Talk:Saxby Chambliss

Conservative Censorship

Seems that some people just can't bear to have the truth written plainly. That is a kind of cowardice. How ironic given the topic! 7 Jan. 05

Anti-Chambliss bias

This article is cleary anti- its subject, it repeats numerous charges from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution editorial pages. Ellsworth 22:22, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hit piece, hit piece, hit piece, hit piece, hit piece, hit piece, HIT PIECE!!! Typlical biased article on a Republican politician on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.134.217 (talk) 23:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

You could point out specific parts of the article that you feel are in some way biased against the subject rather than vaguely claiming a vast conspiracy against Republican politicians. Qqqqqq (talk) 23:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The section, "Early life, education, and family," which begins the body of this article, devotes one of it four paragraphs to detailing the deferments that Chambliss received during the Vietnam War. This is not biography; this is a mugging. Later, the same matter is emphasized in the discussion of his controversial 2002 Senate campaign.

One substantial section is adequate for the discussion of Chambliss' non-participation in the Vietnam War. It does not belong in the early life biography section. Nor does it need to be discussed twice in a relatively short article. This is so obvious that I feel no need to invite differing opinions and am deleting the offending paragraph in section 1. Anybody who wants it in can put it back and explain their justification for trying to use the article as a piece of political propaganda.

Ed-Claude (talk) 23:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

The final paragraph in the Early life/education/family section that discusses his lobbyist son is also objectionable. If that is a substantial controversy, it needs to be treated toward the bottom of the article in a section concerning controversies or criticisms. As I found the article, two of the four paragraphs in the early life/education/family section looked like they were written by a prosecutor. A complete disgrace, objectivity-wise. I've left this paragraph for now as there is so much wrong with this article. But it needs attention.

Ed-Claude (talk) 00:06, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Bo Chambliss

This does not appear to be encyclopedic in nature. Its sole purpose appears to be to suggest a conflict of interest, when the article states that a policy exists to prevent conflicts of interest. OKSooners (talk) 02:02, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the wording could be tweaked, particularly the part about "falls directly under...", and in general this section could be phrased in a more neutral manner, but I don't think I agree that these facts should be completely removed from the article. Qqqqqq (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Recreational Runner

I am sorry, but this is comment is the most blatant biased comment I have EVER seen on this great site... isn't it just so convenient to put that "recreational runner" comment right after a comment about having bad knees.

Any source that backs that up is probably not impartial. Maybe Mr. Chambliss had knee surgery sometime between now and the Vietnam era? There are a whole lot of maybes that could have happened. Chances are the person who put that in the article has sour grapes over Mr. Chambliss's 2002 election vs. Max Cleland.

Also, the comment about Mr. Chambliss lauding free markets while taking government money is probably not credible also...

He is a recreational runner. He did receive a draft deferment for his bad knees. These are FACTS, not points of view.69.180.49.229 00:58, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

At least he still has knees. Unlike Max Cleland. AuntFlo (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Anti-Chambliss Links

I would also argue that the bottom two links posted on the Chambliss site are by non-credible sources who don't have an unbiased opinion on Mr. Chambliss...

Opensecrets.org just uses Federal Election Commission documents as its source-it's unbiased. As for the article, there's no problem with such links, as long as they're accurately labeled, as this one currently is. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 01:28, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, sir.

Zepp007

I don't think the content of links has to be NPOV. I'd be cool if someone posted to a lauditory article from somewhere like National Review. Gamaliel 05:13, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)

NPOV Tag

I felt it was neccesary to put the NPOV tag on this article because of the blatent bias of the author (or subsequent editors) against Sen. Chambliss. While people have the right to disagree with Sen. Chambliss, insulting him and violating the Neutral Point of View Policy of Wikipedia will not make people join their cause. --nkrosse 20:56, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Please identify specific problems within the article so we can address them. Gamaliel 22:49, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My removal, possibly related to the tag above

I've removed

However, today he is a recreational runner.

While lauding free markets rhetorically, Chambliss depends on campaign contributions from industries whose profitability requires government spending and regulation to limit market competition: agri-business, defense and insurance.

Chambliss' recent message to constituents about the first second term state of the union message from George W. Bush pointedly avoided reference to the War in Iraq.

