Nader, Barr, Baldwin debate tonight in Cleveland
Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader, Libertarian Party presidential candidate Bob Barr, and Constitution Party presidential candidate Chuck Baldwin will debate tonight, October 30, in Cleveland, Ohio.
When: Thursday, October 30, at 4:30 p.m. EDT.
Where: The City Club of Cleveland; 850 Euclid Ave, 2nd Floor, Cleveland, OH
Topic: The Economy: “Where do we go from here?”
According to the Kansas City Star:
Nader and Barr are on the ballot in 45 states, and the Constitution Party is on 37 state ballots.C-SPAN will tape the event, and it can be seen live at www.votenader.org/live.
There also will be a debate by the third-party vice presidential candidates Sunday in Las Vegas.
And according to the Cleveland Plain Dealer:
The third party candidates face off on the economy at 4:30 p.m., with doors (850 Euclid Ave.) opening at 4. Admission is free, but the hall can only accommodate the first 250 people.If you cannot get in, you can watch on C-SPAN or listen on WCPN 90.3.
Dan Moulthrop of WCPN/Ideastream will moderate the debate.
Its website (www.cityclub.org) says: “Established to encourage new ideas and a free exchange of thought, The City Club is the oldest continuous free speech forum in the country, renowned for its tradition of debate and discussion.”
October 30th, 2008 at 10:10 am
So much for Barr dodging debates ehh?
October 30th, 2008 at 10:45 am
Barr’s campaign made it very clear on why he would not be attending the last debate. Any one who knew that reason and attacked Barr for not showing up anyway was just looking for an excuse to spew insults.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:10 am
Does anyone know when this will air on CSPAN? I downloaded the latest Guide on my DVR apparatus and it wasn’t listed over the next few days…
October 30th, 2008 at 11:26 am
Let’s get real—-who really cares about this so called debate! 3rd parties blew the best opportunity they have had in recent years by their choices in their nominations and unable to attrack viable candidates—-which will translate to less chance of snatching up viable presidentail candidates 4 years from now. The LP will remain stagnate, the Greens will continue to be a nothing party and the CP probably will probably end up along side of the Reform Party—-so why bother to have this debate to be watched by a few hundred people.
October 30th, 2008 at 11:43 am
funny how in Barr’s web site it says: Barr to debate Nader with no mention of Baldwin.. How disgusting is that? That tell you a lot of this man.
October 30th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
I think Chuck Baldwin is a wonderful person and don’t let anyone tell you different also that you are a wonderful christian thanks
October 30th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Baldwin is the only way to go at this point. I don’t care if it is only a few hundred people that watch and vote (and that is not true
) I will still vote for the best candidate so my voice will be!
Chuck… You are the MAN!
October 30th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Is Bob Bar some kinda prima donna or what? The Constitution is where it’s at. If our source of law and design of government can’t be based on it, then we’re nowhere.
Baldwin and CP candidates all the way for me. I will withhold my vote from all others – no matter what level.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
Jonathan I thought your hang-up with Barr was over him not attending a debate? Now that he has your problem is with the phrasing of a press release / blog entry on his campaign site? Are you for real?
I think it’s obvious to anyone with a clue why that article would be titled in such a way. Nobody outside the third party community has the slightest clue who Baldwin is. Barr is campaigning for third party outsiders not third party insiders. It could also be construed as a nod to the fact that Baldwin is only a couple dozen degrees away from holding a fairly libertarian set of policies, while Nader is almost on the entire other end of the spectrum.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
Donna – not that I am in any way denigrating Baldwin – but you do realize that putting the Constitution in the name of your party doesn’t mean that you have a monopoly on the document, right?
The Libertarian Party has long been a staunch advocate of the constitutional principles. In fact, it adheres more closely to the Constitution than the Constitution party does in several issues of church and state.
Again, I have nothing but the highest respect for Baldwin, and would be thrilled to see him succeed in any capacity in his run for the White House. But make sure you understand that they’re not the only party deeply in favor of following our constitution.
October 30th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
So Barr finally debates other third party candidates only a few days before polling day. Big deal!! Barr should have had the courage and integrity to participated in the Ron Paul sponsored debate.
At least Baldwin is proud of his party. Where is the LP logo and branding on Barr’s website, literature and merchandise? It looks like Barr is ashamed of the LP. If he had used the LP brand, more LP activists would have rallied to his cause.
Barr’s campaign has done nothing to build the LP. Shame on him and his team!!
October 30th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
my hang up on Barr goes way past this debate thing. But his announcement excluding Baldwin tells you a lot about the man, no one can deny that.
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5275.html
October 30th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
It may tell you a lot about the man, but it tells me nothing. See my theories about why the article title was phrased the way it was for more information.
The announcement did not exclude Baldwin, only the title did. Look before you leap.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
Matt Fuerst: Does anyone know when this will air on CSPAN?
Second that question. I’m trying to find out; if and when I do, I’ll update my article on Nolan Chart (so keep an eye on that):
http://www.nolanchart.com/article5329.html
Jonathan: funny how in Barr’s web site it says: Barr to debate Nader with no mention of Baldwin..
Completely untrue. In my article I quoted (and actually copied and pasted) the following quote from the announcement on the Barr Blog: “”The City Club of Cleveland is hosting a debate between Libertarian Party Presidential Nominee Bob Barr, consumer activist Ralph Nader and Pastor Chuck Baldwin on Thursday, October 30 at 4:30 p.m. EDT.”
Funny how, after talking with the Nader campaign’s Christina Tobin, Independent Political Report reported the same untrue story. Or maybe that’s just how the Nader campaign operates.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Pollster: Barr should have had the courage and integrity to participated in the Ron Paul sponsored debate.
There was no “Ron Paul sponsored debate. That was something I (and a few others) were writing about before Paul’s Sept. press conference; but Paul washed his hands of the idea at that conference.
October 30th, 2008 at 6:48 pm
George, would you care to comment on my other points, especially the lack of LP branding on the Barr campaign campaign publications and merchandise?
October 30th, 2008 at 10:11 pm
@Pollster: I consider it a non-issue. Barr says “Libertarian” in every press release, and the media repeats it in every story, and as I see it that’s enough.
While I believe the objective of every election campaign is to build membership, I don’t think the campaign is the time to do it. It would be foolish to use limited resources to try to recruit the public at large. What a campaign can do is build a mailing/donor list, and turn it over to the Party. Then the party should start its own recruiting campaign, to that list, the day after the election. That allows the party to target potential members and donors more effectively, and keeps the campaign momentum going for that group. The whole point of that campaign should be to build party membership, I’d offer inducements such as: If you donated to the Barr campaign, send proof of donation and you get a free LP membership until Dec. 31, 2009 (or 2010 for higher donors; the intent should be to keep those on the list for the midterms that year).
I’ve pushed for a strategy like that for the Ontario LP; unfortunately, I’ve always been outvoted by a majority that wanted to run membership-building campaigns (or, even worse, let’s-elect-somebody-now campaigns). One reason I’m retiring next month.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
Hey, let’s stop beating upo on Barr, okay? He may be the bes hopethe LP has of getting automatic ballot access in a few states.
Yes, his snub of the Ron Paul third party conference was bad, but we all make mistakes, I cannot fault him for any of the debates he did not show up to, considering how little notice there was.
I am a Baldwin supporter, but I also helped the Barr campaign with information on how they could get write-in access (both Baldwin and Barr failed to get ballot access back in August), because I wanted to make certain that LP voters had a chance to support their candidate.
Let’s focus right now on abstracting votes from McBama, not on fighting over who gets what from the small share of pie that the third parties currently have.
October 30th, 2008 at 10:14 pm
BTW, what’s up with Independent Political Report? This is the second time I’ve noticed that they’ve removed a story after publishing it. The first one was in September, when they wrote on Baldwin promising to free Ramos & Compean. Now, today, the article in which I commented on the story about Barr refusing to debate anyone but Nader has also vanished.
In between, I remember a heated debate on an anti-Barr story, in which the IPR editors claimed that they just “couldn’t” remove an article. Say what?
October 31st, 2008 at 1:12 am
Well George, the gang here @ IPR (Trent, G.E., Paulie and other kiddie porn fudge packers) really don’t give a shite what you think about our site!
October 31st, 2008 at 7:22 am
Heaven help the Gay population, church choice, and women in general, if the CP ever gets in charge. Goodness, they may like the US Constitution, but want to mold it into THEIR believes. Well, those CP believes are not mine. I like the US Constitution the way it is—less a few amendments. We DON’t need an amendment to protect marriage—it is NONE of governments business. We need to shrink government, not add MORE rules on how people behave behind closed doors.
One theocracy in Iran is enough for me.
Oh, I’m VERY straight by the way.
October 31st, 2008 at 7:25 am
Glaivester. THANK YOU.
Ballot access is critical or else the state party has to go back to petitioning. In some states that costs THOUSANDS of dollars for THOUSANDS of signatures. When that is done, there is not enough money left to run a candidate for county dog catcher.
I would hope some of you pundits out there would get it thru your head that we have a form of collusion with the cozy two-party system that restricts others from participating. If this was the open marketplace, there could be charges filed for anti-trust and restraint of trade.
October 31st, 2008 at 8:38 am
BuckeyeKned- The Constitution Party opposes the Federal Marriage Amendment, not sure where you get your information. They also advocate shrinking government by a huge amount (one reason they have Paul’s endorsment). Again, I’m not sure what Constitution Party you’re referring to.
November 1st, 2008 at 11:13 am
You guys are so full of shit. Barr has done NOTHING wrong since he has been in Congress. Everyone is so fucking quick to bash Bob Barr. Look at Baldwin’s policies? How the hell can any libertarian in their right mind vote for Baldwin? Against the drug war, supports making pornography illegal, and believes in infringing on state’s rights. We’ve had the biggest opportunity we’ve had in years with Bob Barr, and you just shit all over his name. You people are pathetic.