She said the VO is “in charge of the Senate.” That was a flatly false statement.
Incidentally, what’s up with introducing non-sequiturs about Biden?
Round and round we go.
You might as well say that when Obama says “I will stop giving tax breaks to companies that ship jobs overseas,” that he’s misunderstanding his constitutional role because he cannot, literally, craft and pass legislation on his own. Palin’s phrase “make policy changes” is so vague as to be indistinguishable from “convince 'em to change policy.” Both are shorthand for “use the powers of my office, whatever they may be, to convince legislators to pass certain bills.”
I get that in giving an answer specifically about her role as VP, she should have been more careful with her language than Obama is when he’s talking about policy. But I don’t think you can infer from the context alone that she didn’t mean “make policy changes” in the way that Obama or Biden uses that phrase all the time.
In order to interpret Palin’s statement differently than Biden’s, you have to think she thought she could change policy in some way that doesn’t involve persuading Senators. What does that even mean? You think she thought she could go to the Senate and pass a bill through her own fiat or something? I’m about as critical of Palin as they come, but she was a Governor. Even if you thought she didn’t understand exactly what a VP does, surely she gets understands that the legislature passes policies.
Which it is why it is a less accurate answer than Palin, who included the Constitutionally defined duties of the VP
Yes, actually he did.
No, it’s flatly true. You are being stubbornly stupid, as is your habit when confronted with realities, but this does not affect anything other than your need to be institutionalized under heavy medication.
Shodan, your incessant contempt bordering on hatred for people who disagree with you makes it very difficult to agree with you on any issue. I know you’re not trying to be persuasive. But have you considered that your intentionally polarizing style might actually be turning off people who might normally agree with you?
It’s not “flatly false.” It lacks rigor, and so cannot be said to be flatly anything. She is (or would be, if she wins) in charge of gaveling meetings open, recognizing speakers, and ruling on points of order. That’s not an unreasonable use of the phrase “in charge.”
I assume this part of your reply was not directed to me.
I beg to differ. It’s a ceremonial position which confers no authority. Being in charge of a gavel is not really being in charge, any more than my putting my 9-year-old “in charge of loading the dishwasher” is putting her in a position of household authority.
My bad. I mixed you up with Moto.
LOL, you just reminded me of a long-repressed memory from my childhood. Anytime my dad wanted me to do a really nasty job, he would make me “Vice-President in Charge” of it. As in, “You’re Vice-President in charge of wading through two feet of rain water in the basement to rescue the cat that is trapped on the dryer.” I’m sure I was also made Vice-President in charge of washing the dishes at some point too. I’m surprised I didn’t think of that when Palin said the VP is in charge of the Senate. 
If I told you that my seven-year-old was “in charge of loading the dishwasher” would you think I misspoke, or was unduly pressuring him to assume a level of responsiblity he shouldn’t have?
Because he is, on weeknights.
The correct analogy would be if you said that putting him in charge of loading the dishwasher was the same as putting him in charge of the kitchen.
Can I ask for some clarity here?
It seems like if Rhythmpalin posted the question “what does the VP do?” in GD, much of this back-and-forth discussion (which borderlines on semantics at some points and Constitutional analysis at others) would be in the right place.
But in this Pitting o’ Palin, some of these may not quite fit.
Bricker/Moto/et al:
For the moment, let’s just accept your Constitutional/procedural arguments at face value.
Do you think they are slightly nuanced? That is, do they require some level of astuteness and familiarity with Congressional rules/the Constitution to comprehend and accept? Perhaps most importantly to my confusion, are you attributing this argumentation to Palin? That is, if right after Palin answered the question she was asked a series of follow-up questions, do you think her answers would be similar to yours? Or do you think she spoke from the cuff, was accidentally correct, but correct nonetheless?
**Dio et al: **
It seem clear that regardless of whether or not Bricker’s arguments are persuasive to you (and holding out so that Palin must be wrong is a bit silly, but given the possible conflation of the two it’s approaching understandable), you don’t think Palin herself (or her handler) actually meant that. It seems you believe that she either misspoke or really thought the VP had great Senatorial power.
But isn’t that just as absurd as others’ suggestion that behind the media depiction, Palin is a great legal thinker? If someone asserted that Cheney’s involvement in government had nothing to do with various bits of legislation passed over the past eight years, would you agree? Would you say that Cheney had great influence over Bush, but no influence over members of Congress?
Of course, that leaves a slight mystery of what she meant by “in charge of”…
That’s close to a good view. I agree she didn’t have the nuanced, in-depth view; I think she has a surface-level understanding that is correct… but certainly not nuanced.
I said above that Palin can be criticized for many things, and indeed her response may be criticized. I just don’t think it is too much to ask that those that criticize either are correct in their statements or acknowledge when they are shown to be wrong.
