The Scary Thing About "Joe the Plumber"
- Thread starter Brandonf
- Start date
From the Constitution:
"The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."
From the SENATE website:
"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. "
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm#2
You betcha !!!!!
Seneca
ps-this is what to look for come January:
End of an Era oops ERROR
THE POPULISM DIVIDE
By DICK MORRIS
"As the election enters its last two weeks, social populism wars with economic populism to become the major outlet for American anger and angst and to satisfy the demand for change. In his book The Populist Persuasion, Michael Kazin articulates the difference between these two types of populism: economic and social.
Economic populism, the staple of the Democratic left, demonizes Wall Street and glorifies Main Street. It rails against unequal distribution of wealth and warns, perpetually, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. From Andrew Jacksonâs frontier democracy to Lyndon Johnsonâs War on Poverty, economic populism has powered the left.
Social populism, the conservative reply, attacks the values of Hollywood and the intellectual elite. It criticizes the welfare state and opposes a redistribution of wealth from the hardworking and deserving to what it sees as the freeloaders. More recent in origin, social populism has its roots in abolitionism and Prohibitionism and achieved its modern form in Richard Nixonâs silent majority, Jerry Falwellâs and Pat Robertsonâs Christian Coalition and Ronald Reaganâs new right-wing majority. Within the Republican Party, social populists oppose the country-club wing and emphasize social conservatism over economic austerity.
In recent years, both forms of populism have been in remission. Clintonâs policies of triangulation and Bushâs lack of focus on domestic issues have steered both parties away from either economic- or social-populist impulses.
But the Obama campaign has been, from the beginning, grounded in economic populism. His explicit attack on the Bush tax cuts âfor the richâ and his promise to make them âpay a little bit moreâ resonated with economic-populist voters. When the Wall Street crisis hit and top executives fled failing companies, taking hundreds of millions of dollars with them, the economic populists powered Obama to a nine-to-10-point lead in the polls.
But meanwhile, social populism was making a comeback on the right. Initially galvanized by Mike Huckabee, the social populists went wild when McCain chose Sarah Palin for vice president. Palinâs life story epitomized the values of social populists. Her opposition to abortion, her mothering of a special-needs child, her backing for guns and her robust crusade for energy sources brought mainstream Republican values to the McCain ticket. If McCain wins this election, which he might well, it will have been the social populism of Sarah Palin that engineered much of his comeback.
When the financial crisis broke, McCain and Palin attacked corporate greed and called for restoring values on Wall Street. But their critique seemed merely a faint echo of the outrage of the leftâs economic populists.
Then came Obamaâs conversation with Joe the Plumber, possibly the decisive moment in the election. His blunt, blue-collar criticism of Obamaâs proposal to âspread the wealth aroundâ found immediate resonance among social populists. Where economic populists want to take from the undeserving, overfed rich and give to the needy poor, social populists decry taking from hardworking, thrifty citizens and giving to illegal immigrants and the self-indulgent lazy.
At last, the McCain camp has something to say. Finally, it has, in McCainâs phrase, ânailed Jell-O to the wallâ and found a way to attack Obamaâs tax plans and support for social engineering and income redistribution.
It is true that the richest Americans are getting richer a lot faster than the rest of the country. The top 10 percent experienced a real (after inflation) income growth of almost 50 percent in this decade. The rest of America saw its income rise, but by less than 5 percent after inflation.
But it wasnât Bush tax cuts that fueled the growing inequality. The top 1 percent of American taxpayers now pay 40 percent of the taxes (compared with 33 percent in 2003 and 24 percent in 1986).
Obamaâs proposed increase in taxes on the rich will kill the economy and send us into a deeper depression.
But Clintonian policies like expanding the earned income tax credit, stretching out eligibility for food stamps and Medicaid, and funding college scholarships can make a huge difference. How will we pay for them? By keeping taxes on the rich at their current levels and using growing tax revenues to pay to promote downward irrigation of wealth.
Politically, the unalloyed triumph of economic populism is at an end. Social populism is back in play. And may the best populism win."
By DICK MORRIS
"As the election enters its last two weeks, social populism wars with economic populism to become the major outlet for American anger and angst and to satisfy the demand for change. In his book The Populist Persuasion, Michael Kazin articulates the difference between these two types of populism: economic and social.
Economic populism, the staple of the Democratic left, demonizes Wall Street and glorifies Main Street. It rails against unequal distribution of wealth and warns, perpetually, that the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. From Andrew Jacksonâs frontier democracy to Lyndon Johnsonâs War on Poverty, economic populism has powered the left.
