i think Biden has learned that brevity WORKS--i like his answer: short, to the point.

Palin already seems rather Cheney-like in her handling of the abuse-of-power scandal she's avoiding back in Alaska; we didn't really need another example to reinforce the similarities.

That's your answer right there.

Let's stop acting like she's going to change, or do something different. Based on what she's done since her political career began, we know exactly who she is and what she'll be like in any political office--and we know it'll be Todd Palin pulling the strings.

It's a Palin-McCain, White House, don't ya know?

After all she can see Russia from Alaska--who can top that?!

All kidding aside, Palin sure does seem to enjoy the limelight (so long as it's on her terms). I get the sense this is all one huge beauty contest for her, replete with her rehearsed, automoton hollowed out responses and outright evasiveness to questions.

Yesterday she was asked for specifics on policy, and with a big smile she confidently managed to say absolutely nothing for a full minute or longer-- ending her empty response with: "You can even play 'Stump the Candidate'? Er...

I think she meant 'Stump the Journalist'.

Fact is, as long as Cheney's in that office, no Neo-Con is going to refute him. Leaving it an open question means the office can be whatever she and the dude want it to be when she gets there. She has no idea what a VP does, she'll just feel her way around when the time comes.

The Vice-President's duties are spelled out in Article II of the Constitution, which deals with the Executive branch of government.

However, one of those duties is to be President of the Senate, which is part of the Legislative branch.

In all fairness, this is the one office that does have some crossover.

But she didn't blink, now did she? That's all you need to be a qualified leader. Dry eyes.

I'd also like to know if she considers the Office of the Vice President part of the Executive Branch of the federal government.

This sound like one of those rather simple questions asked of Roberts and Alito in their confirmation hearings. For example, would a constitutional ammendment be needed to deny citizenship to anchor babies? Alito and Roberts consistently refused direct answers, and the Republicans defended them by suggesting that the only question is whether they are qualified for the office. With Palin, even that defense won't fly.

Sorry, but it is a trick question. If Palin answers correctly, then she has basically declared war on one of Cheney's positions. She then will have to answer how she would "correct" Cheney. She can't afford to do that.

"Country First" my beast of burden!

McCain and Palin are all about hoodwinking the American electorate into voting them into power not so they can "fix" the messes the Bush people have laid upon us, but to continue the unitary executive theory to its end - a McCain/Palin authoritarian regime. -Kevo

Tune in! Obama's giving a press conference. He used a craps term! So damned cool.

"In all fairness, this is the one office that does have some crossover."

No. It doesn't. All three branches have checks and balances over the others, and this is one of the checks the executive has over the legislative.

If you are going to start arguing that this makes the VP a cross-over office, then you have to say that the presidency is also a cross-over office, what with the way the President signs bills into law and such. In fact, by that logic, the presidency is also a cross-over office with the judiciary, since the President appoints judges.

That logic also means that the Congress is part of both the executive *and* judicial branches because of their confirmation power over judges and executive postings.

And let's not forget the judicial branch's oversight authority over both the Congress and the executive, which, again by the same logic, makes it part of both.

If you were to argue that these conclusions are absurd (which you should, since they *are* absurd), then you can't say that the VP is part of the legislative. Having a check-and-balance over another branch is not the same as being part of it.

It should be clear to most people by now that the GOP never had much concern or belief that those in leadership positions should be required to be informed -- about anything. That has been confirmed absolutely with the nomination of Sarah Palin to be vice president and a heartbeat away from becoming Commander-In-Chief.

We have a Harvard MBA steering the sinking ship of state into bankruptcy while his Treasury Secretary is putting Americans into hock for another $1 trillion bailout for G. W. Bush's base which he called the "haves and the have mores."

The have mores get to gamble with the taxpayers' money and when they lose, they actually win. That's because Bush's Feeding Chairman, Ben Bernanke and his predecessor, Alan Greenspan, kept shaking the money tree that allowed the Wall street hucksters to roll the dice with money they "borrowed" at 2% (Bernanke) and 1% (Greenspan) interest rates.

