incident) source. Bojangles04 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I hope you will read my comments thoughtfully and respond at least to the larger issue I have now pointed out several times of how to resolve a conflict between self-identification and other-identification. I am, in fact, happy to stipulate that Daschle has not at any point stopped identifying as Catholic (although I would be quite pleased to be disproven on this point); however, as a Catholic, I am also happy to say that in this Daschle has been wrong and that he should cease and desist with all due haste. There are as far as I can tell several solutions to our conflict here which would address my concerns: 1) reverting your edit and leaving it the way I had it last, 2) leaving the infobox as saying "Roman Catholic" but with some kind of footnote or other notation, 3) removing any mention of Daschle's religious views from the infobox. In combination with any of these options could also be the addition of a (sub)section to the article dedicated to discussing Daschle's religion or the reworking of the "Views on Abortion" section into a more generic "Controversy over Abortion and Catholicism" section. These are the various options which I think will address my substantive concerns. Obviously, the first option does not address yours, the third option would be a loss for Wikipedia readers, and the addition of a new section or reworking of the abortion section would be more cumbersome than useful. I suggest then proceeding with the second option, which I will execute in a few minutes. You have said that the infobox is not the place to hash out the controversy, presumably because you believe the infobox should deal with simple facts and not complex issues. But it turns out that in this case, Daschle's religion just isn't a simple fact, it is a complex issue. The infobox should reflect that (or skip the issue entirely) to avoid misleading our readers. Bojangles04 (talk) 03:50, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into an edit war with you. As always, I assume good faith. However, a friendly word of caution. Your comments above could be interpreted that your edits have the intention of placing your own personal views on your edits. Your statment that "Daschle is wrong and he should cease and desist," indicates your belief, and when it comes to policies over biographies of living persons we need to hold to the facts as we know them to pursue a non-POV article.

With respect to using how a living person self identifies with race, religion, etc, that has long been a consensus on Wikipedia of how we describe their affiliations. See Talk:Barack Obama for the myriad bi-racial/African-American discussions. As I said previously, several bishops have long said that any pro-choice Catholic should be denied communion, cannot call themselves Catholic, etc, yet thousands if not millions of pro-Choice catholics continue to attend mass and take holy communion. I understand the bishop relationship, but the fact of the matter remains is that Bishop Carlson's communications to Daschle were private and we do not know entirely exactly what was actually said in Carlson's letter to Daschle. For all I know, he actually did tell Daschle to stop being Catholic. However, without seeing that letter, all we have are media reports that state what their sources tell them. The one source provided by the Weekly Standard is a biased editorial, and if you ask me doesn't qualify as a reliable source. Mr. Bottum as an axe to grind and opposes Daschle's political views, and that colors his article. However, I'm not arguing to strip that reference, as long as it is used to provide a non-POV discussion to the debate.

Having said all this, I will accept your compromise note attached to the infobox. I think still think it places the Carlson debate out of context, but I have no problem with the note as written.DCmacnut<> 16:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

9/11-Investigation

I have found this article by CNN on Daschle saying, that he was asked by Bush to limit the investigation on 9/11, because it would devert to much resources. http://archives.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/01/29/inv.terror.probe/ Should we not mention this at some point? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.206.200.47 (talk) 23:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Objective

In case it's not obvious, I meant to say "subjective" here. – Hysteria18 ^{(Talk • Contributions)} 22:19, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Tom Daschle. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080305213055/http://www-personal.umich.edu/~steeles/gerrus/ to http://www-personal.umich.edu/~steeles/gerrus/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/2011/02/who-were-boeings-lobbyists
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111110154336/http://blumcenter.berkeley.edu/blum-center-developing-economies/blum-center-trustees to http://blumcenter.berkeley.edu/blum-center-developing-economies/blum-center-trustees
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718105724/http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/bumps-in-the-ro.html to http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/bumps-in-the-ro.html

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

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

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:55, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Electoral History

Wikipedia has some politicians with their Electoral History, and other politicians they do not. It may be a good idea to include this to Tom Daschle on Wikipedia if the information is available.Easeltine (talk) 13:57, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean Electoral History, as we seem to mention the elections he had stood in.Slatersteven (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)