So if Nancy Pelosi were answering a third grader’s question about what the Speaker of the House does, the only correct answer shoe could give is: “Nothing, really?”
I admit I got sidetracked by the claims that the Constitution grants all these extraneous powers to the VP. But even aside from that specific issue, Palin answered a question about what the vice president does by citing a power that has only been possessed by the VP for less than a hundred years, and has actually only been *used *in the sense she apparently meant once…thirty years ago, and hasn’t been used that way since because of the outrage that one use generated.
So for her to include it in her description of what the VP does, while ignoring all the other commonly-used and actually-Constitutional powers the VP has, seems rather odd at best.
That’s like saying the role of the US military is to drop nuclear weapons. Yeah, the US military did drop nuclear weapons once, and still possesses that capability, and it could concievably do so again, but the use of nuclear weapons was a shocking thing that made everyone really hesitant about doing it again, and it ignores everything else the US military does.
Not for nothing is that particular invokation of Rule 22 called “the nuclear option.”
No, the only correct answer is “Well, sometimes it changes, but at the moment, the Speaker of the House can do X, Y, and Z.”
EDIT: And name things the Speaker does on a really regular basis, not something used once thirty years ago that caused a huge angry uproar.
You know what?
Bricker or Mr. Moto would make a much, much better VP than Ms. Palin. They have a good grasp of the constitution as well as legal precedent, and are able to create a finely honed argument using logic.
I have no doubt that neither of them, as a VP candidate, would have EVER said in public “…they’re in charge of the United States Senate, so if they want to they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes…”
Both Bricker and Mr. Moto KNOW that the VP does not “get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes…”, and that that is a really, really poor way to describe the VP’s role.
The fact that Palin thinks that is a good way to describe the VP’s role speaks volumes.
In conclusion: Bricker/Moto 2012!
Thank you for thinking of us, but as we live in the same state, this will remain an impossibility.
That’s ridiculous.
Seriously. “Sometimes it changes??” You seriously mean for me to believe that if Pelosi failed to qualify her answer to a similar question with “Sometimes it changes…” that you’d be up in arms over her incorrect answer?
Garbage. That’s untrue, you know it’s untrue, and suggesting it is true is simply dishonest debating.
One of us will have to move to Wisconsin. 
…or Wyoming.
It’s utterly untrue to say that the VP is ever, at any time, “in charge of the Senate,” or that the she can “get in there and change policy.” Those are not powers which have ever been granted either by the Constitution or by custom.
Drop the sophistry, will you. You know as well as I do that if Joe Biden had said the exact same thing, you’d have immediately begun drafting windy discourses on how wrong and reaching he was.
Palin is not well educated on the Constitution, or civics or on history and she showed a lack of knowledge. Just cop to it.
Just to chime in, I would be completely happy if either Bricker or Mr. Moto were to be elected Vice President.
So long as there’s a Dem on the top of the ticket, I’m reasonably sure that within the confines of the Vice Presidency, neither one could do any harm whatsoever to our nation.
And I mean that in the nicest way!
I have a couple of nice suits - they’re perfectly presentable at funerals.
Wow.
What an idiot I am.
Yes, I meant Wyoming. How embarrassing.
That’s nice of you to say… but the truth is, that stuck-up Obama never called me once with an offer.
Really? If the powers and duties granted to the Speaker of the House do, indeed, sometimes change, how is “Well, sometimes it changes, but at the moment, the Speaker of the House can do X, Y, and Z” not only less accurate than “The Speaker of the House can do X, Y, and Z”, but actively untrue as well? That’s certainly a…unique point of view.
Perhaps you’d like to tell me what part of the statement “sometimes it changes, but at the moment, the Speaker of the House can do X, Y, and Z” is the falsehood that makes me a “dishonest debater”.
And I don’t recall saying anything about being up in arms about any answer, nor do I recall you asking what answer would least drive me to be up in arms. You asked if your proposed hypothetical Pelosi answer would be “the only correct answer”, and I responded by saying no, that would not be the only correct answer, and told you what that correct answer would be.
And yet, why did Mondale have the power to do what he did? Or those other examples provided by Bricker - you’re going to ignore them too?
At no time have I pretended that this is terribly important - but by now you’ve seen these cites and are persisting with your peculiar argument. Never mind what the Constitution says, never mind what history says.
At this point you are lying, frankly. And while I don’t expect you to cop to anything, I might as well say what many of us are thinking.
I thought you were just making a joke about a potential swing state.
If I were, say, Diogenes the Cynic, that’s what I’d claim.
But no – I’ll cop to the truth – I just made a mistake.
Geeze, no. What’s untrue is the notion that, if Pelosi said such a thing, you’d condemn her at all, much less with the vigor reserved here for Palin.
Well, that’s the reason right there you probably don’t have a future in politics!
True. Because if I ever did that as a politician, the next day the airwaves would be full of a commercial that loops my image saying, “I made a mistake” about thirty times while an announcer sonorously agrees.