P.T. Barnum was quoted as saying, "There's a sucker born every minute." That has never been more true than when 50% of the voters got hoodwinked in 2000 and 2004, putting the dyslexic, divisive and devil-may-care G. W. Bush in the White House. Those who voted for these sycophants and swindlers certainly got what they deserved.

Unfortunately, based on current polls, they may extend the Bush catastrophic policies by voting in a confused, feeble-minded John McCain and his vice president nominee, Sarah Palin, runner-up Miss Alaska beauty queen on November 4. If that does occur, it will prolong the string of electing GOP incompetents to 12 years in a row.

Does Palin know what the US Constitution is?

Be fair now. Palin said in an interview that she doesn't know what the Vice President does. How can you expect her to know which branch of government the office belongs to?

Seriously though, should we assume she knows about branches and checks and balances? I mean, pundits can't ask her because it would come off as insulting, but I wonder.

The official USA government website, under the control of the executive branch includes the VP office in the executive branch.

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/Executive.shtml

Palin is a rock-headed dinosaur! Paleontologists love her.

See the Washington Post article "Palin attuned to Public Will, less to Job's details" (on-line) today.

It outlines what Clinton warned yesterday--Palin seems to have a creepy and cunning sense of what the mood is and is determined to exploit this time and again-regardless of that pesky thing called ethics.

Ruthless and reckless, we've got a winner.

Does Palin know what the US Constitution is?

She's probably heard of it, but I doubt she either has or could read it.

-Z

I've been thinking for awhile that Cheney would have to stay on in some capacity in a McCain Admin to "help" guide Sarah Palin, sort of an "Assistant to the VP" role. It has never been made clear just who it was who trained and promoted Sarah Palin for the VP job, but McCain's increasingly tenuous grasp of things makes that ever more important to find out.

I also could never understand why Cheney would aggregate so much power to the VP-Pres and then just step down. Palin's affinity for Cheney's ideas makes me really, really wondermwhat he has up his sleeve. Bush can't wait to escape DC, that much is clear, but Cheney? I doubt it.

I've been thinking for awhile that Cheney would have to stay on in some capacity in a McCain Admin to "help" guide Sarah Palin, sort of an "Assistant to the VP" role.

...or the VP's Chief of Staff.

Hillary Clinton asked her supporters, "Were you in it just for me?" But in order to really negate the Palin celebrity draw, which the AP has at 25% of her former supporters, she could go further and say something like, "If I thought that women voted for me just because I'm a woman and not because of what I stand for--which is what our party and our party's nominee Barack Obama stand for--and if I thought that those women were now supporting the Republican ticket just because it has a woman on it--despite what she stands for--then I would be heartbroken: then my candidacy will have been in vain." Maybe she has said something like this, but if so it's not been repeated widely, and if not, I think she should.

"However one of those duties is to be President of the Senate, which is part of the legislative branch"

Yes, but the office is called Vice-President, not President of the Senate. It has to be the executive branch by virtue of its name.

Fairness, please. There is an answer to Matt Damon's questions about Palin banning books. We know she asked how it could be done. We know she tried to fire the librarian who was angry over the question. There is no evidence that Palin had a list or tried to ban specific books, and the only allegation I have seen to the contrary is a widely debunked viral email that purports to be her list of books to censor (some of which were not yet even in print at the time of the incident).

So the answer to Matt Damon's question appears to be, no.

Rather Cheney-like.

Then would it be fair to say "You can put lipstick on a Dick but it's still a Dick?"

Prolly not.

Couldn't help myself

However one of those duties is to be President of the Senate

Actually, that was the only Constitutional duty the Vice President has while holding the office of Vice President, until the Amendment XXV also gave him a role in determining Presidential incapacity. The V.P.'s Constitutional role has historically been purely (and, even with Amendment XXV, is still almost entirely) legislative, the relation to the Executive is by succession (either permanent in the event of vacancy, or temporary, under Amendment XXV, in the event of incapacity) to the powers of the Presidency, or by delegation from the President as authorized by statute.

Neither a place in the Constitutional scheme of succcession (which several legislative officers have), or holding a position to which statutes authorize the President in his discretion to delegate Executive functions make the VP a true Executive officer.

OTOH, the view that the VP is an Executive officer and that this has been unquestionably and unqualifiedly true for over 200 years, while wrong, is certainly less wrong than Cheney's concept that the V.P. is neither Executive nor Legislative when either designation would limit the power of the incumbent in that office, and either Executive or Legislative when the designation would increase that power, and generally completely beyond the reach of law or accountability.

And, given the increasing Presidentialism of American government and the increasing delegation of executive function to the V.P., the V.P. is certainly pragmatically an executive officer, even if the Constitutional character of the office is legislative.

Its also worth noting that the small-"o" office of the Vice President (that is, the office held by the Vice President), is distinct from the big-"O" Office of the Vice President (OVP, the staff and funds authorized for the Vice President to perform delegated executive functions under 3 USC § 106.) Since the OVP is explicitly authorized exclusively "to enable the Vice President to provide assistance to the President in connection with the performance of functions specially assigned to the Vice President by the President in the discharge of executive duties and responsibilities" (3 USC § 106(a)), there is no reasonable question (contrary to the arguments of the present Vice President) of the OVP's explicitly and solely executive character.

Maybe she's answered this elsewhere, but I want to know what she meant when she ran the first time for mayor and wanted to be Wasilla's "Christian" mayor. She ran against a guy named "Stein" which sounds Jewish. He's Lutheran. Which, last time I looked, is a Christian denomination. So, either she was running an anti-Semitic campaign or an anti-Lutheran campaign.

Just a little clearing up about some pretty basic attitudes.

Algernon @ 2:21 PM posted "...there is no evidence...".
Sorry, there is plenty of evidence about what Palin wanted to do.
She ran for mayor on a platform that included "doing something" about the "unsuitable" books available in the local library. Immediately after taking office she asked the head librarian about how one went about banning books and only backed off when threatened with bad publicity.
Just as with any crime, and I do consider book-banning a crime, intent does matter; even if one doesn't get away with it.

The vice president is part of the executive branch, period. End of story

So, that means that Biden is promising not to vote as part of the legislative branch?

James G: ...the office is called Vice-President, not President of the Senate.

The Vice-President of the United States is also the President of the Senate of the United States. When that person (say, Dick Cheney) presides in the Senate chamber, he is addressed by the Senators as "Mr. President". When he is not there, his duties are performed by the President Pro Tem (now Senator Robert Byrd) -- the officer who follows the VP and the Speaker of the House in the Presidential Succession Act.

Shade Tail: ...you can't say that the VP is part of the legislative. Having a check-and-balance over another branch is not the same as being part of it.

No, this isn't merely "having a check-and-balance over another branch", such as vetoing or overruling its actions. This is actual participation -- presiding over day-to-day meetings, and casting tie-breaking votes -- to the extent that when the VP isn't there to do it, another Senator takes over the job.

So... is that Senator then part of the Executive branch, while he's being President Pro Tem of the Senate? Is that what you're telling me?

"No, this isn't merely "having a check-and-balance over another branch","

Yes it is. It is the executive branch extending its influence into the Senate. That is precisely what a check-and-balance is.

"So... is that Senator then part of the Executive branch, while he's being President Pro Tem of the Senate? Is that what you're telling me?"

No, that is what *you* are telling *me*. If you take your reasoning to its logical conclusion, then you have to agree that said Senator is a member of the executive branch.

The problem is, it isn't true.

Likewise, the Vice President is *not* a member of the legislative branch.

Checks and balances have to do with branches restraining each other's powers and abuses, as by vetoing/overturning actions, investigative powers, and impeachment/removal authority.

The VP's authority in the Senate is of a very, very limited kind.

He can preside over meetings, within the parliamentary rules of that body, when he chooses to attend -- but they can function perfectly well without him, so his staying home in a hissy fit won't affect them at all.

He can cast a vote to break ties -- but that only matters when there's a tie in the first place, so it's not swinging any more power than any single Senator in that chamber would have had.

Compared to a presidential veto (which could cancel a bill passed by 100 Senators and 535 Representatives, and make them do it over), to call what a VP does a "check-and-balance"... well, it's a tiny feather on the scale.