Nader and Barr on the Debates

I was waiting for something like this, fresh from my inbox.

The fact that a candidate can call for changing the date of the debate only two days before it is scheduled indicates how easy it would be for the candidates to also call for the inclusion of the leading third party and independent candidates, which would bring fresh ideas to the table on how our country can truly tackle this heavy challenge.

An Obama-Barr-Nader debate? Hell, I'd watch it.

Comments

[Episiarch]

I just checked Barr's site and no mention there yet. If Barr could get Obama to agree, that would be a great watch.

[As They Say]

"An Obama-Barr-Nader debate? Hell, I'd watch it."

All behavior is meaningful.

[joe]

He's got a point there.

[Elemenope]

"An Obama-Barr-Nader debate? Hell, I'd watch it."

Fucking A. And throw in Buchanan. He may not be running for anything, but this is about *entertainment*!

[Episiarch]

Hell, have Stephen Colbert moderate it if you want entertainment.

On a more serious note (yes, it pains me to be so), I think a real, non-three-ring-circus debate between Barr and Obama would be extremely illuminating.

[J sub D]

An Obama-Barr-Nader debate? Hell, I'd watch it.

Not that Obama would be foolish enough to agree to it, I'd watch it as well.

[svf]

An Obama-Barr-Nader debate? Hell, I'd watch it.

It would be the most watched televised presidential debate of all time. Guaranteed.

They could even sell advertising time at Superbowl rates!

[BDB]

Reagan did it with Andersen in '80. It probably cost Carter more than a few states.

[svf]

Now on Barr's stie (with pdfs!)

[jtuf]

Obama's saying America needs debate on Friday. Let's call him on his offer.

[svf]

Man, O could score big here by taking the high road and inviting Barr (and Nader) to debate him in the name of "inclusiveness" and "diversity of opinion" and so forth.

Yet, he probably won't do it.

[ChicagoTom]

The fact that a candidate can call for changing the date of the debate only two days before it is scheduled indicates how easy it would be for the candidates to also call for the inclusion of the leading third party and independent candidates, which would bring fresh ideas to the table on how our country can truly tackle this heavy challenge.

HAHAHAHAHAAH!

The fact is that the CPD was created to explicitly exclude third party candidates, and pretending otherwise isn't helping anyones cause.

[Orange Line Special]

I hate to belabor a point, but Reason could very easily put on debates like this. And, they could get wonks *from across the spectrum* to show up. And, they could probably get Nader and Baldwin to show up and perhaps even Barr. And, even if they couldn't get those people they could get their surrogates or even just people who are familiar with their policies to represent them. And, Reason would only have to spend $10,000 or so.

So, er, why don't they?

[BDB]

OLS-

YouTube/Google tried that, and no one showed up. That good enough a reason?

[MAX HATS]

OLS, the only possible conclusion is that Reason has been compromised. By the system.

You know.

Them.

[Orange Line Special]

BDB:

Your comment shows once again how searching at my site first would help people out. In fact, I have about 20 posts on that topic, starting with me providing questions (which weren't selected) to me (at another one of my sites) offering advice on how to make it work. (In regards to that, I also contacted these people and was brushed off: 24ahead.com/blog/archives/007149.html)

And, then I discuss how one of those two organizations you mention deleted my on-topic video replies that pointed out how their questions were bad.

So, if you think what you saw from CNN/Youtube was anything like what I'm suggesting, the history shows otherwise.

(As for MAX HATS, see among others this).

[BDB]

No, I wasn't talking about the primary debate.

YouTube and Google proposed a 2008 GENERAL ELECTION DEBATE that would have taken place last week. Not even the third party candidates showed up.

NO ONE is going to debate outside of the CPD format. It sucks, but tis true. The League of Women Voters had much better debates, from what I heard.

[MAX HATS]

OLS,

Great article. While I agree that the anachro-capitalist perspective does need futheration through diffused. . .what's that knock at my door?

Oh no!

It's the Bildeburgers!

[ktc2]

IF the debate went forward with Obama and the third party candidates it could push the Rs the way of the Whigs. Of course, it'll never happen but we can dream.

[24AheadDotCom]

BDB:

Got ya covered.

Remember: search first, then post.

[Danny]

So what would it really take to make this happen? I have a feeling pinging the hell out of the campaigns wouldn't do a damn thing.

To me, it's sad to think that there's no way to influence any of this. But then, I'm still young. I've got plenty of disappointment ahead of me.

[Orange Line Special]

Danny:

What you can do is organize people in your area to go to public appearances and ask the candidates on video when they'll agree to appear at debates in the format described in my first comment. Barr and Nader should be quite approachable, but the others also have Q&A sessions. That's the only way to get a real debate.

[Mark]

The league of women voters pulled out of hosting debates in 1988 (such simpler times weren't they?). Here is the statement they made at the time:

The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates ... because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public.

[Xeones]

In other words, the League of Women Voters has more balls than the entire CPD? Nice.

[Kant feel Pietzsche, my Balzac]

Mark, how many "heart attacks" and "traffic accidents" were there among LOWV members in 1989? ;-D