home

For The Record . . .

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:51:00 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Gail Collins writes:

[Sarah Palin] appeared to agree with Dick Cheney’s manic theory that the vice president is a member of both the executive and legislative branches . . .

Um, Article 1, Sections 3 of the Constitution (Titled "The Legislative Branch, The Senate") states in part:

The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.

More . . .

Article 2, Section 1 (titled "The Executive Branch, The President") states in part:

[The President] shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice-President chosen for the same Term . . .

Dick Cheney has many manic theories. That the Constitution envisions a role for the Vice President in both the Executive and Legislative Branches is not one of them. The reaction of some of the Left blogs and progressive opinion writers has been embarrassing, especially as they are trying to make fun of Sarah Palin's lack of knowledge. In fact, they are exhibiting their own ignorance. The reality is it was Joe Biden's response on this issue that was embarrassingly wrong, not Sarah Palin's.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< Saturday Morning Open Thread | The Threat >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    For The Record . . . | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Here is the question and answer (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:10:22 PM EST
    we are discussing:

    IFILL: Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past. Do you believe as Vice President Cheney does, that the Executive Branch does not hold complete sway over the office of the vice presidency, that it it is also a member of the Legislative Branch?

    PALIN: Well, our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president. And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation. . . .

    And Biden's embarrassingly incorrect response:

    BIDEN: Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history. The idea he doesn't realize that Article I of the Constitution defines the role of the vice president [ Bidne MEANT Article 2, not Article 1] of the United States, that's the Executive Branch. He works in the Executive Branch. He should understand that. Everyone should understand that.

    And the primary role of the vice president of the United States of America is to support the president of the United States of America, give that president his or her best judgment when sought, and as vice president, to preside over the Senate, only in a time when in fact there's a tie vote. [This is just plain flat out wrong. The Constitution states flatly that the Vice President is the President of the Senate.] The Constitution is explicit. [IT is indeed. And it explicitly states the OPPOSITE of what Biden said.]

    The only authority the vice president has from the legislative standpoint is the vote, only when there is a tie vote. He has no authority relative to the Congress. The idea he's part of the Legislative Branch is a bizarre notion invented by Cheney to aggrandize the power of a unitary executive and look where it has gotten us. It has been very dangerous.

    The last graf (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:49:17 PM EST
    is also Biden.

    It is also wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    In spite of the fact that he (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:03:54 PM EST
    used the wrong article I'm still too pleased for words that he began his rebuttal by simply saying  Vice President Cheney has been the most dangerous vice president we've had probably in American history.  I'm giving him a pass if he's willing to correct the rest the next time it comes up.

    [ Parent ]
    Absolutely agree... (none / 0) (#72)
    by Thanin on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:43:56 PM EST
    I dont care who was accurate about the constitution.  cheney has been dangerous and if VPs are now supposed to be as powerful as he is then we really are electing 2 people at the top of the ticket with basically equal power where the one at the top is seen and the one at the bottom is unrestrained, doing things we arent even supposed to see.  Thats dangerous, so Biden got this right on the biggest part that matters.

    [ Parent ]
    I can't agree. (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by TChris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:39:10 PM EST
    First, we all know that the VP doesn't "preside" in any meaningful way over the Senate.  It's not as if the VP goes to work in the Senate every day, picking up the gavel and making sure the Senate's work gets done.  From a practical standpoint, I agree with Biden's answer even if the Constitution gives the VP the title of Senate president.

    Second, the troubling portion of Palin's answer has to taken in the context of an earlier answer:

    Of course, we know what a vice president does. And that's not only to preside over the Senate and will take that position very seriously also. I'm thankful the Constitution would allow a bit more authority given to the vice president if that vice president so chose to exert it in working with the Senate and making sure that we are supportive of the president's policies and making sure too that our president understands what our strengths are.

    I don't have a clue what Palin meant by that answer, but if she thinks the Constitution allows the VP to exercise additional legislative power beyond casting a tie-breaking vote, I'd like to know what flexible authority she thinks the Constitution bestows upon the VP. Seems like a legitimate question to me (and a worrisome question, given her apparent endorsement of Cheney's power-grabbing approach to the vice presidency).

    Actually, until very recently, (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    the VP did preside over the Senate every day. It was only in the 1970s that this really changed.

    I think this is a very interesting issue, and unsettled.

    [ Parent ]

    This utterly isses the point (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    No one said the VP presided over it.

    The discussion was what did the Constitution contemplate.

