You being facetious?

Post #299,597 by drook 11/13/08 9:51:11 AM Reply	You being facetious? Are you honestly suggesting that Palin was rejecting decades of precedent to offer a strict constitutionalist view of the duties of the vice president? Am I supposed to believe that you really think that's what she meant? I don't think you're that stupid. And if you expect me to buy it, you're telling me you think I'm stupid. That's the problem with what the Republicans/conservatives/far-right have been doing for years that they don't realize: When you say things that you'd clearly have to be stupid to believe, you're insulting those of us who see through it, telling us you think we're stupid enough to fall for your obvious lies. Sorry Bill, I like you. But Palin is indefensible. Not because she's been taken out of context. I've watched five-minute-long uncut clips of her interviews. She's way over her head at the national level, but utterly confident in herself. You're offering a revisionist explanation of what she really meant, that I don't for a second think you really believe. I suppose this is where you'll point out, "Read more closely. I didn't actually say that's what she was thinking. Just that it's technically (if accidentally) consistent with the wording of the Constitution, and the people saying otherwise should go back and re-read it before they criticize." I won't bother to refute that point, because if you actually try to make it you'd be confirming the insult. -- Drew
Post #299,599 by beepster 11/13/08 10:08:05 AM Reply	Re: You being facetious? http://www.looktruen...f-the-senate.html """ The Constitution, though, actually says the vice president is always president of the Senate and legal scholars say he has the right to preside at any time. Early vice presidents, such as Thomas Jefferson, actively exercised that role, the vice president still keeps offices at the Capitol, and scholars say it wasnÂt until the middle of the 20th century that the vice president had an office at the executive office building. The president pro tempore, usually the senior senator from the majority party, takes over only when the vice president is absent. In recent practice, as the vice president has taken a bigger role in the executive, thatÂs meant the Senate operates almost all of the time without the vice president in the chair.""" No, what I'm saying is that those being critical using the constitution as a basis are just as wrong as she is when based against current practice, which has the VP role as much more limited to the executive branch.
Post #299,600 by drook 11/13/08 10:22:20 AM Reply	You're doing it again I don't care what other people believe, and what other people are saying. I'm talking about what Palin said, and what Palin believes. And secondarily, what you believe she really meant. There is apparently a legitimate discussion over the differences among the Constitutional definition the VP's role, the historical practice, and the modern practice. You're either: deflecting the conversation away from "what did Palin say/mean" into this tangentially related question, and thinking I won't notice; or asserting that Palin was referring to this issue herself, and thinking I'll believe you really mean it. So which is it? Are you insulting my intelligence by changing the subject, or insulting my intelligence by offering an argument that you don't believe yourself? -- Drew
Post #299,613 by beepster 11/13/08 11:32:50 AM Reply	Your taking it as insult is not my problem It made news because those in the news interpreted the statement the way they wanted. Palin, in the debates, was much more cogent on the role and showed a pretty clear understanding. As for the actual role, Pres Senate, while having no vote, presided over and had very strong governance of the Senate rules and often did guide the debate. Now whether you consider that "in charge" or not is largely based on your own interpretation. In general terms, having the title President is interpreted in simple (3rd grader) terms...as in charge. In more recent times that role has been diminished. Who is to say that, if they had been elected, that she would not have spend more time presiding over the senate, if for nothing else just to piss off Nancy Pelosi? Personally, I treat this story the same way I treat the "mission from God" controversy. The second being taken from a speech she made IN A CHURCH to a bunch of guys waiting to become priests. When you are starting from the belief that she's an idiot, this will simply confirm your belief. This is the same reason the "Africa" scam got so much traction.
Post #299,621 by drook 11/13/08 11:52:08 AM Reply	I'll ask directly, then First, as to this: "Palin, in the debates, was much more cogent on the role and showed a pretty clear understanding." Having a better answer several days later, after you've been coached, doesn't count. Ref "I'll have to get back to ya." Now, directly, do you believe Palin was referencing the historical role of the Vice President, and possibly suggesting a return to that, when she said the VP was in charge? I'm not asking what various historians and pundits have said the role was and could be. I'm asking what do you think she meant. Because that's what I've been talking about this whole time. I don't think she knew what she was talking about. I think she was wrong and got lucky. What do you think she meant? -- Drew
Post #299,623 by beepster 11/13/08 12:08:37 PM Reply	Answered once below, here again I think she used a poor choice of words to translate President of the Senate into plain speak...as "in charge of". Constitutionally that's the ONLY defined role. Meaning her critics saying she doesn't understand the constitutional role are the ones that are incorrect. If they came back with she doesn't understand the current role, that's a better criticism...but you can't determine from the one sentence of that indeed was an issue. IN ADDITION, since you bring up coaching...aren't all her critics saying that she refused all coaching? (part of the whole not knowing NAFTA and Africa is a country furor)? So if she wasn't paying attention to the coaches, maybe her debate answer is actually her own?
