U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 22, 2008 08:56 PM UTC
57 Comments
that a 3rd grader asked the question and she still fucked it up.
Read this description of the “nuclear option and other rules from Wikipedia:
The Senate does not restrict the total time allowed for debate; instead, a motion for cloture must be passed to end debate. A three-fifths majority (as of 2008, 60 Senators), is required to approve the cloture motion and proceed to a vote on the main issue. Thus, although a bill might have majority support, a minority of 41 Senators can prevent a final vote, effectively defeating the bill. In practice, if it is clear that the motion for closure will not carry, the bill may simply be tabled so that the Senate can conduct other business. From time to time, however, the margin of votes for cloture may be very close, and the minority may wish to stall the cloture vote for as long as possible. Because debate time is unlimited, Senators may simply speak endlessly on the Senate floor to prevent a vote from taking place; this tactic is known as a filibuster. A formal change to the Senate’s rules is even more difficult to make: Senate rule 22 states that such a change requires a two-thirds majority of those present and voting to end debate (67 votes if all senators vote).[2]
A point of order is a parliamentary motion used to remind the body of its written rules and established precedents, usually when a particular rule or precedent is not being followed. When a senator raises a point of order, the presiding officer of the Senate immediately rules on the validity of the point of order, but this ruling may be appealed and reversed by the whole Senate. Ordinarily, a point of order compels the Senate to follow its rules and precedents; however, the Senate may choose to vote down the point of order. When this occurs, a new precedent is established, and the old rule or precedent no longer governs Senate procedure. Similarly, it is possible to raise a point of order and state that the standard procedure of the Senate is actually different than the current rules and precedents suggest. If this point of order is sustained, a new precedent is established, and it controls Senate procedure thenceforth.
The Nuclear Option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator’s point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, “Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?” This is referred to as “appealing from the Chair.” An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the presiding officer’s ruling is upheld, the Senate will then hold a vote on the substantive measure under consideration. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate. The filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N…
It boils down to this: if the presiding officer, meaning the Vice President if the VP is there, wants to, he can issue a ruling and that ruling can be upheld by a simple majority, thereby bypassing the filibuster.
This was long considered in the civil rights era to bypass racist filibusters. More recently, Rs threatened it until the gang of 14 intervened.
There are plenty of good reasons to bash Palin.
Why make up a false one? Her answer, broken down in simple terms, was right. Besides this rare but powerful example, a vp can privately lobby and cajole fellow senators. Nixon, LBJ, Humphrey,
Mondale, Quayle, and Gore, as vps, all used their ties to their old colleagues to try to influence legisltion, with varying success.
She should have said that to the third grader who asked the question. 🙂
Seriously though:
http://politicalticker.blogs.c…
Still though, she was dumbing it down a bit for the kid who asked the question. At least she’s talking to Adam Schrager and other non-celebrity media people these days. It’s progress from her 8 weeks of shying away from interviews like this.
is not the same as giving a kid an entirely wrong impression. A simple “VPs help the President, take over if the President dies or gets too sick to do the job and can break ties in the Senate” would have been both 3rd grade simple and accurate.
I’m just getting a little bored with everyone demonizing Sarah Palin every time she opens her mouth.
explaining to children.
http://www.9news.com/video/def…
I recommend watching the whole thing, Owens did the best, I think.
You are right. She should have told the kid that being VP is a completely useless job unless the President gets hit by a truck, has a massive heart attack, or something else bad happens to him. Then, this person who has been spending most of their time by the White House pool has to jump up and get to work.
In fact, the only real job of the Vice President is to make friends and not do anything stupid so they can be the next president (unless of course you are Dick Cheney, then your job is to run the country).
It wouldn’t seem so glamourous.
The Constitutional Option, as it was originally called, relies on the opinion that a past Senate cannot impose rules on a current Senate. Unfortunately for this theory, the Senate is never officially disbanded. Unlike the House, which is reconstituted after each general election, the Senate’s rules are perpetual, because the Senate as a whole is never re-elected, nor does its membership ever drop below a quorum.
