GQOTM: Electing a Vice President

Here is the latest installment of the Glenn's Question of the Moment, which is based on text messages from Glenn to me (Woody). Keep in mind that these usually take place via text message, so they are generally short and loosely worded. Any additional information is added below for the purpose of adding context or further explaination.

Glenn: You have to elect a President and Vice President together, right? It wasn't intended that way originally. Is that correct.

Woody: Yes, they are a line item together now, but it used to be the first place and second place vote getters (pre two-party system). So, the President and Vice President could be from different parties. Check out 12th ammendment.

GQOTM: Obama-Clinton Ticket

Glenn is always asking me useless, crazy questions via text based on what he's watching on TV or listening to on the radio. So, I decided to quit wasting my answers just on him. So, I decided I'd start posting them here for everybody to be amused by. Keep in mind, these happen via text message. So they will be short and sweet. So, without further delay, here's right now's Glenn Question of the Moment (GQOTM):

Glenn: OBAMA-CLINTON same ticket think it will happen?

Woody: Reasons for it to possibly happen would be to re-unite a divided party and attract scorned Hillary supporters who might otherwise vote for McCain.

Woody: Reasons it WILL NOT happen is because Obama wants to build an identity and does not want a VP (that drug him through the mud in the primary) looking over his shoulder saying "that's not how I would've done it."

Howard Dean Says Your Vote Sux

Howard Dean says either Clinton or Obama must drop out in June

Being the Democratic party and all, you'd think these guys would be a little more in line with the democratic process.

First, both Hillary and Obama knowingly skip the Michigan and Florida primaries to focus on blue states and swing states. Boy, weren't they surprised to find out that neither of them can have enough delegate votes without winning those states. Why punish the vote of the people because the primaries were moved?!? It was hysterical to listen to both of them call for a do-over in both states after they learned there's a price for skipping segments of the population. Undoubtedly, the delegates from both states will be at the convention and they will be casting their votes, but they're not obligated to vote one way or the other. This lack of obligation by the delegates from these states, along with the sway of the "super delegates" has the party worried.

So, again, the party is trying to force the process and again bypass your votes. Howard Dean has called for ONE of the candidates to step down before the primaries are over. That way they can have their candidate selected before the convention and start focusing on the republican. So, essentially, they want to bypass MORE primaries (YOUR VOTES) and declare their candidate so the convention (when the delegates that represent your votes, cast their votes) as some rubber-stamp pomp and circumstance promotion for their party

WHAT?! If I was a state with a primary yet to happen and/or one of the bypassed states, I'd be wildly up in arms. I mean if they want to dictate who your party candidate is going to be, then why the hell bother with having a primary? Why wouldn't Howard Dean and the Democratic Party just declare a candidate at the beginning rather than dragging this process out this long only to tell one that they have to drop out for the "good of the party?"

I mean, heck, why not just have Howard Dean start calling his chosen candidate president. I mean, really, what an inconvenience to follow the whole freakin process that's worked for centuries? It's way too ineficient to let the people have their say, it's really cramping their style. For God's sake, what happens if they can't print the banners ahead of time for the convention and the convention truely IS the way that the candidate is ELECTED?!

I've asked this question before, but I'll ask it again, where's the outrage?

Opinions: More Like Assholes Than Ever

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one. Simple enough, right? But really, do the people that say this cliche know just how dead on they are? Yep, we've all got them, but they're definitely not safe to show in public. Think about the chaos you'd cause simply by showing yours in public. Revealing yours can definitely cause people to jeer and/or scatter.

Depending on where and when you reveal yours, and the desirability of it, you could cause protests and/or face legal consternation. When, and if, you feel confident enough to expose yours, you are opening yourself up to be violated just for the exhibition.

No wonder reality TV is so popular. Having a conversation beyond this level of lowbrow, mind numbing safetey zone is like exposing yourself in the wong locker room.

I'm sure I'll have more to rant and rave about on this chocolate starfish known as opinions. I just happened to hear a guy get his head bit off after somebody asked what he thought. Apparently somebody was looking for an endorsement in the wrong locker room.

Domestic Wiretapping?

It seems to be everywhere now, concern over our government listening in on our phone calls without going through the process of checks and balances that is supposed to make our government work.

To be honest, I always kind of thought that this stuff was quietly going on anyways. I lived my life with the thought that if you weren't doing anything wrong, you didn't have anything to worry about. But, I really did think that this kind of stuff was already happening on a large scale. And, if that is what it takes to prevent me from being blown off the face of the earth, so be it. I've got no problem if some government official knows I love my wife or that I slurr alot when I'm drunk. It's a fact.

But, what's funny about all this is that it's being billed by opponents as a "domestic" wiretapping--as if people were listening in on my calls to people next door. That's not what's happening at all. The government is only listening in on international calls between suspected terrorists. Who could object to that? Apparently some people...

Sure, I'd rather not be haunted by the thought that somebody might hear me talking mushy with my wife. But, you really have to choose: if you want the government out of your business, you can't blame them if somebody blows up a building that you're in. You just can't have it both ways. Sorry.

I do agree in some respects that the government has undoubtedly extended its powers in some scary ways under the guise of fighting terrorism, but I'd rather be safe than sorry. And, as I said, if you're not doing anything wrong, you've got nothing to worry about.