Post #299,628 by drook 11/13/08 12:25:08 PM Reply	And the rest? You focus on "in charge of" and make a lawyerly, technical defense. What about "if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes"? What does she mean by that? And is it an accurate description of the VP's job? Does it reflect powers the VP currently wields under existing Senate rules? -- Drew
Post #299,631 by beepster 11/13/08 12:32:57 PM Reply	What's to stop it? There are no rules to limit the VP's ability to work with senators in this manner.
Post #299,634 by beepster 11/13/08 12:38:29 PM Reply	Further I actually >do< think that McCain intended to have his administration more involved in House and Senate activities than probably any administration in the past 40 years as part of his effort to "clean up Washington"...and as such do believe that Palin would have, more than any other VP in modern history, spent time in the Senate oversight role and spend time "working with Senators" to get changes to ethics rules, campaign finance rules and alot of other things that need fixed. I'm hoping that Obama and his staff commit to doing the same thing. It needs to be done.
Post #299,637 by drook 11/13/08 1:00:09 PM Reply	This prevents it http://www.senate.go...s/pdf/RL30945.pdf "The Vice President of the United States is the SenateÂs official presiding officer (formally, ÂPresident of the SenateÂ), as provided in Article I of the Constitution" And this: "Since the SenateÂs official presiding officer is not a member of the body, the presiding officer position does not have the same powers to control floor proceedings as those held by the Speaker of the House. The SenateÂs presiding officer may speak only if granted permission to do so by the unanimous consent of the membership, and he may vote (as noted above) only to break a tie." So no, the VP has no power to influence the Senate due to his position as the President of the Senate. Is he able to work with senators? Absolutely. As can the chief of staff, legislative aides, lobbyists ... Point is, being the President of the Senate grants exactly one power: the tie-breaking vote. "... do believe that Palin would have, more than any other VP in modern history, spent time in the Senate oversight role ..." What oversight role? I'll answer for you: there is none. And ... what evidence do you have of this belief? "... as part of his effort to "clean up Washington" ..." Is that it? Because you believe that working closely with the Senate is necessary to clean up Washington, that must be what she was referring to? -- Drew
Post #299,646 by beepster 11/13/08 2:17:37 PM Reply	Fine She's an idiot. And yes, whoever is in that office and in the office of President is going to have to be more closely aligned with the legislators to clean house in Washington. Laws need to be passed to do this. It can't all be done with a veto pen.
Post #299,635 by Another Scott 11/13/08 12:46:06 PM Reply	But that's not the VP's job. The question was: http://thinkprogress.../palin-vp-senate/ Q: Brandon Garcia wants to know, ÂWhat does the Vice President do?Â PALIN: ThatÂs something that Piper would ask me! Â [T]heyÂre in charge of the U.S. Senate so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family and his classroom. "... so if they want to ..." Her answer is just wrong on so many levels... Your spin on her answer would apply to almost anyone in the Administration - "I'm the Assistant to the Deputy Assistant Undersecretary of State for Water Resources in Upper Volta. I work with senators to make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better..." :-/ That's not her job as VP. Her job in the Senate as VP is to break ties on the floor. Or she could be correct and say, "The VP helps the President." and elaborate on that based on work in the Executive Branch. The VP doesn't "get in there with the senators and ..." any more than the Assistant does - and in fact less that person does since the VP almost never testifies before the Senate. Cheers, Scott.
Post #299,642 by boxley 11/13/08 1:43:27 PM Reply	she should have just said run the country like cheney does what will biden's job be depends? Jay mentioned that he could be a facilitator between legislative and the president cant happen according to you
Post #299,644 by Another Scott 11/13/08 1:48:26 PM Reply	Readme in my posts. :-) It wasn't a hard question. She should have been able to answer it, not go off on some tangent about getting in there with the senators and being all mavericky and such like. You betcha. Cheers, Scott.