Of course, the Senate is its own governing body, and if it rules that the rules are invalid, well, then all bets are off. As noted by the Democrats at the time, if someone throws out the rule book, then no-one needs to play nice any more. That would be Bad.
But even if your point stands, the VP has no power on his/her own – a member of the Senate must initiate the point of order that the VP then rules on, and a majority of the Senate must concur with the ruling.
As President of the Senate, the VP’s sole duties are to announce the results of votes, to recognize those who stand to speak, and to rule on points of order. Even then, he is bound by a majority of the Senate if he chooses to ignore those duties – they can call a point of order and overrule him when he disagrees.
And I am pretty sure you don’t think that Palin, if elected as VP, would have a majority Senate to go along with her…
And swearing in of Senators and casting tie-breaking votes…
NO member of the Senate has “any power” on his or her own. Actually, before LBJ, majority leader wasn’t a particularly powerful position either, power rested in the committee chairmen, chosen by seniority and mostly southern. LBJ transformed that job much as Henry Clay transformed the speakership (he was elected speaker in his freshman term! proof enough that the job was no big deal before him. It sure was after him.)
So, yes, within the limits of a question from a third grader, Palin answered correctly. Is this really the best you can find to bash her or are you ready to move on.
And if VP candidate bashing is in order, how about the really, really, really, stupid speech Biden gave about how Barack was going to be “tested”…what, was he just channeling his old friend McCain or has he lost it?
I don’t think we need to use this to attack Palin, I’m just responding to be Devil’s Advocate and push back against your defense of the presumption that the VP is this Godly figure in the Senate.
On any given day I could easily find more than one new tidbit about Palin that really means something about her character. Today’s tidbits are $150,000 clothing sprees and the expense improprieties from dragging her kids all over the place.
in the sense of having an official legislative role remotely close to what Palin contends. As far as an unofficial role using influence with colleagues, that would not be the case with Palin who has never been a Senator.
This is not the first time she has expressed the clearly erroneous view that because the VP serves as the President of the Senate that means the VP is in charge of or actively participates in crafting legislation. If you believe Palin was referring to anything like the fine distinctions and technical points you make here on the various occasions when she’s mischaracterized the role of VP then I have a nice bridge to nowhere I’d like to sell you.
The woman is just plain woefully ignorant and I’m sure you fully realize that because you aren’t. Just kind of contrarian and more than a little eager to go for a grouchy gotcha. Be well, Bob. Have a nice glass of warm milk or something.
So, this IS the best you can do?
Good to know that.
now, what do you think about the Biden “there’re gonna test our 47 year-old inexperienced president ” ramble?
At the moment, Palin looks better than Biden, doncha think?
You betcha 😉
Be well Bob.
Hard to dispute the point, I guess.
And then we’ll talk about who looks better. 🙂
He owes Biden something to repay the “testing” gaffe. And maybe Biden could refer Jawn to the hair plug people.
it’s hell to be old, redstate.
Your points are good Bob but “get in there with the senators” is what she said. Palin is so vague all the time because she is constantly dancing around what she dosen’t know but should. Does she even know what cloture is ? I doubt it.
Her lack of knowledge is very disturbing, plus she looks like she got off the back of a Katana.
I know most here probably think I am endlessly picking on Palin, but there really shouldn’t be people this clueless near the White House. We are the greatest country in the world. Really. Let’s go back to having some standards. We deserve better.
Palin may not be a college professor, but she’s not nearly as stupid as some would like to make her out as. The answer to this question wasn’t because of ‘lack of knowledge’. If there is one question to be prepared for “What does the VP do?” should be it. This answer had to be rehearsed.
She is vague because that’s what the campaign wants her to be. She’s probably not brilliant enough to head to head with Biden when it comes to political minutia like cloture, so they have her dance around the issues with words that don’t really mean anything.
she wasn’t prepared for it. It’s not like she had a lot of time to think about it. Who sits around thinking about how great it would be to be the VP? But if someone offered a shot, why not? Kind of like how I’d like to be the CEO of a major corporation, mostly for the money and power. I have no idea what a CEO does all day, but if someone said, “Hey! Want to be a millionaire CEO?” Well, I wouldn’t do it because it’s irresponsible. People’s jobs would be at risk because I wouldn’t even know what my job entails.
For the record, I don’t think she’s dumb, but I don’t think she’s that bright. The problem, particularly for the left, is that she’s sharp. I’d rather have someone that’s both, but what are you gonna do?
What is there to prepare for? That was a pretty basic, fundamental question. Is your defense really that a 3rd grader ambushed her?
I don’t have a defense for her, it is a pretty dumb thing to stumble over.
But of all the answers to rehearse, this seems pretty bottom of the barrel. Did she have a zinger for “What would you do as VP?” You betcha! 😉
Damn 3rd graders!
That’s an answer you should just know. Period.
No, but he really should’ve given her proper deference.
This comment is so September (or maybe August).
Sure, before the fact, you could make the argument that few sit around and think about a job before it becomes a possibility.
When would you start; when you were in the running? On the short list? When you were selected? Surely the answer isn’t when you get to your cool new office.
The idea that someone running for an office can get a pass about not seriously considering what the office is about is hard to grasp.
Palin’s definiton of a gotcha question cannot be any question. If it includes “what is your job” then what question is a fair one to ask?
Apparently there aren’t any fair questions to ask her. If the answer’s really dumb and you call her on it, well, you’re demonizing.
What’s funny about all this is that it should have been used by Palin as a lighter moment.
She could have said something like: “Well, Brandon, to tell you the truth, the Vice President doesn’t do a whole lot other than step in if something happens to the President, and break a tie vote in the Senate.”
I still think this is all very silly.
Bob, I’m not up on Senate procedural rules, so I accept your explanation of the Nuclear Option; I note how limited its use has been, though, in that the threat by an administration of using the Nuclear Option evokes counterthreats of a standstill from the other side. However, I think your defense here presupposes that this is what Sarah Palin meant, which I don’t think is true.
By her statement, I think she wanted the viewer/listener to believe that being a VP means you are suddenly some sort of “super-senator” and have control over the operation of the Senate and the bills before it, which is completely inaccurate under the modern operations of that body. Her answer suggests she believes she has a vote on everything and a voice on everything, and has an openly active role in crafting legislation, which is not the case – the VP cannot debate on the Senate floor, and thereby technically has NO ability to “make a lot of good policy changes.” While there of course is a behind-the-scenes role, that is not what she is describing here.
I agreed with Fidel’s Dirt Nap? At the same time? Spooky.
spookiness and all that.
The Senate’s power derives from more than just its relatively exclusive membership; it also is granted specific powers in the Constitution. In addition to the many powers granted jointly to both houses of Congress, the Constitution enumerates the role of the upper body specifically in Article I, Section 3.
Henry Clay was just 29 when he first served in the Senate (election,of course, was by the Kentucky legislature at the time.)
Just one of many fascinting facts about my second-favorite political figure, next to Lincoln.
That is very impressive that you knew this.
My main source for these facts is Robert V. Remini’s “Henry Clay:
Statesman for the Union.” Remini’s masterful account not only
shows the full greatness of the man, it also highlights the glory
days of the U.S. Senate when the “Great Triumvirate” – Clay,
Daniel Webster and John C. Calhoun – really did make it the world’s
greatest deliberative body.
People can glean all they need to know about Palin from the few interviews she has given.
Insulting her just pisses people off.
there you go again, making sense!
She’s sunk like a stone. No sign of attacks bringing her sympathy support from a pissed off public.
The latest on her treating the kids to thousands in travel with all the perks and the amount the GOP is spending on her wardrobe will probably not help her either no matter how many GOP talking heads cry “no fair”.
Fair or not, that’s just the way the ball bounces and you can bet they’d be using stuff like that against the Obamas if they had it.
her interviews turn off the moderates.
That said, while Palin was here she said that calling people out wasn’t attacking, or running a negative campaign. Airing footage of her saying stupid things, or reporting on campaign spending is therefore not an attack. Calling her dumb is, I guess. These aren’t my rules, they’re hers, so I can’t fully explain the rules.
Was that she has sunk like a stone just from people becoming familiar with her, not from people insulting her.
Exposure is something you die of.