    And in EXPRESS terms it says "the VP is the President of the Senate."

    Your comment is nonresponsive to the issue.

    Indeed, the question and answer are in fact about the unrealized "flexibility" provided by the Constitution.

    Whether it is a good idea or not is another point. But Palin's answer is perfectly coherent and Constitutionally sound, though, as I note above, Glenn Reynolds would disagree.

    [ Parent ]

    Still disagree. (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by TChris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:56:15 PM EST
    What do you mean "No one said the VP presided over it"?  That's exactly what Palin said.  My point is that Palin then rambled on about about some "flexible" power that the Constitution gives vice presidents.  The undefined contours of that flexible power plainly do not appear in the text of the Constitution, so I'd like to know what the heck she's talking about.  I don't know of any "constitutionally sound" theory that gives VP's some undefined "flexible" authority that isn't mentioned in the Constitution.

    [ Parent ]
    She said the Founding Fathers (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:02:02 PM EST
    provided for it.

    Which is undeniably true.

    I believe the meaning of "Presiding over the Senate" is indeed "flexible" and that Palin;s answer made perfect sense.

    As for the idea that the Constitution might be flexible, I hope and believe that is indisputable.

    As a Living Constitutionalist, it is at the core of my Constitutional view.

    Frankly, this is a poor attempt at playing gotcha with Palin when in fact the embarrassing answer on this issue belonged to Joe Biden.

    There are plenty of points to attack Palin on. This is not one of them.

    [ Parent ]

    Not exactly. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by TChris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:25:14 PM EST
    The Framers envisioned a government of limited powers.  They created a Constitution that is flexible in its protection of individual rights from governmental overreaching.  Flexibility that permits a constitutional officer to grab new powers not specified in the Constitution is not, in my view, something the Framers intended.

    [ Parent ]
    Grab new powers (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:30:38 PM EST
    I refer you again to the text of Article  1, Section 3.

    Clearly those are NOT new powers.

    [ Parent ]

    Um, BTD.... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:02:50 PM EST
    Have you forgotten that Cheney made the claim that the VP was not part of the executive branch?

    [ Parent ]
    Well (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:19:24 PM EST
    The person who presides over the senate actually can have enormous power during a parlimentary dispute.  The "rule from the chair" is key and so a vice president that choose to do so could sway how a debate could be conducted and even the guidelines for that debate and amendments that could be raised, etc.  The ruling would have to be upheld by a majority of senators if it were challenged but if the VP and senate majority were the same party, that's no problem.

    That is why most discussions of how a "nuclear option" would play out had cheney in the chair.

    I don't think Palin is wrong - there is enormous flexibility for the VP when working with the senate (or anywhere).  Because the role is so nebulous, it's largely defined by the occupant.  Some have chosen to exercize more power than others.  But tell me that LBJ didn't get more involved in the Senate than, say, Dan Qualye?

    [ Parent ]

    You don't have a clue what she meant? (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by ruffian on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:04:17 PM EST
    Really?  You can read that passage BTD quoted and not understand it at all? I'm sorry, I just don't believe that.

    This is something I really have a problem with. Yes, her syntax is a little mangled, and she does not speak in an as much of an authoritatively scholarly tone when she is right as Biden does when he is wrong.   But pretending she is altogether incoherent is just intellectually dishonest.

    [ Parent ]

    Not what you know, what you know that's not so (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by lambert on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:08:34 PM EST
    This is not "meaningful" presiding?

    L GORE, VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: For what purpose does the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Deutsch, arise?

    REP. PETER DEUTSCH (D), FLORIDA: To make point of order.

    GORE: Gentleman will state his point of order.

    DEUTSCH: Mr. President, we have just completed the closest election in American history. There are at least...

    GORE: The gentleman will suspend. The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that under section 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session. If the gentleman has a point of order, please state the point of order.

    DEUTSCH: Mr. President, there are many Americans who still believe that the results we are going to certify today are illegitimate.

    GORE: The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman from Florida has a point of order, he may state the point of order at this time. Otherwise, the gentleman will suspend.

    DEUTSCH: I will note the absence of quorum and respectfully request that we delay the proceedings until quorum is present.

    GORE: The chair is advised by the parliamentarian that section 17 of title 3, United States Code, prescribes a single procedure for resolution of either an objection to a certificate or other questions arising in the matter. That includes a point of order that a quorum is not present.

