And how is this different from you amusing yourself?
Seriously, people…this is the most rational thing I think anyone has said in this entire thread. She may have explained it clumsily, she may not be as erudite as our dear Senator Biden, but there is simply no evidence whatsoever that she meant anything more or less than the above. Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not kidding myself that she is a genius when it comes to the nuances of the role of VP. But considering the question, considering that it came from a 3rd grader, and considering that the 3rd grader was not actually present and therefore the situation did not require a complex answer, her answer was appropriate and didn’t demonstrate a lack of understanding of the VP’s role in presiding over the senate.
Shodan’s opinion here requires no more support in terms of offering cites than your OP does, and in fact, probably requires less. You said:
You are taking a far bigger leap as to what she meant, and what it can be attributed to than Shodan did. To take that statement alone as an indicator of the depth of her knowledge regarding the workings of the Senate and the VP’s role in that is being willfully ignorant, IMO.
Especially since “really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes” is willful ignorance but “I literally will go up to the Congress, and I’ll sit down with the congressmen from Florida, and the congressmen and senators from California, and I’ll say, ‘Guys, women, this is what we want to do,’ and try to convince 'em to change the law, to help kids get to college,” is apparently goddam genius.
Wait, Bricker, let me see if I understand you here. Do you mean that whoever is elected President may have a bunch of potentially brilliant ideas for policy change? And he (or she) can’t enact them unilaterally? And he (or she) might want to try to convince the legislature to write these policies into law? Are you kidding me? Boy, Palin sure WAS off base. I stand corrected.
Because the point has already been established. You have been shown to be wrong, over and over. You are simply ignoring all the evidence and posting “Cite?” as if every point made against you had not been made and reinforced many times over.
You have chosen the path of deliberate stupidity. That’s fine, you will never walk it alone on the SDMB.
applause
As you know, I’ve been on your side in this thread, but these are by no means equivalent statements on their face.
–Cliffy
Even if that is true - does it warrant the panicked reactions on some people in this thread convinced that Palin doesn’t understand the role of the VP? Especially after it was shown that these same critics didn’t have a complete understanding of the job themselves?
No, I agree they’re not equivalent… but neither are they polar opposites, such that one is succinct genius and the other batshit nuttery.
Just to pile on another unwanted opinion, but here’s mine:
Someone who “presides” = fills a parliamentary role. Bang the gavel; recognize speakers.
Someone “in charge of the Senate…” = sets the legislative agenda. Make committee assignments.
So which did Palin envision as the role of the VP? This can be discerned by the second-half of the statement “…get in there and make policy changes”. It is a non sequitur to see this in conjunction with the constitutional definition of the VPs job. This role does not go with the role of “presiding” over the Senate; it goes with the role of “being in charge of the Senate” which is actually filled by the Senate Majority Leader.
So I think Palin was not simplifying her answer for the benefit of a 3rd grade audience; I think she is, quite sincerely and honestly, misinformed.
The answer she should’ve given is the one given, pages back, by Kimstu: the VP does whatever the President wants her to do.
The second-best answer is the one given by Jon Stewart: break ties and go to funerals.
When George thinks Bricker and Shodan are dumbasses then it is pretty much settled. Let it go guys, move on.