Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr on the ‘debate that wasn’t’

Writing in Huffington Post, Bob Barr says

There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between Senator McCain and Senator Obama. The viewers of this first presidential “debate” missed the opportunity for a true debate because the viewpoints I represent were not raised.

This was clearly a debate between big government and bigger government. The proposals for spending taxpayers’ hard-earned money for everything from bailing out Wall Street to bailing out Georgia (theirs, not ours) are simply irresponsible.

We, the United States, are living way beyond our means, and in this debate, there was not a single recognition–let alone an alarm cry–for the runaway spending of our government.

Barr denounces the “mad dash” to pass a trillion dollar “bailout” of Wall Street, calls for a Justice Department investigation of fraud and other criminal behavior at financial institutions, and stop the US from acting as the world’s policeman and occupying numerous foreign countries.

He concludes,

The debate tonight convinced me that neither McCain nor Obama want to, or can, change the direction of our country. With roughly 80 percent of all Americans saying our country is headed in the wrong direction, I am the only candidate who embodies their hope for true change.

The Washington establishment doesn’t want to face up to the challenges next administration will inherit. If you’re part of the 55 percent or more of voters who think the debates would be enriched by having me in them, let the news media know your feelings. The establishment will respond if public opinion is strongly in favor of my inclusion in the next two presidential debates.

7 thoughts on “Libertarian Presidential candidate Bob Barr on the ‘debate that wasn’t’

  1. TheOriginalAndy

    This is all good, but why won’t Bob Barr debater the other “3rd party” candidates such as Ralph Nader, Chuck Baldwin, and Cynthia McKinney? The fact that Barr refuses to debate him makes him look like a hypocrite and a coward.

  2. rdupuy

    @andy, In my opinion there is no doubt Bob Barr would debate Ralph Nader, as long as McCain and Obama were also part of the debate.

    As a matter of fact, in a forum with these 4 candidates, I don’t think the addition of the minor candidates you mentioned, would be a problem.

    But of course you weren’t talking about having McCain and Obama in attendance, I gathered you were promulgating the idea that there should be separate debates, one real one with McCain and Obama, and one minor debate. The minor debate, being watched by few.

    I think sometimes people forget the purpose of debates. It’s not to disseminate information alone. The fact of the matter is, if one wanted to know the positions of the candidates, it just takes a few keystrokes, in this internet world. Spend a few minutes visiting the websites and downloading the positions of the candidates.
    There is no excuse for anyone wanting to know the positions, for not having those positions. No debate is necessary.

    Debates are part of a tradition going back to Lincoln-Douglass, and the opportunity they represent is to be part of that tradition…to be part of that tradition is to have wide exposure to a large audience.

    You are free to promote the idea of starting a new tradition, where there is a secondary debate with minor candidates.

    But admit it has nothing to do with the former tradition. Your tradition, will be watched by few, has little meaning, and is basically a pointless waste of time.

  3. VTV

    Barr won’t debate Nader because he thinks it would be “debating down”.

    Both Nader and Barr have deluded themselves into believing they are “major candidates”.

  4. Spence

    “The viewers of this first presidential ‘debate’ missed the opportunity for a true debate because the viewpoints I represent were not raised.”

    I don’t think they missed very much at all, then.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *