<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FI6WRYFesTw&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FI6WRYFesTw&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I saw this and thought Mathews was a little bit heavy handed.
Especially being that he has had this cow on his show so many times to defend the indefensible. (he even expresses guilt of some kind stating that palin is indefensible but he continued to pound away. )
I like Mathews, but he was a bit too harsh. (It would also help if Pfofotuer (or whatever her name is) could be a bit more sensible and learn that at times you should concede and take on some what of a victim role instead of being so hard headed and tryin to hoodwink mathews of all people. He is generally a nice guy who will let up if you give him som concessions. (goodness gracious, blame the rigours of a hard campaign, say she was fatigued with the rough time the campaign is having ala clinton and her off handed remark that wanted some one to take care of Obama for her) Notice that as soon as she conceded on the shopping issue about the 150k, Mathews dropped in flat and didnt even continue to pound away one bit. He cold dead dropped the hottest issue in the news for one that isnt even getting that much coverage.
Dont do that crap on his show. Some times just bend over and take it like a good girl. Mathews would have quit on her if she would just concede one time.
Cant say enough mathews was too heavy handed with her.
Especially being that he has had this cow on his show so many times to defend the indefensible. (he even expresses guilt of some kind stating that palin is indefensible but he continued to pound away. )
I like Mathews, but he was a bit too harsh. (It would also help if Pfofotuer (or whatever her name is) could be a bit more sensible and learn that at times you should concede and take on some what of a victim role instead of being so hard headed and tryin to hoodwink mathews of all people. He is generally a nice guy who will let up if you give him som concessions. (goodness gracious, blame the rigours of a hard campaign, say she was fatigued with the rough time the campaign is having ala clinton and her off handed remark that wanted some one to take care of Obama for her) Notice that as soon as she conceded on the shopping issue about the 150k, Mathews dropped in flat and didnt even continue to pound away one bit. He cold dead dropped the hottest issue in the news for one that isnt even getting that much coverage.
Dont do that crap on his show. Some times just bend over and take it like a good girl. Mathews would have quit on her if she would just concede one time.
Cant say enough mathews was too heavy handed with her.
She really kicked his ass, when she talked about Biden's role.
Mathews is the idiot here. He can latch onto the Constitution all he wants....the problem is the PRESIDENT can give the VP plenty of power..or none at all.
Cheney is a powerful VP, Al Gore was an empty suit. Mathews might want to join the real world.
Mathews is the idiot here. He can latch onto the Constitution all he wants....the problem is the PRESIDENT can give the VP plenty of power..or none at all.
Cheney is a powerful VP, Al Gore was an empty suit. Mathews might want to join the real world.
I also have the dogged toughness of Mathews and would like to call you out on your nonsense about the president giving the VP power!
He cant do that. It is bogus non constitutional blubber. You should first educated yourself on the issues before you talk about things you obviously dont understand.
Just because George Bush was stupid enough to listen to Cheney and let cheney run around the country telling stupid lies about the war, didnt confur any more power upon the VP that he still doesnt have.
I will repeat Mathews. The VP has no power, and neither the president or any body else can give him any power. Advocacy does not equate to power!
They may listen to him of differ to him but the VP has absolutely no power.
Next you will be arguing that Condoleeza rice is all powerful because thats the person Bush listens to on foreign policy.
BTW.. no where in that clip does she own mathews. He pounded the shit out of her and made her look stupid! to the point that some of us felt sorry for her.
Advocacy can indeed equal power.
It goes well beyond that. The President can send the VP to foreign lands, the President can give the VP a lead voice on the Security Council, the President can have the VP "rally the troops" and work to get bills passed.
Hard to believe you guys don't know how this works.
Mathews knew he was beaten that's why he only mumbled an Answer on the Biden point. Oh by the way...that mumble said "That's up to the President"..just like I said here.
It goes well beyond that. The President can send the VP to foreign lands, the President can give the VP a lead voice on the Security Council, the President can have the VP "rally the troops" and work to get bills passed.
Hard to believe you guys don't know how this works.
Mathews knew he was beaten that's why he only mumbled an Answer on the Biden point. Oh by the way...that mumble said "That's up to the President"..just like I said here.
That still simply amounts to advocacy. There is no power behind it. Sending the VP to some foreign country means diddley squat. He would be acting as a messenger and nothing more. He has no power to sign and pacts, deals or enact anything. All he can do is convey a message and thats it!
Let me say this again, like Mathews schooled that silly woman. The VP has no power whatsoever as clearly stated in the constitution!
All this amounts to advocacy and nothing else. The VP cant do shit to get any bills passed he cant even speak to them in the senate.
His job is only one and only one there. To break a tie and nothing else.
Please get that in your head so you dont look as dumb as that woman.
BTW, as Mathews watched John Adams and thinks he's an expert now let me explain it does NOT say in the Constitution that the VP has "No Authority" in the Senate.
It says No vote, except to break a tie. Perhaps a subtle difference but a difference. Adams was shut out because he wasn't well liked and was a bloviator.
Obviously Palin overstated the Senate role of the VP...but she could have plenty of power in her party's votes. I laugh when Mathews give an example of a VP that got shut out of power...ignoring that other VP's have indeed had leadership roles in their party.
Certainly like every office, the VP office has changed through the years. Some VPs have had power, others have been powerless. As Mathews admits, that's up to the President.
It says No vote, except to break a tie. Perhaps a subtle difference but a difference. Adams was shut out because he wasn't well liked and was a bloviator.
Obviously Palin overstated the Senate role of the VP...but she could have plenty of power in her party's votes. I laugh when Mathews give an example of a VP that got shut out of power...ignoring that other VP's have indeed had leadership roles in their party.
Certainly like every office, the VP office has changed through the years. Some VPs have had power, others have been powerless. As Mathews admits, that's up to the President.
Just for the record it does NOT say in the Constitution that a VP can't speak to Bills in the Senate.
By your advocacy argument...every position in the Cabinet is "advocacy" It really is irrelevent how you define it....Some VP's have weilded power, others have not.
Surely you have read History books and realize that position has not been the same for every man that has held it?
No sir! I will not let this nonsense stand! The constitution does not I REPEAT THE CONSTITUTION DOES NOT GIVE THE VP ANY AUTHORITY WHATSOEVER. STOP MAKING UP SILLY LIES!
If thats all the power the constitution that is given the VP then Mathews and every other constitutional lawyer is 100% right when they say that is all the power given to the VP in the constitution and thus he has no authority whatsoever.
If you have proof that the constitution does so please post your proof. I would love to read that portion of the constitution that gives him authority.
It also clearly states, that the president may assign some duties but that does not equate to power because he is an agent of the president and as such has no power by himself!
post your proof !!!
This is complete total b.s a Senator's role in the senate does not simply amount to advocacy. They have many powers the VP doesnt. They can make floor arguments, cast votes and invoke several constitutional powers and measures from committees, etc that the VP cant!
They have an actual active role as representatives of the people who elected them and are answerable to them.
Please stop making a complete fool out of yourself and dont compare a senators power to that of a VP..
This is highschool political science. I cant believe i am schooling a full grown man on this crap!
Go back to highschool sir!
hno:And these are the people who are allowed to vote! geez!!!
This is complete total b.s a Senator's role in the senate does not simply amount to advocacy. They have many powers the VP doesnt. They can make floor arguments, cast votes and invoke several constitutional powers and measures from committees, etc that the VP cant!
They have an actual active role as representatives of the people who elected them and are answerable to them.
Please stop making a complete fool out of yourself and dont compare a senators power to that of a VP..
This is highschool political science. I cant believe i am schooling a full grown man on this crap!
Go back to highschool sir!
And these are the people who are allowed to vote! geez!!!
C'mon Piccolo, your dealing with people who believe their own lies and will argue it to the grave. You can't help these people. Its like arguing with a republican who insists the war was won in Iraq. It just ain't fuckin true.
UMMMM.... :think2:
We won the war in Iraq. We beat saddam and removed him from power.
Now we are playing referee between different warring factions, instead of packing our bags and bring our boys home. Which is absolutely dumb!
I thought the dumb republicans are the one arguing that we havent yet won so we should stay longer until we achieve a victory which no one has yet defined.
at least thats what i thought. :think2:
