Talk:Chuck Schumer

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Contents

[edit] Remove unsubstantiated claim

Removed the phrase "because he was threatened with exposure of his FBI files by white house staff." from the trivia section since it is both a significant and unsubstantiated claim.


This also can't possibly be a fact:

"Therefore, he knows nothing about the real military, and attacks the armed forces to cover up his shame. "

[edit] Schumer Jewish?

I support and respect Jews, however, Senator Schumer is not Jewish. He said so on Real Time with Bill Maher this season.

70.5.90.212 02:26, 7 December 2006 (UTC)Matt Brooks mathewbrooks@gmail.com

Matt, I saw the episode of Bill Maher's show you are referring to. Senator Schumer was making an obvious joke when he said he wasn't Jewish. Google "Chuck Schumer interview with Bill Maher" and you will see what I am talking about. ---Above comment: Revision as of 18:41, 28 January 2007 by CleanEdit (Talk | contribs)

[edit] Lieberman's party affiliation

Changed Joseph Lieberman's party affiliation in the video game paragraph to reflect his new Independant--but caucusing with the Democrats--affiliation. 69.51.153.89 17:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Seth Kramer seth@sethkramer.com r

[edit] Low level vandal

Just to point out that 207.127.241.2 seems to be developing a lengthy history of low-level vandalism on this entry. Insertion of unreferenced material concerning FBI files, deletion of text, and tweeking of the numbers for the election results Schumer v. D'Amato. 24.41.39.124 18:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This is a non-NPOV article

Most of the text of this article has been written by supporters of Schumer who do not acknowledge the Senator's intense partisanship and potential conflict of interest regarding his chairmanship of the DSCC and the U.S. attorneys matter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.254.168.83 (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC).

Well, this is what wikipedia is about. If you have something to add, and you have credible sources, and it meets the wikipedia standards for inclusion, then go ahead and add and edit as you wish and as the facts guide you. --Geekish 04:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Specter makes a valid point about the conflict of interest: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,259448,00.html
However, we aren't going to resolve the attorney's matter here, I don't believe. 65.254.168.83 did not write an entry about the conflict of interest, however. Rather:
Schumer has also been criticized for hypocrisy regarding his stance on the firing of eight U.S. attorneys by the Bush Administration, allegedly for political reasons. Critics, most notably Republican Senator Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, say Schumer is manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC. Others point out that then-Congressman Schumer did not criticize President Clinton's mass firings of 93 U.S. Attorneys in 1993, a moved deemed the "March Massacre" by then-Senate Minority Leader Bob Dole. Nor did Schumer show his indignation over Clinton's firing of career employees of the White House Travel Office so that they could be replaced by his friends and relatives.
Where is a reputable reference with criticism of hypocrisy? "allegedly for political reasons"? The evidence is entirely that it is political reasons, though the attorneys serve at the pleasure of the president, to be sure. Nothing wrong with politics, but witness the backpedaling from the original assertion that they were fired for performance related reasons. "manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC?" I've not heard an assertion anywhere that the controversy is "manufactured", or that its all about raising money for the DSCC...the evidence is otherwise; Schumer is not at the center of this controversy, Gonzales is. Clinton fired 93 US Attorneys at the start of his term, true, but, as has been pointed out in many places, recent presidents have replaced all US Attorneys at the start of their terms, which has become standard practice. They serve at the pleasure of the president. It is very unusual, however, to replace a number of US Attorneys midterm as has occurred recently (right after an election), together with the widely acknowledged mishandling of how that was done. With all due respect, the White House travel staff does not quite rise to the level of US Attorneys. All this to make the dubious claim that Schumer is hypocritical, while spinning the nature of the attorney replacements controversy. Nothing wrong with politics, but politics does not imply hypocrisy. In short, the above paragraph is completely POV (and completely unreferenced.) 65.254.168.83's claim of non-neutrality does not stand to reason, so I suggest that assertion be removed.
As for the article, the large section on United States Senator has become rather long and rambling and should perhaps be broken/organized into subsections. That would allow, I hesitate to suggest, a very brief, NPOV, well-referenced section on Schumer's roll in the Attorney's issue, including Specter's assertion about the conflict of interest. But that section should not balloon into a lengthy discussion of the U.S. Attorney's; that issue will not be resolved here. (This reorganization will not be done by me; I have expended my wikipedia capital with this discussion...) 24.41.39.124 11:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia link on the attorney's issue: Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy (nothing there about Schumer manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC...) I also note that both 65.254.168.83 and 65.254.163.168 have a very brief history of wikipedia editting and their contributions have been limited to this article. 24.41.39.124 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Somebody is working overtime to protect Schumer from any criticism. Whatever. It is sad that he has assigned a supporter of his to watch over his Wikipedia article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.163.234 (talk • contribs) }

