Bob Barr Welcomes Election Contest with Barack Obama and John McCain, Urges Weekly Debates
June 4, 2008 12:12 am EST
Atlanta, GA — Tonight the Democratic Party effectively finished its nomination process, choosing Sen. Barack Obama as its presidential candidate. Sen. Hillary Clinton fought long and well, helping spur a record voter turnout on the Democratic side. In most any other year she would have been her party’s standard-bearer, but she fell short against Sen.Obama, perhaps the Democrat’s most eloquent proponent of liberalism.
Sen. John McCain defeated his leading opponents even earlier to become the presumptive Republican nominee. Sen. McCain has a distinguished career, beginning with his military service during the Vietnam War. He well represents a Republican Party that has become an advocate of slightly smaller big government at home and aggressive war-making abroad.
I, and the Libertarian Party, offer a very different alternative to the American people: limited, constitutional government dedicated to protecting individual liberty. I look forward to a vigorous contest this fall and meeting my fellow candidates to debate the many important issues facing our nation. But there is no need to limit the debates to the usual handful of carefully choreographed contests.
In congratulatory letters I am sending, I challenge Senators Obama and McCain to meet me in weekly debate in cities across America with just the candidates and a moderator to keep order. Let us argue the issues, after which the American people can make their decision on Election Day. Surely the citizens of the greatest nation on earth deserve no less.
I would LOVE to see Baldwin and Barr debate. It would settle a lot of issues, once and for all.
So if Baldwin challenges Barr to debates… will he accept? If he does, he can never condemn Obam or McC for not accepting him…
The only standard to get into the debates should be that you have enough ballot access to win the election.
The two major campaigns control the debates. http://www.opendebates.org
Neither Nader nor Barr will get into the debates, because Obama wants Nader out and McCain wants Barr out.
G.E.
I have no rose-colored glasses.
I am not pro Barr but pro liberty.
Blind suppport of a person rather than concentration on the goal (advancing liberty) is what has hurt the LP.
Harry Browne had fervent supporters, and some of those who engineered the Browne campaign relentlessly ripped-off the LP over a period of several years. Badnarik’s blind followers kicked the LP down deeper into its’ grave.
I support liberty and till someone can show me a reason why Barr is not better than rivals on the ballot, I’ll vote for Barr.
JPS – Your rose-colored glasses for Barr have to be damaging to your eyesight and mental health, in general.
Barr purposely did not get into the race until after all the debates. People inside his campaign have confirmed this, behind the scenes. There were a pair of independent debates and several forums that Barr skipped in Denver. The official debate was rigged and Barr helped undeserving candidates get into the debate to avoid extra time for the serious candidates. Come on, JPS — it’s okay to support Barr, he’s the candidate — but let’s acknowledge facts! Your blind disavowal of the truth in favor of Barr is downright Orwellian.
Barr never avoided any debate (unless you count the one organized just hours before starting and scheduled at a time when Barr had a previously announced and conflicting campaign event in the same hotel).
Barr became a candidate, what, 11 days before the convention?
To suggest Barr was avoiding a debate with other Libertarian aspirants is not accurate. Where’s the beef?
Of course Barr will agitate to get into debates with Obama and McCain…as a faithful nominee of the LP that’s what he’s supposed to do.
There would have been no Ron Paul Revolution without Paul’s inclusion and Giuliani’s attack on the “obscure congressman” in an early debate.
We all know it’ll be tough for Barr to get into a debate, but I’m glad he’s making noise about it right out of the gate.
Barr went out of his way to avoid debating libertarians until he had no choice but to do it, so this is particularly amusing.
More like until he could do so in a thoroughly controlled (and rigged) environment where the candidates were essentially barred from questioning or attacking him.
Barr went out of his way to avoid debating libertarians until he had no choice but to do it, so this is particularly amusing.
He doesn’t actually want to debate McCain, or Obama. He just says he wants to do it, because he knows they won’t be interested. That way, he can claim to have challenged them, and they were “afraid” to debate him.
That’s one of the oldest tricks in the book for third party candidates. It is also more than a little transparent.
BTW, I was talking about realistic standards to get into a serious debate with Republican and Democratic candidates. I didn’t mean to diss Baldwin, or the many Libertarian candidates who’ve ran campaigns in the past with only a fraction of a percent of support. =P
I can see Nader — but Baldwin doesn’t poll near well enough to be taken seriously. I mean, Nader is at 3-4% and Barr is at 4-8%, what’s Baldwin at? Well, he’s probably never been polled, but I can’t imagine anyone would think it’d be more than a fraction of a percent…
Barr fears Baldwin the way that McCain fears Barr.
Baldwin can compete for the Ron Paul market share, and Barr needs those people’s votes and volunteer activism if he wants to effect the race.
What about Nader? And maybe Baldwin, too?