    The chair rules on the advice of the parliamentarian that the point order that a quorum is not present is subject to the requirement that it be in writing and signed by both a member of the House of Representatives and a senator. Is the point of order in writing and signed not only by member of the House of representatives, but also a senator?

    DEUTSCH: It is in writing, but I do not have a senator.

    GORE: The point order may not be received.

    HASTINGS: Mr. President, and I take great pride in calling you that, I must object because of the overwhelming evidence of official misconduct, deliberate fraud and an attempt to suppress...

    GORE: The chair...

    HASTINGS: ... voter turnout.

    GORE: The chair must remind members that under session 18 of title 3, United States Code, no debate is allowed in the joint session.

    HASTINGS: Thank you, Mr. President.



    [ Parent ]
    Oh man, that made me emotional. (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:02:14 PM EST
    What a sad day.

    [ Parent ]
    Painful as that moment was, (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:52:21 PM EST
    the reality is that Gore was following the procedural rules.

    Even if he had acted differently, the Republican majority at the time would have voted him down.

    But it is true that there are other times in the Senate when being "in the chair" is meaningful. Appealing the ruling of the chair is subject to unlimited debate.

    [ Parent ]

    This isn't really true .. (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 06:18:35 PM EST
    anyone who controls the Senate during session is a proxy for the Vice President.  If you've watched C-Span you'll notice that Senators address their remarks to the President.

    The President they speak of is the President of the Senate, not the President of the United States. And whoever is seated in the chair serves as a proxy for the Vice President.

    Constitutionally the Vice President would be allowed to preside over the Senate whenever they're in session. In the past, many have.  And, by proxy, he always does.

    Hence, he does have a legislative role.

    [ Parent ]

    Gleen Reynolds had an interesting take on (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:42:50 PM EST
    the issue of the dual role of the VP (it is anti-Cheney BTW). Reynolds writes:

    Is Dick Cheney Unconstitutional?

    . . . [T]here may be practical reasons to limit vice presidential involvement in day-to-day executive business regardless of whether we accept the characterization of the Vice Presidency as a legislative office or not.  Whether or not the Vice President is seen as a legislative officer, the office of Vice President is something special.  The Vice President is, after all, primarily meant to serve as a sort of spare President, and--as with spare tires or backup servers--it may be safest not to put the spare into ordinary service before it's needed.  Presidents are lost in three ways:  death, resignation, and impeachment.  Vice presidential involvement in policy has the potential to put the "spare" role at risk in at least two of these contexts.  When Presidents resign or are impeached, it is often over matters of policy.  Although the risk that a Vice President will be involved in the precipitating events is hard to estimate, it is certainly higher for an activist Vice President than it will be for a Vice President playing a traditionally quiescent role.  Though talk of impeaching the current occupants of either office is unlikely to come to anything, it illustrates the risks.[22] As an assistant to Vice President Hubert Humphrey once remarked, the most important part of the Vice President's job is as backup President:  "Judge the Vice-President on no other measure than his preparation for succession.  He is a reservoir for the future rather than a resource for the present."[23]  Likewise, a Carter aide noted the advantage of Mondale's distance from public decision making:  "He can tell everyone he knows how to do the job, but no one can say `Fritz Mondale was the one who got us into Iran.'"[24]  That discussion aimed at Mondale's electoral fitness, but it also bears on the viability of a Vice President who succeeds the President after resignation or impeachment.  Had Carter been impeached or forced to resign as a result of the Iran debacle, Mondale's public distance would have been important in preserving his ability to govern.

    Vice Presidents have increasingly been used as resources in the present, however.  This growing involvement of Vice Presidents in the executive department has been generally seen as a good thing, as it allows someone deemed by the electorate competent enough to become President to put his talents to work for the country, rather than having them languish while the Vice President inquires daily into the President's health.  And good arguments exist for not keeping the Vice President entirely out of the loop; institutional memory is important for any succession, as illustrated with the famous case of Harry Truman's ignorance about the atomic bomb.  But the Vice President is the only person nationally elected to serve if the President is unable to govern, and the Vice President's involvement, a la Cheney, in day-to-day policy activities sacrifices the distance that earlier Vice Presidents possessed; those unhappy with President Bush's Iraq policies, for example, can criticize Cheney in a way that critics of Carter's Iran policies could not criticize Mondale.  In the event that policies in which the Vice President is implicated go sufficiently awry to end a Presidency, the Vice President will not be able to appear as a fresh start and may be liable to impeachment or forced resignation as well.  In such cases, this risks a move to someone not nationally elected--the Speaker of the House or the president pro tempore of the Senate--and very serious consequences for a nation that would be, in those circumstances, already divided and vulnerable.

