RevolutionBroadcasting to host an online debate, all candidates invited

At 8pm ET on October 9th, is hosting an online debate. Invitations have been given to John McCain, Barack Obama, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Cynthia McKinney, Chuck Baldwin, and Charles Jay. At this time Chuck Baldwin and Charles Jay are confirmed. I will bring you more updates as this story develops.

The format:

Each candidate will be given one minute to answer every question.

Each candidate will be able to pose two questions that the other candidates will all have 1 minute to answer, with the candidate posing the question answering their own questions last.

If you would like to help get these candidates into the debate, you can contact their campaigns:

John McCain: (703) 418-2008
Barack Obama: (866) 675-2008
Bob Barr: (678)-324-3240
Ralph Nader (202) 471 5833
And Email Cynthia McKinney at

39 thoughts on “RevolutionBroadcasting to host an online debate, all candidates invited

  1. svf

    so… Charles Jay? what are the criteria for inclusion here? the BTP is on the ballot in fewer states than 4-5 other parties/candidates.

    good luck with this one, folks.

  2. Fred Church Ortiz

    Was there a standard then? You say “all” candidate are invited, but you’re leaving out quite a few.

  3. AnthonyD

    “At this time Chuck Baldwin and Charles Jay are confirmed.”

    Baldwin in a debate with Charles Jay? And thus ends the great Ron Paul R3VOLution, with a whimper not fit for a dying chiuaua.

  4. VTV Post author

    The list at this point included people that Ron Paul voters might consider voting for. Nader and McKinney thanks to Ron Paul’s press conference. If there is demand for other candidates, then we will see about including them. As far as Charles Jay, I happen to know quite a few Ron Paul supporters who are not going to vote for Baldwin or Barr, who would probably be able to vote for him.

  5. svf

    The list at this point included people that Ron Paul voters might consider voting for.

    Why are McCain and Obama invited then?

    (only sort of kidding)

  6. Coming Back to the LP

    Trent Hill // Sep 25, 2008 at 2:57 pm

    “Charles Jay should not be included in this debate.”


    If the selection criteria are so biased, the debate cannot be unbiased.

  7. Trent Hill

    Nothing at all. But what is your criteria? Charles Jay isnt on enough states to make 270 electoral votes,ALL the others are. Charles Jay should not be on stage with the others and is being showed favoritism.
    But that is just to start with–I also have a significant problem with your previous posting where you posted an editorial AGAINST our policy here at IPR and included no disclosure notice.

    Im not the one that is usually complaining about these things–but I’ll call it how I see it.

  8. Jason_Gatties

    Trent, here’s a thought. Why not bitch to VTV regarding his “editorial” in private? You want “professionalism” here, but come off like a child making this public.

    The previous post has nothing to do with this post.

  9. Thomas L. Knapp

    “Charles Jay and Brian Moore COMBINED do not have the electoral votes to be on stage fairly.”

    Charles Jay and Brian Moore, individually or combined, have exactly as many electoral votes as Chuck Baldwin, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, Barack Obama and John McCain. And they have exactly the same number of potential electoral votes, too.

  10. darcyrichardson

    “It seems pretty odd to include Charles Jay to me.” – Viverrid

    Well, the folks at RevolutionBroadcasting probably want to include at least one candidate who actually espouses a libertarian philosophy.

  11. G.E.

    Guess what, guys? It’s a privately organized debate. Don’t like the invite list — organize your own.

    Charles Jay absolutely should be included in a debate designed for Ron Paul voters.

  12. VTV Post author

    “Charles Jay should not be on stage with the others and is being showed favoritism.”

    That’s a wild accusation. You have any proof to go along with that “editorial” of yours about what motivates us at RevolutionBroadcasting?

    Ron Paul’s press conference was about casting a vote for neither of the major parties.

    I for one am sick of the fact that the reason why the “minor” parties stay “minor” is because their message is all but censored. G.E. has the right of it, if you think you can do better have at it. We are doing this as a service to the American voter. We are not making any money on any of this and we are a non-profit media outlet. So if you don’t like how it’s being run, that’s the price of FREE.

  13. G.E.

    I’m kinda floored by these communist-type statements from people objecting to how a privately organized debate is being run. Who are you? Bob Barr?

  14. G.E.

    The criteria is # of invites received by RevolutionBroadcasting to participate. Minimal threshold = 1.

  15. VTV Post author

    The Socialist party asked to be added so we added them. My criteria is you are running for President. I guess your ideas and opinions are only valid if your with a “cool” party?

