What the hell did Sarah Sixpack mean by this??

Fri

Oct 3 2008

01:11:am

By: Bbeanster shortURL

“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.”

Aside from the garbled syntax, I mean.

Topics:

Bbeanster's blog

vote

Palin wants to take over committee assignments, etc.

Submitted by The Possom (not verified) on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 6:32am.

Palin wants to become the mini-czar of the Senate, deciding who sits where, what bills come to the floor when, and making committee assignments. She wants to have the control that Reid has now, Dole once had, and First wished he could have had.

Her wish is to fundamentally alter the way the Senate works, and not in a good way, for us or for democracy. I couldn't see her comments any other way.

I don't think Palin

Submitted by Somebody on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 1:26pm.

I don't think Palin understood the question well enough to mean what you're saying. Even if that's what she did mean, she'd find out quickly that she was powerless to implement those kinds of controls. The Senate works out its pecking order and procedures by voting on them. Unless there was a tie, she'd have no say in those matters. She could preside all she wanted, but the real power would remain with the voting Senators.

I think the charitable

Submitted by MDB on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 8:19am.

I think the charitable interpretation is,

"The Constitution doesn't prohibit the Veep from trying to be an active participant in the Senate, even if he or she only actually votes to break ties."

on MSNBC after the debate,

Submitted by rocketsquirrel on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 8:43am.

on MSNBC after the debate, Governor of Hawaii, a Palin supporter, referred to it as the Palin McCain ticket.

I think the interpretation of the above quote could be, "The Senate (and John McCain) better realize how powerful the VP is, or I'll steamroll 'em all like a state trooper in Anchorage."

She didn't understand the

Submitted by Paul Witt on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 8:49am.

She didn't understand the question. I'm pretty sure that was the question about whether the VP is in the executive or legislative branch of the federal government. Biden knew what Ifill meant but Palin didn't. Unfortunately, most voters probably didn't either.

I'm agreeing with MDB, mostly

Submitted by bobbylife on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 8:56am.

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

Recent administrations have increased the importance of the office of VP of the US, but back in the day when the Constitution was still being hashed out, the VP seems to have been regarded more as a necessary appendage than as an active partner in a President's administration.

As VP significance has increased, VPs tend to do more actual presiding, as opposed to appointing a president pro tem to occupy the presidential seat in the Senate. Cheney's not the first VP to be busy in the Senate. Gore was too, if you'll recall.

The trend will probably continue whoever wins, and the administration actually seems to have a decent amount of gray area to play with.

I think that's what Palin meant to say. She just got a little goofy in the tongue there.

I let you slide earlier with

Submitted by metulj on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 9:02am.

I let you slide earlier with the complete "History Channel" nonsense about Hitler and the Jews, because most Americans don't understand what anti-Semitism is (both racial and religious discrimination, not racial discrimination alone), but this one is a complete stinker.

Cheney has gone TO COURT to try and get the VP declared something other than its Constitutional role. He said it WAS NOT a part of the executive branch and therefore exempt from executive rules. He was told, "Um, no."

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Cheney has gone TO COURT to

Submitted by bobbylife on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 10:31am.

Cheney has gone TO COURT to try and get the VP declared something other than its Constitutional role. He said it WAS NOT a part of the executive branch and therefore exempt from executive rules. He was told, "Um, no."

Sure he was. And rightly so. Thank God for separation of powers, what? Anyway, what does Cheney's particular maladaptive behavior have to do with the legitimate role of president of the Senate? He still gets to exercise that one, even though he's behaved like an ass, no?

I'm just predicting that the VP is gonna be more and more embedded henceforth whether he's a he or she's a she in the next administration. You may disagree. Neither of us yet knows.

I let you slide earlier with the complete "History Channel" nonsense about Hitler and the Jews, because most Americans don't understand what anti-Semitism is (both racial and religious discrimination, not racial discrimination alone),...

Hey, if you want to get hung up by the tangential, by all means, don't let me slide. Please arrest my plunge into error. Belay me with your magnificent intellect, your razor wit and your un-television command of history. I'm always looking for learning opportunities. You want to school me in this thread or another?

The plunge has already been

Submitted by metulj on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 10:46am.

The plunge has already been taken; you are all wet.

Anyhow, the VP's role is defined in the Constitution. Now is the Constitution reality viz our governance, or is it a "living document, or both, or neither?

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

Well you're a...

Submitted by bobbylife on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 11:11am.

...pisspoor lifeguard.

Good thing I can swim.

Please deposit $100 to my

Submitted by metulj on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 11:42am.

Please deposit $100 to my Paypal account. I do nothing for free. It's the American way.

True happiness is knowing you are a hypocrite. -- Ivor Cutler

You are pretty sensitive when your own nits get picked

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 12:26pm.