This stuff is extremely POV, to say the least. Perhaps the tag could be removed now? If this material goes back in, it should be heavily reworked for neutrality. Meelar (talk) 23:07, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for removing the biased portions of the article, Meelar. I have removed the NPOV tag.--nkrosse 23:36, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

Npov? and quotes

"During a November 19, 2001 meeting with emergency responders in Valdosta, Georgia, Chambliss remarked that they should "turn the sheriff loose and arrest every Muslim that crosses the state line". Chambliss was criticized for the remarks after they were reported by the Valdosta Daily Times. Chambliss denied reports that he and the sheriff attempted to coerce the paper's reporter to prevent reporting of the remarks. Chambliss apologized and claimed his remarks were taken "out of context"." I have two problems with this section it seems to violate the npov since it is just stuck in the artical with out other sections about his other positions and statements that were not controversial. The other thing is should quotes not be placed in wikiquote?

Quotes don't necessarily belong in Wikiquote, if they're used in an encyclopedic context, as this one was. However, google doesn't seem to indicate it made a major splash--certainly not enough to get a whole paragraph equivalent in length to his election to the Senate. I've removed the Valdosta paragraph--if some kind of larger context or significance for the material were given, I might reconsider. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 22:54, September 1, 2005

(UTC)

Thanks that was quick --Soliscjw 23:09, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

It's stuck in the middle because I placed it where it fit chronologically. This was a reported news item, it is sourced (Valdosta daily times), I don't see the problem here. Gamaliel 00:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

It just didn't seem that notable in the context of Chambliss' career. Small number of google hits, only 4 hits for +Chambliss +Valdosta in Google News. Why spend so much time on it in the article, it seems to me--it doesn't appear to be an especially significant incident. I've left the paragraph in, but I am adding an NPOV dispute header until we can reach some sort of consensus. Cheers, Meelar (talk) 00:37, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

The incident happened in 2001, which predates Google News itself, nevermind that GN only searches the last 30 days of news. Gamaliel 01:16, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Forgive me, it was quite late. I'll do a Lexis search. Bear in mind that the low general google count still stands. Compare 'Chambliss Cleland' (~26,000) to 'Chambliss Valdosta' (~870). Yet right now they receive the same prominence in the article. Best, Meelar (talk) 07:08, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE:A Lexis-Nexis search of Georgia news sources gets me 6 articles containing "Chambliss AND (Valdosta OR Muslim)" from November 2001 to January 2002. This still isn't looking prominent to me. Meelar (talk) 07:11, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Seeing no objections, I'll remove the phrasing from the article. Feel free to note here if you disagree--I'm still watching the page. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 00:02, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Given the concerns about the size of the section, I've whittled it down as much as I thought I could. Gamaliel 02:52, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but cutting out his response to the allegations makes it even less neutral. I just don't think they belong in the article. Meelar (talk) 16:03, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

That wasn't my intent. The apology + "out of context" claim is pretty much a standard response when this sort of thing happens, I didn't see any harm in cutting it. Gamaliel 17:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. I'm still not quite satisfied; I'll do some reading and try to think of a better way to incorporate this, but until then, it can stay as-is. Good luck with editing. Sorry for the light posting lately, school just started in earnest, as well as my job; weekends are my friend. Anyway, best wishes, Meelar (talk) 06:55, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

POV pushing in this article

This article is an absolute disgrace. While I agree that some of the negative aspects of Mr. Chambliss's campaign and career may indeed belong, the entire article is in need of serious revision and an objective viewpoint. Can we work out a consensus on how this is to be done? I edited "questioned his patriotism" (not true, I have seen the add MANY times and have spoken with two of the people who created it). It is much more accurate to say "questioned his commitment to homeland security." Giles22

For example, the following paragraph has been added:

On October 26, 2005, he defended the defeat of a proposal to the fiscal year 2006 Labor, HHS and Education spending bill (HR 3010) that would have transferred $60 million into the AIDS Drug Assistance Program (ADAP). ADAPs are federal- and state-funded programs that provide HIV/AIDS-related medications to low-income, uninsured and underinsured HIV-positive individuals. Instead, the money will be put towards a Japanese garden and a stream on the CDC's agency's Atlanta campus. He stated "I guess what we've got out there is a gazebo of some sort that must have a Japanese tinge to it... It looked like a nice place where employees could go out in the open air and have lunch" (CQ Today, 10/26/2005).

