I guess we’re going to have to agree to disagree then. Yes, the title is ceremonial, but the tie-breaking duty is not. The Vice President does retain, as Senate top cheese, the power to vote in the event of ties. The authority comes from acting as the ultimate arbiter of a contentious measure before the Senate. It’s not much, but it’s like your parents telling you and your sibling, if you can’t work it out amongst yourself, I will make the decision for you. Only they have to take one of your sides. I think a third grader can understand that. Sounds just like being “in charge” of something.
It’s not possible to believe it in good faith. There are plenty of other options that a layman could see. McCain could have chosen to run a deficit, for example, to pay for the reduction without cutting benefits.
And in any event, we get this sort of totem-pole reliance on the CAP analysis, which also undercuts the claim of good faith: The WSJ reports that McCain will cut x dollars from Medicare, CAP says, “Well, if he does that, he’s going to have to cut benefits,” Obama says to himself, “I believe the CAP analysis uncritically,” and then Obama says to the world, “McCain says he’ll cut Medicare benefits by y%, as reported in this WSJ article.”
It’s a lie, Richard. CAP’s conclusion isn’t compelled or in good faith, CAP is decidely non-neutral, and it’s not possible for that conclusion to be accepted in good faith by Obama.
Let’s ask the question another way: do you believe that this was a mistake made in good faith?
How about Hillary and the vast right-wing conspiracy?
The tie-breaking vote is just a vote like anyone else’s vote. It’s decisive, but it’s not a conferrance of authority, just conferrance of a vote.
In previous discussion of the vice-president’s constitutional duties and powers several examples were found that showed that the power to preside over the Senate was not limited to tie votes and not limited to a ceremonial role. A cite was found where Walter Mondale, when presiding, found numerous senators out of order and would only recognize motions from the Majority Leader - this was done to defeat stalling amendments and break a filibuster of the Carter energy bill.
This was not ceremonial and involved no tie votes. And while it was certainly not business as usual I don’t think there is any question that it was constitutional.
So as before, the people who criticize Palin for not having a sufficient understanding of the job she was seeking either don’t understand it themselves or are lying. You be the judge.
But it’s not like everyone else’s vote, because as Senators they can vote on every measure. The PotS *only *votes on tie-breaking votes; that inherently makes it a special vote. It’s more decisive than anyone else’s vote because he’s the guy that makes certain the Senate is not stymied by ineffective vote outcomes.
But this thread is seeking Dem lies about Pubs.
Damn lie! It was J. Edgar Hoover did that!
There is this commercial, claiming the Republicans voted against funding the troops in order to block health care reform.
It was totally ceremonial. It was using ceremony as a roadblock, not exercising real authority and certainly not being “in charge.” There’s no chance that palin even knew about this or had it in mind. She was just reciting her garbled understanding of what had been explained to her about VP duties by staffers.
Hell, one her first questions to McCain when he asked her if she wanted to be his running mate was what does the VP do. She actually didn’t know.
I don’t know why you guys can’t just admit that Palin is stupid. It won’t kill you. Bill Clinton liked pussy. I can admit that.
True, it wasn’t all that vast, except in its influence. Right-wing and conspiracy are dead on, though (you do know who Richard Mellon Scaife and the Arkansas Project were, don’t you?).
So what’s the lie - the definition of “vast”?
“The VP is in charge of the Senate” is an example of rank ignorance bordering on stupidity, but it wasn’t a lie if she believed it, right, Jerry?
I don’t think you know what the words “ceremonial” and “real authority” mean. Mondale was able to control floor debate to the extent of choosing which speakers to recognize, he controlled what amendments would be offered, he controlled what business the Senate conducted on that day. That’s actual, real authority.
I agree.
I agree, except as to ‘garbled.’
I don’t claim she had in-depth knowledge of the history or the Constitutional underpinnings of the VP’s role with respect to the Senate. But the fact remains that, blindly parroting though she undoubtedly was, her answer was not wrong.
I don’t know why you guys can’t admit that Palin, fool thought she is, happened to be accurate in her response to this question. I can admit she’s an idiot.
Explain the mechanics behind this, please. Because it certainly seems to me that this couldn’t be pulled off unless the Vice-President had certain explicit constitutional powers. Not ceremonial powers - actual constitutional ones that come into play from time to time.
Debating an energy bill isn’t an occasion for ceremony, right?
It wasn’t accurate. I sincerely believe she had a misunderstanding of what kind of power the words “President of the Senate” really confer, which is very little.
No, it was pure ceremony – the attempt to obstruct the Senate by the use of trivial, technical powers to control the formal ceremony.
And this isn’t even what Palin was referring to. She actually thought she was going to get to go and start barking orders at Senators.
Well, you can believe what you wish. But the thing is in that long debate when that came up, you demonstrated that you didn’t have very much understanding of the Vice-President’s role either, and interestingly enough most critics of Palin in the media and in politics suffered from similar ignorance.
All I said in that thread is that it would have been nice for people in their criticisms of Palin to have done some homework and known what those responsibilities were. That certainly didn’t happen much.
Personally I never understood why this was ever an argument. She was talking to a freakin’ third grader. The answer was fine.
All the ridiculous crap she’s said, and we’re arguing about this?
And where do these “trivial, technical powers” come from?
I’ll give you a hint - starts with a c, ends with an n, and in the middle there’s an itoosh.
Except for it being far more false than true.
The topic is lying, not stupidity.