Bob Barr and Ralph Nader in the 2008 Debates
Target:
The Networks and the Campaign Offices of Obama and McCain
Sponsored by:
This petition is to give voice to the citizens of the United States to have the debates include both Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.
This petition is to give voice to the citizens of the United States to have the debates include both Bob Barr and Ralph Nader.
Please accept these signatures as proof that the current two party system is not working and the American People want Bob Barr and Ralph Nader to be included in the 2008 debates.
We signed the "Bob Barr and Ralph Nader in the 2008 Debates" petition!
# 534:
3:55 am PST, Nov 10,
Ara Reyna Mamon, Philippines
# 533:
4:10 pm PST, Nov 2,
Sharon Lewis, Washington
In a country where we loudly shout about our freedoms, I want to ask, why aren't our other presidential candidates given the opportunity to debate in the presidential debates? Is it all about money, or do we have a choice as voters. Who would you trust more with the security of yourself and your country, a man who allows partial term abortions, a man who agreed to fight and kill in Vietnam, or a man who pushed to get seat belts in every car in this country to protect its people as they drove on the roads? The choice is clear to me, and I want to see Ralph Nadar debate McCain and Obama on CBS. Let go, and give this man a chance to help America as he helped Americans before. Sincerely, Sharon L. Lewis
In a country where we loudly shout about our freedoms, I want to ask, why aren't our other presidential candidates given the opportunity to debate in the presidential debates? Is it all about money, or do we have a choice as voters. Who would you trust more with the security of yourself and your country, a man who allows partial term abortions, a man who agreed to fight and kill in Vietnam, or a man who pushed to get seat belts in every car in this country to protect its people as they drove on the roads? The choice is clear to me, and I want to see Ralph Nadar debate McCain and Obama on CBS. Let go, and give this man a chance to help America as he helped Americans before. Sincerely, Sharon L. Lewis
# 532:
7:06 pm PDT, Nov 1,
Joy Anderson, Texas
# 531:
8:41 pm PDT, Oct 27,
Blane Beckwith, California
# 530:
1:50 pm PDT, Oct 25,
Monica Borjas, California
# 529:
9:13 pm PDT, Oct 23,
Jenny Chung, Connecticut
More choices and more voices to help the country through this crisis
More choices and more voices to help the country through this crisis
# 528:
12:33 am PDT, Oct 23,
Jason Basse, Washington
Stop allowing corporations to control the destiny of the American people. Open the debates and let democracy flourish.
Stop allowing corporations to control the destiny of the American people. Open the debates and let democracy flourish.
# 527:
7:01 pm PDT, Oct 21,
Winford Nettles, Florida
Chuck Baldwin, Alan Keyes, and other qualified candidates also need to be heard in an open and fair debate of the candidates. A closed debate is only for closed minded sheeple!
Chuck Baldwin, Alan Keyes, and other qualified candidates also need to be heard in an open and fair debate of the candidates. A closed debate is only for closed minded sheeple!
# 526:
6:35 pm PDT, Oct 17,
John Ettedgui, Washington
It is not acceptable in a so called democracy to not have choice. When candidates have more than thousands of votes, they should not be ignored. With a better coverage, they might get much much more than only thousands...
It is not acceptable in a so called democracy to not have choice. When candidates have more than thousands of votes, they should not be ignored. With a better coverage, they might get much much more than only thousands...
# 525:
10:38 am PDT, Oct 17,
William Snavely, Kansas
Without open debates, democracy suffers. Television exposure in the debates brings candidates in front of millions of voters. Limiting these candidates to two parties reduces the choices that voters are aware of.
Without open debates, democracy suffers. Television exposure in the debates brings candidates in front of millions of voters. Limiting these candidates to two parties reduces the choices that voters are aware of.
# 524:
8:40 am PDT, Oct 17,
Vincent Williams, Florida
# 523:
6:21 pm PDT, Oct 16,
Christopher Tuck, Virginia
I am sick of Americans not having the choice they should ave. The position of president is more important than the tawdry going ons of the media and big businesses. We need to open the dbates before 2012.
I am sick of Americans not having the choice they should ave. The position of president is more important than the tawdry going ons of the media and big businesses. We need to open the dbates before 2012.
# 522:
5:07 pm PDT, Oct 16,
Joseph Smith, Kentucky
How would the Democrats and Republicans like it if we closed the debates for them? They have the nerve to close the debates!
How would the Democrats and Republicans like it if we closed the debates for them? They have the nerve to close the debates!
# 521:
1:55 am PDT, Oct 16,
Jane Yu, California
Of the people, by the people, and for the people. We, the people, want fair and open debates without the exclusion of certain candidates running for office. It is a legitimate request as citizens of this country that these candidates' voices be heard and our voices be heard. So hear this and hear it good, OPEN THE DEBATES We've had enough of your two-party circus!
