Post #299,601
11/13/08 10:23:33 AM
|
Um, that article also says that the VP...
The VP belongs to both the executive and the legislative branches of government  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
11/13/08 10:48:50 AM
|
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
11/13/08 10:52:27 AM
|
Sitting there doesn't give them power to do anything.
They gotsta follow the rules, donchaknow.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #299,615
11/13/08 11:39:23 AM
|
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
11/13/08 11:41:57 AM
|
doesnt count because palin prolly didnt know that :-)
|
Post #299,618
11/13/08 11:44:18 AM
|
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
11/13/08 11:47:52 AM
|
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
11/13/08 12:00:59 PM
|
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
11/13/08 12:16:47 PM
|
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
11/13/08 12:21:56 PM
|
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
11/13/08 12:31:45 PM
|
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
11/13/08 12:33:51 PM
|
Well said.
|
Post #299,643
11/13/08 1:44:43 PM
|
her youngest child isnt hers! vengeance indeed
|