Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SCOUTER-Terry

Ten reasons I’m voting for Obama and against McCain

Recommended Posts

Filibusters. I'm sure the Republicans are still bemoaning the fact John McCain and his gang held up the filibuster back when the Dems were in the minority. Wonder if they are willing to re-introduce those rule changes in the next session. They would stand a better chance of getting them passed :)

 

SA

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

>>Both Obama and Palin are inexperienced.

 

Hops, my concern with Palin is not just about a total lack of experience in foreign or national affairs. It's mostly about capacity for the job. As I said, the Presidency is an exhaustive position, with no real time to develop intellectual capital... you pretty much work with what you bring to the job. Bush got beat up for saying "I'm the decider"... and while it was yet another of his boorish quips, he's generally right. By the time something comes to the President's desk, it's all about the "final decision". In that role, I want someone who is intellectually curious, able to ask for and accept good advice, weigh the consequences, make a decision and communicate to the stakeholders (the American people).

 

Time and again throughout this campaign Obama has impressed me as up to that task.

 

Palin, on the other hand, is not. Nor does she seem to have any particular insight that I imagine a President McCain counting on as an adviser. And to be chosen by McCain (the oldest President we've elected, who has suffered recurrent skin cancer, with the toll of this campaign already showing on him physically) to be a heart beat away is just unacceptable. More than fifteen times in the last six presidencies the VP has been called on to assume presidential duties at least temporarily.

 

The VP really has only one job (despite Palin's misunderstanding of civics) and one qualification... be ready to assume the Presidency at a moments notice.

 

TERRY HOWERTON

(This message has been edited by scouter-terry)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The VP really has only one job (despite Palin's misunderstanding of civics) and one qualification... be ready to assume the Presidency at a moments notice."

 

This question came up in the VP debate. Palin got the answer right, and Biden (with all those years of experience) totally missed it. I suggest you read the Constitution, Article 1, Section 3, part 4.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Palin explained that the vice president is, in charge of the U.S. Senate so 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. Previously, in the vice-presidential debate, Ms. Palin explained that our founding fathers were very wise there in allowing through the Constitution much flexibility there in the office of the vice president.

 

Actually, Article 1 of the U.S. 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.

 

Where exactly does Article 1 support her claim?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You guys do not want to have term limits. And I will give you a couple of reasons. First, having term limits is undemocratic. If the people want to keep electing someone to an office that is their right.

So, we should be voting for Bush for a third term, right? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, Article 1 of the U.S. 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.

There's voting and there's membership. The VP is the President of the Senate. The VP has a vote when there's a tie. So, that's, like, no influence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When you read "President of the Senate" what does that mean to you? What does the term President generally mean to you? Where are the duties of "President of the Senate", or a job description, detailed in the Constitution?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Where are the duties of "President of the Senate", or a job description, detailed in the Constitution? "

 

Other than voting to break a tie, there is no other description, which is the whole point. She doesn't get to make the job description up to her liking. Being the candidate for VP, she should understand what the job is and is not.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kahuna, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it the Republicans who championed Presidential term limits as a result of FDR? If so, I'm reminded of Barbara Bush's quote about "...getting some of his own.."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd say she has a greater grasp on the job than you, looking at history. See Rule XVI below.

 

http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Vice_President.htm

Vice-Presidential Duties

 

The framers also devoted scant attention to the vice president's duties, providing only that he "shall be President of the Senate, but shall have no Vote, unless they be evenly divided" (Article I, section 3). In practice, the number of times vice presidents have exercised this right has varied greatly. John Adams holds the record at 29 votes, followed closely by John C. Calhoun with 28. Since the 1870s, however, no vice president has cast as many as 10 tie-breaking votes. While vice presidents have used their votes chiefly on legislative issues, they have also broken ties on the election of Senate officers, as well as on the appointment of committees in 1881 when the parties were evenly represented in the Senate.

 

The vice president's other constitutionally mandated duty was to receive from the states the tally of electoral ballots cast for president and vice president and to open the certificates "in the Presence of the Senate and House of Representatives," so that the total votes could be counted (Article II, section 1). Only a few happy vice presidents John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Martin Van Buren, and George Bush had the pleasure of announcing their own election as president. Many more were chagrined to announce the choice of some rival for the office.

 

Several framers ultimately refused to sign the Constitution, in part because they viewed the vice president's legislative role as a violation of the separation of powers doctrine. Elbridge Gerry, who would later serve as vice president, declared that the framers "might as well put the President himself as head of the legislature." Others thought the office unnecessary but agreed with Connecticut delegate Roger Sherman that "if the vice-President were not to be President of the Senate, he would be without employment, and some member [of the Senate, acting as presiding officer] must be deprived of his vote."

 

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 [of the Senate], 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.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldnt George W Bush or William J Clinton be able to be elected president as many times as they can be elected? We expect laws to save the nation? People save nations, not laws

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Below is the one reason why I voted for McCain and pray/hope that he wins and stays alive for at least 4 years, because Palin is in the same boat as Obama.

 

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/barackobama/ig/Barack-Obama-Pictures/46-Year-Old-Political-Virgin.htm

 

There is really no good choice this time. Hey ... how about OGE for pres or Scouter-Terry?

 

Cheers,

 

1Hour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wasn't it the Republicans who championed Presidential term limits as a result of FDR?

I don't know, Pack, I'm not a Republican, but it sounds right. In any case how many of those Republicans are alive and holding office today? Both the Democratic and the Republican parties were far different way back then.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldnt George W Bush or William J Clinton be able to be elected president as many times as they can be elected?

Well, because the Constitution was amended by the people to prevent it. Somebody must have thought it was important.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why shouldnt George W Bush or William J Clinton be able to be elected president as many times as they can be elected?

 

Well, because the Constitution was amended by the people to prevent it. Somebody must have thought it was important.

 

George Washington set an honorable precedent that a president only serve two terms.  This precedent was followed up until FDR, who won 4 terms.  The two term limit was passed after FDR in retaliation for FDR's lack of honoring Washington's precedent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×