Time and again in this thread people have asserted that the vice-president has no power, indeed no legislative role, except for tie votes. That clearly isn’t so - examples were immediately found to the contrary. I still haven’t seen a satisfactory response to the fact that some of the vice-president’s staff is paid by the Senate and some by the White House - that seems to me to be a more interesting (and potentially problematic) constitutional arrangement - and it certainly is a more frequent occurrence than those rare events when the VP presides on a measure of genuine importance.
I don’t really know what Palin understands about the arcana of her job. I’m not debating her - I’m debating you people. And while I have said all along that the Mondale incident isn’t terribly important in the grand scheme of things - it doesn’t change the fact that that was a constitutional exercise of power by Mondale, and helped define the vice-president’s role. Denying that isn’t productive in the least, IMHO.
Thanks. Palin threads in particular can be confusing because it’s so hard to tell what people are talking about (the issue itself or what Palin meant).
Palin also did not mention that she will be taking over the presidency when / if McCain goes to meet his maker so to talk about “constitutionally defined” roles I fine a bit disingenuous.
The difference to my mind is that Biden never claimed to be “in charge of” the senate. Secondly is the “convince them to…”
Now I am not American, and have not studied the standing orders of how congress / senate is conducted. To my mind though the claim to be “in charge of” by Palin would roughly equate to the Prime Ministerial role for a westminster parliamnet. In this case (broadly speaking) the PM appoints the cabinet ministers which has a very direct effect on policy.
It seems (from reading this thread) that the VP role in senate is roughly equivlent to the Speaker of the House in a westminster parliament. They rule on points of order, recognise speakers etc. But this can only be done in line with the “standing orders” of Parliament - which are ultimately set by the members themselves Can the speaker have a major influence by refusing to recognise speakers, etc etc - certainly, but if they are going about it in an “unacceptably” partisan way then they are going to be removed from the post pretty damn quickly.
Although I don’t have a dog in the fight as regards the POTUS and VP, I find Palin’s answer scary not in the specifics of her answer per se, but more in the (seeming) lack of intellectual rigor and inability to think on her feet and express herself clearly. Why couldn’t she just say that she chairs meetings of congress and tries to help the president implement policy?
When you need people with the debating skills of Bricker and Shodan to parse what she says and argue as to its accuracy then its a sorry state for somebody that holds that role. We need (and I am talking of world citizens in general) need to have repsect for the US - when your 'Pres in waiting" is such an idiot, what confidence can we have in you?
Now I woul not vote for Biden based only on the his answer as opposed to Palin’s, but as a marker of thier relative intellects and abilities I think its quite telling and stark as to the difference.
It seems to me both of them embellished their answers a bit, as they were talking to children. I doubt either Palin or Biden is unclear as to what the responsibilities of their prospective job would be, but as unimpressive as the job of VP is as defined, they probably just wanted the kids to be interested in the answer. Saying “I take over if the President dies, cast the tie breaking vote in the Senate” sounds a lot better if you add something like, “prevent disruptions in the space-time continuum” afterward. (It’s true, read the Constitution)
After six pages, in the Pit, I hardly think that those arguing against the reality that Palin is right about something are going suddenly to come to their senses. Therefore, what amusement I can get from insulting the stupid is all that is available.
It’s the Pit. That’s what we do here.
The point has been carried. Everybody who can think knows that. I do not have contempt for those who disagree with me. I have contempt for lies. Diogenes and Fear Itself are telling lies - clear, provably false lies. This has been amply demonstrated, but they persist. Therefore, I hold themn up for ridicule.
That is what she said. Presiding over = being in charge. Meetings of Congress = the Senate. Tries to help the President implement policy = get in there with the Senators and make good policy changes.
What she said was completely accurate in each respect, and well-suited to the audience. What Biden said was also accurate, and about eight paragraphs longer (of course).
But both Biden and Palin said the same things (except Biden’s answer left out the Constitutionally defined part of the job). The genetic fallacy is still a logical fallacy, no matter how many Dopers take it as the basis for their political philosophy.
The problem is the effort required to get some people to recognize reality when it slaps them on the ass.
Yes.
Yes it is.
Cite?
If you are not going to support your opinions, you really have no basis for declaring victory. My OP stands, unchallenged.
Yes, that’s probably what 3rd graders think.
Why is this thread still going? Doesn’t everyone realize that Palin was answering a question asked by a 3rd grader?
This is just trolling. You have been provided with several cites, all detailing the error of your OP. You’re just not reading them.
Willful ignorance is invincible.
Because answers aimed at the intelligence level of a third grader are far too advanced for some Dopers to comprehend.