    All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, we are not so short of executive talent that we must run such a risk in order to provide the President with managerial assistance.  As the Bush/Cheney Administration winds down, with the party affiliation of the next administration sufficiently unclear so as to minimize partisan game-playing in Congress, now might be a good time for Congress to consider requiring that future Vice Presidents keep a greater distance from executive affairs.

    It is an interesting interpretation but I believe rather silly. Think of it this way - can the President consult with the Speaker of the House or the Senate Majority leader on executive action? Does that constitute a separation of powers issue? Of course not.

    The issue is only if the President FORMALLY cedes executive power to the Vice President. Since the VP will never be a Cabinet Officer or anything like that, I disagree with Reynolds' argument.

    The problem was not that the VP advised Bush. There was no constitutional problem in that. The problem was that CHENEY gave bad advice.

    Seems unlikely the (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    executive branch would heed the "requirements" of the Legislative branch re this:

    now might be a good time for Congress to consider requiring that future Vice Presidents keep a greater distance from executive affairs.



    [ Parent ]
    Since Mondale, the office of VP (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:45:17 PM EST
    has increasingly been treated as a cabinet position.

    [ Parent ]
    But there is no exercise of Executive power (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:56:06 PM EST
    In essence, the VP is often the most important adviser now.

    It does create a tension on the separation of powers front - but the discussion of what the Constitution says was the point of the question and answer and Plain made sense and Biden was just plain wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    No exercise of executive power? (none / 0) (#47)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:59:36 PM EST
    The Vice President's staff and security is almost exclusively executive.

    Or do you just mean in the sense of issuing orders and making administrative decisions?

    [ Parent ]

    The latter of course (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:03:30 PM EST
    Having a security detail and a staff is hardly the exercise of Executive Power.

    [ Parent ]
    I think perhaps we really ought to amend (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    the constitution. We could make the VP part of the Executive Branch, and ask the Electoral College to choose a Senate Tie Breaker.

    [ Parent ]
    no (none / 0) (#58)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:31:23 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    The problem is that Cheney has tried to claim (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:55:32 AM EST
    both executive privilege and protection by way of the speech and debate clause. Essentially, that he doesn't have to tell anyone anything.

    It is clear that the VP's budget is covered under the executive branch appropriation, though he is entitled to an office (and perhaps a staff) in the Senate.

    That is a different matter (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:57:04 AM EST
    The pro0blem is you are talking about something that Sarah Palin did not say nor was the question presented in that way.

    [ Parent ]
    I think it's probably wise to figure out (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:00:47 PM EST
    what Constitutional protections the Vice President is entitled to. I am pretty sure that Sarah Palin doesn't know. But it doesn't really matter, because that question is a point under some dispute.

    [ Parent ]
    Nooo (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:04:22 PM EST
    The problem is Gwen Ifill is an idiot (I mean it, I think she is a boob as most reporters are). She did not even know how to ask the question as she did not understand the issue and now the Left compounds the error.

    [ Parent ]
    That's fair (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:05:12 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    this question cannot be divorced from the actions (none / 0) (#75)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:20:41 PM EST
    and views of Dick Cheney.  That's what the question was about.  You're acting as if it was a neutral con-law exam question.
    Governor, you mentioned a moment ago the constitution might give the vice president more power than it has in the past.
    The question pertains to the VP being able to claim more power than it has had in the past.  I think you're overreacting.  Sure, it was a poorly worded question, but given the context either Palin does not know that Cheney has made unprecedented power grabs and just gave a non-answer, or she means she intends to claim more power or the same ones that Cheney has.

    The essence of the question is this: as VP will you be trying to exercise less, the same, or more power than Dick Cheney?

    Palin's answer: "Yeah, I do agree with him."

    [ Parent ]

    she did say (none / 0) (#6)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:09:35 PM EST
    that there is "flexibility," and that she agrees with cheney. the rest of her answer was typically only semi-coherent.

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:11:47 PM EST
    What the Founding Fathers wrote in the Constitution was completely supported by Palin's answer.

    To me your comment is just plain wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    to me (none / 0) (#9)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:16:20 PM EST
    you're being overly flexible in cutting her slack. the constitution says the veep is president of the senate, but specifies no role other than voting, in case of tie. it would be accurate to say the veep's role is vague, but when she agrees with cheney, she is clearly over the line. it would have been interesting to have her try to explain the third branch theory, but, of course, that wasn't asked.