Of the people, by the people, and for the people. We, the people, want fair and open debates without the exclusion of certain candidates running for office. It is a legitimate request as citizens of this country that these candidates' voices be heard and our voices be heard. So hear this and hear it good, OPEN THE DEBATES We've had enough of your two-party circus!
# 520:
5:14 pm PDT, Oct 15,
Jason Worley, Pennsylvania
Because we decide
Because we decide
# 519:
11:00 am PDT, Oct 15,
Kevin McVein, Oregon
# 518:
9:01 am PDT, Oct 15,
Andrew Dellinger, Tennessee
Virtually no one has been satisfied with the debates so far--except perhaps Barack Obama's campaign staff. The less substantive and contentious the debate is, and the less interesting the discussion--the better it is for the political front-runner, but not for the American people. Obviously, part of the problem is procedural. We have moderators who seem more interested in squelching than in promoting real disagreement. We have formats that rule out the genuine give-and-take of an organic debate. Imagine, for instance, how Sarah Palin would have performed if she had been called for ignoring questions and challenged for her repetitive canned generalities. Or, imagine if the presidential candidates each had 15 minutes to make their respective cases, followed by five-minute rebuttals and a question and answer period in which both could respond to each other. We might actually learn something about the candidates, other than their skill at dodging controversy. Rather than seeing these prospective presidents be forced to operate outside their own comfort zones, all the voters see are candidates doing their best to stay within their debate preparations--hardly "presidential!" However, the biggest failing of the three contests so far is substantive. For all of the noise and fury of the campaign, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain agree more than they disagree. Both support the $2 trillion succession of federal bailouts of anyone remotely connected to Wall Street or the housing industry. Both support an expensive, imperial foreign policy, in which the U.S. subsidizes its wealthy friends and attempts to remake failed societies. Additionally, both support massive regulation in the name of fighting climate change. Both backed warrantless surveillance of Americans' phone calls and email. Both believe in endless energy subsidies and regulation. Both spent most of their careers opposing increased drilling for oil and natural gas at home. Both want to increase the size and expense of the military--at home and abroad. Even their differences are distressingly small. Both would stay in Iraq for a time; they just argue whether the occupation should continue two or four years, or some other longer period of time. Sen. McCain used to join Sen. Obama in opposing tax cuts. Now, as a candidate for president, Sen. McCain says he is for them. To his credit, Sen. McCain wants to cut pork, but that is only about $18 billion in 2008, compared to the $2 trillion worth of bailouts that he supported. There is one more debate scheduled, and it desperately needs another voice: An alternative candidate to challenge the false, but shared, assumptions of Senators Obama and McCain. The political establishment has bungled America's foreign policy and wrecked America's economy, but refuses to accept responsibility for its mistakes. The conventional wisdom has failed, but the two establishment candidates will talk about nothing else. Add Bob Barr to the upcoming debate and open up its format, and I promise that the American people will enjoy a real debate that is focused on the issues. We will talk about substance, not fluff. And the American people will learn that they do have a genuine choice on November 4th--a candidate committed to making real change in Washington.
Virtually no one has been satisfied with the debates so far--except perhaps Barack Obama's campaign staff. The less substantive and contentious the debate is, and the less interesting the discussion--the better it is for the political front-runner, but not for the American people. Obviously, part of the problem is procedural. We have moderators who seem more interested in squelching than in promoting real disagreement. We have formats that rule out the genuine give-and-take of an organic debate. Imagine, for instance, how Sarah Palin would have performed if she had been called for ignoring questions and challenged for her repetitive canned generalities. Or, imagine if the presidential candidates each had 15 minutes to make their respective cases, followed by five-minute rebuttals and a question and answer period in which both could respond to each other. We might actually learn something about the candidates, other than their skill at dodging controversy. Rather than seeing these prospective presidents be forced to operate outside their own comfort zones, all the voters see are candidates doing their best to stay within their debate preparations--hardly "presidential!" However, the biggest failing of the three contests so far is substantive. For all of the noise and fury of the campaign, Senators Barack Obama and John McCain agree more than they disagree. Both support the $2 trillion succession of federal bailouts of anyone remotely connected to Wall Street or the housing industry. Both support an expensive, imperial foreign policy, in which the U.S. subsidizes its wealthy friends and attempts to remake failed societies. Additionally, both support massive regulation in the name of fighting climate change. Both backed warrantless surveillance of Americans' phone calls and email. Both believe in endless energy subsidies and regulation. Both spent most of their careers opposing increased drilling for oil and natural gas at home. Both want to increase the size and expense of the military--at home and abroad. Even their differences are distressingly small. Both would stay in Iraq for a time; they just argue whether the occupation should continue two or four years, or some other longer period of time. Sen. McCain used to join Sen. Obama in opposing tax cuts. Now, as a candidate for president, Sen. McCain says he is for them. To his credit, Sen. McCain wants to cut pork, but that is only about $18 billion in 2008, compared to the $2 trillion worth of bailouts that he supported. There is one more debate scheduled, and it desperately needs another voice: An alternative candidate to challenge the false, but shared, assumptions of Senators Obama and McCain. The political establishment has bungled America's foreign policy and wrecked America's economy, but refuses to accept responsibility for its mistakes. The conventional wisdom has failed, but the two establishment candidates will talk about nothing else. Add Bob Barr to the upcoming debate and open up its format, and I promise that the American people will enjoy a real debate that is focused on the issues. We will talk about substance, not fluff. And the American people will learn that they do have a genuine choice on November 4th--a candidate committed to making real change in Washington.
