Expected participants are former Texas LP chair Roger Gary, Kiowa Nation member and Afghan war veteran R.J. Harris, former two-term New Mexico Republican Gov. Gary Johnson, renowned author and documentary filmmaker Bill Still, and private attorney Carl Person.

Several local TV stations are expected to cover the debate and the Florida LP plans to stream it live on USTREAM.tv and LPF.org

Wrights, 53, recently was one of the third-party candidates featured in an article in Al Jazeera about “The ‘other’ political parties of the US.”

“The interviewer was impressed with my stop all war stand, as well as my long-running libertarian blog, Liberty For All,” Wrights commented. “Libertarians have an immense reach these days. I’ve received e-mails from young people overseas who want to learn more after reading the press releases, my blog or information on my campaign website.”

Stop all war is the focus and message of his campaign. Wrights believes this is the most critical issue facing our nation today. He has emphasized this point in a series of interviews in Libertarian-oriented media, most recently on the Liberty Underground Show, on the 1787 Radio Network, and broadcast over WTAN-AM, Tampa Bay.

Wrights has also been interviewed by the Rodney Wimberly Show, the “voice of South Arkansas,” on KELD-FM, the Angel Clark Show on the Liberty Radio Network, and on KKSM-AM, San Diego.

In late February, Wrights will start an extended cross-country road trip in which he’ll literally cross the nation twice to attend Libertarian state party conventions in Georgia, California, Mississippi, Colorado, the Kansas/Missouri Heartland Convention, Ohio, Arkansas, Pennsylvania and New York.

“As it has been from the start, this is a grassroots effort, a ‘wise and frugal’ campaign we’re taking to Libertarian activist everywhere. My message is clear and simple: The libertarian promise of peace and prosperity is one Americans are longing to hear,” Wrights said. “We don’t need to soften, refine, modify or craft what we believe to appeal to conservatives or liberals to win votes. Instead, we must embrace our beliefs and wear them proudly.”

“As your nominee for president I’m ready, willing and able to take this bold stand. I’ve never been afraid to speak truth to power,” Wrights stressed. “I’ll take the true libertarian message of peace and prosperity to all 50 states and won’t be ashamed to say in a loud, clear and unequivocal voice: stop all war!”

“I want to be your next president so I can leave you alone.” – R. Lee Wrights

Kudos to the Harris County (Texas) Libertarian Party and Guy McClendon for organizing the latest Libertarian presidential debate, or as Lee Wrights likes to describes these events, the Libertarian presidential job interview. Here is the video.

From comments on a prior IPR post. The debate can be viewed at http://rjharris2012.com/:

Instead of finishing what I was supposed to be doing tonight, I went ahead and watched this entire debate. Here are my thoughts on what I saw and heard. Interested readers should know that I’m a supporter of third parties but not a Libertarian, so my interest here is to have the strongest possible Libertarian win the Presidential nomination. I’m not an expert in Libertarian ideology, so I’ll leave issues of that sort up to real Libertarians and just tackle the presentation aspects of the candidates.

I was excited to see this debate because it’s the first time all five of the serious candidates have shared a stage. I think these will in fact be the only five serious candidates except for 1) last-minute entrants or 2) Wayne Root, who has sort of been running a shadow campaign all along. Which is to say, I think we’ll have these five and no others for at least the next few months.

First of all, I think Libertarians can feel confident in the fact that this is a field full of actual ideological Libertarians. Lee Wrights and Roger Gary are what you might call “pure” Libertarians; I doubt anyone in the party would find them deviating from the party line in any significant way. RJ Harris, Carl Person, and Bill Still are all Libertarian-oriented people. When they deviate from the party line on occasion, they are being heretical Libertarians, not impostors. I know there has been some concern about Harris because he ran in a Republican primary, but my sense is that he was and is by and large a Libertarian ideologically. (I wonder how the Republicans reacted when he told them he wanted an immediate withdrawal from all foreign wars?) This is a big difference from 2008, where some of the major candidates were only Libertarians if you could shoehorn their records into a Libertarian box (Gravel) or if you believed they were completely different people from what they’d been five years earlier (Barr, Root).

That said, I do think that Gary and Person are non-starters. Gary seems like a nice man and a fine Libertarian, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen a worse debate performance in a third-party presidential campaign. Gary’s presentation was slow and halting, even in his opening and closing statements (which appeared unrehearsed). He seemed old, which is partly because he was the oldest candidate there, but he’s not significantly older than Still, who seemed much more chipper. Gary repeatedly stopped to haggle with the moderator about meaningless issues. His discussion of his Mexican friends was…dated, to say the least. (On the other hand, he declared his support for an almost completely open border, which I suspect will surprise a lot of Libertarians.) He showed absolutely no improvement from the MA debate last month. Overall, his presentation seemed lazy and sloppy. He even stated that he didn’t expect even to visit all 50 states, let alone campaign there. I don’t know why he’s such a poor candidate — his party pedigree certainly speaks highly for him — but if he can’t step it up, he’s going to be a non-factor in this race.

