I don't think she's too "inexperienced" to be president—I don't think she's knowledgeable enough to be president. Joe The Plumber can better articulate conservative ideology than she can, and he can actually answer questions from Katie Couric without making a complete ass out of himself. She's a complete joke.
and i continue to be amused at those who can simultaneously hold the contradictory idea that obama is a muslim, while the ramblings of his christian pastor still tell something about the man.
can't we all just agree that neither obama nor palin are qualified for the position?
how many of the names on those lists just got bailed out by these still-working-senators that both voted yea on a nationally unpopular bill? neither one of these guys work for us. neither one intends to start working for us. we're screwed.
No, we're buggered, but there is the slightest chance that one side will use lubricant.
granted (however slight that chance may be), but that's just not good enough any more. i'm done. i am officially disengaging from the rest of this country.
you know, it all sounded great back in grade school and college, but i look around, and i don't live in that mythical place called the United States of America. i never did. none of us did.
I continue to be amused at those who can simultaneously hold the contradictory idea that Obama has insufficient experience to be president while Sarah Palin somehow does.
And I continue to be amazed by those who can simultaneously hold the idea that the office of Vice President requires more experience than the office of President, but that it's somehow okay to bash Palin for her "lack of experience", but not okay to point out that Obama has even less experience than Palin does.
I must have missed something here. Why is it okay for the least experienced of the 4 (Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin), and possibly the most inexperienced ever, to run for the office which demands the most experience and skill?
(BTW, I haven't forgotten about the science and christianity debate. Things have just been extra busy lately. I'll be following up soon.)
No Kevin, she is. Palin may still have no idea what the VP does ("in charge of the Senate"?), but you do. The Vice President's sole inherent function is to President at a moment's notice. So both Biden and Palin are essentially running for president, and should be assessed as such—especially since one of the principal candidates is old and the other one is black.
She has to be judged in a presidential context. And she is quite clearly not up to it and anyone who says different is, in my opinion, deluding themselves.
And Ed, I don't think anyone holds the idea that the office of Vice President requires more experience than the office of President, they hold the idea that it requires an equal amount—not more. Both the Principal and the VP have to be able to be president.
If McCain/Palin win, Palin might be President, if at all. In the mean time, she would be gaining experience.
By contrast, Palin has more experience at the kind of things the President has to do than Obama does.
Let me put it this way.
Obama = Least Experience : President = Most Experience Required
Palin = More Experience : Vice President = Less Experience Required + On The Job Training
Leftists frequently talk like hypocrisy is the biggest crime a person can commit. Yet attacking Palin's level of experience for a job she might never hold, while pushing for the guy with even less experience for a position he will get if you have your way is a textbook example of hypocrisy. That is a HUGE double standard. If Palin is not qualified to hold a "waiting in the wings" position due to her level of experience, then there is no way in hell that Obama should hold the center stage position because he has even less experience than she does!
"No Kevin, she is. Palin may still have no idea what the VP does ("in charge of the Senate"?), but you do. The Vice President's sole inherent function is to President at a moment's notice."
Guav, you should try actually reading the Constitution some time. It'll open up a whole new world for you.
I quote, with emphasis:
*****
The Constitution of the United States
[...]
Article I
[...]
Section 3
[...]
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
[...]
Article II
Section 1
[...]
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
*****
So, Guav, Palin has a very clear and correct idea what the VP does, but YOU don't, and neither does Joe Biden. The Senate functions under the gavel of the President of the Senate. If the Vice President is present, then the Vice President presides over the Senate as President of the Senate, else the Senator who is chosen as President Pro Tempore presides over the Senate as President Pro Tempore. Presiding is what Presidents do.
Do a bit of searching and you'll find that Vice President Dick Cheney routinely presides over the Senate as President of the Senate when it is in session. He seldom ever misses a day. It is a testament to the blithering stupidity of Joe Biden, who has been a Senator for since 1972, hasn't notice ol' Dickie up there at the podium.
