Saddleback misses opportunity to hold real discussion of issues
August 16th, 2008 by Jason PyeEarlier today, as some of you may already know, the campaign filed for an injunction against Saddleback Church. Our reasoning, as Ballot Access News notes:
Anyone is free to sponsor any debate and invite whom they choose, except that a tax-exempt organization, or an organization that takes tax-exempt donations from corporations to pay for the event, must have objective criteria in place as to whom is being invited. Saddleback Church did not have any pre-announced objective criteria. Thus, in effect, the church was using an indirect government subsidy to assist the campaigns of Senator Obama and Senator McCain.
Unfortunately, the federal judge hearing the case has ruled against us and the forum will go on as planned:
“Plaintiffs will lose out on a fair amount of exposure and the opportunity to express their views in a popular forum,” Carter conceded. “On the other hand, halting this event would deny the other candidates the opportunity to be heard and would deprive the public of an opportunity to see the candidates and hear their views.
That is a peculiar statement given the saturation of media coverage of Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. John McCain over the last few months and there is no doubt that the media will continue to focus on them.
The addition of Bob Barr would have brought a much needed discussion of issues and ideas, much different from the empty rhetoric we have heard over the course of the campaign.
August 16th, 2008 at 2:55 am
This is truely a sad day for America, that even our court system has be corrupted so much by this two-party system. The system that is meant to promote fairness and justice is now just an instrument that the major parties use to stay in power.
I should not be surprised by this but I am. I should have known better than to put faith in the law.
August 16th, 2008 at 4:24 am
Judge Carter appears to believe that it’s acceptable to violate the law in order to give “other candidates the opportunity to be heard” and to avoid denying the public “an opportunity to see the candidates and hear their views,” but it’s unacceptable to halt a private activity for the same reason.
So tell me: Do judges decide matters of law, or matters of personal convenience?
Via the logic I just presented I would encourage the campaign to pursue this matter further, by whatever available means, within the justice system.
August 16th, 2008 at 5:29 am
Catch 22.
Everyone knows the Incumbent Protection Act (aka McCain/Feingold) is unconstitutional - a blatant insult to liberty.
The question is whether or not to use an unconstitutional law to one’s own advantange.
I support Barr, but how does this make us any different from the two parties who will not even hestitate to use unconstitutional laws to their own gains? Barr’s campaign staff is more creative than that. This is an insult to my faith in the Libertarian party.
Besides, if the church wants to hold a debate between Barack and John (who will not discuss real issues, only “issues”), then Barr is probably better off not attending. Go after a real audience of fed up Americans like myself.
August 16th, 2008 at 6:42 am
Is there any avenue of appeal open? If so, the campaign should consider using it. The judge’s statement makes no sense.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:52 am
Time to get real. The Republocrats are not going to allow this. Lawsuits are a waste of money.
A much better use of resources would be to put together a well planned, idea-rich, personality-rich debate between Nader and Barr, with the aim to move Barr and Nader up 5+ points in the polls. Shop it to the networks with the internet as a fallback for initial distribution.
I’d like to see Barr and Nader argue about why, how, and how fast they would pull troops out of Germany, Japan, Iraq, and Korea. They should also go head to head on how to handle the unfunded social security and medicare liability.
August 16th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I agree! Lets face it, as much as I keep hoping, Barr is unlikely to get into the debates due to how corrupt this system really is. But to me have all the third parties debate together. That would only be fair. Barr, Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin should all come together and debate the issues. This is the only way I feel that Barr’s voice will be heard.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:10 am
Folks,
This is skirmish in a much larger war! Don’t get discouraged over it. Don’t expect better from the establishment! (The judge is part of this establishment.) JUST KEEP ON!
Donate money, talk to friends, educate others on issues, stand up for the principles we believe in and keep fighting! Even if Bob cannot get into the debates, the goal is “to do all we can” and thereby influence the country toward another direction. It will not turn easily.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:16 am
I agree Haigh…we need to come up with new ideas because if we keep following the same presidential blueprints of the past, we are going to have the same results of the past.
We need to come up with fresh ideas in trying to spread the message…
August 16th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Did this Judge even consider the law when making his/her decision?
August 16th, 2008 at 9:28 am
I’ve been waiting for the campaign to do something, anything that would increase their presence. I don’t personally think this was the right thing to do, but I’m proud of the campaign making a stand.
