Jump to content

Talk:Mike Pence

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 104.129.196.174 (talk) at 16:49, 18 May 2017 (→Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Friendly search suggestions

BIAS

In reading this I found several instances of liberal bias. For example on the onset of the section about abortion, why isn't the first sentence "The Vice President is Pro-Life"? --75.130.91.73 (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pence's father was a veteran of the Korean War, so somebody should add that. I'm a political moderate, not a liberal Democrat, so I never edit Wikipedia. Editing is reserved exclusively for liberal Democrats. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.44.233.118 (talk) 12:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This info on Pence's father is now added, with a reliable source, to the article's "Early life and career" section. —ADavidB 14:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why is his FATHER'S service germane? I think it's included to confuse epoeple into thinking he served in the military, which he did not. What he did during the VIETNAM war would be would be appropriate, not claiming credit for someone elses service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.148.143.123 (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Star Tribune/Associated Press source from which the info is taken includes his FATHER's service among Pence's ties to Asia. I've added additional info from the source about Pence displaying his FATHER's medal, letter, and photograph in his office. I don't see any credit claim for someone else's service. Born in 1959, Pence was too young to have served in the VIETNAM war. —ADavidB 00:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tie-breaking vote

A recent change to the article indicated that Pence was the second vice-president to break a tie on a confirmation vote, and that Harry S. Truman was the first broke a tie to confirm Henry Wallace as Secretary of Commerce in 1945.

Notwithstanding the Miller Center of Public Affairs website's statement, this doesn't appear to be correct:

  • A biography of Wallace, John C. Culver & John Hyde, American Dreamer: The Life and Times of Henry A. Wallace (W. W. Norton & Company, 2000), p. 384, doesn't say anything at all about a tie-breaking vote: it says that Wallace was confirmed by a 56-32 vote (see here).
  • The 56-32 confirmation vote for Wallace as Secretary of Commerce is also cited in Leonard Dinnerstein, "The Senate's Rejection of Aubrey Williams as Rural Electrification Administration" in From Civil War to Civil Rights, Alabama 1860–1960: An Anthology from The Alabama Review (ed. Sarah Woolfolk Wiggins: University of Alabama Press, 1987), p. 439 (see here (citing Congressional Record).
  • Moreover, the Senate Historical Office indicates that there were only seven times before 2017 that a Vice President has cast a tie-breaking vote related to a confirmation vote, and only a few additional "vice presidential tie-breakers on non-confirmation votes related to nominees (motions on postponements or motions to proceed, for example)" — but never for a Cabinet nominee. See here for a summary table, and here for the complete list from the Senate Historical Office. The complete list indicates only one ocassion on which Truman broke a tie, April 10, 1945. That was after Wallace had already been sworn in as Secretary of Commerce (March 2, 1945).
  • Truman biographies state that: "On only one occasion did [Truman] break a tie, and this was when his negative vote defeated a Taft amendment to the Lend-Lease Act which would have prevented postwar delivery of lend-lease goods contracted for during the war." See Harold Foote Gosnell, Truman's Crises: A Political Biography of Harry S. Truman (Greenwood Press, 1980), p. 212. Same thing elsewhere: "In his eighty-two days as vice president, he had the opportunity to vote only once--on an amendment to limit the Lend-Lease extension bill. The vote was tied, and Truman voted no, which, in a sense, was unnecessary since the bill would have died even without his vote." Robert C. Byrd, Senate, 1789-1989, Vol. 1: Addresses on the History of the United States Senate (Government Printing Office, 1988), p. 534 (see here).

