The Debate That Wasn't

There's not a dime's worth of difference between Senator McCain and Senator Obama. The viewers of this first presidential "debate" missed the opportunity for a true debate because the viewpoints I represent were not raised.

This was clearly a debate between big government and bigger government. The proposals for spending taxpayers' hard-earned money for everything from bailing out Wall Street to bailing out Georgia (theirs, not ours) are simply irresponsible.

We, the United States, are living way beyond our means, and in this debate, there was not a single recognition--let alone an alarm cry--for the runaway spending of our government. Senators McCain and Obama honestly believe that the American taxpayers have endless amounts of money available for Washington politicians to hand out to their favorite cause of the day.

We have been told that the Wall Street bailout is needed in part because there is a credit crunch. If our government wasn't so fiscally irresponsible, and we had not amassed a $9.5 trillion dollar debt, there would be more money available for the private sector to deal with this credit crunch.

Second, there should be no mad dash to pass any legislation; let alone legislation that can cost taxpayers a trillion dollars. Legislation creates lasting obligations, which are easier to create than to cancel. Already, the initial three-page bailout bill has swelled to more than 100 pages.

Bailing out some of the financial institutions, like Bear Stearns a few months ago, encourages other companies to forego typical market place measures for dealing with their bad investments in hopes of receiving immunity, and a reward, for their mismanagement from Washington bureaucrats.

With Bob Barr in the debate, you would have heard about the need to involve the Justice Department to find out if fraud or any other criminal behavior led to this Wall Street crisis.

Accountability was not present in tonight's debate; just the repetitive refrain that the taxpayers have to pay for the mistakes of Wall Street, no matter what the cost might eventually add up to.

On foreign policy, I was getting dizzy with all the places they want to inject our military forces. Both McCain and Obama need to be reminded that our military comes under the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense.

I will defend the US from attack, but I will not use force except when an attack on the US is an imminent, clear and present danger, or in response to an attack. Our service men and women are not the world's policemen, and we have no business occupying other countries like Iraq.

The debate tonight convinced me that neither McCain nor Obama want to, or can, change the direction of our country. With roughly 80 percent of all Americans saying our country is headed in the wrong direction, I am the only candidate who embodies their hope for true change.

The Washington establishment doesn't want to face up to the challenges next administration will inherit. If you're part of the 55 percent or more of voters who think the debates would be enriched by having me in them, let the news media know your feelings. The establishment will respond if public opinion is strongly in favor of my inclusion in the next two presidential debates.

Read more reactions to the first presidential debate from HuffPost bloggers, including Nora Ephron, Bob Shrum, Madeleine Albright, Paul Reiser, Arianna Huffington, Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow, and more.

Comments

[MarylandLibertarian]

Personally,

I believe it would be in Obama's best interest for Barr to be included in the Presidential debates. This is because Barr would pull more votes from McCain's supporters than Obama's. For example, if I were limited to choose between McCain and Obama, I would probably vote for McCain. However, with Bob Barr in the equation and with me being familiar with his qualificatons, I am voting for Barr. I believe Obama is going to win the election regardless, but if Bob Barr receives more exposure Obama would win by a landslide.

[ObamAtomic]

Sir you been silently, standing still while our Constitution has been maligned.

[ObamAtomic]

Mr Clinton for his sexual encounter with Miss Lewinsky(perjury).

[ObamAtomic]

Mr Barr we lost all the respect you can achieved as a politician,when you prosecuted
Mr Clinton for his sexual encounter with Miss Lewinsky(perjury).
Sir you been silently,cowardly standing still while our Constitution has been maligned.

[MarylandLibertarian]

ObamAtomic,

You apparently do not know the issues. Mr. Barr did not promote prosecution of President Clinton based on adultery; he promoted prosecution of Clinton on grounds of PERJURY (lying about the affair under oath).

Plus, Bob Barr is far from a coward. You obviously do not know much about him. He opposed Bush on MANY issues, especially the Iraq war and the Patriot Act, which is why Mr. Barr left the Republican Party.

[CitizenLegislatorCC]

"Both McCain and Obama need to be reminded that our military comes under the Department of Defense, not the Department of Offense."

And apparently the entire NATION needs to be reminded that DECLARING WAR is a decision that belongs to our LEGISLATIVE BRANCH of government ALONE [except, as you say, in (exceedingly rare) cases of necessaril­y-immediat­e defense against sudden attack]. Source: The United States Constitution, Article I, Section 8, Clause 11.

The PEOPLE of these United States decide if and when we go to war (absent sudden attack), NOT the "Dear Leader" of the Executive Branch. Or are we now emulating North Korea?

And what's with this INSANE obsession with the comparativ­ely-peacef­ul nation of Persian Iran? If we want their oil, we should arrange to PAY for it, but manufacturing a (laughably non-existent) threat out of whole cloth in an effort (apparently) to STEAL their oil is the height of depraved irresponsibility (see: Iraq). An Israel armed to the teeth with NUCLEAR WMDs is under no threat from Iran - which is still attempting to start-up a nuclear program for NON-military uses (according to OUR own National Intelligence Estimate on Iran).

The same UNdeclared Oil War now dictates that we take great umbrage when Russia defends its borders against unprovoked attack by a reckless neighbor (Georgia) that we helped foment.

Barr and Penn are right: We, the people (and the Constitution which once empowered us) were the big losers in last night's debate.

[erin2008]

Mr. Barr,

I like some of the things you say, but really you aren't making a great argument. It would be helpful if you would make a suggestion regarding how to solve this crisis versus blaming big government. This is like shaking your fist at the sky. OK.

If you use "big government" as your measurement of differences between the parties and between yours, it certainly is over simplification. Blaming big government for the $700B bailout is over simplification. To say simply big government is bad government is over simplification.

Obviously, there are a lot of differences between the parties and their are things they have in common. The biggest thing they have in common is the big government they share running versus parties like yours aren't at the table. As long as we have a 2 party system, your party will have a little power only when elections are very close. If we had a parliamentary government things would be different. However, we don't.

[leocat]

Furthermore, so many problems in our own country need fixing, desperately! We need: a living wage to close the chasm between the very rich and very poor, an end to the Drug War, an end to pay-or-die healthcare, crackdown on corportate criminals, not drug abusers (no prison time to those arrested for drug possession, but real drug rehab), development of alternative energy (see the film, "Crude Awakening," current end to oil resources), end to WTO and NAFTA, remedial action on global warming and other environmental issues, campaign finance restructuring to end PAC money (use of public broadcasting to campaigns as an alternative available to all candidates), universal higher education availability to all U.S. citizens, return of regulation to business, impeachment of Bush and his underlings, and transparency and accountability in government . America needs Nader!

[leocat]

Bob Barr, I agree with your responses to last night's presidential debates. However, the system does not want to allow the public to be exposed to alternative ideas, even if 80% (more than 80%, in my opinion), of the people know there is an elephant in the living room. They won't allow my choice for president, Ralph Nader, to publically debate because it would blow the election wide open. It's time for people to wake up to the fact that we no longer live in a free country. When only the 2 parties are allowed to debate publically, we are living under a dictatorship, a the wolf that wears sheep's clothing. Most Americans know this and are scared. The time is ripe for a revolution. And I don't trust Obama to lead the way. Nader has far more experience and knowledge about how the corporate 2-party sytem has failed us. And he has sound ideas on how to make the changes that are needed. He is also determined to win. The corporate elite must be toppled or our country and our world are in for unspeakable disaster. I support Nader100%.

[LiberalDemIda]

Bob Barr, I really like you. I've seen you on "Real Time with Bill Maher" and you come across as intelligent, clear-minded, pleasant and astute, but I disagree with you that the two major candidates are the same.

Understand that Obama will be our first true black president. He's MORE aware of this than any other. This grave responsibility is enormous.

He doesn't have the luxury to eff-up like GW has.

He will stand as *the* test for America to either believe minorities can be CIC, or the insurance none other follow. Obama knows that If he fails and becomes "like any other corrupt politician" he would sabotage the chances for other minorities that might want to succeed him.

That's why I am secured in the fact that what he promises, he'll see through. He has no choice.

It's part of the burden of his ethnic heritage to show the world that not only can he be a president "of, by and for the people" but that he can pave the way for other minorities to follow and finally find equality in a still starkly, racially divided country.

He can't fail and he knows this.

I have full confidence in him he'll be one of history's best Presidents. He's got no choice *but* to.

Obama/Biden '08/'12

[Chip W]

If you're going to enter the race, then I will too. Then we'll have some excitement.

[pkafin]

Um, you do realize that Bob Barr is in the race, don't you? Albeit, he's a minor party candidate, but I believe he will be on the ballot in all 50 states.

[BillCarson]

Here's the Bob Barr for president website...
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/?s0820

If you're in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Colorado or Virginia, help Get Out The (Republican) Vote for Bob Barr!

[dizmo4]

I agree with Mr. Barr 100% on the foreign policy question. But Obama could never take the position that Mr. Barr is advocating, and win. Obama needs to be as strong or stronger on national security. Sadly, in this country people equate more war with national security strength. War = strong, diplomacy = weak. Diplomacy is something Eurpeans do and therefore is un-American. Its sad but that is the narrative that the Bush republican party has created.

I do think that Obama will do everything he can to pull the US back. He'll withdraw from Iraq by 2010. He'll focus on finishing the job in Afghanistan - Pakistan. I tend to have a pretty optimistic view of US-Russian relations under an Obama administration. You'll see Russia especially take a step back.

If the US can become energy independent then we'll be in a much better place to negotiate with Russia and China. That won't happen under McCain, and like Bush, the only thing that McCain would use is military force.

[PCMcGee]

It is Painfully obvious that the Russian's strategy, is to threaten our National Security in order to force our election into the hands of the Neo-Cons. Neo-cons now need extra-ordinary powers, beyond the constitution, in order to affect the type of laws which can control an angry and aware populace. There is a substantial commitment from OUR Defense Department to listening to what we are saying to each other and what we do. Think about it, every time you interact with a computer each day, you are being watched. Ooh, Don't lose that credit card, someone is going to steal your ID... ID theft my ass, just keeping us on the leash. The government knows we hate it, now it's deciding what to do with us. I can only give my information security to a government that I trust.

[walk0nwalls]

I agree with you man, but I'm sorry. Palin's the deal-breaker. I can't let her get in.

Our democracy has failed, we have only one good major party choice.

[Deken]

You lost me with your very first sentence.

If you think there isn't a dime's worth of difference, I suggest you start by comparing their academic records and achievements, and work from there. Then move on to healthcare issues. Then Iraq issues. Then veterans issues. Then middle-class issues.

One man has a well-known hair-trigger temper, and the other is thoughtful, diplomatic, and not prone to making stupid decisions, such as "suspending" his campaign-w­ell-not-re­ally.

As for our tax dollars, my understanding is that my money is collected, in part, for my general welfare. That's the understanding I have about why my government collects tax dollars from me. If you don't care for that paradigm anymore, that's not a good enough excuse to spread the false idea that there is no difference between the two candidates.

So no, you haven't proven to me that you deserve equal time in the debates. Not when you make so many ill-informed comments like you have done here.

[BillCarson]

>If you think there isn't a dime's worth of difference,

Not to mention, read the republican and Democratic party platforms.

[freddyandeddy]

You know, if Libertarians like Bob Barr would just extend their "no government intervention" philosophies to social issues, they'd capture 90% of the left. No kidding. Most of us lefties are not, contrary to popular belief, economically socialist. Quite the contrary. However, injecting religion and social morality into our political process is what makes us run screaming toward the Democratic party.

[Thurber]

I'll drink to that!

[whit4brains]

I agree with you. When I first listened to Ron Paul I really liked what he had to say about economic issues but then I heard he was anti-abortion and I can't support a candidate who doesn't trust me to make decisions like that for myself.

[BillCarson]

Like you I used to think Libertarians were mostly ok... until I read their platform! Libertarians are like Neocons on Steroids! Here's a few excerpts from their platform...

They want to abolish Social Security.

They support eliminating the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the Federal Aviation Administration, the Food and Drug Administration.. Repeal laws mandating use of safety equipment such as seat belts or crash helmets, which can be more effectively driven by consumer action in the marketplace.

They favor a free market health care system.
They advocate a complete separation of medicine and State. (ie eliminate Medicare, etc.)
They oppose all government welfare, relief projects and "aid to the poor" programs.

On clean air: Pollution of other people's property is a violation of individual rights. Strict liability, not... arbitrary government standards, should regulate pollution.

They call for the transfer to private ownership of federally held lands. (in other words, selling of the federal parks to private developers)

They support repeal of all laws that impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.

... And so on. In my opinion, the only difference between a Neocon and a Libertarian is that the Libertarian at least has the decency to stay out of your bedroom! (and yes Iraq too)

On the other hand, if you think their platform's pretty good, well here's Bob Barr's website: http://www.bobbarr2008.com/splash/?s0820

[bdaved]

Some time back I heard a joke about how the engineer's answer to the question "Is the glass half-empty or half-full?" would be "The glass is too big." Perhaps the Libertarian answer would be "You don't need a glass. Glasses are the problem to begin with."

[BillCarson]

A Libertarian once told me, "Libertarianism is like working the high wire without a net!"

And that was supposed to be a good thing?!