"Joe The Plumber can better articulate conservative ideology than she can"
Did you see the whole exchange? You can see it here.
Joe was finished with his question less than 15 seconds into this 5:37 clip. Then later on he described his situation a little more, taking another 10 to 15 seconds. Obama talked the rest of the time and dug his own hole without Joe asking any leading questions.
Ed, Obama does an impressive job of reading a speech from a teleprompter. I take some delight in noting that the loony left used to say that about Ronald Reagan as a complaint.
But when he's unscripted, when there is no teleprompter to read, he is a bumbling, stumbling, fumbling fool. He reveals his true colors then. Such gaffes are priceless, as they are windows into the empty suit that contains him.
Ed "What the" Heckman: I do get it. What I get is that the whole "Palin has executive experience" thing is complete nonsense. By your logic, Palin has more experience at the kind of things the President has to do than McCain does, but anyone who thinks Palin is more experienced or better qualified for the presidency than McCain is either a liar or stupid.
The HUGE double standard is held by the the McCain campaign who for months and months who made "experience" the focal point of their arguments against Obama, and then selected Palin as VP. It was McCain and his supporters that elevated "experience" to the utmost importance, not Obama and his supporters.
Personally, I desire knowledge and judgement above "executive experience," which is why I think McCain, Biden or Obama would all be far better presidents than Palin.
And my statement that "Joe The Plumber can better articulate conservative ideology than [Palin] can" was based on the numerous appearances and interviews I've watched of him, not the initial meeting with Obama.
DJ: I am well aware of the VP's exceptionally limited role in the Senate that the Constitution establishes. While the VP presides over the Senate, he or she is not in charge of it, and they have a vote only on extremely rare occasions.
Can you guide me to your searching that shows Cheney presiding over the Senate almost every session, 'cause my searching showed him presiding only a handful of times over the last eight years. Maybe I'm searching wrong?
"Can you guide me to your searching that shows Cheney presiding over the Senate almost every session, 'cause my searching showed him presiding only a handful of times over the last eight years. Maybe I'm searching wrong?"
No, evidently you are searching correctly.
I recall hearing this directly from Cheney's lips, althouth I don't remember when or where it happened. It may or may not have been true then, but the record shows that it hasn't been true for some time now.
I stand corrected. Mea culpa.
"I am well aware of the VP's exceptionally limited role in the Senate that the Constitution establishes. While the VP presides over the Senate, he or she is not in charge of it, and they have a vote only on extremely rare occasions. "
You can describe it as "exceptionally limited" all you want. I'm not into semantic games.
To "preside over the Senate" is to handle the gavel and conduct the sessions of the Senate per ordinary parliamentary procedure and the rules of the Senate.
To quote from Wikipedia, which ought to be a reasonable source in the matter:
"The President pro tempore (also referred to as President pro tem or President pro temporary) is the second-highest-ranking official of the United States Senate and the highest-ranking senator. The Vice President of the United States is the President of the Senate ex officio, and thus is the highest-ranking official of the Senate; during his/her absence, the President pro tempore is the highest-ranking official in the Senate and may preside over its sessions. The President pro tempore is elected by the Senate; by custom, the President pro tempore is the most senior senator in the majority party. Normally, neither the Vice President of the United States nor the President pro tempore presides; instead, the duty is generally delegated to junior senators to help them learn parliamentary procedure."
Now, that word "normally" has some significance here. To quote further:
"Until the 1960s, it was common practice for the Vice President to preside over daily Senate sessions, so the President pro tempore rarely presided over the Senate unless the Vice Presidency became vacant."
So, until fairly recently, the Vice President took such duties seriously.
Further,
"The President pro tempore, just like the Vice President, over time has ceased presiding over the Senate on a daily basis, owing to the mundane nature of the position. Furthermore, as the President pro tempore is now usually the most senior senator of the majority party, he or she most likely also chairs a major Senate committee, along with other duties this status entails. Therefore, the President pro tempore has less time now than in the past to preside daily over the Senate. Instead, any junior senator can be designated acting President pro tempore to preside over the Senate on a daily basis. This allows junior senators to learn proper parliamentary procedure."