You have gone around this board picking on the tangential in other people's posts, attributing motives to them that they don't have.

Now you get called on something and you respond with arrogant sarcasm.

I can see why you have taken on the mantle of intellectual honesty cop.

Why don't you start an original thread? Are you too scared you're going to get criticized by someone like you?

-Sugarfatpie (AKA Alex Pulsipher)

"X-Rays are a hoax."-Lord Kelvin

I have?

Submitted by bobbylife on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 1:18pm.

Moi? Attributing motives that people don't have? I don't think I've done that, not in any specific sense, but maybe I'm wrong.

I'm still waiting, insensitively, for my nits to get picked, Alex, and to get "called" on whatever you seem to think I've been called on.

You say I'm picking on things that are tangential. I disagree with you. I think they're essential. Usually.

And as far as go arrogance and sarcasm, I've just jumped into the swiftly flowing stream. Arrogance and sarcasm are just style elements here. You are a practitioner of both. metulj is too. metulj can take it, obviously, so you don't need to worry.

If I were to start a thread here, I'd start one about hatred. About why it is okay to hate some people and not okay to hate others. Does hatred play an essential role in the way we self-identify? Is contempt for the other necessary for some reason? If it is, why don't we just do it honestly instead of denying it? I mean, everyone does it. It pops up here all the time (and no, I'm not impugning your motives or anyone else's in particular), and it usually seems justified or condemned for pretty arbitrary reasons. The same kind of thing happens all over the place. I'm curious about it, and why it is. Rightwing hate isn't as interesting to me as leftwing hate because rightwing morality does not seem inherently compassionate, and seems to repudiate hatred only for self-serving reasons. Boring, boring, deadly dull. People on the left, however, are fascinating in this regard because genuine compassion seems at the heart of so much of what they advance. Yet they dehumanize people whose ideas they oppose, and they do this with just as much vituperation as anybody else, probably without really thinking about it. That's very interesting. I want to understand it.

But I suspect this is interesting only to me. So my hunch is that my thread on that topic would be ignored and that it would have wasted my time. What would be the benefit of that?

Yes you have.

Submitted by sugarfatpie on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 1:40pm.

You attributed the hatred of Sandra Burnhard to a poster earlier today. The fact that he didn't even know what you were talking about, hadn't read her and therefore couldn't claim her hate as his own, also makes your post completely tangential and not at all essential.

What you got called on is right there on the post. Please read it again and respond more intelligently.

As for your post on hate- I strongly encourage it.
I started one on race earlier this year.
(link...)

and another one on the root causes of the TVUUC shooting.
(link...)

However, should you do your hate post, I predict you will get zero support for focusing on left-wing hate just because you find it fascinating. You are posting on a board based in a town that has suffered a major hate-motivated shooting in a church. And no it was not a liberal motivated by compassion who did the shooting. You will need to at least compare different kinds of politicized hate.

Hmm, starting to understand some of your motives. I don't see my own motives as particularly compassionate. Its self interest with the recognition that I live in a society/country/planet with intricate interdependency and finite resources. If I have to speak bluntly in my own self interest, and you end up seeing that as compassion-motivated hate, well so be it. Have a good mental wank on it.

-Sugarfatpie (AKA Alex Pulsipher)

"X-Rays are a hoax."-Lord Kelvin

Thank God for separation of

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 1:25pm.

Thank God for separation of powers, what? Anyway, what does Cheney's particular maladaptive behavior have to do with the legitimate role of president of the Senate?

Cheney's behavior was the subject of Ifill's question. Palin was asked what she thought about Cheney's novel interpretation of the VP office, and her answer was basically that she would use his unconstitutional perversion of the office as a jumping off point for further power grabs.

"Thank God for separation of powers" surely deserves bonus points for highlighting the intellectual decay of Republicans. The Bush administration, and Cheney in particular, have refused to acknowledge that concept throughout their tenure, with nary of peep of protest from Republicans. Even after federal judges told Cheney his "not a member of the Executive Branch" defense was bullshit, he just ignored them and moved on to the next delaying tactic in his sick sack of tricks. You showing up at this late stage and passing yourself off as a champion of separation of powers is a joke.

Cheney's behavior was the

Submitted by Rachel on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 2:30pm.

Yup. Cheney now wants her to have his babies.

Glossolalia + Interpretation

Submitted by bobbylife on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 5:04pm.

Palin was asked what she thought about Cheney's novel interpretation of the VP office,...

That's what Ifill said? Hmm. I didn't hear it exactly that way, but you're probably a much better listener than I am.

...and her answer was basically that she would use his unconstitutional perversion of the office as a jumping off point for further power grabs.

And this proves it. See, what I heard was incomprehensible, pretty much. You've managed to interpret in a manner that can only be termed "remarkable."

