Palin tells kids the vice president 'runs' Senate

[Calabrio]

..again, PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE. Tie breaking vote and PRESIDE over senate.

She was talking to third graders. I recognize, they are probably smarter than most of the "journalist" who follow them around, but you tend to simplify things when dealing with children.

I'm not going to endure a Keith Olberman clip, but based on what's been said in this thread, she didn't say anything "stupid."

Could we please stop wasting this energy pretending this is a dumb woman. It's really ridiculous and such a tired, cliche attack used by liberals. Bush is dumb, Reagan was dumb, Ford was dumb, Ike was dumb..... enough.

This is a woman who has succeeded entirely on her own merits. She's not from money, radicals didn't take her under their wings to mold her into their "perfect candidate."

 

[Marcus]

Could we please stop wasting this energy pretending this is a dumb woman. It's really ridiculous and such a tired, cliche attack used by liberals. Bush is dumb, Reagan was dumb, Ford was dumb, Ike was dumb..... enough.

There's a difference between "dumb" and "ignorant". I personally don't think she's dumb.

Ike was dumb? I never heard that one.

As for wasting time and energy, talk to Bryan first.

 

[shagdrum]

I cannot believe you guys (and gal) are mocking her for telling a constitutional fact to a 3rd grader!

You really have no shame! You will mock her for anything you can. If you can spin it as wrong, then you will mock her; the truth be damned.

Argue all you want but the fact is she is correct! I know many liberal's don't like to do this but, go read the constitution before you pronouce her wrong.

It isn't misleading in any way, it is a fact. Considering she was talking to a third grader...can you say "civics lesson"? In pointing out what the VP does, any teacher talking to a third grader would be remiss in not point out that the VP runs the Senate.

Though Biden misses that fact. It appears that Palin is more knowledgeable on the constitution then Biden.

I know facts and the truth are secondary in the goal to get Obama elected (and all smears to accomplish that goal are warranted), but have some honesty here.

 

[foxpaws]

I don't believe I have ever said she is dumb, others may have.

She made a gaffe - can't we all just smile about it - the right is posting Biden gaffes too - and he probably is ahead in gaffe-dom 4 or 5 to 1, at least.

And quick, can you name the last vice president that actually 'took charge of' the Senate - was there for all the votes, really tried to make a difference in how the Senate runs?

Maybe Jefferson... as in Thomas.

The vice president's role currently is to work as almost a liaison for the Cabinet and within the executive branch.

I still think a better explanation for the third graders would have been 'breaks ties in the Senate' since it has been more than a century that a VP has actually sat in the Senate on a daily basis.

I will take all bets on whether either VP candidate will be doing any "taking charge" of the senate, and if one did, Biden would have a better chance, as he would be working with the majority as well as being 'one of the boys' for so long...

But, you are right , when history is set aside...

 

[shagdrum]

I don't believe I have ever said she is dumb, others may have.

fair enough...

She made a gaffe - can't we all just smile about it - the right is posting Biden gaffes too - and he probably is ahead in gaffe-dom 4 or 5 to 1, at least.

But she didn't make a gaffe. It is factually correct. The constitution says it in plain text. That is the job discription of the VP. How it is applied is irrelevant, especially at the third grade level. At that level, it is all about how the government was set up to work.

To try and make an argument that it was a "gaffe" on her part is disengenuous at best.

And quick, can you name the last vice president that actually 'took charge of' the Senate - was there for all the votes, really tried to make a difference in how the Senate runs?

That doesn't negate the constitutional role of the VP.

I still think a better explanation for the third graders would have been 'breaks ties in the Senate' since it has been more than a century that a VP has actually sat in the Senate on a daily basis.

When is the last time you read an elementary school textbook? The civics part is really only concerned with how the government is set up. It's structure. Not how the government has changed throughout the years (except in very broad terms).

But, you are right , when history is set aside...

I am not setting history aside. I am putting Palin's comments in context.

If you cannot admit that your argument is specious at best, then there is no debating you...

 

[foxpaws]

If you cannot admit that your argument is specious at best, then there is no debating you...

why specious... yes I do believe my argument is quite specious...
I usually go by the first definition in the dictionary...

showily beautiful or attractive

Thank you shag...

You are constitutionally correct (yes, you are right) - the constitution does give the Vice President that power. However practically Palin's statement is incorrect.

Sort of form over substance (allowing the terminology or technical specifications of something to take on more meaning than its actual function).

Something a 3rd grader does understand.

I was never going after her, regarding her 'in charge of senate' statement - I was trying to explain what the VP does, in practicality...

Are there 3rd grade civic classes?

 

[shagdrum]

Now there is an honest critique.

I see a very disturbing trend from the Obama supporters (and the Obama supporting left), of being habitually dishonest and making specious and sophistic arguments.

Your honesty here is a breath of fresh air...

Now to tear it apart.

There's a difference between "dumb" and "ignorant". I personally don't think she's dumb.

After watching the Couric and Gibson interview, that would be a very reasonable conclusion to draw; that she is ignorant.

But here are a few facts to consider regarding those interviews...