    [ Parent ]
    Umm (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:28:41 PM EST
    I think you make Palin's point on the "fleixibility" potential.

    What being "President of the Senate" means is indeed "flexible" and the historical record of the Constitutional debate is that the Founding Fathers meant the Vice President's role as President of the Senate to be meaningful.

    You COULD argue that the 12th Amendment meant to reverse that flexibility - in case you do not know - the 12th Amendment provides:

    The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

    The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

    The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

    The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

    Prior to this 1804 amendment, the Vice President was the person who finished second in the Presiential election. Ergo, Jefferson was Vice President to Adams in 1796 because he LOST to Adams.

    Clearly, in the original construction of the Constitution, the Vice President was actually viewed more as a member of the Legislative Branch than the Executive Branch.

    You COULD argue the 12th Amendment changed that. However, the weakness in that argument is that the 12th Amendment did not remove the Vice President as President of the Senate and did not remove the provision give the VP a tiebreaking vote.

    Here's the point - it is you who are not paying attention to the actual questions and answers we are discussing.

    To be frank. your comments have been gibberish. Palin's actually were coherent.

    [ Parent ]

    palin's sentence structure on that question (none / 0) (#18)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:32:31 PM EST
    was mostly coherent, but this part:

    And we will do what is best for the American people in tapping into that position and ushering in an agenda that is supportive and cooperative with the president's agenda in that position. Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there, and we'll do what we have to do to administer very appropriately the plans that are needed for this nation.

    is simplistic gibberish- it has meaning, but says nothing. which is how she often operates. but, again, you omit her agreement with cheney. unless you think cheney's view of the vice president is perfectly valid, you have to have problems with palin's answer.

    [ Parent ]

    I take the position (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:34:45 PM EST
    that Palin doesn't have a clue what Cheney's view of the Vice Presidency is.

    [ Parent ]
    agreed (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:36:40 PM EST
    which was why she rambled, as she generally does. had the debate structure allowed follow-up, and had biden or ifill pressed her on it, i imagine she would have ended up talking about oil drilling in alaska, as she did when asked about the bailout.

    [ Parent ]
    I submit that neither does (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:50:04 PM EST
    Gwen Ifill.

    [ Parent ]
    but this kind of flexibility (none / 0) (#76)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    is no different than the flexibility exercised by any previous VP.  The question was about Dick Cheney's unusual view of the VP as not being part of the executive branch.

    [ Parent ]
    If the VP were a member of the legislative branch (none / 0) (#88)
    by Knocienz on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 11:23:17 PM EST
    Would not the following section have additional (and rather chaotic) meaning?

    Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

    If the VP were truly a member of the Senate, that would certainly imply that the Senate could in fact expel him from his President of the Senate role (and only require full impeachment to remove him from his other second in line duties)

    I think a much more reasonable interpretation is that the VPs presiding and tie breaking influence is similar to the President's role in signing or vetoing a bill and that those duties don't make the VP any more a member of the legislative branch than the sign or veto duties make the President a member of the legislative branch.

    [ Parent ]

    I served on a non profit board (none / 0) (#22)
    by Manuel on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    The CEO of the organization was the President of the board but did not have a vote.  However, she could participate in all discussions.  What duties does the President of the Senate have?  Is it only to gavel sessions to order?  Are there responsibilities in there that have been lost over time?

    [ Parent ]
    there's nothing specific (none / 0) (#25)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    in the constitution. the role is vague, but that doesn't mean it is expansive, and it doesn't mean the veep is not a part of the executive, which is third-branch cheney's view. which palin expressed agreement with.

    [ Parent ]
    The roile is vague (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    one might even describe it as "flexible."

    [ Parent ]
    I actually agree (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    And think that perhaps there ought to be a Constitutional Amendment to address the changing role of the Vice President.  

    [ Parent ]
    Indeed (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:52:57 PM EST
    That was my point in this post. Palin's arguments are actually cogent and Constitutionallly correct.

    It is Biden who provides the embarrassing answer here.

    [ Parent ]

    you're half right (none / 0) (#60)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:38:32 PM EST
    biden was wrong, but palin was still incoherent, and expressed a dangerous agreement with cheney.

    [ Parent ]
    You simply (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:46:49 PM EST
    do not know what you are talking about on this point.