This section clearly needs to be rewritten if it is to be included. It is simply not accurate and misleads the reader into thinking the money was transferred from an AIDS drug assistance program into a Japanese Garden at the CDC. This is not factually accurate. The funds were originally tagged for renovations and building construction at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the Japanese Garden was an incidental and very small part of this construction. Tom Coburn, a Republican Senator from Oklahoma, put forth a bill in the Senate that the funds be transferred to the AIDS drug assistance program. This bill was defeated in a bipartisan effort of Congress 84-14. Chambliss's comments are peripheral and irrelevant to this bill's passage. Giles22 November 2005

We are talking about Saxby Chambliss - it's hard to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. Seriously - what does this guy have going for him? I am asking this question on the discussion page - there are any number of mediocrities on wikipedia any more, and their place in history often ends up obscured by sophistry and sycophants. Here in the case of Saxby we have quite an underwhelming political figure - what does he stand for? I think at least on these discussions pages we should begin to look at what will be remembered about these folks say 3 or 4 decades from now....168.8.249.93 20:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Anti-Cleland ads

If Chambliss is remembered for anything in 100 years, it will be for his campaign against Senator Cleland. It is important that it be included in the article, in lieu of the pablum. Is anyone questioning the FACT that Chambliss's advertising against Cleland questioned Cleland's commitment to national security; the FACT that Cleland lost 3 limbs while serving in Vietnam, the FACT that Chambliss did not serve in the military? This is a discussion page, a person's place in history and the historical issues around his/her life need to be discussed here. Is there anything else that Chambliss has done that he will be remembered for, other than be elected US Senator?69.180.49.229 00:55, 3 December 2006 (UTC)Faveuncle

Those three FACTs are already in the article, yes? John Broughton | Talk 02:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The way the facts is mentioned matters. This guy is really a unknow without those terrible ads. Those ads are the only reason most people know about this guy. So those ads should have lot more prominence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.153.81 (talk) 22:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

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) 20:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

How typical that Republicans think that bashing one's opponent is a "legitimate campaign ad". What bashing really conveys is that the campaign manager can't think of any positive reason why anybody would vote for his client, as in this case. CharlesTheBold (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Pro-Chambliss bias

These two passages appear to have a pro-Chambliss bias: note the use of the words LEADERSHIP, EXPERIENCE, PRESTIGIOUS, STEADFASTLY...as well as LEADING...EXPERT.

"Chambliss’ leadership and experience on the issues of terrorism, homeland security, and intelligence matters while serving in the House earned him an appointment to the prestigious Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he steadfastly advocates that our U.S. intelligence community must dramatically improve its information sharing and human intelligence gathering abilities.

Chambliss’ role as the chairman of the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Terrorism and Homeland Security made him one of the leading congressional experts on these issues."

No references are quoted to support the implication that Chambliss has the implied personal virtues. The vagueness of the passage supports the impression of pro-Chambliss bias; for example, what are "intelligence matters"? Would shouting "bin Ladin is a bad person" in public count as "leadership" on "intelligence matters"? Why should the reader believe that the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is "prestigious"? WHAT "experience" did Chambliss have as a committee chair, in the House, on these "matters"? Being chair of a committee doesn't necessarily make one an "expert". For example, the Democrat Silvestre Reyes, incoming chair of of the House Intelligence Committee, was much less than an expert on el qaida, and hizbullah: http://public.cq.com/public/20061211_homeland.html

Absent supporting clarification, I propose the following revision and condensation:

"Chambliss’ service on committees relevant to homeland security and intelligence while serving in the House led naturally to an appointment to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, where he has repeatedly advocated that our U.S. intelligence community must dramatically improve its information sharing and human intelligence gathering abilities."

--Ewcarson 09:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, though I suggest deleting "naturally". -- John Broughton (♫♫) 13:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Why 'environmental record' heading?

Why is there a full section dedicated to pro-environmental groups' ratings of his voting record? Why is this specific issue discussed in depth and no other area? Why is not appropriate to simply list those organization's ratings in the previous section?

There is nothing extraordinary about his environmental record and this heading is not a standard practice on other senators' pages.

I'll give it a few days in this talk section before I erase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nhertel (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, I'm deleting it for the abovementioned reasons Nhertel (talk) 00:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Reworked the Political Positions section

I reworked the entire section into two subsections, one for voting and one for issues group ratings. There were no citations for the ratings that were there, and according to what research I could find they were out of date anyway. So I updated them with info for 2007. I tried to pick all the "major" issues, at least where I could find them for 2007 (which I couldn't find for all issues, so if they aren't in the section anymore, that's why). Raven1977 (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Imperial sugar story

I'm not sure this is a notable enough issue to be included in the main article. While it's certainly well sourced, I tend to think it would fit better in the article United States Senate election in Georgia, 2008 instead. Thoughts? Raven1977 (talk) 19:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as it was already basically covered in the article mentioned above about the election, and since nobody has replied here, I made a bold move and removed the section from this article. I believe it's really only an issue of state-wide significance, and since it's already in the article about the election, it didn't need to be covered here as well. Feel free to put it back if you disagree or discuss it here further, I'm open to other opinions on the matter. Raven1977 (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

High Fructose Corn Syrup

Wasn't it Chambliss who kept upholding the sugar import tariffs in accordance with the wishes of corn and HFCS agrobusiness lobbyists? 86.56.43.113 (talk) 02:52, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

He Won!

