Political Insider

By Cecil Phudpucker

June 5, 2008 4:37 PM | Link to this

Barr is a blip. A crazed rotten-toothed blip at that. It should be up to the putative sponsors of the debate who they invite. Barr, being a shyster, will probably threaten to sue if they don’t give him a platform from which to spew his nutty “ideas.”

By Brad F

June 5, 2008 4:45 PM | Link to this

I think it’d be good to see Bob Barr in the debates. But lets also invite some of the others too. Let’s not ignore that there are other’s in this race.

By Clint H

June 5, 2008 5:43 PM | Link to this

yes, I would like to see Bob Barr in the presidential debates. Bob Barr’s view are very mainstream candidate and he is not a shyster. He does not have extreme views.

By nandi

June 5, 2008 6:30 PM | Link to this

Barr is only on the ballot in 30 states and very doubtful other states will invite him and his kkk buddies along…I suppose he is some people dream president…

By latinovoter1

June 5, 2008 6:31 PM | Link to this

Bob Barr is so much better than McCain any day. I was glad when he announced his run, just so I didnt have to vote for McCain.

By Oregon4Obama

June 5, 2008 6:35 PM | Link to this

NO, NO, NO Bob Barr

Go away…..

Bob barr is to REP like Nader is to the DEM’s

They shouldn’t be allowed to campaign or get in on McCain or Obama’s debates because they haven’t put in the time to earn it….

Both Obama and McCain started their campaigns 18 months ago, and they barr comes in 1 month ago and says “im running now” and thinks he deserves equal air and debate time B.S.

If Barr thinks he is a better candidate he would have sacrificed, organized, planned and campaigned like Obama and McCain, and Hillary Did…..

bob barr, you may have some good ideas, but you have not put in the time or effort to become a contestant…..you are taking a huge shortcut to the presidency and should be banned from the race

By Steve Dasbach

June 5, 2008 7:30 PM | Link to this

As the Libertarian nominee, Bob Barr will be on the ballot in 48-50 states (OK & WV are the uncertain ones).

By Ben Kalafut

June 5, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

McCain has been known for requiring the exclusion of third-party candidates as a condition of his appearance, even if the debate is being funded by taxpayer money.

Most recently, he did it to Ernest Hancock in 2004. Hancock’s a bit of a jerk, so it’s understandable in that case, but McCain’s history of hostility to multiparty elections and debates goes back into the ’90s.

By Pat Wright

June 5, 2008 7:35 PM | Link to this

There certainly are some nasty totalitarians on this Board. I’d love to see Bob Barr and others in the debate. Political innovations often start with small parties because the old parties are afraid to bring up anything too controversial. This is a market place of ideas - not a horse race. We really need to open up the process.

By Churchill

June 5, 2008 8:26 PM | Link to this

Barr could be the water boy, he could ask Ru Paul to help. Otherwise, his presence at a debate is completely unnecessary.

By Jenn

June 5, 2008 9:05 PM | Link to this

It’s only fair to let Barr in the debate. I hope that Obama and McCain allow it. In fact they should let all candidates be in the debate. Barr, Paul, and Nadar. This is coming from a Obama supporter and my bf is a McCain supporter and supports this idea.

By Let_Us_Pray

June 5, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this

it is clear from the limited polling data that Barr is going to be a big player, one suspects that hasn’t gone unnoticed by the Obama campaign, he deserves to be included.

By Butterfinger

June 5, 2008 9:44 PM | Link to this

Anyone who refers to a particular presidential candidate as “Ru Paul” should be barred from political discussion simply because they are completely idiotic. I won’t even argue the point because it stands alone.

By Ian Stafford

June 5, 2008 10:11 PM | Link to this

What is crazy about the beliefs that our founding fathers shared? The beliefs that government should be out of our lives as much as possible? The belief that we are not the world police? The belief in liberty? You says that you don’t support his beliefs then I assume you do not support freedom.

By Phil

June 5, 2008 10:43 PM | Link to this

No doubt Barr should be included in any presidential debates. The only thing Republicans and Dems can agree on is they don’t want a third party to return their borrowed power to the people. The Dems want to control your financial freedom and the Reps want to control your personal freedom.

By Churchill

June 5, 2008 11:49 PM | Link to this

RU/BARR ‘08

By kim

June 5, 2008 11:59 PM | Link to this

Barr should be in the debates. Americans are brainwashed into thinking they can only vote Dem. or Rep. People should SHAKE IT UP THIS YEAR!!!!!!!!! LOL

By nandi

June 6, 2008 2:18 AM | Link to this

Barr is on the ballot in 30 states…Maybe Stormfront and its ilk can petition dumb, broke Ohio and Kentucky…they are foolish enough…LOL

By nandi

June 6, 2008 2:18 AM | Link to this

Barr is on the ballot in 30 states…Maybe Stormfront and its ilk can petition dumb, broke Ohio and Kentucky…they are foolish enough…LOL

By C. Henry

June 6, 2008 2:49 AM | Link to this

Nandi,

The Libertarian Party has ballot access in 48 states. Bob Barr is trying to get onto the other two and also Washington, D.C. If he can raise about $300,000 (he’s got close to 250K already) he’ll be able to do it.