Person gave a somewhat better presentation, but yet again was done in by his crackpot ideas — and I mean crackpot from a Libertarian perspective, not from my perspective. His campaign strategy apparently consists of terraforming a town of 10,000 people — in what, the three months after the convention? — using some sort of crazy Libertarian media strategy that would produce universal employment there, then leveraging the media coverage of this miracle into a national campaign. Um, good luck with that, Carl. He repeatedly rambled and strayed off topic in the debate. Again, even if I didn’t have serious reservations about the company he keeps, I’d consider Person a non-factor in the race.

The remaining three candidates — Wrights, Harris, and Still — all presented themselves very well. I think any of them would be a credit to the LP as Presidential candidates. At the same time, they also present three clearly different approaches to the race. Wrights would focus on the war, Harris on freedom and liberty issues, Still on money and finance. Wrights would run an Internet-based strategy, Harris would focus on Oklahoma (where he has some name recognition, and expects to get ballot status for the first time in over a decade) and battleground states, Still would leverage his own following and connect with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Of the three, Wrights definitely laid claim to the mantle of “pure” Libertarian standard-bearer in this debate. He’s clearly spent a lot of time with a debate coach, and the results were like night and day compared to his performance in the MA debate last month. It’s hard to believe that just last month he was as bad a public speaker as Roger Gary. (His opening statement still needs work, though.) Wrights displayed an engaging speaking style, well-rehearsed answers to many questions, and a supple ability to think on his feet and to come up with creative answers to difficult questions. He’s also beginning to draw contrasts between himself and other candidates — particularly Harris and Still, whom he clearly considers his main competition at this point. All in all, a very impressive performance by Wrights that left me thinking he could be an effective Chuck Baldwin-style candidate instead of the halting mutterer I was afraid he’d stay.

Harris presented himself with an air of confidence that suggests he’s the frontrunner, which, right now, I suppose he probably is. He’s clearly benefited from running a major-party campaign and participating in debates with seasoned politicians; his speaking style was measured, articulate, and polished. Some of his rhetoric was aimed at Tea Party types rather than Libertarians — I thought his comparison of himself with George Washington at the beginning wasn’t appropriate for this crowd — but overall, I was impressed with how well he fit in with the lifelong Libertarians. I also thought he handled the abortion issue effectively. He dodged about a bit, but essentially said that while he personally is really upset by abortions, he thinks the decision should be up to the states. That’s not exactly a mainstream Libertarian view, and Wrights called him on it, but it’s Ron Paul’s position, and as such I think a lot of Libertarians might find it acceptable. Meanwhile, those of you with bad memories of Barr and Root will be happy to hear that Harris came out unequivocally against foreign aid (including, specifically, for Israel — which Roger Gary strangely disagreed with him about), unequivocally against all foreign interventions, and unequivocally against the drug war. Given Harris’ definite right-Libertarian lean, I can see him becoming the candidate of the Starr/Root faction of the LP in the event that Root doesn’t run. This actually wouldn’t be a bad thing, as I think Harris would be more palatable to other Libertarians than just about any other candidate that faction could come up with.

Then there’s Bill Still. Frankly, I was kind of blown away by what I saw from him at this debate. Certainly there were moments where he looked like some guy who’d wandered into a Libertarian Presidential debate and didn’t know what the heck was going on, but I’m going to go ahead and forgive him for all of that given that he’s basically only been in the race for a week. There were other moments, though, where I saw flashes of a magnetic, charismatic speaker who knows Libertarian financial policy like the back of his hand and who might turn out to be the most compelling Libertarian presidential nominee in years. One minute he was reading his opening statement off his laptop like it was a teleprompter, the next he was ad-libbing with gracious humor, the next he was arguing loudly with Wrights about Libertarian priorities. He does have some real deviations from Libertarian orthodoxy — he opposes gutting Social Security because it wouldn’t be possible politically, he wants state banks to issue currency (and isn’t a goldbug), he said he “probably” supports the Fair Tax — but what’s interesting is that they’re eccentric deviations, not ones that suggest he would be a better fit for some other party. He seemed exceedingly raw as a candidate, as indeed he is, but if he’s willing to put in the hard work of running a campaign and developing strategies and issue policies (as Wrights and Harris are doing), he could end up being the best of the bunch. I tend to think he may have the Mike Gravel problem that he has no natural constituency in the party — too many deviations for the Radicals, too radical on fiscal policy for the Reformers — but if he can generate some support, he might find himself getting tapped as a compromise candidate if one of the sides finds itself without a standard-bearer.

Overall, I was quite heartened by what I saw in the debate. Before watching it, I thought the party had one serious and well-organized candidate (Harris) who wasn’t really a Libertarian. Now, I think there are three such candidates, and all of them are Libertarian to some degree. I think any of them would be a good choice for the party in 2012.

The one-day conference is sponsored by the Libertarian Parties of New Hampshire and Massachusetts.

