Talk:2006 Texas's 22nd congressional district elections

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Texas Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Texas portal This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

DeLay's ethical issues[edit]

Before repeating the turmoil created by including all of DeLay's ethical issues in the TX-22 CD article, what is everyone's thought on including them here? I don't think they should get their own section, but we have a number of reliable sources that list not only the indictment, but the guilty pleas of DeLay staffers and concerns about how that affected DeLay's re-electability as reasons for Delay dropping out. We also have several reliable sources stating that Lampson entered the race because of DeLay's ethical lapses and perceived weakness. All in all, perhaps a section on the Primary detailing the campaigning that happened there and then another section detailing the General election race. Included in the General election section would be a subsection detailing DeLay's withdrawal and the gyrations to get him off/keep him on the ballot. A whole section is a bit much when DeLay's own article should be the place where all his ethical issues are detailed. --Bobblehead 21:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think DeLay's resignation and the subsequent scamble to get a replacement on the ballot is an integral part of the election. Consider: it is the reason the GOP has to field a write-in candidate, and most likely is the reason that Gov Perry called a special election on the same day as the open primary (it was the only way to get the name of Sekula-Gibbs actually on a ballot). I do think, however, a better subtitle than "Tom DeLay's ethical problems" is needed, however. As for your comment that whole section is a bit much when DeLay's own article should be the place where all his ethical issues are detailed, if you look at it, DeLay's ethical problems consistute only al couple of sentences in the article. The real story (which is currently reflected) is the GOP's efforts to get someone else's name on the ballot, which invovled law suits, appeals up to the Supreme Court, etc. -- Sholom 12:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why 4 republicans?[edit]

I was totally confused by this: In the special election there will be five main candidates. There will be four Republicans on ... It's probably well known why the democrats aren't candidates, but I don't know. 02:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

There are 4 republicans and 0 Democrats because the special election will not have a primary and everyone that registered to be part of the special election was put on the ballot. 4 Republicans and 0 Democrats registered. Basically, the Dems didn't want to confuse voters by having Lampson on the ballot twice, while the Republicans wanted to have their names on the ballots as a reminder for voters for the write-in of the general election. --Bobblehead 05:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reordered the section and done a bit of rewording. I hope it's clearer now. John Broughton | Talk 14:15, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Resignation and farewell speech[edit]

Replaced dead link from the San Jose Mercury News which was for an article originally in the Chicago Tribune. The Tribune article was behind the High Beam paywall. The Washington Post covered the DeLay farewell speech the following day and it was clear that the predominant theme of the speech was a vigorous defense of virulent partisanship, not about foster care, and it was delivered in the virtual absence of Democrats. Activist (talk) 01:30, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Texas's 22nd congressional district elections, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080517003803/http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/house/ to http://nationaljournal.com/racerankings/house/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]