Of which $4700 was for makeup? Won’t Walmart Moms feel that, just maybe, this woman doesn’t represent them?
is affectionately referred to, in our household, as Needless Markup.
John should have never let Cindy take Sarah and the fam out at the Mall of America.
Although Obama is a bit of a clothes horse himself:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/p…
Five $1,500 wool suits = $7,500.
…but that was McCain Pre-2K:
“The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly,” he said on the Senate floor in May 1993.
The only memorable words anyone can recall Cheney saying while “in charge of” the Senate were: “Go fuck yourself!”
At least when he called the New York Times reporter an Asshole, Cheney was speaking for the nearly universal view of the American people for the media.
I don’t get where our precedent for making the Vice President meaningless in the Senate comes from. The Constitution is vague, simply stating the tie-breaking power. Yet, it does not deny other roles, so why wouldn’t we assume of the Vice President every other power traditionally granted by parliamentary procedure (see Robert’s Rules) of the chair of a voting body.
A chair would have the power to lobby on one side of a vote out of session and provide the final pre-vote comment in session. The chair would have power to introduce legislation (though they would have to defer the chair to the pro tempore). Instead of leaving the VP to nefarious quasi-executive duties, how about we provide a larger role of the VP in the Legislative branch. Having the executive co-mingled with the legislature works alright for every single parliamentary system in the world.
I’ve never thought of that before. Interesting, but I’d have to look into it more before I would start a movement for a constitutional amendment (the changes you described would have to be outlined in a ratified amendment.)
The VP has more power than the constitution gives him/her purely because of the NSC, and the way of advising the president during a time of national crisis. The NSC is a function of the Executive, and I like that. The House leadership is advised of secret things, but the NSC members are all Executive branch officials.
Well, I don’t really think these things would take an Amendment depending on how the Supreme Court interpreted the Constitution. I think you could read everything I suggested for the VP out of their position as President of the Senate.
That said, if we are going to amend the Constitution, let’s just get rid of the VP position, have the order of succession go straight to Secretary of State, and have the Senate pick its own President as the House picks its Speaker.
The only thing you have against you is that the Senate is all about precedent. It clings to that more then us righties cling to our religion and our guns. 🙂
Bondo,
I’m pretty sure that under most rules of parliamentary procedure, one has to be a member of a body to introduce a motion. The VP is President of the Senate, but s/he is not a member of the Senate.
Alas, I appear to be a bit late to this party. See my comment on today’s open thread for some more interesting VP stuff:
http://www.coloradopols.com/sh…
Most cases I know of the chair is a member, so it may well be that Robert’s Rules would lay out a different tact for non-member chairs.
Sarah Palin is so awesome. I have not felt so good about someone in politics for such a long time. She is a very charismatic and intelligent lady. I think that she is wonderful, and I will be voting for her.
Technically, you’ll be voting for a slate of electors who will theoretically vote for her as Vice-President.
Kind of like technically, the Vice-President doesn’t really have the power to “get in there with the Senators and make a lot of good policy changes”. Cheney is by far the most powerful VP to date, and he made his policy changes behind closed doors in the offices of the
FourthExecutive Branch, with the help of the Executive’s pen and blessing.Username: Patriot12
PersonId: 8109
Created: Wed Oct 22, 2008 at 23:18:33 PM MDT
Are you a PUMA in addition to a troll?
Palin is quoted as saying she’s “in charge of the Senate.” Bob creates a case for that (without any reference Palin herself has ever made) by saying that power is a result of her ability to exercise the Nuclear Option.
The name ain’t just cute. The Senate has maintained the cloture rule (with a few exceptions) for a reason. They have viewed it as an important check on the majority. They went through about 3 months of debate on the Civil Rights Act of 1964 without turning their back on it. I bet Humphrey might have known parlimentary procedure.
If the argument is that Palin means she intends to be in charge of the Senate by changing such a basic rule, this is supposed to convince me she has a firm grasp of the American political system?
Assuming that the 3rd grader grasped the meaning that Bob wants me to grasp, why is there no part of the news story that talked about this kid pulling at mother’s hem and saying “Mommie, that lady is scaring me, I thought they were the conservatives!”