Live Tweeting Tonight’s Republican Presidential Debate


Doug will be live tweeting tonight’s Republican presidential debate, hosted in Jacksonville, Florida by CNN. People may be indifferent about Doug’s tweeting hobby, but he hopes you aren’t indifferent about the political future of the United States, and that you are attending to the political scene as you are able.

A decision to ignore political news until election day should be a decision not to vote on election day. Unfortunately, many who vote are uninformed or misinformed. This is a travesty against responsible citizenship in a democratic republics like ours. Those who will be debating tonight are after your vote. Watching the debate and talking with others about it is one way to stock up on the knowledge needed for responsible citizenship.

So, by tweeting the debates, Doug hopes to motivate some to join the great political conversation!

Tonight’s debate, hosted by CNN in Jacksonville, Florida is the final debate before the Florida primary on Tuesday. Many believe that Newt Gingrich clinched a major victory in South Carolina because of his performance in the debates leading up to it. Some prognosticators speculate that a bold, fresh approach tonight will signal the victor next week, and that strong or tepid performances by both Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney will make it a real horse race. The New York Times reported today that the two “are each signalling a willingness to go nuclear” tonight. If that happens, it could even be fun to watch!

To follow Doug’s live tweets, click here. The debate begins at 8:00 p.m. Eastern Standard Time.

Advertisements

Voter Intimidation and the Law


The concept of voter intimidation and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 are in the news today. Last month, J. Christian Adams resigned from the Justice Department and is being called a “whistle-blower” for describing a disturbing insensitivity to voters’ rights during the 2008 election—in this case, white voters’ rights. Read more of this post

Howard Stern on Doug’s Blog?


Yep. I’ve gone over the edge. I’m posting a video of Howard Stern in his radio studio talking to his listeners. There has to be a good reason for this, right?

There is.

Stern sent one of his guys out to the streets of NYC to ask people about their preferences in this year’s presidential election. Stern shares three audio clips of brief interviews with Obama supporters. The interviewer asks who the individual supports, then tricks the person with questions that entail that Obama wants to keep the troops in Iraq, that Obama is pro-life and against stem cell research, and that Sarah Palin is Obama’s running-mate. These people explain in vague terms why they don’t support McCain (e.g., he’s not very intelligent) and then express unqualified support for Obama, even though Sarah Palin is his running-mate, etc.

You’ve got to hear this. If you’re interested, click here for a post yesterday by SusanUnPc. Thanks, Susan!

* * *

Related Link at Doug’s Blog:

Should Everyone Vote?


Answer—yes . . . and no. It depends. Given the way things are right now, the way things have always been, and the way things will always be, not everyone should vote. So I guess the answer really is “no.”

This is political heresy. You don’t hear many politicians saying this. It isn’t politically expedient because it challenges a pervasive myth. It could be political suicide to say that there are citizens who should not vote.

Who should not vote?

  1. People who don’t exist.
  2. People who have taken no initiative to get registered or to understand the issues.
  3. People who vote to protect their own self-interests only.

I know the first claim is controversial, but in order to save space, I won’t try to support it here.

The second claim is motivated by my belief that a vote should be cast in order to promote the common good. A failure to get registered and negligence in seeking to understand the issues are indicators that this responsibility is not taken seriously. And those who register because someone from a particular party urged them to and provided them with on-the-spot opportunities to register are vulnerable to manipulation. In fact, often they are manipulated. Deliberately compelling people, often the poor and uneducated, to register and vote, and to be sure their vote is cast for a certain named candidate, is manipulative; it betrays the condescending, patronizing attitude of those who take to the streets to get more people registered. The cynicism behind their alleged desire to help the poor and uneducated by getting them to vote for a particular candidate is lethal to democracy. It is a powerful indicator that party leaders are not interested in doing right by the poor and uneducated, that they are more interested in keeping their political machine running by exploiting those very people. If the policies of hard-left liberals succeeded and everyone was educated and living above the poverty level, these liberals would be out of business. To stay in business, they’re counting on there always being people who need their advocacy. Many of their policies will ensure that they remain in business.

I would add that, in general, people who do not understand the issues should not vote, even if they have taken pains to sort out what the issues are and what the candidates stand for.

What about the third claim? It implies that those who are low on the economic spectrum should not cast a vote for someone willing to levy taxes on the wealthy simply because it could mean that they will have more money to spend. It means that public educators should not vote for bills and propositions promising additional benefits to them and to public education just because they are educators and so stand to gain personally. These are but two examples. But the possibilities are legion.

Our elected representative have responsibilities to represent all of the people to the best of their ability. The electorate has responsibilities, too. We have a responsibility to act in support of the common good. We need not agree on what issues and candidates best serve the common good. But it should be our sincere pledge and intention to be informed to the fullest degree possible, to vote in deliberate support of the common good rather than pure self-interest, and to stay home on election day if we can’t meet these basic conditions.

What say you?

* * *

Related Posts on Doug’s Blog:

%d bloggers like this: