Nick Gillespie | August 15, 2008
According to a Zogby poll, 55 percent of likely voters want Libertarian candidate Bob Barr included in the presidential debates:
Should Bob Barr Be Included in Presidential Debates?
Men
Women
Big City Dwellers
Suburban Dwellers
Married
Single
Yes
60%
52%
56%
54%
54%
61%
No
35%
36%
35%
36%
36%
34%
Not sure
5%
12%
9%
10%
10%
5%
Thirty-nine percent of Dems and 41 percent of GOPpers do not want the former Georgia congressman to horn in on their parade.
Sadly, Barr has no shot of getting in the debates, which are run by the Commission on Presidential Debates, "a private non-profit corporation that has organized debates in the last several presidential election cycles."
The CPD requires that to be included in their debates, candidates must appear on enough state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority of Electoral College votes, and must be winning at least 15% support in national public opinion polls before the debates.
In this latest Zogby Interactive poll, Bob Barr won 6% support.
Screw 'em! Here's a different rule to consider: Any candidate whose polling covers the spread between the two leaders should be allowed to bore Americans to death on national TV just as much as the major-party candidates.
Not that Barr would be boring. Take a gander at him (and Mike Gravel, Vern McKinley, and Wayne Allyn Root) here:
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Any candidate whose polling covers the spread between the
two leaders should be allowed to bore Americans to death on
national TV just as much as the major-party candidates.
Too far! Gore beat Bush by 0.5%.
I could by 5%, but not 0.5%.
Hey, can I remind everyone that this is a private organization and it's right to do what it wants blah blah blah
Mr. Nice Guy: Yes, it can, and nobody is suggesting legal action against the CPD.
Funny, I don't recall seeing anything about illegal immigrants degrading our culture or burly union men not getting enough bens... what's MNG doing here?
The only way to get Barr in the debates would be for a grass roots petition with at least a half a million signatures to be presented to the the networks wherein the signers declare, "I will not watch any presidential debate that excludes Bob Barr."
MNG --
Sure, it's private on paper. But it gets loads of support from the
government for maintaining things as they are.
How is it (please, PLEASE someone explain) that the CPD isn't
legally dragged through the coals for making a de facto donation to
the two dominant political parties by airing their debate and
excluding others from participating?
Obama should agree to debate Barr alone, just to give him more attention and take away from McCain.
Reinmoose,
MNG is french-canadian. Can you blame him for having a chip on his
shoulder concerning immigration?
p.s. Nigel Watt --
In 2004, the Lib party and the Green party did take legal action on
that exact basis. It was basically tossed on the issue of mootness:
the debates would have already happened by the time the issue could
be decided.
Well joe, it helped Reagan in 1980 when he debated Andserson. Carter lost a lot of states because of him.
LMNOP: Oh. I shouldn't try speaking for other people. I'm not suggesting any legal action be taken.
Every debate should have at least three bores in it. But say he gets in, what do we need to do next to get them to include a libertarian? Preferably one who doesn't attend rallies for bigots like the Minutemen.
Obama should agree to debate Barr alone, just to give him
more attention and take away from McCain.
And then afterward, Obama and Barr can even prang McCain for being
"against freedom".
And then they can hug and ride off into the sunset together.
(No, but seriously, this is a very good idea you propose.)
Don't we have any boffins who could rig a
"You were to hear an address from President Thompson. His time is
up. etc. etc.
BDB,
Before my time. Why in the wide world of sports did Carter ever let
that happen?
If a candidate is polling at greater than or equal the margin for error in at least 12 states(roughly a quarter) he or she should be allowed in the debates...this then takes into account a candidate's effect on electoral college votes rather than the popular vote. Of course you would have to get pollsters to standardize polling to include all candidates registered on a particular state's ballot to make it accurate.
"Before my time. Why in the wide world of sports did Carter ever
let that happen?"
Because the LWV was going to include Anderson anyway, but Carter
refused to go if they did. There was a deadlock, and Anderson asked
to debate Reagan alone and he agreed. Just by getting his name out
there he went from 2% to 10% in the polls.
Anyway if by some miracle Barr gets to debate either of them on TV, McCain can kiss Georgia, North Carolina, and maybe even Mississippi goodbye.
How's this for an idea:
CPD should offer a seat at the debate as a *product* for sale to
presidential candidates.
Non-negotiable
$50,000 for a seat
first-come-first-served
limit one per customer
# in stock: four seats
Gets around campaign finance and makes it a fair buy-in.
So the two biggest stat. vectors that correlate with a person supporting Barr's inclusion in the debates are: being male and being single. Too bad they didn't ask about enjoying science fiction.