  16. Trent Hill


    Then why havent the other minor party candidates been invited? Alan Keyes, Gloria Lariva, Gene Amondsen, Ted Weil, and Roger Calero are all on as many or more ballots than Charles Jay. Obviously there is SOME threshold.

    As for your distate for my criticism–im not trying to SUE you for entry or disbarrment of certain candidates–it is perfectly consistent with libertarianism to suggest that some private function is not operating under a coherant ethic–and this one isnt.

  17. VTV Post author

    Charles Jay’s message is consistent with the Libertarian message that Ron Paul’s followers subscribe to, so I sought to invite him. When another party contacted us that we had not considered before, we went ahead and invited them.

    The “ethic” is to give people a place to spread their message.

  18. G.E.

    Trent – I need no coherent ethic to decide who I invited to my birthday party.

    If there were an explicitly socialist candidate who could win enough electoral votes, do you think Paul would have invited him/her on stage with him? I doubt it. And I think he would have been right.

  19. JimDavidson

    I would like to thank Revolution Broadcasting and their team for inviting Charles Jay. I am also invited to an interview with Tweak Jones tonight at midnight to 1 a.m. (Friday morning on the east coast). So that should be fun.

    The position of the Boston Tea Party is that private parties can invite anyone they please to debate and be interviewed. I believe in a free press with the freedom of association. I do not believe in a mandatory “fairness doctrine,” nor any other prior restraint on the press.

    Bob Barr, as you may remember, threw a hissy fit and sued the pastor who had a presidential forum at his Brokeback Mountain (or was that Saddleback?) church. Why? If a nationally televised event involves just one candidate, or just two candidates, giving speeches or throwing fruit at each other, why would Bob Barr sue? How did that lawsuit uphold libertarian ideals?

    The Boston Tea Party is just starting out, again, after the LP has gone and shot itself in the foot, again. We nearly faded away earlier this year, but the nomination of Barr drove many to our ranks. Many other incidents in the months since late May have driven many more to our ranks. We now have over 350 members on our national site and over 475 on our largest Facebook group. We’ve also gone to the trouble of endorsing about 16 LP candidates in various races.

    When it was starting out, the LP had ballot access in two states, according to the Wikipedia entry on the topic.

    We have nominated our first presidential ticket, and Charles is on the ballot in three states. Apparently the LP hard liners don’t want to allow anyone else to play in their sand box. Happily, Revolution Broadcasting isn’t their sand box. And we’re very pleased to have our candidate in the Revolution Broadcasting debate.

    You don’t have to like the fact that there is now another libertarian party in America. You do have to accept it. We’re here, and we’re here to stay. The more you screw up the LP, the more you corrupt the LP, the more you upset the state affiliates, the more you upset the Ron Paul people, the more members you drive to our ranks. We are now a fact of life.

    You can try intimidation, bullying, insults, and all the other things that don’t work in your LP infighting squabbles. But the Boston Tea Party won’t go away.

    I will. I am not going to be chair of the party after the convention in October, after my replacement is elected by the members. I do not want to hold the ring of power. But I’m going to continue to watch and amuse myself to think about how much better the LP is going to become now that there is healthy competition in the market.

  20. Trent Hill

    “If there were an explicitly socialist candidate who could win enough electoral votes, do you think Paul would have invited him/her on stage with him? I doubt it. And I think he would have been right.”

    Nader and McKinney are pretty close to “explicitly socialist” and yes, I think Paul would have invited him or her.

  21. G.E.

    Trent – Nader is nominally anti-socialist. McKinney was endorsed by Communists, but she’s also been criticized from being “capitalist.”

    By the Misesian threshold, neither are “real” socialists.

    And I do think that Paul would have excluded a legit Socialist/Communist. I also think he would have excluded Alan Keyes.

  22. sunshinebatman

    Why no (2008 Presidential candidate) Alan Keyes? I”m sure he’d be delighted to participate in this historic event.

  23. TheOriginalAndy

    Since Bob Barr is too chickenshit to show up at this debate, it seems that somebody should represent libertarian philosophy (not that Bob Barr is the most capable person in this role anyway), so why not invited Charles Jay?

  24. darolew

    “I also think he would have excluded Alan Keyes.”

    Keyes wouldn’t have agreed with the statement of principles anyway.

  25. JimDavidson

    Charles Jay is now officially registered for write-in votes in Arizona and Montana. We continue to have teams show up in different states to help with write-in status.

    Charles has official ballot status in Colorado (9 electoral votes), Florida (27), and Tennessee (11). Arizona (10), and Montana (3) bring the total to 60, so far.

Leave a Reply

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