Presidential debate outrage! Libertarian Bob Barr wants in -- and a poll majority agrees

Here's a good one: Just because former Republican Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia is the official candidate for president of the Libertarian Party, he thinks he should be included in this fall's televised presidential debates.

Can you imagine? A third party muscling in on the political duopoly of the Republicans and Democrats?

Shades of Republican Rep. Ron Paul of Texas, who was in a bunch of GOP primary debates last winter but was barred by Fox News from participating in its New Hampshire debate just before the voting there.

Even though Paul had garnered more votes and raised more money than some of the better-known Republicans who were included.

Paul, who was the Libertarian presidential candidate back in 1988, has given up on the Republican presidential nomination now. He is unopposed for reelection to the House, is out selling his no-longer-new book and is planning a counter-convention near the GOP gathering in St. Paul, Minn., in 12 days. Meanwhile, today he turns 73.

But now there's an absolutely outrageous public opinion poll out showing ...

... that many Americans -- a majority, in fact -- think Barr should be included in the presidential debates. Just like the grownups Barack Obama and John McCain!

What in the world for? Millions of Americans would be dangerously exposed to another point of view. How could busy voters possibly decide among three or even four candidates? Is that what presidential campaigns have come down to now? A diversity of opinion?

Whatever happened to old-fashioned criteria like who has the most money or who looks prettiest on TV?

Most voters -- fully 55% -- say Barr should be included in the fall series of presidential debates, according to Zogby Interactive.

Not quite as many -- 45% -- say that other old guy, independent candidate Ralph Nader, should also be included.

Among political independents, sentiment for a third or fourth point of view on stage in the nationally televised debates runs strong: 69% say Barr should share the stage with Republican nominee Sen. John McCain of Arizona and Democratic nominee Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois.

Big surprise: Democrats and Republicans, however, are less willing to share the stage: 39% of Democrats surveyed told Zogby that Barr should be included, and 41% of Republicans surveyed said so.

The younger the voter, the more the support for Barr's voice.

The Barr campaign professes itself "heartened to learn that most voters don't buy into the 'spoiler' argument being espoused by partisan talking heads." That's how Russell Verney, campaign manager for Barr and former campaign manager for H. Ross Perot, puts it.

Verney adds: "People want real change, and they know that they are not going to get it from a Republican or a Democrat. America's only hope for change is by allowing more competition in the political process, and that means opening the debates to any candidate who can meet the ballot access criteria."

Our blogging buddy Mark Silva has more on this unbelievable story over at the Swamp.

-- Andrew Malcolm

Photo credit: Associated Press

Comments

[dave]

verney's statement is misleading in that it reinforces the misconception that the neocon faction that has hijacked and perverted the republican party, and discarded constitutional principles and values that are core republican, would be representative of the whole party. this is not true, and disrespects the endeavors and the message, of the traditional, truthful, constitutional core republican majority, as represented by the legitimate republican candidate for president, RON PAUL.
many people would appreciate to see barr and his people help correct that misconception instead of trying to profiteer from it;
this would be fair, and indicate some trustworthiness and sincerity.

[Anonymous]

I enjoyed the rampant sarcasm, Mr. Malcolm. Hats off for lampooning the absurdity of it all.

[Darryl Schmitz]

Dripping with satire, your comments are dead on, Andrew.
The Democratic and Republican parties have invented and perfected a unique brand of two-party totalitarianism that uses everything short of police action and ballot stuffing to keep the power in the hands of one party or the other. Although we accuse China trying to put a "happy face" on its own repressive brand of Communism, we have here in our own country a two-party stranglehold on power that is every bit as reprehensible. And we're expected to sit back and accept it. The media has been deluded by its comfortable companionship with Democrat and Republican powerbrokers to focus almost exclusively on these two parties and consider anything else an laughable sideshow.
Slowly - perhaps not too slowly to prevent the collapse of our economy from the continuing insane deficit spending - the public is waking up to this tragic dismantling of America from within.

[Robert Dale]

Let Barr in, Nader too. That would be Obama's best chance at taking Georgia and Florida.

[mlmvh]

Thanks for the report, Andrew; I enjoy reading your stuff! I hope to see you in Minneapolis on September 2nd at Ron Paul's Rally for the Republic at Target Center! For details, check out www.campaignforliberty.com.

[Imperial]

Every other website I go to shows the support for Barr to be in the debates 50% from Republicans and 48?% from Democrats.

It was the same poll; any ideas on the difference?

[Tess]

I think it is the major networks that are hell bent on controlling what the American voters should, and should not be made aware of. Fauxnews, and the Murdoch family are prime example as you stated in your article regarding the exclusion of Ron Paul during the New Hampshire debates. They included several failing candidates such as Guiliani, and Thompson, along with the presumptive GOP candidate Mr. McDumb, oh I mean McCain. If anyone is to blame it is the media, and the lobbyists that want to control our nation, it's wealth, and it's people.

As a long time voting Republican, I will be voting 3rd party no matter what, be it Barr, Nader, or Baldwin. Obama and McCain do not represent me at all. Some people say I am giving my vote to Obama by not voting for McCain, well my response is I will only be voting for someone with a platform that is closest to the Constitution, and neither Obama, or McCain qualify, or will follow Our Constitution.

[Evil Banker]

Andrew must need hits to his blog like a traffic cop needs to write tickets. Got a quota, Andrew?

Mentioning "Ron Paul" in his articles is a surefire way to increase traffic.

Andrew, it's too bad that whispy tone of yours is so distasteful. Otherwise, you might have more regular readers - not just the "Ron Paul" Google news scanners like me.

[Ben]

First off, I love the sarcasm of the article.
Second, Dave, yeah it is a bit of a generalization, while not all Republicans are dirty constitution destroyers, a lot of the ones in the public eye are. Libertarians hold the true traditional constitutional ideas as their main beliefs.
If you want to talk about fair, lets talk about the way the Democrats and Republicans have been playing dirty in elections, trying to keep the 3rd or 4th party down, ever since Perot made the two parties crap their pants in 1992, but we dont have enough time in the world to talk about that.
The Republicans should try and turn around that misconception, it's their party, not Barrs...

[kristofeR!]

The Two Party System, Which are just Two Sides to The SAME coin want to Suppress the Voice of the Third Parties and in doing so want to Suppress the Voice of the American Voter! We Need to Stand Up to This and Make sure That All Presidential Candidates are treated Fairly and Equal. The RepubliCRATS are scared to let Candidates Like Bob Barr on the debates because they know the would be blown off the stage. They are afraid to deal with the REAL issues and REAL answers. Plus why would they want to give up the cold Iron grip of power that they have wrapped around the throats of Americans?! Sounds a Little Like Fascist Nazi tactics to me! Viva Le Third Party! Viva Le Libertarians! LET FREEDOM RING in AMERICA, Once Again! Vote 3rd!!!

[Do the right thing]

yes, and let Chuck Baldwin of the CP in the debates also

[Andy White]

Good sarcasm. Regardless of who becomes president they will inherit The Greater Depression. Of course all of the candidates believe in central economic planning so the situation will get worse before it gets better. News flash, Hoover was not an advocate of Free Markets, he was a central planner.

http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

It's not too late to abolish the Federal Government.

[Edward]

We have a two party dictatorship because it is easier for the special interests to pocket all possibilities that way. The aim of the game is to use the US government as a means of theft and coercion.

[DaveP]

They should let Barr and perhaps Nader into the debates and anyone who can get on the most if not all of the ballots. What are they scared of? Oh, that they may have some real ideas to compete against! I am so tired of lesser of two evils. Wouldn't it be nice to hear some new fresh ideas for a change. Let's change 2 party rule forever. Now that would be change I could really believe in.

[Edward Nachman]

Republicrats and Demicans (they are both the same) don't want to lose a competitive edge against those of differing opinions. They want to foster the idea that two political opinions are enough to make a decision for electing a President.

[David Ostroske]

They should let into the debates any presidential candidate who has ballot access in enough states that they could potentially win the electoral college.

That's a very clear-cut rule and would cause no damage to the democratic electoral process.

A free people ought to be able to choose their president, so why deny them from hearing the voices of the candidates?

[tom]

the 2 party system we have in this nation has been broken for yrs. this yr is the first in a long time where both "main" parties remain divided and there truly is a viable 3rd or 4th candidate for president. w/ obama or mccain you get more of the same, big government wasting tax payer money. the only difference is which special interests get the no bid contracts and gov hand outs.
not allowing Barr or Nader on stage will send a clear mesage to the voters, this is not the free nation you are constantly told it is.
the press hasn't pushed either candidate to even outline a platform or plan on a specific issue. its all personal attacks and 1 liners about the issue of the minute. this election is an absolute joke. the US is barely a shell of its former self

[Free Xbox 360]

I think they should let him in the debate. Do I think they will? No, I don't. Unfortunately, the media who hosts and telecasts these events do not feel it necessary to listen their viewers or polls. Instead they focus on running their on political agenda and they can't support their candidate by letting the competition, however small, have a voice.

[ScottieL]

There is no reason that a candidate that has enough support to be on enough ballots to win the presidency should not be in the first rounds of the debates.

In Canada ALL candidates, even the Quebec secessionist that only Quebec could vote for, are in the debates. And the people of Canada are considered intelligent enough to tell the difference between the candidates.

Let's make the debates more like American Idol. If you get voted back, you can return to do it again.

Of the (R)'s can have almost two dozen debates, and the (D)'s the same to decide who they will run for president, WHY ON EARTH can we the people not see all the choices at least once?!?

[Krazd]

Why not include the man so that we can hear his point of view rather than blindly accepting the 2 party system

[Krazd]

What's wrong with another opinion? I say we give him a shot

[Freedem]

Unfortunately the greatest mistake the Founding Fathers made was to create a system that structurally demanded two parties and only two.

Perhaps now that the Gang Of Pirates have taken the Republican party, honest Conservatives can work with the majority of Liberals to push for Instant Runoff Voting or another system that allows for coalition democracy that the rest of the democratic countries adopted, having learned from our mistake.

[MediaWeasel]

No-brainer. Those who are standing for election get to speak. What's the problem.

Sticking to the old ways of a bar set at 15% just perpetuates the two party system. If you want diverse opinion you either set it much lower or you dispense with it altogether. Duh.

Thanks for the wit. Enjoyed that.

[George Dance]

Good article; factual, nice touch of sarcasm; even working in Ron Paul to get your regulars to read it.
Only nit I can see is with one stat: the 39% of Dems and 41% of Reps were those who did not want Barr in the debates; those in favor were 52% and 50%, respectively.

[Disgusted]

So, Evil Banker - what are you doing scanning Ron Paul news? Are you one of the guys that McDumb hired to try to work with the Ron Paul supporters so they don't crash your little Republican Convention & embarrass your sorry a$$es? You scared? Huh? Bring it on...

"Andrew, it's too bad that whispy tone of yours is so distasteful. Otherwise, you might have more regular readers - not just the "Ron Paul" Google news scanners like me.

Posted by: Evil Banker | August 20, 2008 at 09:00 AM"