What people should find incredibly amazing is we had a candidate make a stand. A Libertarian suing a church and the national media still didn’t pick it up. If you google Barr and Saddleback, there is only one news article and the rest are all blogs. We are forced to get our news from blogs instead of the media.
And by the way, most of the blogs were not positive.
The other good thing that happened was the on-line donations increased dramatically. The problem is, these are donations from like minded individuals. We can’t increase the polling numbers or the media attention unless we bring new faces to the Libertarian way.
Bob Barr’s statements are that he will not participate in a 3rd party debate because he thinks he’s better than that, but based on the media attention and polling numbers, this is not true.
I would much rather see Bob in a debate of minor candidates that at the Minuteman Rally.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Barr needs to stand out in front of this “church” and raise some hell with his own press conference…..maybe buy a ticket and interupt this “debate” to get some “play” time for the next few days
A debate with Nader, etc is like jerking off
August 16th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Here’s an idea. Maybe Bob can buy a ticket to this event and show up anyway. Or he can have a press conference outside the event. Or advertisements during the event, or a commentator spot in the post interviews.
August 16th, 2008 at 9:34 am
I guess I missed the chapter on politics in the Purpose Driven Life.
I wonder what the real Purpose was to leave Barr out of the form at Pastor Warrens church?
August 16th, 2008 at 10:05 am
Thanks John !
If you follow http://www.electoral-vote.com, one month ago, July 16, their electoral forecast was Obama 320, McCain 204. Now, August 16 Obama has fallen to 275 with McCain up to 250. It is a whole different ballgame now.
The opportunity for third parties to play a big role is huge.
But a debate that includes all the third parties may marginalize itself.
A debate that has Barr and Nader going head to head is much more likely to keep the focus on the ideas themselves.
Thats not to say there shouldn’t be a debate with all the third parties, but a head to head between those candidates who have the potential to swing specific states could pull serious attention from the MSM.
A Baldwin vs McKinney could be good too. It’s all about getting national attention on strong “new” ideas.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:20 am
Please tell me you all already have appealed this through the emergency motions desk at the Appeals Court.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:31 am
One of the best ways to get rid of evil, unconstitutional laws, such as the McCain Feingold Act and abominable restrictions on church members, is to enforce them. The Enemy, including McCain himself, has provided us with weapons (unconstitutional though they are) and we should use them to proclaim liberty, truth and justice until we have sufficient influence to repeal them.
As for Pastor Rick Warren, I am unaware that he has ever opposed these evil laws. Perhaps he is afraid that he will cease to receive publicity from the establishment media.
If anyone else wishes to express themselves directly to Pastor Warren, his email address is pastorrick@saddleback.net.
Vote Libertarian. Barr for President.
David Macko
August 16th, 2008 at 12:32 pm
I gave 10 bucks urge all GOP members to give a couple bucks to barr so we can have some real debates in this country for a change. It is amazing what a few dollars can do so lets make our voices heard.
August 16th, 2008 at 12:49 pm
Look I’m willing to be pragmatic.
I certainly respect the libertarians who are holding steady, and not willing to be pragmatic. God Bless you.
The fact is, every day Bush is working furiously to dismantle checks and balances and increase authoritarianism, even as he leaves office. In fact, he seems emboldened by not needing re-election to take a swipe at every freedom and protection we still have left.
Now local government spying on american citizens is being greatly expanded, encouraged, funded with records of of the warrantless spying activity to be kept for 10years.
C’mon we used to criticize the Soviets for tactics like these, and now its part of generally accepted practice in the U.S.
And libertarians are going to bicker over anything? It just shows how comfortable we are, in truth, very fat and comfortable, not too worried.
We’ll do a little more infighting this time around. We’ll do a bit more bickering. We’ll keep a few injustices to ourselves, nurture a few bad feelings….
C’mon. Bob Barr is the nominee, he deserves our maximum support, we have got to grow every cycle…freedoms are dropping every year. Lets not rally when its obviously too late. Rally now.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
If it is not already being planned, I would encourage Bob and his campaign to record Bob’s answers to the questions that Rev. Warren asks to McBama and post them on youtube.
August 16th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
“Did this Judge even consider the law when making his/her decision?”