Three candidates will participate in the debate, Wrights, Roger Gary of Texas and Carl Person of New York. The debate is scheduled for 6:15 p.m. and will be moderated by George Phillies. The New Hampshire and Massachusetts Libertarian Parties will give a first-round delegate vote to the winner of the post-debate straw poll.

“I’m looking forward to engaging with my fellow libertarians in what I am certain will be a lively and informative discussion,” Wrights said. “It certainly will be more enlightening than the presidential debate conducted by one of the so-called major parties in New Hampshire recently.”

The New Hampshire debate is open to all Libertarian Party candidates with an extended continuous record of Libertarian Party activism, who have completed FEC filings, and have substantial campaign team in place.

Wrights has also agreed to participate in a debate in March 2012 at the Pennsylvania Libertarian State Convention in Pittsburgh.

The conference keynote speaker will be Judge John Buttrick of Arizona who will speak at the luncheon. Other featured speakers are Angela Keaton of AntiWar.com and Outright Libertarians; Joe Kennedy, Libertarian candidate for U.S. Senate; Ernest Hancock, publisher of Freedom’s Phoenix; Mary Ruwart, author of “Healing our World” and member of the Libertarian National Committee, and Don Gorman, past LNC at-large representative, former Libertarian N.H. state representative and the most-elected libertarian in the country.

The conference will be held at the Highlander Inn at the Manchester Airport one day before the beginning of the week-long Porcfest, the annual celebration of freedom conducted by the Free State Project.

-30-

R. Lee Wrights, 53, a libertarian writer and political activist, is seeking the presidential nomination because he believes the Libertarian message in 2012 must be a loud, clear and unequivocal call to stop all war. To that end he has pledged that 10 percent of all donations to his campaign will be spent for ballot access so that the stop all war message can be heard in all 50 states. Wrights is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party and co-founder and editor of of the free speech online magazine Liberty For All. Born in Winston-Salem, N.C., he now lives and works in Texas.

Lee Wrights for President
Contact: Brian Irving, press secretary
press@wrights2012.com
919.538.4548

Wayne Root Profiled by AOL News today as 2012 Presidential Contender

Excerpt:

Sports Handicapper Gambles on Becoming President

Now that the Democrats have suffered a historic defeat on election day, a sports handicapper is doubling down on his goal of becoming President in 2012.

Wayne Allyn Root is a well-known Vegas sports handicapper and the current front runner to be the Libertarian Party’s nominee for the 2012 presidential race after being the running mate to 2008 nominee Bob Barr.

He may seem a long shot, but Root believes that enough Americans would embrace the Libertarian philosophy if they were exposed to it — and to him.

“The system is tilted toward two parties,” he told AOL News. “Especially when you have to spend so much time and money just for ballot access. During 2008, around July and August, we had 6 to 7 percent of the vote. For some reason, we weren’t included in the presidential debates, and if we had been, I think things would have tilted in our direction.”

Root points to England, where a third-party candidate was able to make an impact in the most recent election based on a great debate performance.

Read more here.

an editorial by Christina Tobin

Throughout the 2008 Presidential Campaign, the four major independent and third-party candidates called for the Commission on Presidential Debates to include on stage all candidates who appeared on enough state ballots to at least theoretically attain the 270 electoral votes required to become president. As expected, their requests fell on deaf ears, as the so-called “non-partisan” commission is controlled exclusively by Democrats and Republicans.

Enter Free & Equal, a non-profit group dedicated to furthering ballot access and open elections in the United States.

Through my own work with various third parties on ballot access, I was made painfully aware of the onerous restrictions placed on third party and independent candidates. Nowhere are these restrictions greater than those that determine who will be included in debates. The candidates are told they must meet a polling and support threshold to participate. The media largely ignores the candidates, saying they have no support. Of course, these candidates have limited support because the media denies them the opportunity to get their message out. It is a vicious circle, and this is exactly what played out in this past election. Unfortunately, the short-sighted and narrow-minded attitudes of some of the third-party candidates only made matters worse.

After serving as the National Ballot Access coordinator for the Ralph Nader campaign, I took a leave of absence from the campaign to partner with Trevor Lyman of Thirdpartyticket.com in the hopes of having a third party presidential debate. The odyssey that followed was one I will not soon forget. Let me be as direct as I can: Third parties will never draw a following unless they grow up!

Working with one other person (that’s right, only two of us), I originally hoped that Lyman’s third party ticket debate would fit right into the plans. Unfortunately, Lyman was put off by several campaigns and became disenchanted with the whole idea. From there, Free and Equal took the helm.

Free and Equal worked to have the debate hosted by the Columbia University Political Union on a Sunday afternoon in October. It was clear from the outset that despite their lip service supporting opening the debate to third-parties, the candidates were less than enthusiastic about appearing onstage with one another.

Libertarian candidate and former Georgia Congressman Bob Barr’s campaign actions were mean-spirited, and the hubris and utter foolishness of his campaign tactics were appalling. After the well-documented Ron Paul press conference snub, the Barr camp stated many times that Barr would only debate Nader, and that he would not be “seen on the same stage” with Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney. The Barr campaign flat out refused to participate, stopped taking our phone calls and emails, and lambasted us on blogs. The “warmest personal regards” on the fax rejecting the invitation to the Mayflower Hotel debate was particularly hypocritical.

Claiming “unprofessionalism” and “bias,” the Barr campaign attempted to drag us through the mud. They were not the only campaign to do so. The Cynthia McKinney campaign was even more deliberate in its attempt to derail the Free and Equal debate.

To make matters worse, after Trevor Lyman and thirdpartyticket.com

stopped working with us, they began working against us. A debate was scheduled for the same day as the Columbia University debate. This debate was to be broadcast live on the internet, and the candidates would participate by webcam. From our dealings with the campaigns, we knew that this would not be acceptable to most of them.

But Cynthia McKinney nevertheless decided to participate in the Third Party Ticket debate. The Thursday morning before the Columbia debate was to take place, McKinney and Nader appeared on Democracy Now! With Amy Goodman. During this show, McKinney repeatedly stated that she would be participating in Lyman’s debate, not the Columbia University debate. Nader had every opportunity to correct her, or to challenge her on the other debate, but chose not to.

Faced with an impossible situation, the Columbia Political Union decided against pressing forward with the debate. With no confirmed candidates, due in part to the confusion surrounding Lyman’s debate, the Political Union had no choice but to pull out. Enough cannot be said about the time, effort, and dedication that the Political Union, and publisher Allon Bran in particular, put forward. I thank them for their tremendous effort, and hope that we can work together in the future.

After the Columbia debate was canceled, Free and Equal began preparations for a Third Party presidential debate to be held at the Mayflower Hotel. Free and Equal attempted time and time again to contact the Cynthia McKinney campaign. E-mails were rejected, calls not returned, and once again their blogs were peppered with “conspiracy” charges.

McKinney, in what can be described as a delusional act, posted a video decrying the debate as “The Nader Debate.” The campaign then accused us of working exclusively for Nader, and for not allowing her campaign to participate in the preparations. Correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t see how you can denounce someone for not working with you when you refuse and reject all attempts at communication. After the debates were held, press releases were sent out containing not only outright lies, but new stories as to why the campaign declined to participate in the debates.

As for the Nader connection, yes, I was indeed the National Ballot Access coordinator for the campaign. I have also helped secure ballot lines for numerous independent candidates and alternative political parties including the Constitution, Green, Libertarian and Socialist Equality parties. I took a leave of absence from the campaign to organize these debates and, by the way, neither I nor the other person I was working with voted for Nader.

Despite all of these maddening hurdles, Free and Equal hosted a successful Presidential debate at the Mayflower Hotel in Washington, DC. Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate (the only campaign to be 100% straightforward with us from day one), and Ralph Nader participated in spirited and cordial debate broadcast live on C-SPAN in primetime, and covered by the three major networks.

The next week, a debate organized by the Barr campaign was held in Ohio. It was not nationally broadcast, and reportedly did not appear to be professional in nature.

The Sunday before the election, Free and Equal hosted our second debate, this one a Vice Presidential Debate in Las Vegas. Only the Green party was unrepresented at this debate, despite offers to pay their travel expenses.

It is my opinion that the Libertarian and Green Parties would do well to question the motives of the Barr and McKinney campaigns. After all, they are responsible for the actions of their candidates.

The Barr campaign failed to gain ballot access in any state it attempted, while the states that were handled by the Libertarian Party itself were mostly successful. The McKinney campaign had four different websites throughout the course of the campaign, every one of them underwhelming, the last one offline until after the election. Both campaigns had dismal showings in this election, whether the standard be fundraising, media exposure, or votes. Both campaigns attempted to derail and usurp Free and Equal’s ambitions to provide a media platform for the candidates. Both campaigns routinely ignored the suggestions of their respective party’s leadership. Both campaigns have been accused of being disorganized, incompetent, and arrogant. Both campaigns had the effect of stagnating their respective parties.

Both candidates are former Congressman from safe-seat Congressional Districts in Georgia.

Furthermore, ever since the Libertarian Convention, there have been rumors and speculation that Barr will [again] run as a Republican for Congress in 2010. If this does come to pass, what does it say about the integrity of 3rd parties to be infiltrated and taken over without effective opposition?

All third parties, in my opinion, should think twice before nominating former seat-holding Democrats and Republicans, just for the name recognition. The third party movement should focus on creating its own media opportunities instead of relaying on has-been Democrats and Republicans for media exposure. This is what Free and Equal will strive for.

Even after this very trying experience, Free and Equal remains undaunted by the task of securing ballot access and free and fair elections for independent and third party candidates. Free and Equal also wishes to thank everyone who helped make the debates a reality.

