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

[zreeb]

They should allow a guy polling 11% in NH to debate really. I'd like to see some different viewpoints!!

[LeftLeanWing]

11% in a state with 4 Electoral Votes.

That really not say much.

That's like giving a TicTac to a Whale

[lyingtruth]

Bob,

Politicians always try to make sensible statements prior to being elected.

Wouldn't the United States be wonderful if all of your (politicians) promises been met? (Even half)

One of the things that really annoys me about you "Right to Lifers" is; once a baby has its ass slapped you don't seem to care much about their life any longer. You have branded National Health Care as some kind of evil commie-socialist plot.

Ideally, if the government you desire existed there would be so much surplus cash that I would call it a crime to allow people to suffer and not have the opportunity fulfill their lives because they were denied good medical treatment for any reason whatsoever! (At any age.)

It is not morally acceptable to me that people would care about your life for only the first 30 seconds, then walk away and say, " You're on your own now kid!"

[HyperInfluential]

So True!!!

An example: Why does no one have the balls to ask Sarah Palin how she can reconcile being Right to Life with FLYING A COMMERCIAL JET ACROSS A CONTINENT WHILE IN LABOR. Google it. How is that not child endangerment? I won't repeat the ugly speculation on her possible motives, but it shows the exact inconsistency mentioned above. Why did she not do everything in her power to ensure this little Life made it into the world safely? Why in fact deny that Life any chance of immediate medical care in the event of sudden life-threatening changes in the labor? That's not a "woman's issue," it's a serious question in judgment, and hypocrisy to an ideal that supposedly cherishes the unborn more than all other humans on the planet, due to their sinless nature.

[NJacademic]

Libertarians, while not necessarily wrong on many issues, are the party of the 20th century. Economic, poltical and social isolationism are not good policies for this day and age.

On another note...Go Bob Barr...I want you to pull in as many votes this Novmeber from the republican ticket as you can.

[Sciguy]

I wish that Mr. Barr AND Mr Nader had been in the debate. As CoulterIsASuccubus pointed out, dissent is patriotic. Although I want to hear some specifics from the candidates, I also want to hear and consider all points of view. For example, I want to hear from the pro-blank-check folks and from the no-bailout folks as well as the some-type-­of-bailout folks - and I want to know not just what they think and how they'll implement their plans, but why they feel the way they do.

There is nothing wrong with being exposed to vastly differing points of view. We cannot make good decisions without knowing all of the options and philosophies available to us. We've gotten used to discount stores with few competing brands, and I would like to have better than that in politics.

We are afraid of dissent. We're afraid that Candidate X or Candidate Y will win (or lose). We're afraid that people might vote for the candidate they believe will do the best job rather than the lesser of 2 evils. We denigrate Bush for using the politics of fear, but we partake of other politics of fear every day.

I disagree with most of what Mr. Barr says. However, I not only defend his right to say it, I hope he and all other "minor" candidates keep saying what they believe. We have nothing to fear from dissent and disagreement. We only need to fear our fears.

[homeromj]

Well said Sciguy. While understanding that third/alternate party views represent only a small number of voters, their contribution to the debate can sometimes sway the major party candidates toward something of substance instead of those damned talking points they continue to bring up. Bob Barr and the rest of the "minor" candidates are somewhat fringe characters, but at least they have the courage of their conviction to yell loudly. I only wish that they could break the strangle hold that the corporate media has on the news cycle.

[Rubyfoo]

Hey Toto, this ain't Kansas anymore. Get a clue.

[londubh]

Bob you should pick Ron Paul to be your VP candidate. He did after all run as the Libertarian candidate in 1988. You'd really shake up the election in November.

[bdaved]

There are a lot of Libertarians who agree with you, and want Wayne Allyn Root replaced by Mr. Paul. There are even Libertarians who are trying to get Mr. Barr off the ticket. I find it very diverting to read about this election's Libertarian presidential campaign, and recommend it for those needing a temporary escape from reality.

[raw915]

why aren't you out campaigning?

[Lexie]

Thank you, Bob Nader.

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Thank you Lexie! I was thinking the same thing.

[rgersmrk]

Say what you want Barr, you are part of the good old boy network that caused the financial crisis in Wall Street. Just fess up.

Unfortunately I think the Libertarians don't have a leg to stand on anymore with smaller government, less regulation. Bill Clinton, Newt Gingerich and George Bush Jr. tried deregulating and the market proved it can't be trusted...­..again.

[LibertarianAnCap]

It is comedic to listen to a bunch of big government liberals trying to grasp Libertarianism. This is not a free market problem because we do not have free markets in this country. This problem was caused by government and their artificailly low interest rates, Community Investment Act forcing banks to loan to unworthy borrowers and the financial elite. The USA is a managed economy with endless amounts of red tape and regulations that cripple the free market and prop up this crony capitalism.

These companies deserve to go under and forcing the taxpayer to bail them out is immoral. Taxation is theft and government inflation is a hidden tax. If you want to understand true Libertarianism try going to a real website www.lewrockwell.com or www.mises.org.

No immoral wars, no Federal Reserve (which created this entire mess), no income tax, no war on drugs, no welfare, no bailouts, etc...True libertarianism is anti-state, anti-war and free markets. This is why Libertarianism is always attacked by both the left and right (because you both love government power) and wars when your guy is in office.

Government is crumbling to its knees and it can't come a moment too soon.

[blfaul]

"Community Investment Act forcing banks to loan to unworthy borrowers and the financial elite."

Do you really believe banks were "forced" to make bad loans? That is naive. It certainly doesn't explain the huge numbers of upside down commercial properties and bad loans on upscale housing. The banks were soliciting like crazy for people to borrow above their means.

The poison pill was the ability of banks to create securities based on their mortgages and therefore sell the risk to somebody else. Since someone else was assuming the risk they decided that the vetting process was unnecessary. The more homes you mortgaged the more money you made. You libertarians don't want to face the fact that in a "free market" the big boys will resort to cheating and undercutting to make a buck rather than conduct regular competitive business. Earning money "the old fashioned way" is so much slower. How many times does history have to repeat itself before you and the republicans learn this?

[HyperInfluential]

I highly recommend all readers to Google "Community Investment Act forcing banks to loan to unworthy borrowers.­" When you consider that many of these "unworthy borrowers" are people from traditionally poor classes of the American society, who were offered home ownership for the first time since we stopped having factory jobs that paid for houses, it starts to sound a lot like class warfare with a solid helping of racism thrown in for extra evil.

[indyleftist]

Agreed

I'll listen to Ralph Nader talk about how the two parties are the same but not from Bob Barr

[LiarLiarIraqsOnFire]

Every four years Nader pops up on the scene to bit@h & moan about the two-party system and the candidates they nominate, then he shuffles back into oblivion instead of working to build a third party. If you're committed to an ideal you stick with it, Nader is a political dilettante.

[Clairvaux]

Libertarian ideology has its appeal.

But the demise of the Church of the Invisible Hand suggests that we do indeed need government and regulation.

Where exactly you draw the line is the question.

[MyThought]

Trouble with Libertaria­ns....they live in a world that was more simple...p­ioneer days. The world is far too complex for that kind of simplicity.

[4wehttam]

Mr. Barr I disagree with your perspective on deregulation. That's the LAST thing we need. As others have said I respect your alternate viewpoint and hope that you cypher votes away from McBush.

[Hoppy]

On paper, I am 75% libertarian, especially concerned with overspending. One of the biggest detriments to US politics is the two-party sytstem. In no way do I see the Repubs reflecting the ideas of smaller national government/more local power/less interference in personal lives. After watching Clinton leave a surplus and the disaster of the Bush 2 era, I am fully in support of the Democrats. Of our measley two choices, the Dems are shown to be the more fiscally responsible alternative.

[BlackJAC]

Mr. Barr, your homework for tonight is to rent and watch the film ROGUE TRADER. It's the story of Nick Leeson, who singlehandedly destroyed the oldest bank in England with his bungled playing of the Asian markets. So much for the honor system the Libertarians insist will work, huh?

[senft]

One question for the congressman: I want him to say with all honesty that were he still in Congress, notwithstanding any position he might take while the bill is being formed, that he wouldn't follow party orders and vote the party line. I do not recall anything like this "straight talk" (to coin a phrase) coming from Congressman Barr while he was actually, you know, in Congress.