I've removed the change and added a cite. --Neutralitytalk 23:46, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect the cause of the confusion is: In the run-up to the confirmation, some Senate Democrats (who opposed the nomination) raised a motion to bring the matter to a speedy vote, thinking that he would then lose. However, this motion (to bring Wallace's nomination to the floor) got a tie vote, 42-42, and failed--and apparently Truman didn't vote on that motion. When the nomination did finally come to the floor, he won, 56-31. (See: Henry A. Wallace#Appointment and confirmation) — Narsil (talk) 02:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who added that content to the Wallace article. ;-) I suspect that you're right, and that was the cause of the confusion. Neutralitytalk 03:17, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If Truman did not vote on the motion how could that be a cause of confusion? I under that 42-42 is a tie, but if it is not broken then how did this spread? Furthermore you mention the results as "56-32", "56-41", and, "56-31". I presume that these are just typos as I can't seem to find this in the source material, but if their is disagreement amongst the sources I question their reliability.
  • In the biography I can only see it saying that he was confirmed, but not any results, 56-32 or otherwise.
  • In the civil rights book it says 56-32, citing the Congressional record. I have not been able to access the Congressional record.
  • The Senate Historical Office does have the disclaimer This list is a compilation from a number of sources (see list at end) and may not include every occasion on which a vice president has voted to break a tie. as a footnote. This could suggest that it is not complete. Furthermore it clarifies Senate votes decided by one vote or less. This could mean the vote was filibustered and the President of the Senate (i.e. Vice President Truman) could have gone nuclear and overruled it. This would effectively be a tie-breaker even if it was not 50-50. I do however recognise that this is extremely unlikely, but after discussing with some people they believe it is technically possible.
  • Robert C. Byrd writes Truman voted no, which, in a sense, was unnecessary since the bill would have died even without his vote. This could be loosely interpreted as not a deciding vote then, and therefore his actual tie break could have been in confirming Wallace.
@Arglebargle79: wrote on Talk:Cabinet of Donald Trump#Anatomy of a Micro-scandal...was history faked? that almost all the sources I have read state the Harry Truman broke a tie to confirm Henry Wallace as Secretary of Commerce in 1945. This suggests that other sources as well as Miller Center article, which was by a "Distinguished Professor of History at Ohio University" could possibly support the view. If they would be kind enough to mention such sources I would be grateful. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:16, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry, those were typos. The first two sources both agree on 56-32. Neutralitytalk 09:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Update On page 288 of Man of the People: A Life of Harry S. Truman a book published by the Oxford University Press it says He had to cast two tie-breaking votes. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:42, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. Does the book identify what the second one was, other than the Lend-Lease extension? I assume if it was for a Cabinet appointee that would be a very big deal reflected in the historical record. Neutralitytalk 09:16, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have access to the book physically but I was looking at it via Google Books. I do however accept that if it was for a Cabinet appointee that it probably would have been a big deal. I will do so more investigating. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 11:02, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New official portrait

File:Mike Pence new official portrait.jpg

Should we use this one once a HQ version comes out? MB298 (talk) 01:18, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the original portrait was better in quality. --- CHAMPION (talk) (contributions) (logs) 00:38, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree and think it should be reinstated until the large version of this one emerges. MB298 (talk) 00:43, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree. This one isn't really bringing anything new to the table. It's just cropped to be a headshot (as far as I can tell, all other VP articles use full portraits) and is of poorer quality. As far as I can tell there's no benefit to that one, so I reinserted the old one based on this discussion. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral history of Mike Pence

Time for a new article? MB298 (talk) 04:32, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, or maybe a {{Hidden}} template could be used to hide that section (or its two subsections) by default. —ADavidB 07:07, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either solution sound like it would work. You would have to imagine this article will only continue to grow, so it might be best for a new article. Classicwiki (talk) 03:04, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and applied the {{Hidden}} template to each of the two subsections. If someone else wants to move the election results to a separate article, you have my support. —ADavidB 01:28, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Asia trip notability

There have been daily updates in the article regarding Pence's trip to Asia. It seems to me that this is more news reporting than encyclopedic in nature. Trips like this are typical for office holders at this level, so I question whether notability has been established. Indyguy (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think the trip should be summarized more, such as:
Pence began a tour of Asia on April 16, 2017 with a visit to acting President Hwang Kyo-ahn in South Korea, where he acknowledged that day's missile test by North Korea as a "provocation".[sources] Stopping at Camp Bonifas and the Korean Demilitarized Zone the next day, he encouraged China to pressue North Korea to abandon its weapons and declared "the era of strategic patience is over".[sources] On April 18, Pence met with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe in Japan, where he repeated his comments regarding an end of strategic patience and a determination to work with area nations for "a peaceable resolution and the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula".[source] While aboard the USS Ronald Reagan at Yokosuka Naval Base on April 19, Pence again reiterated the goal of peace in the region while noting, "the shield stands guard and the sword stands ready".[source]
—ADavidB 12:46, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pence's falsehoods about the dismissal of Comey

"Pence said seven times on Capitol Hill Wednesday that Trump acted only after receiving the recommendation to fire Comey from Rosenstein". This was as we know proven to be a falsehood, as Trump himself later stated the exact opposite.[1] I think we should include something about Pence's proven falsehood somewhere in the article. --Tataral (talk) 17:42, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 May 2017

The first paragraph, last sentence "Pence will be elected president in the future" needs to go. 104.129.196.174 (talk) 16:49, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mike_Pence&oldid=781024722"