At the beginning of next year, Free and Equal will begin campaigning to challenge ballot access laws across the country. We hope to break the hold of the two party duopoly on our electoral process by helping place as many third party and independent candidates on the ballot in 2010 as possible through lobbying, petitioning, recall, and referendum efforts. Our Campaign for Ballot Access will begin the day after Inauguration Day. Stay tuned as more is sure to come. Please feel free to visit our website-in-progress att www.freeandequal.org

.

# # #

Inquiries may be directed to Christina Tobin@ (312) 320-4101, or by e-mail toChristina@freeandequal.org.

Found at Gail’s Tails

October 30th, 2008 – Presidential Debate

TheyWillBeHeard.com provides live video restream of the debate held by The City Club of Cleveland:

TheyWillBeHeard.com partners with Free And Equal to broadcast a presidential debate, with support from:

Restore the Republic Radio

Revolution Broadcasting

Revolution March 2009

Audio Stream:

Video Stream:

IPR’s previous coverage of this event is here, here and here.

The City Club of Cleveland debate, moderated by Dan Moulthrop of Cleveland’s PBS radio and television stations, will be streamed live by ideastream (http://www.wviz.org/).

CSPAN will tape the debate for later showing, and it will also be live on public access cable in Cleveland.

IPR’s previous coverage of this event is here and here.

We will also be liveblogging it (watch for a future post).

On October 30, Ralph Nader, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin will debate each other at the Cleveland (Ohio) City Club, between 4:30 pm and 5:30 pm. The City Club is at 850 Euclid Ave, on the 2nd floor. According to Free and Equal’s Christina Tobin, all three participants have confirmed they will be there. Cynthia McKinney, Barack Obama, and John McCain are also invited.

McCain and Obama are extremely unlikely to accept, if nothing else because of their exclusive contract with the Commission on Presidential Debates. No word yet from the McKinney campaign. Also, no word from Rosa Clemente, the Green VP candidate, on the VP debate on Sunday, November 2 in Las Vegas, with Libertarian Wayne Root, the Constitution Party’s Darrell Castle, and Nader running mate Matt Gonzalez.

The segment on the alternative debate is about 4 minutes into the clip.

IPR’s previous coverage of the debate included reporting on David Weigel’s piece in The Nation, as well as video of the debate (with links to several prior articles).

It’s one of the paradoxes of election 2008. If no one is happy with Congress, no one is happy with the president, and voters grumble to pollsters about the two parties, it should be a breakout year for some political force. CNN’s jowly populist Lou Dobbs spent most of the year fulminating about a third party that could challenge the Big Two on illegal immigration. Before he settled on his current path as a mayor-for-life of New York, Michael Bloomberg daydreamed about a third-party run. This summer, in a happy fluke, the Greens and the Libertarians both nominated former members of Congress from Georgia with sizable media profiles: Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr.

There were big-media moments. In September, the four leading third-party candidates–Nader, Baldwin, McKinney, and Barr–were invited to a press conference with Ron Paul at which the Republican iconoclast would introduce four principles they’d all agreed upon. Barr passed at the last minute, and an enraged Paul eventually just endorsed Baldwin. Multiple organizations tried to set up third-party debates, but none could get all the candidates on board. Before the Free and Equal debate kicked off, McKinney released a paranoid statement alleging that “one campaign… has selected the date of the debate, the structure of the debate, the venue of the debate [and] the moderator of the debate.” (Free and Equal call this “completely false.”) The Barr campaign slammed Free and Equal’s haphazard scheduling. As millions of Americans were voting early and mailing in absentee ballots, the third-party candidates remained obscure.

Few in the audience of college students and candidate partisans knew or cared about this. “Did you pay for your ticket?” asked organizer Christopher Thrasher as people walked to his desk. “An e-mail mistakenly went out saying it was actually free, so we’ll give you a refund over PayPal.” At 9 p.m., the candidates walked out to respectful silence, then applause. There were no opening statements. “The candidates are encouraged to engage each other in actual debate,” said moderator Chris Hedges, a former New York Times reporter who’s written books about the psychology of war and the “fascism” of right-wing religious America.

Nader didn’t spend any time actually scrapping with Baldwin, a Baptist minister and radio host who defeated Alan Keyes for his party’s nomination. Hedges’ questions were better framed for the five-time candidate of the left. Asked why Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky had both endorsed Barack Obama, Nader called them misguided. “We know that Howard Zinn and Noam Chomsky agree far more with the Nader/Gonzalez ticket, but they want to cast tactical votes.” (Both men live in blue Massachusetts.) “People living in slam-dunk states for McCain or for Obama can vote Nader because it doesn’t affect the least-worst outcome, which would be an Obama victory.”

“Imagine that you’re a first century Christian,” Baldwin said. “Do you vote for Nero or do you vote for Caligula?” The question of a spoiled vote was irrelevant for his voters, anyway. “I don’t believe that John McCain can anymore win this election than Bob Dole could win against bill Clinton. If Christians and evangelicals want to waste a vote, they can vote for McCain.”