Social populism, the conservative reply, attacks the values of Hollywood and the intellectual elite. It criticizes the welfare state and opposes a redistribution of wealth from the hardworking and deserving to what it sees as the freeloaders. More recent in origin, social populism has its roots in abolitionism and Prohibitionism and achieved its modern form in Richard Nixonâs silent majority, Jerry Falwellâs and Pat Robertsonâs Christian Coalition and Ronald Reaganâs new right-wing majority. Within the Republican Party, social populists oppose the country-club wing and emphasize social conservatism over economic austerity.
In recent years, both forms of populism have been in remission. Clintonâs policies of triangulation and Bushâs lack of focus on domestic issues have steered both parties away from either economic- or social-populist impulses.
But the Obama campaign has been, from the beginning, grounded in economic populism. His explicit attack on the Bush tax cuts âfor the richâ and his promise to make them âpay a little bit moreâ resonated with economic-populist voters. When the Wall Street crisis hit and top executives fled failing companies, taking hundreds of millions of dollars with them, the economic populists powered Obama to a nine-to-10-point lead in the polls.
But meanwhile, social populism was making a comeback on the right. Initially galvanized by Mike Huckabee, the social populists went wild when McCain chose Sarah Palin for vice president. Palinâs life story epitomized the values of social populists. Her opposition to abortion, her mothering of a special-needs child, her backing for guns and her robust crusade for energy sources brought mainstream Republican values to the McCain ticket. If McCain wins this election, which he might well, it will have been the social populism of Sarah Palin that engineered much of his comeback.
When the financial crisis broke, McCain and Palin attacked corporate greed and called for restoring values on Wall Street. But their critique seemed merely a faint echo of the outrage of the leftâs economic populists.
Then came Obamaâs conversation with Joe the Plumber, possibly the decisive moment in the election. His blunt, blue-collar criticism of Obamaâs proposal to âspread the wealth aroundâ found immediate resonance among social populists. Where economic populists want to take from the undeserving, overfed rich and give to the needy poor, social populists decry taking from hardworking, thrifty citizens and giving to illegal immigrants and the self-indulgent lazy.
At last, the McCain camp has something to say. Finally, it has, in McCainâs phrase, ânailed Jell-O to the wallâ and found a way to attack Obamaâs tax plans and support for social engineering and income redistribution.
It is true that the richest Americans are getting richer a lot faster than the rest of the country. The top 10 percent experienced a real (after inflation) income growth of almost 50 percent in this decade. The rest of America saw its income rise, but by less than 5 percent after inflation.
But it wasnât Bush tax cuts that fueled the growing inequality. The top 1 percent of American taxpayers now pay 40 percent of the taxes (compared with 33 percent in 2003 and 24 percent in 1986).
Obamaâs proposed increase in taxes on the rich will kill the economy and send us into a deeper depression.
But Clintonian policies like expanding the earned income tax credit, stretching out eligibility for food stamps and Medicaid, and funding college scholarships can make a huge difference. How will we pay for them? By keeping taxes on the rich at their current levels and using growing tax revenues to pay to promote downward irrigation of wealth.
Politically, the unalloyed triumph of economic populism is at an end. Social populism is back in play. And may the best populism win."
Palin:
" A VP is in charge of the senate. If they want to, they can really get in there with the senators and make a lot of good policy changes that will make life better for Brandon and his family".
Have you ever seen a VP "really get in there with the senators and make a lot of policy changes?" Obviously not, because he/she is not allowed these powers under the constitution.
The only power specifically outlined in the Constitution for a vice president is to preside over the Senate and have a vote in case of a tie as relating to his role in the Senate.
The next thing I know you'll probably be suggesting that Brandon the 3rd Grader is part of the mean old 'Gotcha' Media'.
A VP is the boss of the senate and leader of all the senators. A VP can tell the senate what laws to pass if the VP so wishes. Also the VP oversees money for poor countries so they can be able to have maps to read. And for our children. Also VPs sometimes get gotcha questions from 3rd graders.... which is unfair.
Yes, of course: Dick Cheney visited the Senate an average of 3 days a week and worked hard to effect change there during the first 6 years of the Bush presidency, before there were two many stupid Dems there. In this capacity he was instrumental in shaping and helping to pass many important bills like massive tax relief, funding two wars, education reform, prescription funding for seniors, etc etc. Great VP, especially when he's shooting lawyers
Quote from Yannis:
Yes, of course: Dick Cheney visited the Senate an average of 3 days a week and worked hard to effect change there during the first 6 years of the Bush presidency, before there were two many stupid Dems there. In this capacity he was instrumental in shaping and helping to pass many important bills like massive tax relief, funding two wars, education reform, prescription funding for seniors, etc etc. Great VP, especially when he's shooting lawyers
He may have visited the senate thrice a week (debatable) but never actively got on the floor with senators in shaping policy changes. He may have presided over senate floor debates (debatable) but had no voice in the debate process itself.
While the Vice President does serve as president of the Senate, according to the U.S. Constitution, the vice presidentâs role is fairly limited to casting tie-breaking votes.
