Jump to content

Talk:Max Cleland

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

Education

[edit]

Did Cleland pursue his bachelor's degree and participate in ROTC before his Vietnam service, or did he attend afterward on the GI Bill? Was the master's completed before or after his military service? He seems to enjoy writing --- did he once consider a different career? Does he discuss this in any of his books? The answers should be in this article. --Jpbrenna 07:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of George W. Bush

[edit]

It is disingenuous to refer to Cleland, though he may rightly have been described as a political opponent of G.W. Bush, as a "critic of G.W. Bush" (as the category added to the bottom of the page would have it). If we're to refer to Cleland as some sort of notable Bush critic, we'd have to do that to half the people in the world. More accurately, Cleland was a critic of the Swift Boaters, who in their turn were critics of John Kerry. The 'Swift Boat' group had no official ties to Bush; their critics are not to be automatically granted some sort of special status as "Bush Critics".

Perhaps half the people in the world are Bush critics, perhaps not. I suspect there are a few, even in the United States, who cannot even name him as the sitting president, let alone articulate a rational criticism of his policies. Still, even if it were true that fifty percent of the world's population are Bush critics, most of them would not be as notable. Cleland is a prominent politician who has made numerous statements critical of Bush's policy conduct, usually relating to military matters and veterans' affairs; these have been reported in major news outlets, unlike the coffeehouse rants of some of my (often irrational and excessive) Bush-bashing friends. The Swiftboaters were not the only bone of contention, the critiques have made the papers and the congressional record, and thus I think the categorization is accurate (although I didn't add it). --Jpbrenna 20:51, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2002 Re-election campaign

[edit]

The statement in the article "He was defeated while running for a second term in 2002 by Representative Saxby Chambliss. Voters were perhaps influenced by Chambliss ads which featured Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, ads that Cleland's supporters claim questioned his patriotism.[2]" is misleading. Nothing in the ad questions the patriotism of Cleland. Those ads were referring specifically to Max Cleland's outspoken opposition to the homeland security bill; Max refused to vote in favor of that bill unless the employee's of Homeland Security were unionized. That is a factual statement. I know Max would like everyone to believe that he is a victim of a smear campaign but that simply isn't the case. --User:kbastin 10 November, 2006 —– Three issues:First- His academic credentials appear at the end of the article. They should appear near the beginning. It would be interesting to know if he attended college on the GI bill. Second-He cannot be THE Bush critic. If anyone is going to be designated The Bush Critic, it should be me. Seriously, he is clearly one prominent critic. As other people noted, Bush critics are legion. Third-Of course, the ads questioned his patriotism. Why would the GOP run them? Also, the supporters claimed......does not state that everyone agrees with the statement.—

The source [4] for the grenades and beer story doesn't exist Slevdi 09:36, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would be interested in the following:

  • The lead refers to Cleland serving from 03 to 07 on the board of the ExIm Bank, "a presidentially appointed position." However, he was a critic of Bush and even traveled to his ranch to deliver a swift boat ad complaint, so it seems a little odd Bush would have appointed him, a Democrat (maybe a consolation prize for having stolen the election?) Would like to know more about this in the Post-Senate Career section (no mention there).
  • The pronunciation of his name, which I was never sure of until I just looked it up on Say How?: KLEE-land.

24.62.237.199 (talk) 01:56, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe there should be more mention of his role on the 9/11 commission - especially as he gave some very relevant interviews afterwards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AsianDream (talk • contribs) 08:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saxby Chambliss Ad

[edit]

