New study shows McCain Gets Far More Negative Coverage From Media.

www.senate.gov...

Vice President of the United States (President of the Senate)




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.

Left wing, right wing, it's all ridiculous. The whole bird is toxic. You don't have to take the coin and flip it, pick a side. Step away from another circus. Ridiculous.

reply to post by depth om


I agree. Left wing, right wing, who cares? I'm a liberal leaning moderate. I like it, since, I get to be inbetween on some issues, and then, I get to be liberal and others, and, I don't have to be so biased with my views.

Originally posted by David9176
Yeah, gets negative coverage because of a negative campaign. That's complete BS. Obama doesn't really have to go negative...not with an army made of media on his side to do all the dirty work for him. There is supposed to be honest journalism...but i guess that doesn't exist anymore and everyone seems to be fine with it.

It shouldn't matter what the tone of the freakin campaigns are....the coverage is supposed to be even regardless.

You only see it this way because u are all Obama supporters. He can do NO WRONG in your minds.

In context, i would hope that Obama becomes President just for the fact that you would all be proven how terrible he is at it. We'll have a Democratic Bush. Yay! It's only fair right?

Not worried about the Fairness Doctrine or second amendment rights? We'll be fine!! i'm not worried! It may or may not happen but it's worth the risk right? After all....Democrats have earned the right to F UP THE GOVERNMENT JUST AS MUCH AS REPUBLICANS HAVE RIGHT?

Pathetic.





[edit on 23-10-2008 by David9176]

NEGATIVE policy based ads are fair game. Negative CHARACTER attack ads are Hitler-based in origin. IF you like Bush so much, go live with him and follow him. FOR ME, I'd much rather have somebody favor the PEOPLE, and do things to help my song and health insurance for he and I both, and things to help our standing in the world THAN to choose a racist, HOT HEADED, Bush CLONE. Bush is his own restaurant, and Mccain is MCBUSH. They both, along with Cheney and their Neocon friends, aspire to be HITLER's party. LOOK up the psychology of it. DEhumanize, US versus THEM, even if a person answers something it is NOT enough to some. It is psychologically a DIVISIVE style of politics. Mccain, Palin, Cheney, Bush (Sr. and Jr), and, overall, GOP in general have brought the WORST standing for the U.S. in the world, have ruined the economy but made THEIR FRIENDS rich. Socialize debt DOWN and WEALTH up. IF you support that, then you are a FOOL.

reply to post by Marcus Calpurnius


hahahaha, McNutty gets more negative coverage because he puts out more negative things to report on.

NEXT!!!!

I am still in awe.

The same argument keeps coming up from the left.
Negative campaign = negative MSM coverage.

So i guess most agree then that Mccain does get more negative coverage. Albeit justified by most according to opinion here.

So most people seem to believe Bush is a terrorist, dictator, murderer liar, scoundrel etc. So basically in the same arena as Hitler and that ilk.

So from the beginning Obama has been calling Mccain a Bush clone, essentially calling Mccain a terrorist, dictator, murderer etc.

So by this logic Obama is being just as negative.

On another note, I have searched around for Mccain's voting record. Which has been difficult to find any info beyond 2007/2008
but what i did find was that the further you go back the less Mccain voted with Bush. And only the last year or 2 has he voted with Bush 90-95% of the time which is after the damage was done.

By the way this is not exactly voting with Bush its voting on party lines. So the 90% is him voting with the Republican side. 8 years ago he was in the 70-80 % range when Bush took office, whixh is where he earned the maverick title I believe. (this is what I found, if its wrong feel free to correct).

I am Canadian so sorry if i am not understanding your US politics completely.


By the way if Bush is so god awful bad, how can we expalin the Democratic run congress having an even worse approval rating than the tyrant?

Originally posted by mind is the universe
reply to [url=http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread404299
He get's more negative coverage, because he projects more negativity than Obama. McCain is more on the attack, than Obama. Not to judge the two wrongly, but Obama is calmer and more in control than McCain has been. People are going to respond to that, respectively.

So it makes perfects sense people are going to respond to the way hes reaacting onto the world if you like, be it you, mass media, interviewer, country etc.

Why cant you understand that this is only because the media spins Obama's negativity as normal, and launches all the really nasty stuff FOR him? The media NEVER attacks Obama (with the exception of Fox), instead the deflect attacks. If they do cover a negative story about him, its only to reassure the viewer that he is squeaky clean.


Someday, you guys are going to realize just how corrupt our media is and it'll probably be too late.