Article I of the Constitution states that "The Vice President of the United States shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no vote, unless they be equally divided."
In recent years, the role has been largely ceremonial. Vice President Dick Cheney has cast just eight tie-breaking votes during the Bush administration. Most recently in March, Vice President Cheney broke a tie on a procedural motion whether to consider an amendment that would have rolled back tax rates for the alternative minimum tax.
The vice president can also preside over floor debates in the Senate - a role usually filled by the Senate president pro tempore, and more often done by first-term senators.
The actions you are describing are "behind the scenes" lobbying and are not part of the floor debate protocol or process. Such actions are not privy to any individual and are part of the political landscape involving covert horse trading.They most certainly do not lend credence to the hockey mom's claim of actually getting in there with the senators on the floor and making policy decisions on the floor.
Sorry Yannis, but that's more Republican lies. Cheney claimed he was at the Senate most Tuesdays, which is provably just another lie as the Senate keeps records. Here is a list of the Senate's Acting Presidents for every Tuesday session for 2001.
January 30 - Enzi
February 6 - Chafee
February 13 - Chafee
February 27 - Allen
March 6 - Burns
March 13 - Reid
March 20 - DeWine
March 27 - Chafee
April 3 - Smith
April 24 - Chafee
May 1 - Chafee
May 8 - Chafee
May 15 - Frist
May 22 - Chafee
June 5 - Enzi
June 12 - Byrd
June 19 - Carper
June 26 - Bayh
July 10 - Nelson
July 17 - Clinton
July 24 - Byrd
July 31 - Stabenaw
September 25 - Wellstone
October 2 - Clinton
October 9 - Clinton
October 16 - Edwards!!!!!
October 23- Byrd
October 30 - Bingaman
November 13 - Murray
November 27 - Jeffords
December 4 - Stabenaw
December 11 - Carnahan
December 18 - Nelson
A reward to whoever finds a Tuesday in 2002, 2003 or 2004 that Dick Cheney fulfilled his duties as President of the Senate here:
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/crecord/index.html
2002
Tue 1/29 - Nelson
Tue 2/5 - Kohl
Tue 2/12 - Stabenow
Tue 2/26 - Landrieu
Tue 3/5 - Edwards
Tue 3/12 - Landrieu
Tue 3/19 - Miller
Tue 4/9 - Cleland
Tue 4/16 - Reed
Tue 4/23 - Wellstone
Tue 4/30 - Nelson
Tue 5/7 - Miller
Tue 5/14 - Cleland
Tue 5/21 - Nelson
Tue 6/4 - Durbin
Tue 6/11 - Corzine
Tue 6/18 - Dayton
Tue 6/25 - Landrieu
Tue 7/9 - Reed
Tue 7/16 - Corzine
Tue 7/23 - Reed
Tue 7/30 - Clinton
Tue 9/3 - Reed
Tue 9/10 - Corzine
Tue 9/17 - Reid
Tue 9/24 - Stabenow
Tue 10/1 - Miller
Tue 10/8 - Miller
Tue 10/15 - Reid
Tue 11/12 - CHENEY! -- WE HAVE A WINNER!
Tue 11/19 - Barkley (MN)
2003
Jan 7 *Cheney*
Jan 14 Stevens
Jan 22 Stevens
Jan 28 Stevens
Feb 4 Stevens
Feb 11 Stevens
Feb 25 Stevens
Mar 4 Stevens
Mar 11 Stevens
Mar 18 Stevens
Mar 25 Stevens
Apr 1 Stevens
Apr 8 Stevens
Apr 29 Stevens
May 6 Talent
May 13 Ensign
May 20 Alexander
June 3 Stevens
June 10 Stevens
June 18 Murkowski
June 24 Coleman
July 8 Stevens
July 15 Stevens
July 22 Chaffee
July 29 Stevens
Sept 2 Stevens
Sept 9 Stevens
Sept 16 Stevens
Sept 23 Stevens
Sept 30 Sununu
Oct 21 Stevens
Oct 28 Stevens
Nov 4 Stevens
Nov 11 Warner
Nov 18 Stevens
Dec 9 Stevens
2004
1/20 - Stevens
1/27 - Enzi
2/3 - Stevens
2/10 - Stevens
3/2 - Stevens
3/9 - Hagel
3/16 - Sununu
3/23 - Stevens
3/30 - Ensign
4/6 - Cornyn
4/20 - Stevens
4/27 - Chambliss
5/4 - Stevens
5/11 - Stevens
5/18 - Stevens
6/1 - Stevens
6/8 - Hutchinson
6/15 - Stevens
6/22 - Allard
7/6 - Burns
7/13 - Stevens
7/20 - Enzi
9/7 - Stevens
9/14 - Chafee
9/21 - Enzi
9/28 - Stevens
10/05 - Stevens