How about we describe the actual ad, not what you claim supporters "claim" about the ad? It's not like we don't have access to the video of the ad itself, it is right there in the article! Giles22 (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the public reaction is worthy of inclusion, should direct quotes be available with reputable citations. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that strikes me about the U.S. Senate section is that in the 5 total sentences, 3 of them are devoted to describing an political ad run by Saxby Chambliss. This guy served as a US Senator for 4 years, and this is what the article concentrates on? Very odd. Giles22 (talk) 19:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Six years, and, yes, the section needs expansion. I'll tag it as such. Qqqqqq (talk) 19:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, 6 years. My bad -- a careless slip of the tongue. Thanks!Giles22 (talk) 20:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The actual ad is described, then followed up by a quick comment that Cleland's supporters thought the ad accused him of being unpatriotic. I suppose I should ask why John McCain's and Chuck Hagel's opinions on the ad are applicable, yet those of Cleland's own supporters are not? I am not a Democrat, I am not a liberal, I am not even an independent, yet even I'm not offended by an online encyclopedia merely attributing opinions to others (in this case, Cleland's supporters, and many of them did say the ad implied Cleland was unpatriotic -- I'm sure there are sources we could cite if you don't believe me [1][2][3]), and understand that such partisan defensiveness of Saxby Chambliss will ruin the overall quality of the page. The accusations that the ad implied lack of patriotism were part of the widespread national controversy on the ad and why it was so noteworthy. You can cite others' opinions without making judgment calls, you know.
That said, I agree the section is thin and warrants expansion. SchutteGod (talk) 19:48, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Look, your political stances are absolutely irrelevant here. Let's work on NPOV solution here. But I do appreciate you engaging in the dialogue.Giles22 (talk) 20:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the claim that the ad "questioned the Senator's patriotism" belongs in this entry, which I would argue strongly that it does not, then we must flesh out the concept that nothing even remotely like this occurred in the ad. Otherwise we will have the same stale and false claim repeated, just as it was tens of thousands of time throughout the past few election cycles. For a long time the ad was not available online, and what a lot of people knew about it was from second-hand claims such as the bogus patriotism bit. Wikipedia shouldn't endorse the spreading of mis-truths or even half-truths, unless the whole story is told. Giles22 (talk) 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether or not you agree with the accusation is immaterial (frankly, I don't agree with it either); the fact of the matter is, it was made. I see no reason to censor facts (in this case, that a powerful accusation was made that was hotly debated nationally) just because you don't want people believing that the ad was a smear. It's debatable whether the ad actually was a smear, but allowing only one side of the story to be told weakens the article. SchutteGod (talk) 21:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not put words in my mouth. I never claimed that the ad was or was not a smear. Frankly, that is besides the point. The ONLY THING that we are discussing here was whether the ad somehow calls into question the former Senator's patriotism. I really don't see any possible debate there. And no, wikipedia articles should not be a place where we cite to everyone's opinions about every conceivable topic. Would you support putting in George Bush's profile that everyone thinks he is dumber than a bag of rocks? I'm sure you could cite to plenty of sources that verify that many people actually do believe that. Does that belong in an encyclopedia? I think not. The article already prominently covered this particular ad and the place it had in the 2002 election. Giles22 (talk) 22:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, this is my last comment on this, then I'm giving up. At issue is NOT whether the ad questioned Cleland's patriotism; it's whether the accusation that it did merits inclusion in this article. I think it does, NOT because I think any opinion anyone has on anything should be in the wiki, but because the ad's supposed smear on Cleland's patriotism was the subject of a major national controversy. That's all she wrote, and on this question, that's all I'm writing. SchutteGod (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. If the response to an action or the controversy that action generated generated was itself a subject of controversy, it surely warrants inclusion. Qqqqqq (talk) 22:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The response "itself a subject of controversy"? Not sure if that makes a lot of sense. But I'm open to having a request for comment in the wikipedia community to make sure that this is handled appropriately. Giles22 (talk) 13:39, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good idea. Qqqqqq (talk) 17:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If Ann Coulter is to be believed, in her article Teaching Democrats New Tricks, the left's claim that Sen. Saxby Chambliss ran an ad challenging Max Cleland's patriotism in the 2002 Senate campaign is 'Another Stalinesque classic … the ad … does not challenge Cleland's patriotism. [It] begins by noting that America is facing "terrorists and extremist dictators" -- briefly showing pictures of them -- and goes on to say that although Cleland said he "supports Bush at every opportunity," in fact he had voted against "the president's vital Homeland security efforts 11 times." …as I noted in "How to Talk to a Liberal (If You Must)," Cleland voted against the establishment of a Homeland Security Department ... because it didn't allow for unionization of the work force:
OH MY GOD! THERE'S A PLANE HEADED FOR THE WHITE HOUSE!
Sorry, I'm on my break. Please call back in two hours.
It was a completely legitimate campaign ad -- urgent in fact -- having nothing to do with Cleland's patriotism, but rather addressing his voting record (and, I would add, his sanity).' Asteriks (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Each of those points is opinion—Counter's and yours. This is not a forum for political discussion. Qqqqqq (talk) 20:52, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ann Coulter is very much not to be believed. The fact that anyone can think of using her as an objective opinion regarding a Democrat is beyond laughable. The fact that someone thinks quoting her will change anyone's mind is downright hysterical. 4Tildes 208.125.143.178 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defeat for Reelection Section