Asked about the state-level chances for third parties–one of the ostensible reasons for Nader’s 2000 run–the candidate attacked third-party politicians like Vermont gubernatorial candidate Anthony Pollina, who refused to appear with him. “He didn’t want to alienate the Democrats,” Nader groused. “You have people like Zinn and Chomsky supporting Obama, who is warmonger.” He lit into Obama for only spending twenty-five minutes in the West Bank during his summer visit to the Middle East, and for speaking before AIPAC. “I accuse Obama of anti-Semitism against the Arab people,” said Nader. “They’re both part of the Semitic people. It’s time that people know that.”

The candidates didn’t disagree until Hedges asked the candidates about global warming and abortion. Baldwin asked Nader what he’d do to “secure our borders,” and the candidate of the left became a symphony of me-toos. “We have to secure our country’s borders for a lot of reasons,” he said, citing the flow of drugs and “all kinds of illegal entries.” He pledged to stop supporting dictators “who send these people north” and stop “brain-draining the Third World with HB-1 visas to enrich Cisco.” Baldwin had little to add, so he pledged to “free Ramos and Compean,” the former border agents who’ve become a cause celèbre on the restrictionist right. “I would go to the prison personally and give them their freedom. I would give them back pay if they so desire it.”

Video of the debate and links to several previous IPR articles can be found here.

part 1

part 2

part 3

part 4

IPR’s previous coverage of the debate:

Independent Political Report will liveblog the Free and Equal debate tonight between Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin

Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr react to tonight’s Free and Equal debate between Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin

Internet Pettition to demand Bob Barr’s participation in debate is being circulated

Free and Equal debate picked up on C-SPAN for Live coverage

Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney on NPR, Break the Matrix, Democracy Now!, OpEdNews, YouTube

Updates on the Free and Equal debate

Freeandequal.org debate is on; Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin confirmed

Two Presidential candidates confirmed for debate in DC on Thursday, October 23

IPR has previously covered the debate:

Cynthia McKinney and Bob Barr react to tonight’s Free and Equal debate between Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin

Internet Pettition to demand Bob Barr’s participation in debate is being circulated

Free and Equal debate picked up on C-SPAN for Live coverage

Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney on NPR, Break the Matrix, Democracy Now!, OpEdNews, YouTube

Updates on the Free and Equal debate

Freeandequal.org debate is on; Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin confirmed

Two Presidential candidates confirmed for debate in DC on Thursday, October 23

The moderator will be Chris Hedges from the Nation Institute. In addition to CSPAN, it will also be carried live on Restore the Republic Radio.

Cynthia McKinney released a video statement (below) regarding the “Third Party” Debate scheduled for tonight. In an accompanying statement, further details emerge:

LOS ANGELES – Green Party Presidential candidate Cynthia McKinney released a statement this morning regarding the hastily scheduled debate announced for this evening in Washington D.C.

The event scheduled for this evening was organized Monday by Christina Tobin of Free and Equal; details were announced yesterday (October 21). Tobin was Ralph Nader’s national ballot access coordinator this year. According to sources, she is on leave from the campaign.

Ms McKinney bristled at the fact that her name was announced when she was not consulted as to her availability; the entire event was presented – time, date, location, format and moderators – as a fait accompli, with no input from McKinney.

Video of her statement is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D9V_mpSyGms
and video of her discussing last week’s independent debate at www.breakthematrix.com
is available here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv9rAyp3mOI

Bob Barr campaign manager Russell Verney declined the invitation to the debate. The campaign also posted this statement on its blog:

October 22nd, 2008 by Jason Pye

Since this third party debate issue has come back up I wanted to share with readers the letter that Russ Verney sent to the group organizing the event, which can be read here. Keep in mind that we received a notice about this debate on Tuesday by fax. We sent our response later in the day.

The Georgia Tech appearance was scheduled well in advance and has been promoted. We will not cancel that appearance.

It seems as though the organizers want us to drop our plans at their convenience. As Russ wrote in the letter, “I believe this is twice that your organization has made a public announcement regarding an imminent presidential candidate debate without first checking availability of the candidates.”

We have been open to the prospect of the third party debate provided that it was organized with details clearly presented to the campaign and it could not interfere with Bob’s hectic schedule. It seems the organizers are not willing to negotiate before they set the plans.

No disrespect is directed towards the candidates participating in the debate. However, the Barr campaign cannot and will not be held responsible for the lack of planning on the part of others.

Ralph Nader accepted the invitation…

Contact: Toby Heaps, 202-471-5833

Attn: Politics Editors, Campaign 2008 Editors, National Editors

Third Party Presidential Debate to Take Place on Thursday, October 23rd – Nader to participate

Independent Presidential candidate Ralph Nader announced today that he will participate in the only third party debate being held this election cycle to take place on Thursday evening at 9:00pm EST on October 23 in Washington DC at the Mayflower Renaissance Hotel.