    Sorry dude, but you do not understand the issue or you are blinded by Palin hate because your comments on the issue have been gibberish.

    [ Parent ]

    sorry (none / 0) (#66)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:01:42 PM EST
    however ifill bungled the question, palin agreed with cheney. as andgarden pointed out, she probably had no idea what she was agreeing with, but she still agreed with him. and the bulk of her response was, indeed, gibberish. i know you like to defend her, and some of her critics get way too personal and over the top, but her answer rambled and said little other than that the job description is vague and that she agrees with cheney. it was the second part that i had problems with.

    [ Parent ]
    Agreed with Cheney (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:11:11 PM EST
    about the dual role of the Vice President? Well she is right. As is Cheney.

    See, your just spouting gibberish now.

    If Cheney says the sun rises in the East does not make it wrong.

    Therein lies your problem.

    You seem to be suffering from a combined Cheney/Palin Derangement Syndrome on this subject.

    [ Parent ]

    okay (none / 0) (#71)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:19:37 PM EST
    if you want to be very specific, you can say her agreement was only about the flexibility, and not cheney's overall view of the vice presidency, and you can blame it on ifill's question. ifill's follow-up to biden was closer to the point. and given that palin probably has no conception of the nuances of cheney's attitude, you can also say that she probably wouldn't even know what she was agreeing to if ifill had asked her a more open-ended question.

    [ Parent ]
    Is it possible Gov. Palin (none / 0) (#77)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:24:09 PM EST
    thought the moderator was trying to trip her up on Cheney's claiming the VP wasn't part of the executive branch and therefore he didn't need to comply with a sub dt to the executive branch for the e mails?  

    [ Parent ]
    in general, (none / 0) (#82)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:35:17 PM EST
    i do think that's what ifill was trying to get at, although her question was clumsily phrased. but i don't think palin knew anything about it.

    [ Parent ]
    Cheney's argument (none / 0) (#78)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:25:07 PM EST
    was not simply that the VP had a "dual role."  That is just a given, and Al Gore also had a dual role.  His argument was that this dual role allowed him to evade requirements placed on the executive branch.

    [ Parent ]
    I never thought I'd see you shill for Dick Cheney (none / 0) (#79)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:26:33 PM EST
    Cheney Derangement Syndrome?  Biden was spot on, he is the most dangerous VP we have ever had, and you're splitting hairs defending him...simply unbelievable.

    [ Parent ]
    BTD shilling for Cheney? lol (none / 0) (#84)
    by Teresa on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:47:43 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    so right in fact (none / 0) (#89)
    by dday on Mon Oct 06, 2008 at 01:20:36 AM EST
    That Cheney and the White House have lost multiple court cases arising precisely from his view of the role of the Vice President and his attempt to escape oversight of the executive branch by saying he exists outside of BOTH the executive and the legislative, in a special 4th branch of his own making.

    Anyone who agrees with Cheney on the role of the VP is out of order with current case law.  Therein lies your problem.  I don't know if you're auditioning for the role of his new barrister or what, but he's lost on this, in court, multiple times.  You're wrong.

    You seem to be suffering from "I just want to argue with people" disease, or BTDism.

    [ Parent ]

    He can bring sessions to order, (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:42:15 PM EST
    recognize people to speak, and make procedural rulings (subject to a vote by the whole Senate). He also swears in new members. These duties can also be performed by the President Pro Tempore or his designees (usually junior members of the majority party--it's a tedious and boring job). The only special role he has is to break ties.

    However, he cannot address the Senate on his own, introduce or co-sponsor legislation, or serve on any committees.

    [ Parent ]

    I am puzzled (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by vigkat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:17:01 PM EST
    by the characterization of Palin's answers to questions as "typically only semi-coherent."  

    While I don't agree with her positions and recognize that she is decidedly rough around the edges, I've never found her answers to questions to be incoherent or even semi-coherent.  I have no difficulty comprehending their meaning even while disagreeing with them.

    [ Parent ]

    Oh come on, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:21:27 PM EST
    in the half of the debate I watched, there were at least a couple of examples of word salad.

    [ Parent ]
    don't be (none / 0) (#15)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:28:36 PM EST
    an elitist...

    [ Parent ]
    Turkana, if asked to (none / 0) (#33)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:45:31 PM EST
    predict whether you would tend to be hyper critical of all things Palin or not, I would have guessed "or not."  