Thus, Barr is expected to be on the ballot in all 50 states plus the District of Columbia come November.

By BLS

June 6, 2008 2:51 AM | Link to this

Barr should be in the debates.

If McCain and Obama are so sure of their platforms they should not feel threatened by Barr.

it’s interesting that Barr wil debate them anywhere but McCain complains and doesn’t want to THROWDOWN with Barr!

By Rigor Mortiss

June 6, 2008 3:08 AM | Link to this

The Libertairius Loon party is: (a) pro dope fiend and (b) anti 9/11 justice. Yes, that’s right: after 9/11 the OFFICIAL position of the Libbies was that the US had it coming because it was a meddler. Let’s hear Bob Barr, who long ago lost his marbles, defend that. Barr is not “entitled” to a spot in the debates no how much he shyster-whines for it.

By Sam Adams

June 6, 2008 5:35 AM | Link to this

As for ‘putting in the time’ the LP doesn’t have the same drawn out primary process that the other two parties have. Mostly because the various states have made it near impossible for anyone BUT D & R’s to be considered as parties. We had our nomination fight. Barr won. Technically, he and Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party are the only two on the ballot right now that I know of. The D & R’s actually haven’t picked their nominees and won’t until Labor Day.

The debates should be open to anyone with a mathematical chance of getting electoral votes. Outside of that, they aren’t serious candidates.

By Bill Warren

June 6, 2008 6:55 AM | Link to this

Barr has zero chance of getting elected. In fact, he has zero chance of getting a singleelectoral vote. The people who want to hear him “debate” are fellow members in the Lunatic Fringe. These fanatics, along with the Ron Paul supporters, should all be sent to, say, Oregon — where they can be isolated and tranquilized with the world’s finest marijuana.

By BitterEXdemocrackkk

June 6, 2008 7:04 AM | Link to this

Can SOMEBODY corner Jimmy Carter and get HIM to call for 3rd Party Debate participants? As a ‘senior’ advisor of the CPD, Commission on Presidential Debates, for several years HE, ‘THE MONITOR OF WORLD ELECTIONS’ has REFUSED to do the inclusive ‘democratic’ business of having the CPD open to all qualified party representatives for the Presidential Debates. Mr. Carter, you’ve been challenged on this several times and you shirk your ‘duty’ by allowing the voting civil rights of ALL Americans to be clouded by the CONTROLLED CPD!!! (democrackkks are SO inclusive, arent they?)

By Copyleft

June 6, 2008 8:02 AM | Link to this

Every party needs to be included in the debates; the voters need more than just “The lesser of two evils,” and I’ve been saying that even when it would hurt the Democratic candidate.

The two-party system is a loser; it’s got to go.

By gttim

June 6, 2008 8:32 AM | Link to this

Can we get Bob Barr to maybe teach some gun safety classes after the debates? If so, I am all for him being included!

Aren’t Libertarians just folks who do not want to pay any taxes and make pot legal?

Does a Libertarian call the fire department if his house catches on fire? Wouldn’t he be a hypocrite if he did?

By The facts

June 6, 2008 9:14 AM | Link to this

Yes, the democrats and republicans have had long, drawn out campaigns—-with the primaries and caucuses held at taxpayer expense.

Both parties are subsidized by the government they run (at the citizen’s expense) with tax breaks, primaries, and public campaign finance.

The only candidates who offer substantive change are Nader and Barr; not McCain or Obama who share virtually identical views on 75% of the issues.

By Stone

June 6, 2008 9:17 AM | Link to this

The issue isn’t electability, short-cutting, or anything other than fair democracy. In a fair democracy every candidate has an equal chance and equal opportunity. Now, the Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalist, and others already start out handicapped, by having to pay huge sums to get onto ballots that the Democrats and Republicans get onto for free. Non-status-quo candidates already have to deal with media opposition and rampant election fraud, as evidenced by the Ron Paul campaign — and he was running as Republican. Folks, there are third-world countries that run cleaner, fairer democratic processes than we do here in America. We should be ashamed.

Damn right, Barr should be included in the debates, and so should Nader, Baldwin, or any other candidate who has properly complied with level-playing field requirements. Why? Well, one, because it is right, just, and fair, but, two, because the American people deserve to hear as broad a range of ideas and positions as are truly represented in the American population. When John McCain stands up there and represents conservatives as being pro-war, and Barack Obama stands up there and represents liberals as being pro-socialist, they are not speaking for the whole of America. 70% of the American people are against the Iraq war. As many as 30% of conservatives are not only not Republican war-hawks, but also advocate a non-interventionist foreign policy. That is 140 and 15 million(!) people respectively. Those people have a right to be represented on that stage by people who will accurately represent their views. And so do “market-liberals” who do not buy into the New Left socialism that current grips the Democratic Party.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have become the parties of “big,” big money, big interests, and big extremes. Neither of them truly represents the views of the average American, who does not have a big bank accounts, who is not a big corporation, or a big lobby, or a big union, or a big extremist socialist or neo-con. Only the small parties are representing the smaller interests of average Americans these days. And if we want to change Washington, to take back Washington, we’ll have to do it, by giving the small parties a fair chance.

By DaninMacon

June 6, 2008 9:47 AM | Link to this

Copyleft is right. Nader should be there too.

By TJ

June 6, 2008 3:05 PM | Link to this

They will find a way to keep him out. Even if he is polling at 15% they will pull some other poll out with him at 12% and deny him.

If Obama doesnot agree to the townhalls them McCain should go with Barr.

By bob barr's moustache

June 6, 2008 4:00 PM | Link to this

Include Bob Barr in the debates! It would be nice to hear from a new point of view. He will be on all or most ballots let’s hear from teh third parties for a change!

By John Combs

June 6, 2008 5:04 PM | Link to this

notice, friends, the fact that nearly every anti-barr post has been argued with sarcasm and lame jokes and not one single iota of rational arguement. also, notice how much totalitarian “we should send them here” or “he shouldn’t be be aloud to run” crap runs along with it.

as for the kkk and stormfront association. we have none with the kkk (the democrats founded this group as a democrat exclusive club, they’ve recently included republicans and they hate we libertarians) and stormfront may have supported ron paul, but he denounced them. we have nothing to do with neo-nazi’s considering the fact that we are “loonies” who radically side with personal liberty and they are fascist. but hey, hitler and mussolini endorsed FDR, often sending letter congratulating his policy choices…but nobody seems to care about that. hypocrits

By Shayne

June 6, 2008 5:46 PM | Link to this

As soon as the Republican’s can offer up a conservative candidate Conservaties would not have to vote for a 3rd party candidate. I didn’t leave the Republican Party, they left me.

By Steve

June 6, 2008 7:45 PM | Link to this

The campaign has just begun and Barr is already polling at 6-8% nation-wide. There is a high-level of disgust with the major parties and for a very good reason; they’re destroying our country, our economy and our liberty. He should definitely be included in the debates.

To Oregon4Obama: Last I checked, this is the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. We do not ban people from presidential elections. He is officially registered as a candidate, meets all federal requirements, and is expected to be on at least 48 of 50 ballots this year and there’s a big movement to make it 50.

The suppression of ideas is the act of a totalitarian state, not of a Representative Republic. Are you afraid that people will get distracted by actual issues and stray from the empty, meaningless message of “hope and change”, with no real plans to back it up? I read his platform… Seems to me that Obama is very pro-status quo. Also, it seems he’s even moving away from the notion of withdrawing our troops from Iraq right away, too. How odd! He sounds almost like McCain. Frankly, they might just as well be the same guy. They’re both beholden to corporate and special interests, particularly the military industrial complex that’s profiting so handsomely during our “conflicts” and engaging in nation-building.

This all comes at a cost, however. Notice how the price of everything is shooting skyward? That’s because of mismanagement, fraud and waste on the part of your precious two major parties, Democrats and Republicans alike. We’ve been spending far more than we’ve been taking in for quite a long time now. Your currency isn’t worth anything anymore because the government can’t borrow enough to cover the shortfalls. So,in addition to running up the national debt to nearly $10TRILLION, they print more money, in turn, reducing the value of the money in your pocket. A “hidden tax” let’s call it. It’s coming out of hiding now, though, in the form of inflation. $4.00/gal. of gas, $3.00 loaf of bread, $5.00/gal. Milk… I could go on, but you get the idea. On top of all of this, the corporate giants have convinced the government that shipping jobs out of the country and importing cheap, foreign labor is good for the economy. HUH? Obama agrees with and supports the policies that make this possible. Do you -really- want him for president? Barr opposes these ridiculous policies and he has my vote.

By DaninMacon

June 6, 2008 8:32 PM | Link to this

Or 8-6% is pathetic. Perot was polling much higher in 92. Barr should head to the ashbin of history, gracefully.

By dennis cook

June 6, 2008 10:29 PM | Link to this

bob want to save us from ourselves,i mean the ignorent voters that cant see nofarther then give me somthing,i want my freedom back and with a littel truth that bob stands on, i can hes got my vote thankyou bob barr. dennis

By denny

June 6, 2008 10:40 PM | Link to this

if you want our troops home bob will do it,ileagals out bob can do it if you want to keep your guns bob again your rights- freedom- morels- all pos things bob will do it. the dems-repubs hows that working for you.

By Churchill

June 6, 2008 10:53 PM | Link to this

Ru Paul should moderate the debates.

By Keith

June 6, 2008 11:46 PM | Link to this

The Commission on Presidential Debates sets the bar too high. It’s a Catch-22 - you have to poll up to their standards to get into the big show, but you might get bigger poll numbers by being IN it in the first place.

Why should we only get a series of hour-long campaign speeches by McCranky and that Obama fellow (assuming Hillary doesn’t pull an 11th hour palace coup by Saturday?)…

By Erin O'Dowd

June 7, 2008 5:35 AM | Link to this

eww nasty bob barr. i’m not sure how i feel about this. i do think, however, that barr belongs in a debate with those two scumbags. He is as bad as the rest of those CFR, bend-over-for-AIPAC, warmongering career politicians known as “Viable Candidates”. For those of you who didn’t know, and this goes out especially to wayward Ron Paul supporters, Neo-Con in disguise Bob Barr voted FOR the Iraq Un-War and FOR the Patriot Act. He supports the Real ID and NAFTA for all we know…..What a douche…. Keep your vote for Paul and keep your honor Give me liberty or give me no president.

By Steve Grycel

June 7, 2008 7:21 AM | Link to this

After the past 7 years of US Government, I believe for the first time in my live that the present two party system is a clear and present danger to this Republic. We need more voices to be heard. The Libertarian and Constitution Parties should be invited to the debates so the American People get a chance to hear more points of view. Heck, invite the Green Party as well.

By James

June 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Link to this

We need another viewpoint in the debates to go against the big government rhetoric of McBama. However, both parties should be afraid of Barr, as he would make sense to people and would make great arguments against anything that is said between the two.

I disagree that Barr will only take votes from McCain. I tend to think that he will take votes from Obama too. Once people realize that Barr is against the war and for social liberty as well as free markets, Obama supporters will realize they can get behind Barr.

The Libertarian candidate should definitely be in the debates, especially since he will be on the ballot in all 50 states, before November.

Only with three major parties will we start to turn this country around. The two-party system has wrecked us.

By Haigh

June 7, 2008 8:24 PM | Link to this

With Barr the best thing to happen to Obama, Obama could do a 1x1 with Barr, if McCain won’t let Barr in. Obama could help damage McCain. He may need to.

If Barr can’t get in any of the debates, how about some virtual debate where stand-ins mouth Obama/McCainisms derived from their debates and Barr makes his points?

By Mastur B.

June 8, 2008 12:33 AM | Link to this

Let Barr ‘debate’ himself; he’s a well-known serial onanist.

By Ian

June 9, 2008 9:35 AM | Link to this

We need bob barr to enter. Obama is going to win anyway. can’t we just use this opprotunity to end the republican party and allow a new right wing party to form?

By Josef

June 16, 2008 9:11 AM | Link to this

Хотите купить девочку,недорого.

By nick

August 28, 2008 8:19 PM | Link to this

I think its time to have someone other than the “Republicrats” have a say in these debates. Its time to raise real questions and arguments, and give real solutions to our problems we face today. We cannot leave it up to the media to ask Obama and McCain about trillion dollar budgets and deficits because they both agree on such policies. How can we hope for change and properity when such questions aren’t even raised in debates. Its insulting to the american people, and its an insult to our Representative Republic.

By Charles Garrett

September 16, 2008 6:50 AM | Link to this

With McCain or Obama as President America is doomed to total economic collapse and bankruptcy. They both will spend and borrow America into dept to China and both will excessively tax America into poverty.

IMPEACH all New World Order politicians in the Republican and Democrat parties NOW!!!!!!

Ron Paul was America’s last hope for a future.

By aomwpsy fibdaq

February 1, 2009 12:20 PM | Link to this

mwbdrqlcj sbqvgl hawz pqnfdehcy rbwiuacz cugzjklfp setx

By aomwpsy fibdaq

February 1, 2009 12:21 PM | Link to this

mwbdrqlcj sbqvgl hawz pqnfdehcy rbwiuacz cugzjklfp setx

By aomwpsy fibdaq

February 1, 2009 12:22 PM | Link to this

mwbdrqlcj sbqvgl hawz pqnfdehcy rbwiuacz cugzjklfp setx