Post #299,601 by Another Scott 11/13/08 10:23:33 AM Reply	Um, that article also says that the VP... The VP belongs to both the executive and the legislative branches of government Â and has almost no power in either, but still gets defined in the Constitution as a member of both branches. If you accept the reasoning in that article (which cites a Washington Times political piece for that quote), as Sarah apparently does, it's hard to square having "almost no power" with what she apparently thinks the VP should do. The dreaded Wikipedia seems more authoritative on this subject. http://en.wikipedia....he_Vice_President Except for this tie-breaking role, the Standing Rules of the Senate do not vest any significant responsibilities in the Vice President. Rule XIX, which governs debate, does not authorize the Vice President to participate in debate, and grants only to members of the Senate (and, upon appropriate notice, former presidents of the United States) the privilege of addressing the Senate, without granting a similar privilege to the sitting Vice President. Thus, as Time Magazine wrote during the controversial tenure of Vice-President Charles G. Dawes, "once in four years the Vice President can make a little speech, and then he is done. For four years he then has to sit in the seat of the silent, attending to speeches ponderous or otherwise, of deliberation or humor."[9] HTH! Cheers, Scott.
Post #299,606 by boxley 11/13/08 10:48:50 AM Reply	who sits in that funny seat at the head of the senchamber? thought I saw cheney,gore,quayle, bush41 there once or twice with a wooden hammer, was they doing podium maintenance? thanx, bill
Post #299,609 by Another Scott 11/13/08 10:52:27 AM Reply	Sitting there doesn't give them power to do anything. They gotsta follow the rules, donchaknow. Cheers, Scott.
Post #299,615 by beepster 11/13/08 11:39:23 AM Reply	On the rules... http://www.senate.go...ice_President.htm "Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President [of the Senate], without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent. " That sounds like "in charge" to me;-)
Post #299,616 by boxley 11/13/08 11:41:57 AM Reply	doesnt count because palin prolly didnt know that :-)
Post #299,618 by beepster 11/13/08 11:44:18 AM Reply	Sure, cause everyone already knows she's stupid..and anyone who disagrees with that must be stupid. I hear Europe is a nice country...maybe I'll live there.
Post #299,619 by Another Scott 11/13/08 11:47:52 AM Reply	Originally, slavery was legal too. What does that have to do with what a VP Sarah Palin would do, these days, in the Senate? You really are stretching things here, Beep. Cheers, Scott.
Post #299,622 by beepster 11/13/08 12:00:59 PM Reply	The criticism all said she didn't understand the constitutional role of her potential job. The links I've provided actually show her to be alot closer to correct >per that definition< than her critics. Is that what she meant? Maybe, maybe not...all up to interpretation. I'm leaning towards it being a poor choice of words to translate the actual role of President of the Senate. Her debate answers showed she understood that role to be more limited but also showed a desire to perhaps become more involved in the more traditional role. In essence, like stated elsewhere, its about context (very limited in this case) and a strong desire by the media to find anything and everything to go after with a vengeance. If they would go over some of the things Biden has said in his history with the same level of furor, the world would probably think a lot less of him too.
Post #299,625 by Another Scott 11/13/08 12:16:47 PM Reply	With a vengeance? She was treated with the gentlest of kid gloves. Hillary or Barack would have been crucified if they had said half the wrong things that she did. Biden said some stupid things, but he has decades of experience and decades of decisions he can point to to indicate that he's not a kook or ignoramus. She doesn't; that's why her words were examined much more closely. Cheers, Scott.
Post #299,627 by beepster 11/13/08 12:21:56 PM Reply	You are kidding, right? By the same definition of why, Obama should have never made it out of the primaries. He got Kid Gloves...she got "Clothesgate" and "Troopergate" and ...
Post #299,630 by malraux 11/13/08 12:31:45 PM Reply	Re: You are kidding, right? As opposed to Wright and Ayers and bitter and ... Obama just made a lot fewer own goals than his opponents, and then there's the whole temperment thing. Personally I think the whole "VP's job" thing is a waste of time. Who cares? She was talking to 3rd graders. I was more concerned about the other bafflegab she was spouting. I think it was obvious that she was unprepared; the job of President is not just about "executive experience" (not to mention Alaska has less population than Rhode Island and many cities). Whether she can learn or not is another matter, but had McCain kicked off 2 months into his first term I believe we would have been in trouble with her at the helm. Did she get more attention? Probably. But that's what McCain wanted to happen. She was chosen to make a big splash. It just didn't turn out quite the way he expected. Regards, -scott Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson.
Post #299,632 by Another Scott 11/13/08 12:33:51 PM Reply	Well said.
Post #299,643 by boxley 11/13/08 1:44:43 PM Reply	her youngest child isnt hers! vengeance indeed

Welcome to IWETHEY!