    [ Parent ]
    to me (none / 0) (#35)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:47:03 PM EST
    palin is just another version of quayle and bush. and i was and am hyper-critical of them, too.

    [ Parent ]
    also (none / 0) (#61)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:39:52 PM EST
    i have never criticized her family or personal behavior, so i'm actually not critical of all things palin. only the things that matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Palin's talking points (1.00 / 1) (#36)
    by maryyooch on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:47:18 PM EST
    Palin did not make one bit of sense! She kept chaning the subject, then veering off into God knows where. She always ended up her ramblings contradicting herself. She is a Stepford Wife. What ever McCain wants her to do or say, then thats what you get. That's the reason she is not doing talk shows, press confrences, sh*t, she won't even do a show like Regis or Rachel Ray! Now, how much more dumbed down can she get?!?

    [ Parent ]
    "Stepford wife" says, why the heck (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    did you pull out of Michican, John?  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't recall them field dressing (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:53:59 PM EST
    a moose either or playing point guard and letting hubby assume mommy duty ;)

    [ Parent ]
    let's take global warming (none / 0) (#11)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:20:24 PM EST
    her sentence structure was coherent. but how one can solve a problem without bothering to figure out what causes it is not coherent, to me. in the couric interview, her response about the bailout, for example, was not at all coherent.

    [ Parent ]
    Saw an interesting analysis (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST
    of Biden's and Palin's performances in the debate -- their sentence structure, their vocabulary, etc.

    Palin actually rated higher than Biden.  Btw, he had sentences that defied diagramming, too.  And re content, some fact checks I've seen found that he made more misstatements than did Palin.  As in his statement that Obama did not say that he would meet world leaders without preconditions.

    Gotta be careful tossing bricks when in glass houses.  And never underestimate the opposition.

    [ Parent ]

    the opposition (none / 0) (#14)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:27:53 PM EST
    did her best to stick to her talking points, whether or not they applied to the questions. reagan used the same technique, after blundering around in his first debate with mondale. biden actually thought about the questions, and answered them. she only thought about whether or not she could answer them, and then either tried to, or reverted to the safety of whatever canned responses she wanted to talk about.

    i'd be interested in the sources of your fact checks and sentence structure diagrams. some pundits i've read also thought palin winked at them.

    [ Parent ]

    Found it; see CNN.com (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:31:35 PM EST
    (sorry, I can't make links on my computer today) for "Debate analysis: Palin spoke at 10th-grade level, Biden at eighth."  And I think the source sent to me yesterday on the content was factcheck.org.

    [ Parent ]
    again (none / 0) (#19)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:33:56 PM EST
    who is the source, at cnn? anyone who thinks she talked at a more educated level than he did is laughable.

    [ Parent ]
    Again, I can't put your fingers (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:41:14 PM EST
    on the keyboard for you, but I gave you every step short of it that I could.  Fine, now I'll break site rules, since I can't embed comments on this computer, and give you the URL:

    http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/10/03/debate.words/?iref=mpstoryview

    [ Parent ]

    read the article (none / 0) (#31)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:44:47 PM EST
    it's a measure of style, and a very odd and "flexible" measure, at that. and maybe you missed this:

    But higher grade level doesn't necessarily mean better sentence, Payack said.

    it's not clear what the standard is, or how they measure grade level. it's gibberish.

    [ Parent ]

    You raised the issue of coherence (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    and style is a measure of coherence.

    If you would prefer to restate your concern more coherently, that is your stylistic prerogative.

    [ Parent ]

    right (none / 0) (#59)
    by Turkana on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:37:37 PM EST
    believe what you want. some organization you've never heard of sets a standard that none of us understand, but it accords with what you want to believe, so believe it. and even the head of the organization undermines his own results. whatever.

    [ Parent ]
    8th grade level? (none / 0) (#39)
    by maryyooch on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:49:31 PM EST
    Biden spoke at eighth grade level so that Palin just might understand what he was talking about!

    [ Parent ]
    More likely for the voters. (none / 0) (#65)
    by nycstray on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:55:50 PM EST
    and also as a way to keep his answers shorter and to the point, something he has been known to have a problem with, perhaps?

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly. I just saw a media comment (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 02:07:49 PM EST
    that Biden's "flow" was better -- meaning better understood by the audience.  As I noted in an earlier comment, Palin ought to return to what she was taught in broadcast, which is that in that medium even more than print medium, simple vocabulary and simple declarative sentences are better.  That's because we can reread a sentence that, say, begins with a prepositional clause -- but when we hear such a sentence, it is harder to follow because the clause is modifying a subject as yet unstated.