The debate will last for 90 minutes and be conducted according to the following format:

-No opening statements
-There will be six of the following question and answer series: The moderator will pose a question. Each candidate will be permitted 90 seconds to respond. The candidates’ preliminary answers will be followed by a 5-minute “discussion” period, during which the moderator will be permitted unlimited follow-up questions and the candidates would be encouraged to engage one another in actual debate. This will last about 60 minutes.
-After the above six question-and-answer series, each candidate will be permitted to ask a single question of one or more of the other candidates, with each candidate permitted 90 seconds to respond. This will last about 10 minutes.
-After this, submitted questions from the audience will be selected and presented by the moderator. This will last for about 10 minutes.
-Each candidate will be permitted a 2-minute closing statement.

…As did Chuck Baldwin. The debate will be covered live on CSPAN and Restore the Republic Radio. Additional details on the debate can be found here.

Rock the Debates, Inc. is a non-partisan 527 focused on opening up the debate process. The idea is to get the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates to commit to debate third party candidates.

Contact: Christina Tobin, 312-320-4101

This morning, Christina Tobin, Director of Free and Equal, announced an Independent/Third Party Presidential Debate, which will take place on Thursday evening at 9:00pm EST on October 23 in Washington DC at the Mayflower Renaissance Hotel.

All six candidates who qualified for enough state ballot lines to be eligible to win the presidency on November 4th have been invited.

To date, two candidates have confirmed participation: Independent Presidential Candidate Ralph Nader, and Constitution Party Presidential Candidate Chuck Baldwin, who have been endorsed by Congressman Ron Paul.

The debate will last for 90 minutes, and follow the below format:

-No opening statements

-There will be six of the following question and answer series: The moderator will pose a question. Each candidate will be permitted 90 seconds to respond. The candidates’ preliminary answers will be followed by a 5-minute “discussion” period, during which the moderator will be permitted unlimited follow-up questions and the candidates would be encouraged to engage one another in actual debate. This will last about 60 minutes.

-After the above six question-and-answer series, each candidate will be permitted to ask a single question of one or more of the other candidates, with each candidate permitted 90 seconds to respond. This will last about 10 minutes.

-After this, submitted questions from the audience will be selected and presented by the moderator. This will last for about 10 minutes.

-Each candidate will be permitted a 2-minute closing statement.

# # #

Inquiries may be directed to Christina Tobin@ (312) 320-4101, or by e-mail to Christina@freeandequal.org.

In the meantime, with no other candidates, what was to have been an online debate sponsored by Trevor Lyman’s ThirdPartyTicket and several co-sponsoring organizations (at first including Free and Equal, until they broke off to sponsor their own debates) turned into a forum for the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney. It was recorded and can be seen on Break The Matrix.

Also, Democracy Now! had a virtual debate with Ralph Nader and Cynthia McKinney.

Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr’s schedule has him in Atlanta at 3 PM on Thursday, while Cynthia McKinney has nothing listed for that day.

Dan Sullivan relates that

Barr was just in Pittsburgh. I was sitting beside him in a roundtable discussion by the local LP faithful. He explained that he considered Cynthia McKinney, the GP nominee, to be a nut case, and that it was
not in his interest, nor the LP’s, to share a platform with her.

Free & Equal Elections Coalition
230 E. Ohio St., Ste. 212
Chicago, IL 60611

Attn: Politics Editors, Campaign 2008 Editors, National Editor

Third Party Presidential Debate to Take Place on Thursday, October 23rd

Contact: Christina Tobin, 312-320-4101

The Independent/Third Party Presidential Debate to have been held in New York at Columbia University on Sunday Oct. 19th has been rescheduled, and will occur on Thursday evening at 9pm EST, October 23 in Washington DC.

All six candidates who qualified for enough state ballot lines to be eligible to win the presidency on November 4th are invited.

An update on confirmed candidates, location in Washington DC, debate format, and other details will be made available at a press conference in Washington DC on Tuesday, October 21 at 10am EST on the ground floor of the National Press Club building.

# # #

Inquiries may be directed to Christina Tobin @ (312) 320-4101, or by e-mail to Christina@freeandequal.org.

Christopher Thrasher called IPR to say that his split with Free and Equal was amicable and he hopes to work with them again in the future.

Trevor Lyman’s http://thirdpartyticket.com/ has 9608 people have pledged to donate October 19th, 2008, and Cynthia McKinney is still the only confirmed participant.

An NY Times article quoted at

Free and Equal indicates that

Ralph Nader, who is on the ballot in 45 states as an independent candidate, has indicated he will show up (at the Free and Equal debate).

Votetruth08.com says

AMY GOODMAN: Super rally on Wall Street at noon. And will you also be at the debate on Sunday night, third-party debate at Columbia University?

RALPH NADER: Well, I just heard about it after you told me about it last night, and-Amy, and I’ve got to look at the schedule and see.

AMY GOODMAN: Well, if-

CYNTHIA McKINNEY: I’m with Trevor-I’m with Trevor Lyman at the thirdpartyticket.com from 7:00 to 9:00 on October 19th.

AMY GOODMAN: And we’ll put information on our website, because supposedly I will be moderating this debate if it does happen, and we’ll let our viewers and listeners know.

