Talk:Max Cleland

message: 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)
thread_title: Education

message: 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)
thread_title: Criticism of George W. Bush

message: 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)
thread_title: 2002 Re-election campaign

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: Whether it was "heard during the 2002" election should not be relevant here. Giles22 (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Defeat for Reelection Section

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: 9/11 Commission section

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Max Cleland. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080917025804/http://www.first-team.us:80/journals/12thrgmt/12_ndx05.html to http://www.first-team.us/journals/12thrgmt/12_ndx05.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:39, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081207145724/http://slate.msn.com/id/2098171/ to http://slate.msn.com/id/2098171/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091003174017/http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=291 to http://anncoulter.com/cgi-local/article.cgi?article=291
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319104000/http://www.oglethorpe.edu/about_us/history/honorary_degrees.asp to http://www.oglethorpe.edu/about_us/history/honorary_degrees.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080730201058/http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html to http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090824154811/http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-More-Key-Administration-Posts-5-21-09/ to http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/President-Obama-Announces-More-Key-Administration-Posts-5-21-09/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:57, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141019082902/http://josephsoninstitute.org/public/resources/poc_cleland_strong-broken-places.html to http://josephsoninstitute.org/public/resources/poc_cleland_strong-broken-places.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (January 2018)