# So why Palin? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339 "2009-03-30T18:28:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/81 "2009-03-31T17:51:52Z")
Things are what they are. **villa** drew from **Shodan’s** remark regarding Obama’s being in charge of the executive branch of government that he was saying the same thing as Obama’s being in charge of the country, and he used the presidents of three other countries as examples of how **Shodan** was wrong. Is this forum not dedicated to debate, and is debate not predicated on points actually made and not points intended? If **villa’s** intent was to show that **Shodan** was wrong with regard to the role of the president in the Senate, he should not have used **Shodan’s** perfectly accurate statement that the president is in charge of the executive branch of government in order to do so. ETA: Embolden poster name. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 6:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/82 "2009-03-31T18:20:54Z")
Correction: “with regard to the role of the \*\*vice-\*\*president in the Senate” ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/83 "2009-03-31T18:28:58Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > \ Leaving aside completely the role of the vice-president in the Senate, the President is indeed in charge of the executive branch of government just like **Shodan** said \ Re: debating points actually made. Versus making points that are completely irrelevant. The Constitution describes the rather extensive powers and duties of the POTUS in regard to the Executive Branch. If the point to be made was “Is the POTUS in charge of the Executive Branch?” the answer would indeed be YES, s/he is in fact the chief officer of that branch. And \*\*Shodan \*\*could have a cookie. However, the same document also clearly describes the almost entirely ceremonial powers and duties of the Vice-POTUS in regard to the Senate, which is a part of the Legislative Branch. Palin the ditz and all of her apologists (including \*\*Shodan \*\*and now you **SA** ) all seem incapable of recognizing the difference. Whenever this is pointed out, their shovels and cranes attack the goal posts. This thread was about Palin. So “leaving aside completely the role of the vice-president in the Senate…” would hardly be the point, now would it? ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/84 "2009-03-31T19:16:22Z")
I suppose arguably the President is indeed in “charge” of the country in the sense that he’s has been charged with its protection and maintenance, in the manner of a corporate CEO whose job is to enact the policies decided by the Board of Directors (i.e. Congress) while keeping the company active and solvent. But anyway, the Veep has so little power over the day-to-day operations of the Senate that they created a title just for the guy who sits in and keeps the Veep’s chair warm. When the Veep has to worry about what the President Pro Tem might do in the Veep’s absence, _then_ presiding over the Senate become a significant task. Since much of the the time the Veep doesn’t seem to care, I don’t see why the American people should, either. The far more important duty of the Veep, of course, is as a safety net _just in case_. Thus, it behooves every Veep (since Truman, at least) to be fully informed and up-to-date on administration policies to allow as smooth a transition as possible. Did Palin have the wherewithal for this? I’m inclined to doubt it. ---
**Author:** ![Starving\_Artist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/aeb1de/32.png) [@Starving\_Artist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Starving_Artist)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/85 "2009-03-31T19:17:49Z")
> [@CannyDan](#): > > This thread was about Palin. So “leaving aside completely the role of the vice-president in the Senate…” would hardly be the point, now would it? It would most certainly be the point in challenging **villa’s** statement that to say the president is in charge of the executive branch of government is analogous to saying the president of Ireland is in charge of Ireland, etc. > [@CannyDan](#): > > Palin the ditz and all of her apologists (including **Shodan** and now you **SA** )… And now me? How on earth does what I’ve said about the president’s being in charge of the executive branch of government suddenly make me a Palin apologist? ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/86 "2009-03-31T20:02:11Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > This is the same thing. No it really isn’t. > [@](#): > > I mean, come on - this is just silly. Think about it - would you assert that Obama is not in charge of the executive branch of the federal government? A President presides - that’s what the word means. Except the President has actual powers over the executive that the VP doesn’t have over the Senate. > [@](#): > > The President presides over the executive branch. The President of the Senate presides over the Senate. Except one position confers actual authority and the other does not. ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/87 "2009-03-31T20:17:26Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Except one position confers actual authority and the other does not. Responsibility, too. ---
**Author:** ![CannyDan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cannydan/32/548_2.png) [@CannyDan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CannyDan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 8:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/88 "2009-03-31T20:48:08Z")
> [@Starving\_Artist](#): > > \ And now me? How on earth does what I’ve said about the president’s being in charge of the executive branch of government suddenly make me a Palin apologist? Oh, please. You really need the answer? When you bring up (or defend and repeat statements of those who bring up) the POTUS’ relationship to the Executive Branch simply as a diversion from reflecting on Palin’s lack of understanding of the quite different relationship between the Vice-POTUS and one house of the Legislative Branch. As I noted before, with reference to goal posts. Clear enough for you now? ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/89 "2009-03-31T21:02:08Z")
