The LineThat Could SINK McCain & Palin

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
The LineThat Could SINK McCain & Palin
33
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 4:35am


http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/41910/thumbs/r-WINKER-medium260.jpg Howard Dean is 'over the top'


 



The Line That Could Sink McCain-Palin

In last night's debate, there was one answer that caused the entire left blogosphere to spit coffee all over their keyboards, and worked Chris Matthews up. But, the line was largely lost in today's analysis. In the end, however, it could be the undoing of the McCain campaign.



In response to a question as to whether Dick Cheney's view of the Vice Presidency was right, not only did Sarah Palin say it was, but hinted that she'd like even MORE power, as VP.


In just over a week, it is expected that the Troopergate report on Palin's alleged abuse of power will come out. While Republicans have tried like hell to make this seem like a partisan hunt, they've have their legs cut out with every step. In fact, just last evening before Palin took the stage, the court rejected two Republican motions to stop the investigation. And, by the way, it isn't looking good. Apparently, one witness who had maintained Palin did nothing wrong, flipped her story under oath.


And yet, to this point, the McCain campaign could have dismissed the Troopergate report as much ado about nothing - a small-time issue dealing with small time politics - if it implied Palin was guilty of abuse of power. Not that I agree with that, but I could see the McCain camp fluffing it off and pivoting to much more dire issues facing American families.


Not anymore.


If a report is issued that says there is enough to say Palin abused her power, coupling that with Palin's contention that she wants even more power than Dick Cheney will become a strangling distraction for the McCain campaign with just days to go until election day.


Unless there are scary-as-hell circumstances that cause American's to lose their passion for civil liberties and separation of powers (see Patriot Act), Americans traditionally look very poorly at power grabbing and abuse. Even FDR couldn't overcome this sentiment when he tried to pack the court, so it would rubber-stamp his policies.


Of course, this is all moot if the report issues no conclusive finding, or finds Palin innocent of any wrongdoing. But if it doesn't, watch for Palin's answer on Cheney and Power to become a part of any story on the Troopergate report. And from there, watch Senator McCain's campaign get thrown so far off course that it barely limps into Election Day.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-schmeltzer/the-line-that-could-sink_b_131728.html









Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 01-12-2004
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:08am
I found it odd that she would claim the founding fathers had put "flexibility" in the consititution with regards to the VP's role (they did not, they were very specific in limiting the role) when she was standing right next to a legislator with expertise in constitutional law, who has even taught constitutional law at the University of Delaware.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:19am

"So, American history is clearly not her strong suit."


I trust your take on things being where you are and what you do.

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 10:03am

Is this history of VP inaccurate then?


Under the original code of Senate rules, the presiding officer exercised great power over the conduct of the body's proceedings. Rule XVI provided that "every question of order shall be decided by the President , without debate; but if there be a doubt in his mind, he may call for a sense of the Senate." Thus, contrary to later practice, the presiding officer was the sole judge of proper procedure and his rulings could not be turned aside by the full Senate without his assent.


The first two vice presidents, Adams and Jefferson, did much to shape the nature of the office, setting precedents that were followed by others. During most of the nineteenth century, the degree of influence and the role played within the Senate depended chiefly on the personality and inclinations of the individual involved. Some had great parliamentary skill and presided well, while others found the task boring, were incapable of maintaining order, or chose to spend most of their time away from Washington, leaving the duty to a president pro tempore. Some made an effort to preside fairly, while others used their position to promote the political agenda of the administration.


During the twentieth century, the role of the vice president has evolved into more of an executive branch position. Now, the vice president is usually seen as an integral part of a president's administration and presides over the Senate only on ceremonial occasions or when a tie-breaking vote may be needed. Yet, even though the nature of the job has changed, it is still greatly affected by the personality and skills of the individual incumbent.



iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 3:23pm

((I

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 3:33pm
She's channeling Dick Cheney already. Not surprising at all. Look at her petty politics in Alaska where the litmus test for getting a top job in her Administration is only that you have to be her bud - qualifications don't matter.
iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 5:16pm
So maybe you can help me understand the role of the VP better. Is it, in fact, Article 1 of the Constitution that "defines the role of the vice president of the United States, that's the Executive Branch."

iVillage Member
Registered: 07-25-2006
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 5:19pm

<>She's channeling Dick Cheney already.<>


How so?



iVillage Member
Registered: 07-15-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 5:27pm

The way I read it, it just says the VP will preside over the Senate and cast a vote in case of a tie.

iVillage Member
Registered: 08-20-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 9:15pm

"<>She's channeling Dick Cheney already.<>

How so?"

Palin: "Yeah, so I do agree with him that we have a lot of flexibility in there"

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/10/3/04712/5460

What more do you want?

PS Biden's response was correct:

"IFILL: Vice President Cheney's interpretation of the vice presidency?
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 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. The Constitution is explicit.
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."

iVillage Member
Registered: 09-08-2008
Sat, 10-04-2008 - 11:06pm

((She's channeling Dick Cheney already. ))


Pages