Sometimes the duty is not so "mundane". For example, when the Senate tried President Clinton after he was impeached by the House, the presiding officer was Chief Justice Renquist. Apparently Vice President Gore declined the duty, perhaps saving a tree instead. (Hmmm ... Could a sitting Vice President preside over his own impeachment trial? Could he be prevented from doing so if he so chose? Interesting, no?)
So, a Vice President Palin might fulfill her Contitutional role and routinely preside over the Senate, whereas a Vice President Biden might be unaware that he can. She is accurate about such Constitutional duties, he is not.
I stand by my statement. The Vice President is the President of the Senate, and can exercise the duty and power of presiding over the Senate when it is in session. You can attach whatever significance to that duty you wish. But consider what the value of it might be if Palin becomes Vice President and the Senate has a super-majority. I'd bet she would exercise her Constitutional prerogatives and give 'em hell. I might even watch!
I recall hearing this directly from Cheney's lips, althouth I don't remember when or where it happened.
I think I found the source of the confusion—from the 2004 Vice Presidential debates—but Cheney was lying (or being intentionally misleading, to put it more charitably).
To "preside over the Senate" is to handle the gavel and conduct the sessions of the Senate per ordinary parliamentary procedure and the rules of the Senate.
Precisely. It's a ceremonial and procedural role. If she had merely said "The VP is in charge of the senate" then we'd be quibbling semantics, but she went further than that and said "So if they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes ..." which quite clearly implied that the VP has some proactive legislative role. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, they do not.
That being said, I do not relish the idea of a Democratic super-majority with a Democratic executive either.
Note:
All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost;
references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>
JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2008/10/quote-of-day_20.html (17 comments)
Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.
I don't think she's too "inexperienced" to be president—I don't think she's knowledgeable enough to be president. Joe The Plumber can better articulate conservative ideology than she can, and he can actually answer questions from Katie Couric without making a complete ass out of himself. She's a complete joke.
and i continue to be amused at those who can simultaneously hold the contradictory idea that obama is a muslim, while the ramblings of his christian pastor still tell something about the man.
can't we all just agree that neither obama nor palin are qualified for the position?
further, can't we see that both sides are just corporate whores (sharing the same clientele)?
how many of the names on those lists just got bailed out by these still-working-senators that both voted yea on a nationally unpopular bill? neither one of these guys work for us. neither one intends to start working for us. we're screwed.
we're screwed.
No, we're buggered, but there is the slightest chance that one side will use lubricant.
And there is the slightest chance that the other side has barbs, meaning once we're fucked, we're done.
Obama said he wanted "change" - and McCain gave us Sarah Palin. That's real change.
No, we're buggered, but there is the slightest chance that one side will use lubricant.
granted (however slight that chance may be), but that's just not good enough any more. i'm done. i am officially disengaging from the rest of this country.
you know, it all sounded great back in grade school and college, but i look around, and i don't live in that mythical place called the United States of America. i never did. none of us did.
disclaimer: i'm not wearing a tinfoil hat.
I continue to be amused at those who can simultaneously hold the contradictory idea that Obama has insufficient experience to be president while Sarah Palin somehow does.
Thing is, Guav, she's not running for President, and he IS.
And I continue to be amazed by those who can simultaneously hold the idea that the office of Vice President requires more experience than the office of President, but that it's somehow okay to bash Palin for her "lack of experience", but not okay to point out that Obama has even less experience than Palin does.
I must have missed something here. Why is it okay for the least experienced of the 4 (Obama, Biden, McCain and Palin), and possibly the most inexperienced ever, to run for the office which demands the most experience and skill?
(BTW, I haven't forgotten about the science and christianity debate. Things have just been extra busy lately. I'll be following up soon.)
No Kevin, she is. Palin may still have no idea what the VP does ("in charge of the Senate"?), but you do. The Vice President's sole inherent function is to President at a moment's notice. So both Biden and Palin are essentially running for president, and should be assessed as such—especially since one of the principal candidates is old and the other one is black.