The primary decision was made on the perception that the Saddleback Church “forum” specifically avoided a “debate format” by separating McCain and Obama’s appearances on the stage.
The judge seemed to have been receptive to the argument but something happened in chambers to draw his attention to the loophole. The church’s lawyer did not argue the point the judge made his decision on.
ALIVE * FREE * HAPPY
Libertarian
August 16th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Thanks for posting the pastor’s e-mail David. I just sent my request to include Mr. Barr (politely of course). Raise heck at every obstacle, because even if it doesn’t work this time, it will make them think twice next time!
August 16th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Years ago I donated to the realcampaignreform.org project to challenge McCain-Feingold as an unconstitutional violation of the Freedom of the Press. Believe me I’m well aware that it is an onerous law. However; the Supreme Court continues to uphold such regulations, utilizing the prior Court’s logic from Buckley v. Valeo, for three primary reasons:
1. The Supreme Court believes campaign finance regulations may be able to reduce corruption or the appearance of corruption in national politics.
2. The Supreme Court believes campaign finance regulations may serve to level the playing field for candidates, and make elections more fair.
3. The Supreme Court believes the impact on the First Amendment is justified provided the regulations deliver on the assumptions from #1 & #2.
They never really sanctioned the regulations as constitutional. Per #3 they essentially adopted a wait-and-see approach. Challenges such as this one, which are rooted in the McCain-Feingold law, serve as tests on #1 & #2. Such active tests join the passive tests of this law, and provide evidence as to the law’s efficacy at achieving #1 & #2. This facilitates future challenges to the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold.
August 16th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
As an aside: I was channel surfing last night (Friday, August 15, 2008) and stopped for a moment on Headline News where Glenn Beck was chatting with Toby Keith. At this point, roughly the 35 minute mark, Glenn Beck told Toby rather matter-of-factly something like “I think most Americans are libertarians.”
Thought I’d mention it in case nobody else around here noticed. Might be a good clip to drop into another one of those super-sweet campaign video medleys.
August 16th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Rick Warren is the guest on Larry King Live this Monday August 18th at 8:00 PM Central Time on CNN.
Representing this blog group, I have ‘already asked’ Larry King to ask Rick Warren why he excluded Bob Barr from speaking at his Saddleback Civil Forum today.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:03 pm
I’m glad to read reasonable discussion of using M/F; but what gets me interested is the idea of a Barr/Nader(Baldwin/McKinney) debate. It has to be Plan B, of course - Plan A being getting into the debate with McCain and Obama — but there’s a chance that might not happen, and if it doesn’t that should not end up the only basket the campaign’s put all its eggs in.
A Barr/Nader debate could very well have a positive effect for both candidates.
August 16th, 2008 at 7:56 pm
I’m sitting here watching this. There is zero discussion of the constitutionally of these issues. 90% of the things discussed tonight are not authorized by the constitution for the federal government to get involved in. Making me sick to my stomach.
August 16th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Stephanie: I like the idea of Barr answering the same questions asked of Obama and McCain and posting the answers at Youtube! Let’s ask the campaign to seriously consider this! This is a terrific idea!
Jack: good idea to bring the matter up on Larry King!
DJ: thanks for letting us know about the Glen Beck show comment about Libertarians. Is it possible for Bob to go on Glen Beck again? Is it possible to get an endorsement from Beck?
Keith Oberman is promoting Obama every night/Hannity is promoting McCain every day/Bob needs the same sort of daily media champion!
Everyone: please keep donating what you can (multiple small donations over time are what build grassroots campaigns) and look everyday for new supporters and donors!
And if you fell behind on the ‘60 seconds for Bob Barr”/tomorrow is a good time to get caught up.
Thanks to everyone who is working so hard. There are so many great people making a difference for this campaign! Wherever you are, thank you!
August 17th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Hi Folks,
I watched the forum tonight. The questions were outstanding! The answers gave a lot of insight into the two men (Obama and McCain). As you know, our guy was not included.
I just emailed Glenn Beck with an idea for a show. If he would have an interview with Bob Barr and ask all those same questions, not only would it make a great interview, but he could have a lot of radio material comparing their answers with Barrs. It might generate Youtube video too, if he did it on TV. Ya’ll might consider emailing him and others around the country with this idea. Glenn is the only radio show here (San Angelo, TX) that might do it, but some of ya’ll might post contact email for others on this blog and we could all communicate to them this idea. This might get Bob Barr some coverage.
Glenn’s email - me@glennbeck.com
You might send it to Stu also - stu@glennbeck.com
August 17th, 2008 at 2:03 am
“Plaintiffs will lose out on a fair amount of exposure and the opportunity to express their views in a popular forum,” Carter conceded. “On the other hand, halting this event would deny the other candidates the opportunity to be heard and would deprive the public of an opportunity to see the candidates and hear their views.”
OMG! Can you see the direct self-contradiction here? Oh, it bad on not getting your views heard but is ok because that would mean that McBama would not get heard…. McBama already have three debates which both will already be heard…. Ge how unfair! The ruling would only provide Barr a voice. It wouldn’t have been unfair to anyone. No wonder America is going to hell in a handbasket. We have idoit judges making idoit rulings….
August 17th, 2008 at 7:04 am
Yes, judge Carter is a buffoon - totally unfit to be a judge. The only problem is that there are thousands of judges in the court system just like him.
I feel that anyone who has sent an (polite) email to either Pastor Warren or Glenn Beck has probably done more for Bob Barr’s exposure than this attempted injunction. Not only that, but you’ve used something other than the power of government in order to get closer to your goals. Commendable.
If this suit were dropped, we might even be able to get Barr a slot at Saddleback some other time, when wouldn’t be on stage with the clowns. It would take a lot of emails, though. But I also realize that the injunction attempt has likely hurt Barr’s relation with the church and its members more than it has helped helped. Maybe I’m just being wishful, but hope is still legal in the U.S. (I think?). Wait, why is there a black van outside my hou -
My personal opinon is that Barr shouldn’t put another dime into fighting this. That isn’t the same as giving up; it is just that there are more important battles to be won.
I’m seeing a lot of good ideas pouring in on these blogs - people using their brains.
August 17th, 2008 at 8:21 am
For what its worth, I asked the drudge report (through the web page) to report on this. Maybe others should do the same. Drudge seems slightly better than the MSM at reporting on issues such as this one.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:46 am
Unbelievable. We are seeing the deliberate efforts by those with the most power and influence to KEEP “business as usual”. They are harming this nation and her people by keeping us manipulated and by stripping away our choices.
This is not a coincidence. This is not an honest mistake. They know fully well what will happen if Bob Barr is known by more and more people, and they are afraid that it will stir up discussion and questioning of what we have been putting up with for all these decades.
Do not give up the fight. We know that a vote for McBama or Obain is a wasted vote!
August 17th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I just wrote the pastor and told him his little exercise last night was in violation of law and that I hope an appellate court orders him to present a third interview with Bob Barr under the same cordial atmosphere and the Republican and Democrat candidates enjoyed last night. I called Barr’s omission an untruthful representation of our choices, and said, “Shame on you.” I also mentioned that his tax exempt organization ought to pay big for this offense.
August 17th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I decided to take a few minutes and follow the suggestions of some others here - I sent emails to Larry King and Glenn Beck. I also made sure to note that Mr. Barr was selected by the LP as the nominee for our party, while Sens. Obama and McCain are still the “presumed” nominees. This is important due to recently developments in the Democratic Party surrounding Sen. Clinton and her inclusion in the nominating process.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Since Bob Barr is scheduled on the Colbert Report, why not email them and ask that a few of the more interesting questions be included in the interview?
August 17th, 2008 at 11:48 am
McCain really did the better job of answering directly and quickly last night, and had me, a former Republican, going there for awhile.
Then I got to thinking about what Bob Barr would have said in his answers to those questions. I had to tell myself how much was missing from those oh-so brief and idealistic responses. So I’m back on track. But I’ve already made the switch. Nobody watching last night is going to switch to Barr over what they heard on the program.
Just having another interview with Barr won’t generate nearly the same viewership, so that isn’t the answer.
What is needed is a court order to include Bob Barr in the official debates yet to be held.
This could be requested in the court of appeals under the principles of the Fairness Doctrine.
Now that would really be a poetic reversal in the fight!
August 17th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
I am highly disappointed in Barr and this party. The Protection Act is an unconstitutional law, something that the libertarian party is against. I believe in upright action not only in the ends but by the means as well. Its not just about the end, its also how you achieve it.
I was a strong Barr supporter…
I don’t know now.
August 17th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
First, Stephanie is dead on right, Barr should record his own answers Rev. Warren’s questions to McBama and post them on youtube, both individually and as a ~1 hour block.
Second, a prime time debate between Barr, Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin could actually be a pretty big draw, and get some national attention, maybe pick up a news network to broadcast it (and anyway in this day and age we can get around the big broadcasters with the internet).. something should be done on Sept. 5 or 6, right after the Republicrat conventions are over.
August 17th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
TO TEXAS T (9 POSTS ABOVE)… I HAVE FOLLOWED YOUR LEAD AND REINFORCED YOUR EFFORT BY HAVING E-MAILED GLEN BECK!!!
TO STEPHANIE (18 POSTS ABOVE)… GREAT IDEA!!!
TO DJ (14 POSTS ABOVE)… VERY INSIGHTFUL!!!
TO LAURIE (10 POSTS ABOVE)… THANKS FOR THE ‘GROUP ENCOURAGEMENT’ AND PERSONAL COMPLIMENT! COMMENTS LIKE YOUR’S KEEP PEOPLE MOTIVATED AND BUILD MOMENTUM!!!
TO PEPE JOHNSON (3 POST ABOVE)… THANKS FOR FOLLOWING TEXAS T’S LEAD AND MINE (13 POSTS ABOVE). SMART COMMENT!!!
THOUGH I’VE NOTED THESE PARTICULAR POSTINGS, I THINK THAT EACH OF YOURS ON THIS TOPIC HAS BEEN EXCELLENT SO FAR!!! I APPLAUD YOU FOR YOUR INTEREST AND EFFORT IN PROMOTING LIBERTY!!!!!
August 17th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Just sent a substantial e-mail to Glen basically asking to have Barr back on the show. I even suggested that he hold a third party candidate debate…
August 17th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Personally I think Saddleback Church should lose its tax exempt status.However I am not the least bit surprised by that money grubbing neo Elmer Ganrty’s refusal to have a real debate. His purpose to gain more name recognition and power was met after all he has a” purpose driven life” not a principle driven life Q.E.D.
August 17th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
HERE IS THE AUTOMATED E-MAIL RESPONSE I RECEIVED FROM GLENN BECK FROM MY E-MAIL SENT TO TO HIM (REFERRED TO 2 POSTINGS ABOVE).
Thanks so much for the email. Due to the volume of mail this may be the only response you see.
While I do not always see it in a timely fashion I do try to read all of my mail. However, I average over 2000 letters a day and there is no way I can respond to most letters.
I am glad you are watching/listening and even though you may not see a response, I want you to know that I am listening as well.
Thanks,
Glenn Beck
SINCE HE AVERAGES RECEIVING “OVER 2000 LETTERS” A DAY, I SUGGEST THAT WE AND OUR FRIENDS ‘BOMBARD’ HIM WITH E-MAILS ‘RIGHT NOW’ SO WE’LL EVEN HAVE A CHANCE OF BEING NOTICED! USE TEXAS T’S THEME STATED IN HIS POSTING (SEE 13 POSTINGS ABOVE). SIMPLY WRITE BOB BARR IN BOLD PRINT ON THE SUBJECT LINE. THIS WILL GIVE US A MASSIVE AND COORDINATED WORK EFFORT THAT OUR CAMPAIGN VITALLY NEEDS NOW!!!!! POST YOUR WORK EFFORTS AND THEIR RESULTS IN THIS BLOG, SO WE CAN BUILD MORE MOMENTUM!!!
August 17th, 2008 at 4:16 pm
Kevin M. There have been several “third party” debates in the past. Participating in a “third party” debate positions you as a “third party” in people’s minds. Once there, it’s hard to get out. The LP can no longer position itself as the RC cola in a Coke/Pepsi war. The LP has to position itself as Red Bull in a Coke/Pepsi war. Not just a variation of the two, but something new and different.
August 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
I have already sent one.
August 17th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
In response to James R:
Although I realize that the party is trying to shake the status of being a “third party” an actual third party debate might be the only way of Barr being heard. It is better then nothing…
BTW, everyone please donate what you can! I will be making my first donation tomorrow!!!!!
August 17th, 2008 at 7:00 pm
Personally, I like RC Cola better.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Skip the Red Bull and the RC, if Barr and Nader debated in one of the battleground states like VA and contributed to throwing the POTUS race either way, it would buy them hard liquor status. The anxiety such a tactic would put into the major parties and mainstream media would be national news.
August 17th, 2008 at 7:52 pm
ML: Read my earlier comment here starting with “Years ago”… the Supreme Court has basically set things up so that the only way to challenge the constitutionality of “The Protection Act” is to prove that it (and campaign finance regulation overall) fails to achieve the results Congress claimed would be achieved. One of the primary ways of proving it unconstitutional is to base challenges upon the law, and then see if the resulting decisions are even-handed.
Contrary to the way you’re viewing the situation; Barr’s challenge, and Judge Carter’s response, lends credence to our fight against the law. It doesn’t disparage our opposition to it in any way.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
When I saw that there were 48 responses here I started to get excited. It didn’t last long.
“I feel that they should have…..I wrote to…the saddlebrook function was unfair….the judge was wrong……yes third party debat!e!…..no third party debate!…..flood them with email…keep giving money…Blah blah blah blah blah!” The clock is ticking!
John:
Way up top you had an actual constructive idea that will help do what needs to be done.
“We need to come up with new ideas because if we keep following the same presidential blueprints of the past, we are going to have the same results of the past. We need to come up with fresh ideas in trying to spread the message”.
I have a good idea, but it involves emulating the Libertarians greatest political success, getting Bob Barr out of office in 2002. I’m just too tired of beating this particular dead horse. Still, The libertarians knew the value of “targeted donations” then, and they weren’t afraid to use them to stick up for sick and dying Americal medical marijuana patients…WHICH ALWAYS MAKES THE NEWS!!!. Somewhere along the way you lost your balls.
Following the same wrong path from the past is only half as stupid as not following a successful path of the past. Figure it out. The clock is ticking.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
James R., yes third party debates in the past have been a farce, but that was then, this is now — there has NEVER been a third party debate with the star power of Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, and Cynthia McKinney (the only one who falls below that level is Chuck Baldwin, but it wouldn’t be right to exclude him). With a sufficiently high-profile moderator and the power of the internet both to inform and to showcase, this year such an event could have a real impact. Like Haigh says, do it in a battleground state — I’d go with New Hampshire, which is already Barr’s biggest draw, or Georgia (home state for Barr and McKinney, just over the border for Baldwin). Heck, maybe even Iowa.
August 17th, 2008 at 9:51 pm
I’m originally from Iowa, and I know some of my friends up there aren’t too thrilled with McCain or Obama. Here in the Georgia/South Carolina area, is people are convinced that voting for Bob Barr will “take votes from McCain”, funny, because if it was just McCain and Obama running, I wouldn’t vote for either of them
August 17th, 2008 at 10:20 pm
I can’t say enough that a third party debate is the direction we need to go in to get Bob Barr’s voice heard. Someone said earlier that we need “constructive ideas” if we are to be successful. As far as I know and please correct me if I am wrong, THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A THIRD PARTY DEBATE!!! It would be groundbreaking and for once we can ban the Republicans and the Democrats. The criteria for banning them would be simple…the only way you can debate is if you have less then 15% of the national vote according to recent major polls. I am going to send this idea to the other third parties and I encourage all that are in favor of this to please do the same.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Have you newbies ever watched a “third party debate?” Bob Barr is no more a star than Ron Paul was in ‘88. A third party debate is a third party debate. I guess for some of you dancing with a homely girl is better than not dancing at all.
Personally I’d rather work on my status and eventually dance with a hot chick than settle for a “third party” dance. You are judged by the company you keep.
August 17th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Scott, I’ll try to dig up my old VHS tape of Harry Browne, Ralph Nader, that Natural Law Party guy who thinks he can levitate and post it on youtube or something,
August 18th, 2008 at 2:22 am
In reply to Scott, who posted immediately above, I like your idea so will work to promote it to the other major 3rd Parties too!
For your information, C-SPAN historically broadcasts a debate of the major 3rd Party Presidential candidates. It has not done so yet this election year, and I don’t know if it plans to.
Here are C-SPAN’s videos, of the last two it telecasted, which were events held on September 6, 2004 and October 10, 2004.
http://www.c-span.org/search.aspx?For=3rd%20Party%20Presidential%20Debate
I hope they benefit you. Tell us all here what you think of them.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:20 am
Scott: There have been third party debates before. Groundbreaking would be to have one and have it be televised.
August 18th, 2008 at 6:53 am
I am really so sick of people complaining about the lack of choice, but then don’t even bother to look at the alternatives. Saddleback Church could have done a real service by allowing Barr a place. Instead we get the same old mainstream ****.
August 18th, 2008 at 7:18 am
Out of curiousity, what was Ross Perot polling at in 1992 before the debates? Sorry, I was only four years old at the time, and my mother voted for Clinton, so I don’t remember, I was more worried about pre school.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Ross was leading in the polls in June before he suspended the operations due to Republican tatics with his family. When he resummed he was about 15% and it came up after debates. But the damage had been done: quit in middle of race, he was VERY quirky and short-tempered, and he chose a horibble VP candidate–Admiral Stockdale.
He finished with abot 20% of the popular vote, no electoral votes, and finished 2nd in the state of Maine.
August 18th, 2008 at 8:31 am
What do you mean by “Republican tactics in the family”? I really don’t know much about his VP canidate, so you’re going to have to fill me in on this stuff (if you want to)
August 18th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Adam, “with his family” not “in the family.” Perot said the GOP threatened to release “altered” compromising photos of his daughter on her wedding day.
August 18th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
oh, alright. I know nothing about it. I read about his VP canidate, and it turns out he was in Vietnam, and had mental disorders.
August 18th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
Jim Miller is the only blogger who focuses on one issue of many that warrant comment from Bob Barr. The rest is just , ‘he said, she said’, with no real point of interest or merit.
I’m bored except for Mr. Miller’s words.
August 18th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
ATTENTION: THE TOPIC OF THIS BLOG IS THE SADDLEBACK CIVIL FORUM ISSUE AND THEREBY HOW TO GET BOB BARR MORE MEDIA TIME!!!
IF YOU ARE NOT DIRECTLY WORKING TOWARD THIS END RESULT BY CONTACTING PEOPLE WHO WORK IN EITHER THE MEDIA OR LEGAL FIELD, THEN PLEASE FIND ANOTHER BLOG TO USE.
August 19th, 2008 at 1:47 am
In response to using an “indirect government subsidy,” those of you who are so inclined may click my name to go to the IRS website to learn how to report a complaint about the activity of an exempt organization.
August 20th, 2008 at 10:51 am
We’re having a similar problem in Utah. Salt Lake City’s major newspapers didn’t even print a notice of Bob’s nomination by the Libertarian party. I’m going to be writing a letter to the editor of both papers, encouraging them to include information on more than just the two “major” parties.
A lot has been said about the fact that neither of the two “major” parties well serve the citizens of the US, but little is done to give publicity to any “third” parties. If they were able to get appropriate publicity, it’s my guess that “third” parties would get a lot more support (and a lot more votes) and thereby become more “major” in impact. Of course, the powers-that-be don’t want that to happen.
Any idea about how to shake things up a bit, and get “third” parties (especially Libertarians) the publicy they need to forge ahead?
August 21st, 2008 at 9:50 am
You know, something that I just can’t figure out is why is the mass media corporations putting so much support behind Obama? Because if Obama is elected he will tax the hell out of their big corporate profits! It would be in their best interests to support smaller government and lower taxes.
August 21st, 2008 at 4:17 pm
Randy: there’s a segment of the media that’s controlled by the left and really supports Obama/McCain is also too erratic to know for sure what he would do about anything/and there’s deep worry about the way he’s talking about Iraq, Iran and now the Soviet Union.
While I admire his military service and consider anyone who was a POW a hero, it has left him with this dangerous and outdated view of today’s complex world and the conflicts in which we are already mistakenly embroiled.
August 23rd, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Big corporations can afford to hire accountants and tax attorneys to keep their actual tax payments lower.
But more importantly, the corporate executives in those companies think that everyone - meaning you and me - should shoulder more of the burden. They also believe that some parents don’t want the best for their own children, so they should have to pay the governent in order to take care of the children.
The heart of the matter is that they do not understand the link between economic freedom and individual freedom. Of course, the same could be said for some on the far right of the spectrum who want to control individual freedom but can’t see how that influences economic freedom.