> [@ChrisBooth12](#): > > Why was Palin even considered for the Republican party? Was it just cause shes a women and is a good contrast to Obamas race? It seems McCain is backing her > > [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/29/mccain-on-backing-palin-i\_n\_180457.html](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/03/29/mccain-on-backing-palin-i_n_180457.html) > > From what I know shes a crazy nutjob.. Are they just trying to get all the female votes or is their another reason? Palin’s communication style is woefully underdeveloped and not ready for national primetime. The McCain campaign staff either didn’t realize this, didn’t vet it properly, or didn’t do enough to prepare her for the media onslaught. Probably all of the above. Compared against Obama’s communication style, and even Biden’s ‘mature statesmanship’, she looked pretty raw on TV. But come on…a nutjob? Are you serious? Maybe that’s exactly why Pubbies are talking about her. Because they know they will fire up the support base and bait your sort of response from the left. I’ll tell you who’s a nutjob. Somebody who rams through an $800 billion stimulus bill a few days into office and says the answer to irresponsible government spending is to run up trillion dollar deficits as far as the eye can see. And that a massive, government-run healthcare system is the key to solving the economic crisis. And that it doesn’t matter if you get less revenue by raising taxes on the rich - it’s the attempt at fairness that’s important. Now THAT’s a nutjob. But I digress. Do you remember the few days after the Republican convention? There was a massive, 20+ point poll swing practically overnight amongst undecideds and middle-class women. Pollsters said that had never seen anything like it. And for about a week, Obama was clearly rattled. Then the Couric interview came, McCain went off the rails on the financial crisis, and it was all but over. Maybe you don’t like her religious beliefs or some such thing. But she’s hardly a nutjob. As Shodan and others have pointed out she has an enviable record of governorship. If the left insists on smirking, tut-tutting and pointing out how silly and stupid she is, in the caricature of urbane limousine liberalism, it might play naturally into the hands of the Pubbies. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Carrot](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/f0a364/32.png) [@Captain\_Carrot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Carrot)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 9:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/90 "2009-03-31T21:34:00Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > And that it doesn’t matter if you get less revenue by raising taxes on the rich - it’s the attempt at fairness that’s important. Cite? > [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Do you remember the few days after the Republican convention? There was a massive, 20+ point poll swing practically overnight amongst undecideds and middle-class women. Pollsters said that had never seen anything like it. A. That didn’t happen. Women and independents were at first interested by Palin, then repulsed. B. To the extent that there was a swing, it was the product of the convention, because all conventions increase their party’s polling numbers somewhat. That bounce never really matters, because both parties get it, and they usually cancel out. ---
**Author:** ![Peanut\_Gallery](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/838e76/32.png) [@Peanut\_Gallery](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peanut_Gallery)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 9:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/91 "2009-03-31T21:49:09Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > If the left insists on smirking, tut-tutting and pointing out how silly and stupid she is, in the caricature of urbane limousine liberalism, it might play naturally into the hands of the Pubbies. Hahaha. This was a popular talking point during the campaign. How’d that work out for you? Oh yeah, that’s right… Limousine Liberalism played right into the White House … not into Pubbie’s hands. Let me guess, they’ve got us ‘right where they want us’ for 2012? You think they’ll win then by appealing to the conservative base? And somebody owes me a limo! ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 9:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/92 "2009-03-31T21:59:22Z")
> [@villa](#): > > I will try typing slowly, to see if that makes it easier to understand. I actually never made any claim at all regarding the powers or authority of the VP as to the Senate. My point is that simply making a linguistic argument doesn’t work here. The VP presides over the Senate. That word does not require “control”, as shown by the large number of ceremonial Presidents, who have little or no actual control. As long as you are putting the word “control” in quotes as if it came from me, perhaps you could cite where I or Palin used it? Thanks in advance. Please keep in mind that we are not discussing Israel or Ireland - Palin was running for the Vice-presidency of the US, and it is the US Constitution that she (quite accurately) described. Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/93 "2009-03-31T22:04:59Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > Then the Couric interview came, McCain went off the rails on the financial crisis, and it was all but over. Not that you clearly indicated which came first, but I think it’s important to note that the Couric interview came AFTER the economic crisis and McCain’s horribly botched “suspend the campaign” bit. While the Couric interview may have put a lot of dirt atop the coffin, polling data very, very clearly indicates that it was during the economic blowup that McCain clearly fell below Obama in the polls, and they were more or less in the same position from that point on, right to election day. ---