She has to be judged in a presidential context. And she is quite clearly not up to it and anyone who says different is, in my opinion, deluding themselves.
And Ed, I don't think anyone holds the idea that the office of Vice President requires more experience than the office of President, they hold the idea that it requires an equal amount—not more. Both the Principal and the VP have to be able to be president.
Guav,
You're not getting it.
If Obama/Biden win, Obama will be President.
If McCain/Palin win, Palin might be President, if at all. In the mean time, she would be gaining experience.
By contrast, Palin has more experience at the kind of things the President has to do than Obama does.
Let me put it this way.
Obama = Least Experience : President = Most Experience Required
Palin = More Experience : Vice President = Less Experience Required + On The Job Training
Leftists frequently talk like hypocrisy is the biggest crime a person can commit. Yet attacking Palin's level of experience for a job she might never hold, while pushing for the guy with even less experience for a position he will get if you have your way is a textbook example of hypocrisy. That is a HUGE double standard. If Palin is not qualified to hold a "waiting in the wings" position due to her level of experience, then there is no way in hell that Obama should hold the center stage position because he has even less experience than she does!
"No Kevin, she is. Palin may still have no idea what the VP does ("in charge of the Senate"?), but you do. The Vice President's sole inherent function is to President at a moment's notice."
Guav, you should try actually reading the Constitution some time. It'll open up a whole new world for you.
I quote, with emphasis:
*****
The Constitution of the United States
[...]
Article I
[...]
Section 3
[...]
The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be equally divided.
The Senate shall chuse their other Officers, and also a President pro tempore, in the Absence of the Vice President, or when he shall exercise the Office of President of the United States.
[...]
Article II
Section 1
[...]
In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.
*****
So, Guav, Palin has a very clear and correct idea what the VP does, but YOU don't, and neither does Joe Biden. The Senate functions under the gavel of the President of the Senate. If the Vice President is present, then the Vice President presides over the Senate as President of the Senate, else the Senator who is chosen as President Pro Tempore presides over the Senate as President Pro Tempore. Presiding is what Presidents do.
Do a bit of searching and you'll find that Vice President Dick Cheney routinely presides over the Senate as President of the Senate when it is in session. He seldom ever misses a day. It is a testament to the blithering stupidity of Joe Biden, who has been a Senator for since 1972, hasn't notice ol' Dickie up there at the podium.
"Joe The Plumber can better articulate conservative ideology than she can"
Did you see the whole exchange? You can see it here.
Joe was finished with his question less than 15 seconds into this 5:37 clip. Then later on he described his situation a little more, taking another 10 to 15 seconds. Obama talked the rest of the time and dug his own hole without Joe asking any leading questions.
Ed, Obama does an impressive job of reading a speech from a teleprompter. I take some delight in noting that the loony left used to say that about Ronald Reagan as a complaint.
But when he's unscripted, when there is no teleprompter to read, he is a bumbling, stumbling, fumbling fool. He reveals his true colors then. Such gaffes are priceless, as they are windows into the empty suit that contains him.
Ed "What the" Heckman: I do get it. What I get is that the whole "Palin has executive experience" thing is complete nonsense. By your logic, Palin has more experience at the kind of things the President has to do than McCain does, but anyone who thinks Palin is more experienced or better qualified for the presidency than McCain is either a liar or stupid.
The HUGE double standard is held by the the McCain campaign who for months and months who made "experience" the focal point of their arguments against Obama, and then selected Palin as VP. It was McCain and his supporters that elevated "experience" to the utmost importance, not Obama and his supporters.
Personally, I desire knowledge and judgement above "executive experience," which is why I think McCain, Biden or Obama would all be far better presidents than Palin.
And my statement that "Joe The Plumber can better articulate conservative ideology than [Palin] can" was based on the numerous appearances and interviews I've watched of him, not the initial meeting with Obama.