Excellent! I have now been accused of being on the staffs of Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, JOhn Edwards, and Chuck Schumer! As I've said elsewhere, those paychecks just keep rolling in.... Tvoz |talk 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you read? I said you were a supporter of his, not on his staff. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.254.163.71 (talk • contribs)

Thanks for the clarification. Yes I can read - what's on the lines, and what's between the lines. For the record, I remove POV unreferenced material from articles when I see it, regardless of whether I support the subject, dislike the subject, or have no opinion about the subject. If you have something to add that you think is missing from a well-rounded article about Sen. Schumer, get some reliable sources and by all means edit the article. Tvoz |talk 04:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I (who am not Tvoz) took the issue seriously and made a careful reply to all the points of your entry. Since you did not provide any references for your assertions, I even did a google search and found the Specter article for you, and then also found the wikipedia article on the Attorney's issue. As a reply, I got something a drunk might say as he got kicked off the bus. Do you mean to tell me you have no references at all for any part of that paragraph? You've made a complete fabrication and have been wasting everybody's time with nonsense? Well, that's just dishonorable. 65.254.163.XXX, since you are new to wikipedia, having made no other contributions than the recent ones to this article, I suggest that before you edit anymore, you should take a look at the various wikipedia policies and try to understand better what wikipedia is about. The wikipedia is about NPOV, referenced sources, and avoiding original research. Because we adhere to that policy here does not make us all partisans, just wikipedians who care about accuracy and believe that the wikipedia is a noble thing and worth looking after. 24.41.39.124 06:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Not agreeing with your view =/= non-NPOV. Fifty7 12:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I have done some snooping around with google, and believe there is an important issue for this biography in regards to the attorney's issue. See below. I won't apologize for the above discussion; those who advocated the inclusion of the paragraph in question rather brought the problem on themselves (no references despite repeated warnings, revert warring, declaring the entire article to be POV, then calling us all Schumer partisans). I have not much sympathy. There are better ways of going about things on the Wikipedia. Let's start over again, see below. 24.41.39.124 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] quality

I did an overall edit of the article, but it still needs a lot of work - his years in the NYS Assembly, his years as Congressman, his first term as Senator - all could be fleshed out with citations and more information. As it is now, it's not much more than a stub, and as an influential politician, there must be more to report here. I hope someone will take it on. Tvoz |talk 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schumer and the Fired Attorney's issue

I will make a request on the Dismissal of U.S. attorneys controversy talk page for the experts there to perhaps help us develop this issue for this article.

I don't know all the details of the Fired Attorney's issue, and even less about Schumer, but some google searching produced the following information:

Schumer was apparently instrumental in bringing the issue to the forefront: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usschu0401,0,3612817.story?coll=ny-leadnationalnews-headlines

Schumer is a key player in the investigation, though Patrick Leahy is apparently leading the investigation.

Schumer has been questioned about being a key player in the investigation, and then using that for political advantage, specifically through the DSCC: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,264836,00.html (The attorney's issue was raised on the DSCC website, but then was removed, apparently.)

Specter's assertion that there is a conflict of interest has some merit. Schumer has dismissed the suggestion as a distraction.

also: http://www.nysun.com/article/50686?page_no=2

Another link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17628142/

All this is a far cry from the original assertion that Schumer "manufacturing the controversy to raise money for the DSCC". Assertions concerning Clinton's firing of all U.S. Attorneys and the White House travel staff are non-starters for this article, seems to me.

[edit] Why is this important?

I think the issue is worth developing as a paragraph or two here because it (a) highlights the prominent role Schumer had in getting the issue to the forefront and is taking in the investigation, and (b) illustrates the political tactics/approaches of Schumer, about which there is already some discussion in the article. 24.41.39.124 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Seems to be a dead end, actually

Per a response on the Attorney's talk page, and given the paucity of results I am finding while trying to search for information along these lines, I'm calling an end to this avenue of development, which seems to have led to a dead end in a number of ways. The "Schumer started it all with a conflict of interest" angle seems to have been a temporary interlude in the larger Attorney's story. Those that think there is more to this can proceed if they like and can provide valid references to support contentions. 24.41.39.124 02:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Waco hearings

Just noticed that my request disappeard because of the redirection. I was asking if somebody (more proficient than me) could also fill in some facts about the very distasteful part he played on the Waco-Hearings? Would be good if somebody could write something about that. It's damn scary to me, that a character like that is still in power. --Thomas 11:37, 7 July 2007 (UTC)