You showing up at this late stage and passing yourself off as a champion of separation of powers is a joke.

This is an amazingly asinine thing to say. What, I'm "the Republicans?" If I'd jumped in earlier, I could have saved the day? Grant that I might have a break.

See, what I heard was

Submitted by rikki on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 8:01pm.

See, what I heard was incomprehensible, pretty much. You've managed to interpret in a manner that can only be termed "remarkable."

Hilarious. This morning you were perfectly happy to explain what Palin's answer meant. Now you say it was incomprehensible. Awesome!

Here is Ifill's question: "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?" Seems pretty straightforward to me, and Palin sidestepped it, but amid her nonsense was a clear sense that she feels the VP can be more powerful than tradition dictates.

Given your logical inconsistency and the way you dodge questions, you certainly have the symptoms of being a Republican. Do you actually believe in the separation of powers? If so, Cheney and numerous other Bush officials offer a plethora of abuses you could condemn in order to bolster your credibility. I won't hold my breath.

Hmm...

Submitted by bobbylife on Sat, 2008/10/04 - 12:27am.

Hilarious. This morning you were perfectly happy to explain what Palin's answer meant. Now you say it was incomprehensible. Awesome!

I did? Really? No, wait. Lemme check...ah, yes: here it is, what I actually said:

I think that's what Palin meant to say. She just got a little goofy in the tongue there.

Honestly? I was watching her at that moment, and I just...I dunno. I thought, "Oh. Wow."

This morning I was speculating as to what Palin meant, and I think I got close, although I wasn't being entirely serious, as I would've thought anyone could tell by my tone. Sometimes I forget that some of the people who post here (not you, of course) have all the subtlety of a pineapple rammed by a hydraulic log splitter into a sucking chest wound. I really think she meant that as VP she'd be the President's advocate in the Senate, but who knows?

Wait! You do! You're the one who's awesome, Rikki!

But seriously, I don't think she understood Ifill's question as it related to what Cheney's tried shenanigantastically to do with the office. I'd say it's a safe bet Palin really doesn't know much about that, and that she was surprised by the question and tried to answer as she'd been coached and accidentally went all glossolalia there. Inexcusable? Perhaps. Anyway, that's just my pitiful guess. You're the gifted one, and you've already interpreted.

Credibility? Meh. You may keep it. Without going into tedious detail, I'll just say that the Bush & Cheney firm has done massive damage to our constitutional fabric and to essential conservatism, which should be very protective of the Constitution. Cheney's own forays into blurring the line between the Executive and Legislative branches have been rightly, if not definitively, slapped down. Wish the same had happened with the Patriot Act, but of course that's been eclipsed, perhaps, by today's historic passage of the Bailout.

Without going into tedious

Submitted by rikki on Sat, 2008/10/04 - 8:41am.

Without going into tedious detail...Cheney's own forays...have been rightly, if not definitively, slapped down.

Cheney hasn't been slapped down. He continues to withhold evidence and testimony, now in defiance of not just the Constitution and common sense, but also a judge's ruling. Do you believe he should be impeached for that?

I don't need tedious detail, but I am interested in whether you can point to another example of the Bush administration abusing the separation of powers. The Patriot Act is abusive of the Constitution, but in a different way; it's more collusion of powers, with the Republican Congress emasculating itself in deference to the Bush cabal.

Ambivalence and abuse

Submitted by bobbylife on Sat, 2008/10/04 - 9:18pm.

No, I don't think Cheney should be impeached with regard to his particular take on the office of VP. What he's tried to do with the office is shortsighted and stupid and it may strain the envelope of tradition, but the Constitution doesn't constrain the office much, and it's not terribly specific about the responsibilities inherent in the office. Impeachment would have been impractical anyway, and a huge waste of resources.

The Patriot Act is abusive of the Constitution, but in a different way; it's more collusion of powers, with the Republican Congress emasculating itself in deference to the Bush cabal.

Seems to me that if one branch gets away with abuse of its powers, the other two ultimately have to have colluded. But you know more about this than I do.

You want an example of the Bush administration abusing separation of powers? Going to war in Iraq without a declaration of war from Congress. Again, there's collusion. Congress colluded and in so doing abrogated its Constitutional role and responsibility. Does that collusion then disqualify the example?

Does that collusion then

Submitted by rikki on Sun, 2008/10/05 - 12:39pm.

Does that collusion then disqualify the example?

The example is not an example of Bush abusing checks and balances, so it's disqualified regardless. You probably haven't been paying enough attention to come up with any further examples. Hell, you don't even care that Cheney is abusing the Constitution. It's just a vague old document, anyway, and enforcing it is such a hassle.

I thought you were, like, a serious thinker.

Submitted by bobbylife on Mon, 2008/10/06 - 10:46am.

