If you have one of Palin saying it, sure.
Regards,
Shodan
Shodan The VP IS NOT in charge of the Senate. The VP PRESIDES over the senate and votes to break deadlocks. Otherwise they have no power over the senate whatsoever. Stating otherwise is well countefactual. There is no defense for her statement, it was factually incorrect. No matter how calmly you explain a falsehood that doesn’t make it truthier.
Speaking from the other side of the Atlantic, she, like Obama and JFK, has ‘star quality’. Further, she motivates and inspires, just like Obama.
You must have a different actress playing Palin over there. Over here, she inspires nobody but mouth breathers. Are people in the UK aware that she’s a punchline over here?
This is the same thing.
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. The President presides over the executive branch. The President of the Senate presides over the Senate.
Also wrong - Bricker cited several examples of VPs exerting their power as President over the Senate and its proceedings.
The only possible defense is the only one necessary - Palin was entirely correct.
Regards,
Shodan
Palin was meant to be a stooge. A dumb, manipulateable person that could be controlled if McCain ever died or was killed.
Do you remember Harriet Miers? She was the same kind of stooge. Even George W. Bush was the same kind of stooge.
There’s different kinds of stooges in the world, but the powers that be obviously have a preference for a specific type.
With 20-20 hindsight, and putting conversations with various GOP operatives around the time into place, to me it seems like the selection of Palin was the admission that the campaign was lost. It was a McCain attempt to avoid a total landslide. The base was slipping - not to the extent that it would vote Obama, but to the extent that it might simply stay at home. And not only might that have led to McCain being tarred with a catastrophic defeat, it also might well have increased Obama’s coattails, which were already feared to be substantial because the evidence was showing even then that large numbers of new voters might be going to the polls.
For those who read Tuesday Morning Quarterback, it is the equivalent of punting on 4th and 8 at around the halfway line when down by 11 in the 4th quarter. It reduced the chances of winning, but also dramatically reduced the chances of getting blown out. Like it or not, Palin’s views are not uncommon in a significant proportion of GOP voters. This time, though, there was never going to be the swing from the middle ground needed for victory.
I’ve found myself, in recent times, strangely defending Palin against Republican friends of mine. When they attack her as too inexperienced, and not smart enough to have been selected for VP, I feel obliged to point to the fact they wholeheartedly endorsed an equally inexperienced (Governor of Texas? Please. The ultimate meaningless position), equally anti-intellectual candidate for President, and got him elected twice. The difference between Palin and GWB of course being a Y chromosome.
Really? So the President of Ireland is “in charge” of Ireland? The President of Israel is “in charge” of Israel? The President of Germany is “in charge” of Germany?
You might want to study up on comparative government before assuming that President automatically means “in charge.”
I have to admit, I really wanted to like Palin. I like the idea of a candidate who’s a tough smart attractive woman from a rough frontier state, but the “smart” part was most important and it was sadly lacking and the more I learned about Alaska itself during her campaign, the less romantic it appeared.
The VP “presides” only in a ceremonial way over the Senate. He can bang the gavel and call on people to speak, but that’s about it. He doesn’t actually have meaningful authority over the Senate and no legislative powers whatever unless there’s a tie. It’s a completely toothless role. He’s basically an MC. That’s why none of them ever bother trying.
LBJ tried to pull that “I’m in charge of the Senate” nonsense and got nowhere.
Oh, my, a newly elected Republican was popular in Alaska. That’s certainly directly comparable to the President.
You know, ‘maverick’ isn’t some magic word that makes someone good. It has an actual meaning. And the Maverick family said during the campaign that they didn’t like how McCain and Palin were using it.
Yeah, like the time she fired the state trooper who divorced her sister.
Which she sold for substantially less money than the jet cost, so she cost the government money there.
For the record, I predicted from the start that Palin’s solidification of the base wouldn’t make up for the large numbers of independents who were turned off by her extreme right-wing views. (And yes, Mr. Moto and Shodan, they are extreme.) Of course, I don’t think I wrote it down anywhere publicly, so you’ll just have to take my word for it. Or not, of course.
Quoth Diogenes the Cynic:
No, Quartz is right: She is inspiring and motivating. It’s just that she doesn’t inspire all people the same way. I know a good number of people who were leaning to voting McCain, but were motivated to vote Obama instead because of Palin. But the thing is, nobody at all is ambivalent about her. Everyone either loves her, or hates her, and yes, that is inspiring.
I don’t know that I’d say I hate her. I’m appalled at how close she got to the reins of power, but I don’t think that rises to the level of hatred.
Anyway, once Palin is explained, somebody take a shot at Quayle.
Repeating this false, tired, right-wing meme doesn’t make it true to anyone but right-wingers.
Nice little bit of verbal sleight-of-hand there, villa. Shodan didn’t say that Obama was in charge of the entire country, which your comparisons suggest. He said (or rather implied through his question) that Obama was in charge of the executive branch of government, which he is.
I think you missed the actual meaning of both Shodan’s and villa’s points.
Shodan was arguing that Palin was correct to say that the VP is “in charge of” the Senate because “to be President of” or “to preside over” means “to be in charge of”:
Then villa offered some counterexamples of presidencies where “presiding over” doesn’t imply “being in charge of” in any substantial way.
In other words, villa is arguing that the VP “presides over” the Senate in a way more similar to the Irish Prez “presiding over” Ireland—i.e., ceremonially and without significant power—than to the US President “presiding over” the executive branch.
Yes, the US President is “in charge of” the executive branch (and, I think it’s fair to say, the country as a whole) in a meaningful way. But the Irish Prexy is not “in charge of” Ireland in a meaningful way, nor is the US Veep “in charge of” the Senate in a meaningful way.
You mean much like Hilary Clinton? Palin obviously does not inspire you, but she inspired Republicans and prospective Republicans.
We just love her in 30 Rock.
Do you get a cookie every time you and the other conservatives here repeat this calumny? Come back when Obama does something to compare to the Palin-Couric interview.
And despite my dislike of Palin, I still think the “in charge of the Senate” argument was semantic quibbling. It’s only a gaffe if you insist on it being one. Let it go.
Hmm… I wonder if this is the Republicans’ attempt to repeat the ‘Bush = stupid’ meme? Bush isn’t stupid, and Obama doesn’t need a teleprompter.