[edit]

Here is how the section currently reads:

Defeat for re-election In 2002, Cleland lost his bid for a second Senate term to Representative Saxby Chambliss. Supporters blamed a Chambliss TV ad featuring the likenesses of Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, while criticizing Cleland's votes against homeland security measures.[8] The ad, which Cleland supporters claimed questioned the senator's patriotism[9], was removed after protests from prominent politicians including Republicans like John McCain and Chuck Hagel.[10] Chambliess supporters claimed that the ad had created a "popular liberal mythology," and while the ad was admittedly sleazy in its use of images of bin Laden and Hussein, it didn't question Cleland's patriotism, but rather his judgment.[11]

Any suggestions on how to improve this section? Let's hash it all out here and agree on some language before we get into another edit war. On a side note, the article seems to imply that this ad is SOLELY responsible for Cleland's defeat, which I have some serious doubts about. Let's continue this discussion. Giles22 (talk) 13:42, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Popular liberal mythology" wasn't heard during the 2002 election. It's something some commentator said about the ad years later, in 2004. "Questioning patriotism" was actually something a lot of liberal commentators and politicians were saying during the election. I appreciate the effort to balance the article and include Chambliss supporters' perspective on the ad, but let's limit reporting on the controversy to words that actually were part of the controversy in '02. SchutteGod (talk) 14:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was "heard during the 2002" election should not be relevant here. Giles22 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should. The section deals with the 2002 election, and voters' and politicos' reaction to events at that time, and equating one commentator's view years afterward with something that was widely repeated and used to undercut the Chambliss ad in 2002 does not balance the article's analysis of an election that is now nearly six years old. The commentator you cite claimed the patriotism smear had become part of a "popular liberal mythology" by 2004, while the smear claim itself was actually part of the election coverage at the time. SchutteGod (talk) 18:47, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

9/11 Commission section

[edit]

DCMacNut: I'd appreciate feedback on your deletion of my See also reference. Did you think it irrelevant, do you think the source does not deserve respect, or do you simply disagree with its point of view? 74.8.218.65 (talk) 14:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)LINKBook[reply]

I don't necessarily disagree with the inclusion of the topic or the link in question. My main concern was the placement of the link. It seemed out of place under "see also," and I didn't quite no where else to put it. Also, www.911truth.org is not a neutral observer of the issue at hand, so probably is not the best reliable source to use. Giving that link it's own prominence also risked giving undue weight to that particular site's point of view. I'm no expert on external links or this issue in particular, and tend to be fairly lenient editor in what people use to cite as sources. I would have no problem using that link as a direct citation to the to the section in question, instead of a stand-alone "see also" link.DCmacnut<> 16:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Max Cleland. 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:

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: 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. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Max Cleland. 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:

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) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Cleland. 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:

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) 02:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Max Cleland. 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:

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) 18:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Max_Cleland&oldid=1258809129"