Thirdpartyticket says

Click here to contact Chuck Baldwin

Click here to contact Bob Barr

Cynthia McKinney – CONFIRMED

Click here to contact Ralph Nader

10/17/08 Update
A few weeks ago, we at BreakTheMatrix.com and ThirdPartyTicket.com invited every presidential candidate having a mathematical chance of winning the 2008 election to participate in an online debate to be streamed via BreakTheMatrix.com. Soon after our offer to the candidates, we were approached by Christina Tobin of FreeAndEqual.org, and asked to try to expand the debate to a live event so that more media could cover the debate. More media coverage means more reach to the American public, which is good for the candidates, their supporters and the country. We gladly accepted the challenge and began to work with FreeAndEqual.org to that end.

Despite our efforts, we encountered a number of challenges. Most of the candidates had packed schedules and availability conflicts, especially when limited in choice by venue availability. About one week ago, we at BreakTheMatrix.com decided that due to the scheduling difficulties, we would serve the community best by offering an online debate as per our original intent, while Christina Tobin and FreeAndEqual.org continued to pursue the live event.

Today the candidates have two options available to them. The live debate event scheduled in New York City on Oct 19th at 8pm EST at Columbia University, or the online event to be streamed via BreakTheMatrix.com/ThirdPartyTicket.com on the same date from 7pm to 9pm EST. At this moment, the only candidate who is confirmed (for the web event) is Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party. To be fair, the Chuck Baldwin campaign had made a commitment to attend the live debate when the date of the 17th was considered (the date was changed due to the 19th due to venue availability), and Ralph Nader sent out to his email list to try to build momentum for the debates. These candidates have made attempts to work together, and they should be commended for their efforts.

It is our understanding that the event of the 19th may still happen in New York, and we will be sure to keep you updated if it does. If that event does not happen, and if no other candidates can make the online debate we are offering on the 19th, we at BreakTheMatrix.com/ThirdPartyTicket.com are offering a standing web cam debate to all candidates on any day from here until the November 4th election. We are asking all candidates to submit to us the dates they are available and in turn we will offer the candidates a debate on a day they are all available. The online debate format offers the candidates a great deal of flexibility, and is a viable solution to the current scheduling conflicts. All that is required of them is a web camera, a phone, a computer with an internet connection and about 2 hours of time on any given evening. We are committed to making this debate happen, and hope the third party candidates will continue to work with us.

On a closing note, we would like to thank Christina Tobin and all those who work with her at FreeAndEqual.org. No matter the outcome of the NYC event, they have been persistent in organizing this event, and we appreciate their efforts.

Stay tuned…

Ballot Access News says

Nader seems to have concluded that he will only debate with Barr (except, obviously, he would also debate with the two major party candidates).

In the comments, Richard Winger provides the following explanation

Nader debated in 1996, once, with Harry Browne, John Hagelin, and Howard Phillips. He seems to have concluded from that experience that he won’t debate presidential candidates with a lesser campaign, any more. And he didn’t in 2000, and he didn’t in 2004. In 2004 there was a Badnarik-Cobb-Peroutka debate, but Nader wouldn’t participate in that.

In the meantime, Bob Barr blog says

Addressing the New York Times article from today and reiterating what Andrew Davis has already said, no one speaking from or on behalf of the campaign has has told any media outlet that Bob would not participate in this debate.

Our original focus, as Bob told Reason magazine a two months ago, was to get in the debates with Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama. Obviously that didn’t work out and our options expanded.

We are open to the idea of a third party debate if Bob’s schedule permits and it is organized properly with details laid out clearly to the campaign more than a few days before the debate is supposed to take place.

IPR spoke with Christopher Thrasher of Free and Equal. He related the following (going by my notes, please pardon and correct any mistake):

1. Free and Equal did not say which candidates would attend its debate. The confusion came in because when you go to

http://freeandequal.org/

and go to news

http://freeandequal.org/news.php

What is there is actually an article from the NY Times, not a press release from Free and Equal.

Thrasher said that in fact, Free and Equal had learned that Nader was “likely” to attend their event and that McKinney “would be” attending it from the NY Times (that is, from the article posted on their site).

It appears that in the case of McKinney, the NY Times reporter may have been confused, and that she was in fact referring to the ThirdParty Ticket debate, which is the one her website says she will be at.

2. According to Thrasher, national Green Party members reported being told by McKinney staff that other candidates (including Barr) had confirmed that they would be in the Third Party Ticket online debate.

3. Chuck Baldwin will not be available for either debate, but is interested in being in a debate in the future.

4. Amy Goodman will not be available to moderate, but may be available at a future time.

5. High level negotiations are under way between the Nader and Barr campaigns for a debate.

6. Thrasher said that Trevor Lyman lost interest in the Third Party Ticket debate; however, ThirdPartyTicket.com still lists Lyman as the contact (see bottom of page), and the site is still being regularly updated.

7. Thrasher said that Free and Equal would like to do more than one debate, as well as a VP debate or debates.