Hmmm. Support for Barr's inclusion is highest among single men. Do they have a crosstab for single white men under the age of 40 who work with computers for a living and drive compact imports? They might be unanimous.
Connie
Rice: Top 10 Secrets They Don't Want You to Know About the
Debates
In related debate news (via email):
Yesterday, I reported to former Congressman Barr that we've exhausted every avenue. I told him, "We've had calls placed to Pastor Warren from very powerful leaders from the left and the right, we sent in our personal request, and placed numerous phone calls that have not been returned. You are not going to be included.
"Our only option left is to threaten to file an temporary injunction as our attorney's believe they are in violation of the law."
Bob responded by saying, "No, don't threaten to do that . . . Just do it."
As you read this, our attorneys are filing an injunction against Saddleback Church to include Bob Barr in their forum this Saturday.
LOL, Political debates of today are a JOKE. They are full of
lies to the sheeple and accusations against the other debaters. Yet
the Sheeple jsut sit back and lap it up!
JT
http://www.Ultimate-Anonymity.com
I think if we can get libertarian ideas discussed intelligently in the mainstream, a lot of people will start to see the truth.
Let's be frank--I'd love for there to be a chance for third party candidates, but that would require a miracle like preference order voting. And the problem with third-party candidates as they work now is that they tend to be narrow agenda or otherwise fringe, so for any one of them there are things they'd be good debating in the name of the majority, but other things no one is supporting them on. So it's a mixed bag. If we're going to put in someone who won't be elected why limit ourselves to who's running? Let's just put Gore in to debate them on Climate Change. Let's put Kevin Phillips in to talk about the fiscal crisis. And so on. Get some real subject area experts in there and push them to actually speak on issues. I bet Obama might be willing. I doubt McCain would. But either could surprise me...
As a result of this guy's spam here, I will never, for the rest of my life, ever approach anything bearing the words anonymity and ultimate. If he's pushing it, it can't be good.
Hey, Maybe getting shut out of the debate could be a good thing if he is allowed to airtime to discuss his points of view after the debate...... then there would be no chance for McBamba to Dispute his points.
The debates should be between the two people that have a chance to win and not wasted on a person that has absolutely no chance. And how come you are not arguing that Cynthia McKinney should have a spot? The Green Party usually garners as many, if not more, votes than the Libertarian Party
"LOL, Political debates of today are a JOKE. They are full of
lies to the sheeple and accusations against the other debaters. Yet
the Sheeple jsut sit back and lap it up!"
I love this message board? Why? Because it is full of arrogant
assholes who call others sheep because they have the temerity to
disagree with the political views of arrogant pricks.
"Anyway if by some miracle Barr gets to debate either of them on
TV, McCain can kiss Georgia, North Carolina, and maybe even
Mississippi goodbye."
Hahahahahahahahahaha, sure thing. It amazes me that people can
actually believe that states that went Republican by 20+% are going
to go Democrat because an absolute nobody like Bob Barr is allowed
into the debates.
"Every debate should have at least three bores in it. But say he
gets in, what do we need to do next to get them to include a
libertarian? Preferably one who doesn't attend rallies for bigots
like the Minutemen"
So now opposition to illegal immigration makes one a bigot? When
did that happen?
"Well joe, it helped Reagan in 1980 when he debated Andserson.
Carter lost a lot of states because of him."
Jesus christ, Carter lost the fucking election in a huge landslide
because he was the worst president in American history, not because
Reagan excluded him from a fucking debate.
With the announcement that Kerry might be Obama's running mate, and McCain's penchant to get into WW3, I think the major parties are trying to throw the election to Barr.
Carter lost the fucking election in a huge landslide because he was the worst president in American history
As awful as Carter was, it's hard to argue that he was worse
than LBJ. Johnson's 1964 campaign was one of the most dishonest in
history -- promising peace and painting Goldwater as a warmonger,
even while secretly planning "escalation" in Vietnam. He created
Medicare and Medicaid, massive entitlements that now threaten to
bankrupt threaten the federal treasury. His Galbraithian
guns-and-butter fiscal scheme sparked the inflation that continued
to wreak havoc on the U.S. economy for more than a decade after he
left office. Most of all, had it not been for LBJ's spectacular
failure, Nixon never could have become president.
Whether you're a hawk or a dove, a liberal or a conservative -- or,
perhaps especially, a libertarian -- it is difficult to escape the
conclusion that much of what has gone wrong in American political
life for the past 40 years began with LBJ.
I love this message board? Why? Because it is full of
arrogant assholes who call others sheep because they have the
temerity to disagree with the political views of arrogant
pricks.
I love how B is so stupid he got snookered by a *spammer*. UA Guy
doesn't even rate "troll" and somehow B got trolled by him.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245