You don't think that a sitting president who has defined "inherent powers" that pretty much give him, in his own mind, the ability to act unilaterally to do "whatever it takes" to "defend the American people" going to war without a declaration of war, the making of which is the sole prerogative of Congress, is doing violence to the idea of separation of powers? Wow. You'd probably say that Bush's assertion that he gets to override statutory limitations imposed upon him by Congress is a harmless foible, too. That's interesting indeed. Interesting enough that I'd love to hear you go a little deeper, although I'm hesitant to bet that you will.

Hell, you don't even care that Cheney is abusing the Constitution.

I don't? Where do you come up with such ideas, rikki? I have to agree with you that he should be impeached in order to pass your litmus test of "caring" that the constitution has been abused? Whatever. You should, however, try to avoid being dishonest about what I've actually said here, which wasn't what you said I said. I begin to think that you don't actually have the gift of interpretation. I guarantee you that I regard the Constitution as holier writ than do you. I just think that the spectacle of Dick Cheney presiding over his own impeachment for trying to straddle the fence between the legislative and executive branches would be a stupid sideshow. There are much more important issues, IMO, and none of them will be remediated via impeachment. They'll never be be taken up. Pelosi and Reid, and Congress in general,don't have the stomach for it. Shit, the American people don't have the stomach for it.

I admit I could be paying better attention. Most everyone except you and the other Istari, if they were being honest, would have to say the same thing. I can think of lots of ways that the Bush admin has twisted up the Constitution (He has the "inherent powers" to twist at will, remember?), or threatened to, but what would be the point of listing them here? You'd probably just continue saying "Nuh-uh!!" in all your sagacity.

I still say that the best (and only clear [to me, and maybe I am wrong]) example of Bush violating (with the cooperation of a barely-Republican congress immediately after a shattering event) separation of powers is the whole carte-blanche to go to war anytime the Decider decides to. Your saying that it's not an example doesn't matter. It's as scary and heinous an example as any rational person could want.

Your whole deal here seems to be to attack the intelligence of people who aren't in your ideological canoe. That's less-than-awesome, rikki.

Your whole deal here seems

Submitted by rikki on Mon, 2008/10/06 - 5:07pm.

Your whole deal here seems to be to attack the intelligence of people who aren't in your ideological canoe.

My whole deal is I get bored talking to people whose ideological canoe doesn't hold water. Disputes over military action with a declaration of war are decades old and hardly unique to the Bush administration. Those arguments are rooted in the notion of "commander in chief" as it pertains to modern warfare. Issues of separation of powers play at best a minor role, since the President's decisions as commander are not subjected to judicial or legislative oversight.

The only actual example of an abuse of checks and balances you are willing to acknowledge -- Cheney withholding documents by claiming to live in a Constitutional netherworld between two branches where no one can touch him -- is one for which you have suggested no recourse. Cheney continues to flaunt Congress and the courts. You don't want to impeach him or do anything but throw some mean words at him. That's why I think you don't care about his abuse of the Constitution. You try to evade that charge by pointing to neglected matters that are even more important than preventing Cheney's actions from setting precedent for future administrations. Apparently those matters are so important you can not even speak their name!

Your muddled, light-on-the-facts arguments are boring.

Oh, crap.

Submitted by bobbylife on Tue, 2008/10/07 - 12:04am.

I've bored you?

I am sorry.

I'll try to make amends, but I'll understand if you want to stay away.

Boredom sucks the hind tit, rikki.

I really do apologize.

I see no problem whatsoever

Submitted by R. Neal on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 10:37am.

I see no problem whatsoever with the VP being the executive branch's top lobbyist in Congress. He or she needs something to do.

I'm not sure Palin understands the difference, though, between that v. exerting extra-Constitutional control over the legislative process or exemption from the law and the Constitution, as the Cheney/Bush Administration claims as their right of executive privilege.

I liked Biden's take on it. Advice and counsel and participating in decisions when asked, Congressional liaison to push the administration's legislative agenda, but beyond that "Obama's the president, not me."

I see no problem whatsoever

Submitted by MDB on Fri, 2008/10/03 - 10:54am.

I see no problem whatsoever with the VP being the executive branch's top lobbyist in Congress. He or she needs something to do.

That's a valid point -- the VP's role has always been, basically, "whatever the President lets him do." That ranges from a pretty active VP like Gore, or many of the recent ones, to complete non-entities. (I know I heard once that one of the 19th Century actually died while serving in the office, though not in DC at the time, and it was several weeks before anyone in Washington actually noticed. That could be a historical urban legend though.)

Cheney's extraordinarily assertive Vice-Presidency, though, raises Constitutional issues.

(As an aside, I half-joke that one of the reasons I'm not sure if I like the idea of impeaching Bush is that President Cheney would be either "an acknowledgment of reality" or "even worse".)