• It is common practice in interviews of this nature to give the person being interviewed the general questions beforehand. At the very least, they let them know the line of questioning and the subjects to be discussed,; but usually they give them the general questions.
• It is clear that certian questions were sprung on her in the interview (the SCOTUS cases question, for example)
• It is also very clear that Gibson and Couric as well as the MSM in general are very hostile to her (recently, a CNN reporter interviewing Palin misquoted a National Review peice in the interview to get her reaction to it).
• Anyone running for political office with those type of questions being popped on them in that type of interview would have a lot running through their mind. "How will my answer effect the campaign?", "Will I alienate voters if I answer it this way? Does that matter?", "How should I phrase the answer to be most helpful to my campaign?", that kind of thing.
• Usually, if a liberal candidate (say Obama) flounders around in an interview like that, the floundering is edited out. Palin (as with most republican candidates) was afforded no such luxury.
• She is not a lawyer and doesn't have a law degree. While I am pretty well read in supreme court cases, if asked that question on the spot, I would flounder. Most people outside of a lawyer would do the same.

When you consider those facts, I think the more realistic conclusion is that she was ill prepared to deal with a hostile media while running on the national ticket early on. That may have been due to some naivete on her part as well as incompetence on the part of her handlers in the campaign.

She has since come a very long way in a short time in handling the hostile media. That demonstrates that she is quick to adapt.

As to ignorance in a potential president...

All presidents are ignorant to some degree when it comes to the job, especially early on. You cannot no everything that the president is knowledgably comment and set policy on; it is humanly impossible Stephen Hawking or Albert Eienstein couldn't contain all that required knowledge in their head. That is what advisors, the cabinet, etc. are for. They give you the info you need to know (which is why who they trust is very important).

What matters in a President is character. More then any other quality, that is what the Framers felt was most importantin a potential president, and there is good reason for it. All the other important qualities for a president tie back to character; wisdom, courage, sound judgement, honesty, integrity, strong convictions...they all tie back into character.

That is why character even more important then where a potential president stands on the issue.

Palin has shown plenty of character, as has McCain. Biden is notoriously lacking in character and Obama has shown himself to be severly lacking in that area as well.

Knowledge is very secondary in a potential president.

 

[foxpaws]

Since that was Marcus' post - I'll let him handle the debate on that one and gracefully step aside...

 

[shagdrum]

You are constitutionally correct (yes, you are right) - the constitution does give the Vice President that power. However practically Palin's statement is incorrect.

No, just because the VP may not be active in heading the senate, doesn't mean that they are not the head of the senate. The office of the VP still inherently holds that authority. anyone else running the Senate does so at the leisure of the VP.

Sort of form over substance (allowing the terminology or technical specifications of something to take on more meaning than its actual function).

Something a 3rd grader does understand.

A: it is not form over substance. It is factually correct. The inverse (that they do not run the senate) is factually wrong. The President pro tem serves ex officio, meaning they serve in the capacity of the President of the Senate. Ultimate authority of that position rests with the VP. Is a CEO who is not in the office still not in charge? He may temporarily transfer his authority, but the ultimate power and responsibility rests with him and stems from his office.

B: You know third graders who understand form over substance? Those are some genious third graders. My mother has been teaching elementary school (2nd or 3rd grade) longer then I have been alive. I have come into her class to help teach some things, basic civics being one of those things. No third grader I have met would understand that distinction in this context.

Are there 3rd grade civic classes?

Third graders are taught some very basic civics. It never goes into detail enough in third grade to cover the President pro tem and why there is such a thing.

 

[fossten]

why specious... yes I do believe my argument is quite specious...
I usually go by the first definition in the dictionary...

showily beautiful or attractive

Thank you shag...

This is why discussing things with you is so frustrating - you deliberately and obliquely misunderstand the point, both often and in a rambling manner. You think you're clever, but actually your little quips are just annoying. It's an exercise in bad faith, especially if you are deliberately trying to annoy rather than stick with the discussion.

 

[foxpaws]

So, Shag, who, in practical (of, pertaining to, or concerned with ordinary activities, business, or work: practical affairs) terms, is in charge of the senate?

3rd graders do understand ‘form over substance’ they deal with it all the time. They know what the ‘term’ states, but they do know the ‘function’ often doesn’t follow the ‘form’.

For instance:
Mom says play fairly at the playground (technical term)
Mom isn’t at the playground, so the bully gets whatever he wants (actual function)

The VP is ‘in charge’ of the playground (technical term)
The VP is never there, so someone else is in charge of the playground (actual function)

Is that a right allegory – or have I been misled on form over substance?

Foss, my arguments may not be as technically astounding as Shag’s, but at least I try.

Maybe I should complain that I don’t understand all the running around in circles that seems to go on. I would imagine that I am not the first person that gets lost in the ‘techno babble’.

I try to debate in ‘real terms’ and I actually don’t understand much of the ‘stuff’ that occasionally wanders under the debate.

Sorry, I guess I look for more substance over form. I know there is substance buried in the extremely ‘technical’ posts, however, I often end up getting lost.

There is obviously something to be said for simple, showily beautiful or attractive. And yep, I try to be clever (however, often succeeding only in my own mind ). These things get mired down enough. This isn’t life and death out here – this is ‘fun’. Right?

And last I checked, frustrating the other side is a debating technique Not a great one, but often effective...

 

[shagdrum]

The VP is ‘in charge’ of the playground (technical term)
The VP is never there, so someone else is in charge of the playground (actual function)

I think it would be more accurate as the following:

• Only the VP can be in charge of the "playground"
• When the VP is not there, someone else is appointed to be the acting VP