    Convoluted sentence structure is more Biden's usual style, so he clearly worked on it to bring it down to an eighth-grade level.  As the studies note, newspapers are to be written at a sixth-grade level for ease in communication (we tend to not want to reread stories but will just move on to another, with only 20 minutes per day on average for newspaper consumption).  Broadcast writing for audial comprehension is to be written at a fourth-grade level.

    Of course, that's if clarity matters.  Lots of times, pols don't want us to hold them to what they say, so they resort to a style that leaves us wondering what the heck they meant.  That's the style that has been called "professorial" by many commenters here -- but not about Palin, interestingly.

    [ Parent ]

    I read that too, but note that (none / 0) (#80)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:31:37 PM EST
    it says newspapers are written at a sixth grade level.  It also said that Palin used the passive voice, which is used to remove agency.

    It's not about what "level" they spoke at; this only refers to how complex your sentences are.  In this case the more simple and straightforward your answers, the better that people can understand.  Palin's 10th grade level sentences were used to  dodge the questions and give non-answers.

    [ Parent ]

    No, the comment was about coherence (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Cream City on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 05:56:07 PM EST
    in the attack by the commenter that began this.  And you don't explain how Palin, rated at a higher level of communication skills, then could be less coherent than Biden rated at a lower level.

    You're ocnfusing apples, oranges, and maybe kumquats here.  Do you understand linguistic study?

    [ Parent ]

    Biden's response (none / 0) (#26)
    by maryyooch on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:41:57 PM EST
    Well, I don't think Biden's response was too bad. Given HE was the only one going by the rules of the dabate, meaning the length of time allowed to talk, he was pretty basic.
    Although, I wish he had jumped on her about it. He probably did not bacause of all the pundits would have called him a bully if he had actually corrected her on anything. You have to admit, he was in a tight spot.

    Well if getting it wrong is ok (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 12:43:55 PM EST
    wiht you, then fine.

    [ Parent ]
    This is all beside the point (none / 0) (#51)
    by Steve M on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:04:58 PM EST
    I assume we all agree that what made Cheney pernicious was not the fact that he tried to claim too much LEGISLATIVE power.

    I will give Ifill the benefit of the doubt, and assume that her intent was to explore whether the candidates agreed with Cheney's conception of the role of the VP, rather than to quiz them on a nuance of constitutional law.  In that context, her question simply missed the mark.

    In a debate setting, Biden probably made the correct judgment to give a technically incorrect response that nonetheless got at the heart of the matter, the fact that Cheney had too much power as VP and Biden has a different view of the office.  But BTD is absolutely correct that no one gets to enjoy a "gotcha" at Sarah Palin's expense over this answer.

    Biden was trying to take advantage (none / 0) (#56)
    by coigue on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    or the fact that Palin was using Cheney as a role model. He did not care if he was right or wrong.

    Seems the media really is biased against her in this case, because they seem to support Biden's point, not the fact that Palin was right on the issue.

    The issue was Dick Cheney's view of the VP's role (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:33:54 PM EST
    as opposed to all previous Vice Presidents...not Constitution trivia 101.  What's different about Dick Cheney?  The unitary executive theory.  THAT is the issue and that's what the question pertained to.  

    [ Parent ]
    ...and Biden got it because he knows the issues (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Iris on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 03:35:26 PM EST
    Palin may or may not have, but we shouldn't treat her with kid gloves and let her slide by because the moderator asked a clumsily worded question.  You all kill me.

    [ Parent ]
    It was my recollection (none / 0) (#63)
    by KeysDan on Sat Oct 04, 2008 at 01:50:19 PM EST
    (second hand) that the founding fathers had some difficulty deciding on the appropriate constitutional role for the vice president beyond that of succession, owing to the runner-up being the vice president.  The subsequent amendment was painfully and awkwardly observed (first hand) in 2000 when Vice President Gore certified the electoral vote.  The Biden mistake reverberated in my ears, too, but I attributed it to the modern-day practice of presiding (vs. President of) over the senate only when a tie vote is anticipated. An inexactitude for a former chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee but an understandable teaching moment in a political debate. Governor Palin's comments, to me, were harder to decipher since the flexibility she claimed seemed obtuse when placed in the context of the infamous Cheney/Addington position espoused around the time of the Scooter Libby trial.

    For The Record . . . | 89 comments (89 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment