This is the final roster for the debate on RevolutionBroadcasting.com tonight at 9PM ET.
- Jason Kafoury, National Coordinator for Ralph Nader for President
- Chuck Baldwin, Constitution Party
- Brian Moore, Socialist Party
- Frank McEnulty, New American Independent Party
- Charles Jay, Boston Tea Party
The Libertarian party offered up Bill Redpath, but the management of RevolutionBroadcasting.com declined on the grounds that they felt it was a “Presidential debate”. Afterwards they for some reason decided to include Nader’s National Coordinator. RevolutionBroadcasting’s management has been solidly behind Chuck Baldwin so it remains to be seen how that impacted their decision not to include Bill Redpath, and how it will impact the debate.
24 responses so far ↓
1 paulie cannoli // Oct 9, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Presiendential?
2 VTV // Oct 9, 2008 at 3:12 pm
Sorry. Been one of those days. I would take the time to point out I pulled out of that project entirely.
3 BrianHoltz // Oct 9, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Redpath would have pulled freedom voters from Baldwin, so of course they wouldn’t let him in the debate.
4 sunshinebatman // Oct 9, 2008 at 4:35 pm
What a joke.
And who tf is
Frank McEnulty, New American Independent Party
?
Isn’t that the Alan Keyes party?
5 Thomas L. Knapp // Oct 9, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Brian,
Don’t worry, that’s taken care of. The libertarian candidate will straighten out any confused freedom voters who may have mistakenly settled on Baldwin.
6 darolew // Oct 9, 2008 at 5:52 pm
No Redpath but Kafoury’s in? I suppose it’s their debate, but they sure don’t do a good job of concealing their biases.
7 Mike Gillis // Oct 9, 2008 at 5:54 pm
I have no problem with Redpath being included.
8 songster7 // Oct 9, 2008 at 6:05 pm
Charles Jay wo0uld have eaten Redpath for lunch as well; let”s just hope (for whoever is listening or tunes in, or sees it later on YouTube, etc.?) that “the other Baldwin brother” [sorry, just could not resist] gets debunked properly (his running-mate did a masterful job of avoiding ALL of the anti-liberty planks of their platform on Monday at Vandy (yeah I was there too, and came away even more convinced I made the right move by becoming a BTP elector … I also got to hang with CJ a bit over the next couple days he was in town; folks we have the genuine article here, for future reference …)
9 JimDavidson // Oct 9, 2008 at 6:07 pm
Ralph Nader can’t be there because he has a prior commitment tonight in Lawrence, Kansas.
Oh, look, more coverage of the Vanderbilt debate on McEnulty’s site:
http://www.frankforpresident.org/
10 VTV // Oct 9, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Thomas Knapp, you prove yourself to be my hero again.
11 Sivarticus // Oct 9, 2008 at 7:22 pm
These alternative debates are even more of a letdown than usual this year. You would think we could have at least had something like a Baldwin vs. McKinney debate. I believe Presidential debates should have some kind of minimal criteria. Other than the Nader spokesman and Baldwin, these other candidates are only on the ballot in a handful of states.
Of course, we all know Barr refuses to participate in any alternative debates at all, so I guess that makes it harder to put on something with any significance.
12 VTV // Oct 9, 2008 at 7:29 pm
We tried to get McKinney, her campaign has no phone number. I finally got phone numbers from the Green party and they never answer calls.
13 Peter Orvetti // Oct 9, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Question for Brian Moore: Your party promotes socialism, while Ms. La Riva’s promotes socialism and liberation. Whaddaya got against liberation, man?
14 VTV // Oct 9, 2008 at 9:25 pm
Going on now
15 der // Oct 9, 2008 at 9:30 pm
This looks like another debate thats gonna largely be taken as a joke.
I don’t know why Baldwin would even want to show up. None of the other major 3rd party candidates are.
16 inDglass // Oct 9, 2008 at 9:49 pm
I heard that Bill Redpath has cooties. Maybe that’s why they turned him down.
17 Thomas L. Knapp // Oct 9, 2008 at 9:57 pm
silvarticus,
You write:
“I believe Presidential debates should have some kind of minimal criteria.”
You say that, or something like, it a lot.
If you believe it, do it. If you preach it, practice it. Nobody on earth is stopping you from getting off your goddamn ass and setting up a debate with any standards you want to impose on it.
18 der // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:01 pm
I don’t think its a big deal they didn’t have criteria for this debate because nobody listened to it anyways.
Major 3rd party candidates shouldn’t even consider going in to these debates.
Baldwin must be needing support bad to even consider this debate.
19 Trent Hill // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:42 pm
The only interesting debate would be Trevor Lyman’s ThirdPartyTicket.
20 songster7 // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:45 pm
I tried to listen to it, but could not get it to work on my somewhat ancient (WIN2000, no older than my danged car, which runs perfectly well!) system.
I suspect though the playerswho showed up sounded about the same as they did on Monday
21 songster7 // Oct 9, 2008 at 10:47 pm
As for candidates “not going to these debates” … what travel was involved? As I heard it, this was online, from the comfort of your bathrobe (or not?) in your frickin’ living room if you preferred.
If that is not accommodating even to the “highest” level, what the fuck is?
22 JimDavidson // Oct 10, 2008 at 12:17 am
So, instead of listening to this debate, I went to a Ralph Nader event. He was speaking in my home town, and I’ve been home taking care of my elderly parents for a few weeks.
Anyway, where would I send a description of tonight’s event with Nader? I mean, for publication here on IPR? In the unlikely event anyone cares.
The best part for the crowd was Nader’s agreement with Ron Paul’s Campaign for Liberty four-point program. Every one of those was a major applause line as Nader read them out.
He got very little approval for his various anti-property, socialist concepts.
23 VTV // Oct 10, 2008 at 2:32 am
I will be putting this whole thing on Blogtalkradio.com here eventually, I will post the link.
24 paulie cannoli // Oct 10, 2008 at 2:37 am
Anyway, where would I send a description of tonight’s event with Nader? I mean, for publication here on IPR?
contact.ipr@gmail.com
Leave a Comment