DJ: I am well aware of the VP's exceptionally limited role in the Senate that the Constitution establishes. While the VP presides over the Senate, he or she is not in charge of it, and they have a vote only on extremely rare occasions.
Can you guide me to your searching that shows Cheney presiding over the Senate almost every session, 'cause my searching showed him presiding only a handful of times over the last eight years. Maybe I'm searching wrong?
"Can you guide me to your searching that shows Cheney presiding over the Senate almost every session, 'cause my searching showed him presiding only a handful of times over the last eight years. Maybe I'm searching wrong?"
No, evidently you are searching correctly.
I recall hearing this directly from Cheney's lips, althouth I don't remember when or where it happened. It may or may not have been true then, but the record shows that it hasn't been true for some time now.
I stand corrected. Mea culpa.
"I am well aware of the VP's exceptionally limited role in the Senate that the Constitution establishes. While the VP presides over the Senate, he or she is not in charge of it, and they have a vote only on extremely rare occasions. "
You can describe it as "exceptionally limited" all you want. I'm not into semantic games.
To "preside over the Senate" is to handle the gavel and conduct the sessions of the Senate per ordinary parliamentary procedure and the rules of the Senate.
To quote from Wikipedia, which ought to be a reasonable source in the matter:
"The President pro tempore (also referred to as President pro tem or President pro temporary) is the second-highest-ranking official of the United States Senate and the highest-ranking senator. The Vice President of the United States is the President of the Senate ex officio, and thus is the highest-ranking official of the Senate; during his/her absence, the President pro tempore is the highest-ranking official in the Senate and may preside over its sessions. The President pro tempore is elected by the Senate; by custom, the President pro tempore is the most senior senator in the majority party. Normally, neither the Vice President of the United States nor the President pro tempore presides; instead, the duty is generally delegated to junior senators to help them learn parliamentary procedure."
Now, that word "normally" has some significance here. To quote further:
"Until the 1960s, it was common practice for the Vice President to preside over daily Senate sessions, so the President pro tempore rarely presided over the Senate unless the Vice Presidency became vacant."
So, until fairly recently, the Vice President took such duties seriously.
Further,
"The President pro tempore, just like the Vice President, over time has ceased presiding over the Senate on a daily basis, owing to the mundane nature of the position. Furthermore, as the President pro tempore is now usually the most senior senator of the majority party, he or she most likely also chairs a major Senate committee, along with other duties this status entails. Therefore, the President pro tempore has less time now than in the past to preside daily over the Senate. Instead, any junior senator can be designated acting President pro tempore to preside over the Senate on a daily basis. This allows junior senators to learn proper parliamentary procedure."
Sometimes the duty is not so "mundane". For example, when the Senate tried President Clinton after he was impeached by the House, the presiding officer was Chief Justice Renquist. Apparently Vice President Gore declined the duty, perhaps saving a tree instead. (Hmmm ... Could a sitting Vice President preside over his own impeachment trial? Could he be prevented from doing so if he so chose? Interesting, no?)
So, a Vice President Palin might fulfill her Contitutional role and routinely preside over the Senate, whereas a Vice President Biden might be unaware that he can. She is accurate about such Constitutional duties, he is not.
I stand by my statement. The Vice President is the President of the Senate, and can exercise the duty and power of presiding over the Senate when it is in session. You can attach whatever significance to that duty you wish. But consider what the value of it might be if Palin becomes Vice President and the Senate has a super-majority. I'd bet she would exercise her Constitutional prerogatives and give 'em hell. I might even watch!
I think I found the source of the confusion—from the 2004 Vice Presidential debates—but Cheney was lying (or being intentionally misleading, to put it more charitably).
Precisely. It's a ceremonial and procedural role. If she had merely said "The VP is in charge of the senate" then we'd be quibbling semantics, but she went further than that and said "So if they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes ..." which quite clearly implied that the VP has some proactive legislative role. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, they do not.
That being said, I do not relish the idea of a Democratic super-majority with a Democratic executive either.
Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>