**Author:** ![Maeglin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/8baadc/32.png) [@Maeglin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maeglin)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 10:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/94 "2009-03-31T22:06:19Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > If the left insists on smirking, tut-tutting and pointing out how silly and stupid she is, in the caricature of urbane limousine liberalism, it might play naturally into the hands of the Pubbies. I might smirk and tut-tut at her nutjobbery because I pretty much am an urbane limousine liberal. But as we all know, plenty of “real Americans” from states without coastlines were equally horrified by Palin and voted accordingly. Palin managed to bait a far wider swathe of people aside from martini-sipping bubbleheads like yours truly. ---
**Author:** ![IdahoMauleMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/71c47a/32.png) [@IdahoMauleMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/IdahoMauleMan)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/95 "2009-03-31T23:25:53Z")
> [@Maeglin](#): > > I might smirk and tut-tut at her nutjobbery because I pretty much am an urbane limousine liberal. But as we all know, plenty of “real Americans” from states without coastlines were equally horrified by Palin and voted accordingly. Palin managed to bait a far wider swathe of people aside from martini-sipping bubbleheads like yours truly. And brie. Don’t forget brie. I happen to love a good martini and brie, myself. Look, I’m not a big fan of Palin. And I certainly don’t think Obama is a nutjob. As I’ve said before on this Board, I think he’s a decent, well-educated man who has absolutely no idea what he’s doing, mostly because he has some wrong-headed opinions about how jobs are created and living standards improve in a free society. But my jab above was intended to highlight the reaction that (I knew) I would get from this Board. Which is the meta-point of the Palin argument. It was the same with Dan Quayle - there are those on the left who still swear they ‘remember’ Dan Quayle saying he would have a tough time visiting Latin America because he didn’t speak Latin…although he never said that. It was a late-night TV joke repeated endlessly by the media. I was listening to a local radio talk-show the other day when the host chuckled at Palin’s “I can see Roosia from my house!” comment, even down to his lame attempt at her accent. Wait. Did she actually say that? She must have, right? It was on the radio after all. Caricaturing your opponent as silly and stupid, when they clearly aren’t, in an effort to breeze through any serious discussion of their candidacy has a way of backfiring by creating a false sense of confidence in a self-selected echo-chamber. To quote the late Pauline Kael after Nixon’s 49-2 shellacking…‘How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him.’ ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 11:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/96 "2009-03-31T23:30:31Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > It was the same with Dan Quayle - there are those on the left who still swear they ‘remember’ Dan Quayle saying he would have a tough time visiting Latin America because he didn’t speak Latin…although he never said that. It was a late-night TV joke repeated endlessly by the media. Almost. It was a joke by a Republican member of Congress. I don’t remember which one. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [March 31, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/97 "2009-03-31T23:46:55Z")
> [@jsgoddess](#): > > Almost. It was a joke by a Republican member of Congress. I don’t remember which one. [Claudine Schneider](http://www.snopes.com/quotes/quayle.asp). > [@IdanoMauleMan](#): > > Caricaturing your opponent as silly and stupid, when they clearly aren’t, in an effort to breeze through any serious discussion of their candidacy has a way of backfiring by creating a false sense of confidence in a self-selected echo-chamber. > > To quote the late Pauline Kael after Nixon’s 49-2 shellacking…‘How could Nixon have won? Nobody I know voted for him.’ Ironically, I believe that’s considered apocryphal. ---
**Author:** ![wonky](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wonky/32/393_2.png) [@wonky](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wonky)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 12:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/98 "2009-04-01T00:01:17Z")
> [@Gyrate](#): > > Ironically, I believe that’s considered apocryphal. Too funny. I didn’t know that. ---
**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/99 "2009-04-01T00:04:10Z")
> [@IdahoMauleMan](#): > > I was listening to a local radio talk-show the other day when the host chuckled at Palin’s “I can see Roosia from my house!” comment, even down to his lame attempt at her accent. > > Wait. Did she actually say that? She must have, right? It was on the radio after all I watched Tina Fey say this on _SNL_. It never occured to me that Palin herself actually originated the phrase, though the rather dubious concept that the governor of Alaska had some foreign-policy credibility because of the proximity of Russa _was_ advanced by Palin early on. She’d’ve been better off talking about trade relations with Canada, I figure, and the economic power thereof. ---
**Author:** ![villa](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/bc79bd/32.png) [@villa](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/villa)\ **Post date:** [April 1, 2009, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339/100 "2009-04-01T01:13:48Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > As long as you are putting the word “control” in quotes as if it came from me, perhaps you could cite where I or Palin used it? Thanks in advance. > > Please keep in mind that we are not discussing Israel or Ireland - Palin was running for the Vice-presidency of the US, and it is the US Constitution that she (quite accurately) described. > > Regards, > Shodan My bad - I should have used “in charge of.” My apologies. I don’t think it changes the thrust of my argument, but it was inaccurate. The President of Israel is not “in charge of Israel.” It doesn’t matter if we are discussing Israel or Ireland or Madagascar. You advanced the argument that the VP was “in charge of” the Senate because he presides over it. It was a purely linguistic argument to which I was responding. I pointed out that President does not imply “in charge of” automatically. And it doesn’t. It may well be that the VP is “in charge of” the Senate. That’s not an argument into which I have entered. But it isn’t the case that presiding over means, _per se_, “in charge of.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339.md?page=4) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/so-why-palin/491339.md?page=6)