Saxby Chambliss defeated Democrat Jim Martin in his re-election bid. Jonathan321 (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Prosecutorial POV in article and partial correction

The first section of this article (Early Life, Education, and Family) contained four paragraphs, two of them highly critical. Whatever the final merits of the substance of the criticisms, I presume that the early life of this gentleman, who was elected to the United States Senate, was not simply a record of shame. But someone who clearly dislikes him has attempted to use Wiki for character assassination. The facts may be true but the selection and emphasis of those facts as presented was not encyclopedic; it was prosecutorial.

Reading the article a few days ago, I removed one of the offending paragraphs concerning his Vietnam deferments. I explained near the top of this talk page in the section entitled "Anti-Chambliss Bias" my specific rationale, including the fact that the paragraph is redundant; there is a whole section discussing this matter later in the article. If someone wants to edit that latter section to assure that no detail is dropped, that is fine with me. But it is completely unacceptable to treat this matter twice in this short article.

An editor named "Hekerui" reverted my change, noting on the history page that my change had been without explanation. The explanation was here at the top of Talk and is still there. I find no Talk entry from "Hekerui."

I have again removed the Vietnam deferments paragraph from the first section. Although chronologically the matter could be discussed there, it is redundant since it is discussed later. IMO, it is also appropriate to look from a high level at how fair the presentation is aside from how true particular facts might be. That is to say, the early life facts should not be cherry picked to paint a harsh portrait of the man. Early Life, etc., is essentially about what a person ~did~, not what he ~didn't do~. His deferments were perfectly legal. The fact that someone is angry that he did not serve in Vietnam does not make that thing that did not happen a huge fact from his early life. His critics obviously feel that he is a hypocrite; the facts are amply laid out later for readers to make that judgment.

As several editors have noted, this article is filled with bias against its subject. Let's just start the cleanup by removing redundant criticism.

Ed-Claude (talk) 02:45, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Let's dial back the broad claims of "character assassination", eh? If you want to work with other editors, it's best not to tar those same editors with a broad brush.

I don't see any redundant criticism. I see a plain biographical fact in the early life section, which is appropriately placed. Merely mentioning this fact is not a criticism. As you noted, it was perfectly legal so a mere mention of this should not bring opprobrium upon the senator. It would be inappropriate to mention the criticism of this factual, legal act in that section, however, as the criticism was in the context of the Cleland advertisements and did not occur until many years after this point in his biography. Gamaliel (talk) 09:11, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Your "plain biographical fact" is clearly a fact cherry-picked from the man's history for the obvious purpose of supporting the later criticism of his lack of service that became an issue in his 2002 campaign. When someone serves in a war, that becomes a huge fact in his life. When someone receives legal deferments, then that event(s) is a minor event about a path not taken in life. In this case, when the Vietnam service issue comes up later in the article, then that is a sufficient point at which to say whatever needs to be said about his deferments. Chronology notwithstanding, to focus twice in this short article on his lack of Vietnam service is redundant and prosecutorial. The truth of the fact is no justification for browbeating the man with. Once is enough.

There are four graphs covering all of this man's early life up until he was elected to congress. Two of them contain highly prejudicial information, the deferments graph and the mention of his son's lobbying. Is that the only thing that his son did? Why is his other child not mentioned? Well, obviously because there was nothing derogatory to reflect on the senator. We have a very few facts presented from his early life, and they were obviously selected to present him in an unfavorable light. Surely there was something positive in his life that suggested to someone that he was a suitable candidate for congress. But all of that is just to establish the big picture, that this is a very unbalanced article which is not saved from prejudice merely by factual accuracy.

Again removing the redundant and prejudicial paragraph concerning his draft deferments. If anyone thinks that important details are lost, I invite them to add those particulars to the other discussion of his lack of Vietnam service. But just one place is enough.Ed-Claude (talk) 00:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not cherrypicked, it is merely following the model of most biographical articles regarding people who came of age during that era. The articles on Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, John Bolton, and Dick Cheney all discuss their particular alternatives to military service in Vietnam. And those are just the ones I thought of off the top of my head.

If you feel there are other flaws in the early life section, we can work on those. If you feel it doesn't discuss enough of the matters you want discussed, you can work on that. But the answer isn't deleting perfectly valid information and accusing people of being part of some anti-Chambliss conspiracy. Gamaliel (talk) 04:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Religion

The religion in the infobox was changed to "Scientology" by an IP with a history of adding nonsense. It may well be Episcopalian, but this needs a RS.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 11:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)