# 517:
6:50 am PDT, Oct 15,
Doug Rau, Minnesota
# 516:
6:42 am PDT, Oct 15,
Patricia Rau, Minnesota
How can the American people make an informed decision if ALL candidates are not equally represented in the debates? We have more than two choices for president, and we have the right to hear from all of them.
How can the American people make an informed decision if ALL candidates are not equally represented in the debates? We have more than two choices for president, and we have the right to hear from all of them.
# 515:
5:53 pm PDT, Oct 14,
David Randy Herrera, Texas
We must start including other voices in our "representative democracy". What a sham that we only have the two incompetent parties to choose from. We are the laughing stock of the world. Please allow Mr.Nader to inject some truth and reality into the presidential debates NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We must start including other voices in our "representative democracy". What a sham that we only have the two incompetent parties to choose from. We are the laughing stock of the world. Please allow Mr.Nader to inject some truth and reality into the presidential debates NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
# 514:
4:37 am PDT, Oct 14,
Anne Dailey, Kentucky
I really would like to be able to hear what the other candidates have to say. I have heard all the things McCain and Obama have been throwing back and forth and don't feel good about either of their ideas. If there are more people running and on the ballot why can't the American people hear from them? Are Obama and McCain not willing to give the American people a choice to hear all sides?
I really would like to be able to hear what the other candidates have to say. I have heard all the things McCain and Obama have been throwing back and forth and don't feel good about either of their ideas. If there are more people running and on the ballot why can't the American people hear from them? Are Obama and McCain not willing to give the American people a choice to hear all sides?
# 513:
8:43 pm PDT, Oct 13,
Danielle Robertson, Arkansas
# 512:
10:17 am PDT, Oct 13,
Mark Wedin, Netherlands
It's a scandal that the debates are not open to all the presidential candidates.
It's a scandal that the debates are not open to all the presidential candidates.
# 511:
10:01 pm PDT, Oct 12,
Name not displayed, Kentucky
We need CHOICE for CHANGE.
We need CHOICE for CHANGE.
# 510:
7:41 pm PDT, Oct 12,
Barbara Bishop, Mississippi
Barbara Bishop
Barbara Bishop
# 509:
3:46 pm PDT, Oct 12,
Name not displayed, Washington
where is fredom of speeech? I hear on the news how other countries control the voters and elections? what is going on here?
where is fredom of speeech? I hear on the news how other countries control the voters and elections? what is going on here?
# 508:
8:16 pm PDT, Oct 11,
Kristina Strickler, Kansas
Let Ralph Nader and Bob Barr debate with the others.
Let Ralph Nader and Bob Barr debate with the others.
# 507:
10:57 am PDT, Oct 11,
Heidi McCormick, Washington
As a free country shouldn't we have a choice and a say in who is our next president?!
As a free country shouldn't we have a choice and a say in who is our next president?!
# 506:
8:38 am PDT, Oct 11,
Jason George, Virginia
We need more choices.
We need more choices.
# 505:
7:59 pm PDT, Oct 10,
Name not displayed, New Hampshire
# 504:
6:05 pm PDT, Oct 10,
Eric Weflen, Iowa
# 503:
10:07 am PDT, Oct 10,
Ryan Ekvall, Illinois
Fair access to ALL candidates.
Fair access to ALL candidates.
# 502:
9:50 am PDT, Oct 10,
Nicholas Wolff, Florida
# 501:
8:40 am PDT, Oct 10,
Rita R. Lewis, Texas
It is totally unrealistic and biased that we do not hear anything about others running for president. Our election should be about which person would be best to be in charge NOT only whether or not he's a republican or a democrat! This is basically violating the other parties civil rights. Now get on that one barak and defend them.
It is totally unrealistic and biased that we do not hear anything about others running for president. Our election should be about which person would be best to be in charge NOT only whether or not he's a republican or a democrat! This is basically violating the other parties civil rights. Now get on that one barak and defend them.
