Skip to main content

Zogby: A Majority of Voters want Barr, Nader in Presidential debates

I'll let Zogby International speak for itself:

More than half of likely voters nationwide - 55% - want Republican-turned-Libertarian Bob Barr to participate in presidential debates this fall, while nearly half - 46% - said they think Ralph Nader should be allowed into the on-stage fray, the latest Zogby Interactive polling shows.

Among political independents, 69% said Barr should be at a lectern with Republican John McCain and Democrat Barack Obama, and a majority of Republicans and Democrats agreed. Among Democrats, 52% said they think Barr should participate, while 50% of Republicans agreed.

Thirty-nine percent of Democrats and 41% of Republicans said they did not think Barr should be included in the debates.

The younger the respondent, the more likely they were to say that Barr should be included. Those at each end of the philosophical spectrum were more supportive of the idea of including Barr and Ralph Nader in the debates, while those in the middle were less supportive.

As for Nader, who has run unsuccessfully in the last two presidential elections, 45% overall said he should be included in the debates, including 59% of independents. Among Democrats, 41% said Nader should be included, while 42% of Republicans agreed.


Meanwhile, as my friends over at Delawareliberal ponder the advisability from the progressive/liberal viewpoint of holding the first presidential debate of the season in a church, Bob Barr is now seeking an injunction against said church to force his way into the debate via campaign finance laws.

Barr's people make the case that he doesn't like the campaign finance rules, wouldn't support such rules, but that they're in place and in a campaign you play to win with the tools at hand.

A lot of Libertarians are condemning him for this, characterizing this as an unlibertarian attempt to use the force of the government to make a church comply with his wishes.

While I understand where they are coming from, I respectfully disagree (and, please remember, I'm not a Barr supporter). If it is acceptable to sue the government over ballot access (as the LP has found itself forced to do in a number of States), then it is only a difference in degree and not kind to sue the Saddleback Church. But wait, I hear people saying, the church is a private organization; that's different from suing the State.

Actually, no.

This church, like 99.9% of all churches in the country, routinely avails itself of government-issued privileges and protections that are not available to every citizen or organization. Implicit in that contract (they choose to receive certain tax breaks in exchange for following certain rules; a completely voluntary agreement, as they could do whatever they wanted if they didn't apply for preferential status) is the church's agreement to abide by Federal election laws.

Maybe I'm alone on this among Libertarians, but I have always seen government hand-outs like a vampire asking to come into your house. As long as you don't take the bait and invite the vampire in, you're pretty much immune to most of his evil. Once you let the monster in, you're screwed.

I have absolutely zero tolerance for corporations or churches that accept government special privileges and then whine about government intervention.

Barr should sue; Nader should join the suit. The polls suggest that a majority of the American people agree with them.

Comments

By now one would have thought Libertarians would have gotten over having a presidential candidate who doesn't act or think like a Libertarian. He isn't one.

Popular posts from this blog

Comment Rescue (?) and child-related gun violence in Delaware

In my post about the idiotic over-reaction to a New Jersey 10-year-old posing with his new squirrel rifle , Dana Garrett left me this response: One waits, apparently in vain, for you to post the annual rates of children who either shoot themselves or someone else with a gun. But then you Libertarians are notoriously ambivalent to and silent about data and facts and would rather talk abstract principles and fear monger (like the government will confiscate your guns). It doesn't require any degree of subtlety to see why you are data and fact adverse. The facts indicate we have a crisis with gun violence and accidents in the USA, and Libertarians offer nothing credible to address it. Lives, even the lives of children, get sacrificed to the fetishism of liberty. That's intellectual cowardice. OK, Dana, let's talk facts. According to the Children's Defense Fund , which is itself only querying the CDCP data base, fewer than 10 children/teens were killed per year in Delaw

With apologies to Hube: dopey WNJ comments of the week

(Well, Hube, at least I'm pulling out Facebook comments and not poaching on your preserve in the Letters.) You will all remember the case this week of the photo of the young man posing with the .22LR squirrel rifle that his Dad got him for his birthday with resulted in Family Services and the local police attempting to search his house.  The story itself is a travesty since neither the father nor the boy had done anything remotely illegal (and check out the picture for how careful the son is being not to have his finger inside the trigger guard when the photo was taken). But the incident is chiefly important for revealing in the Comments Section--within Delaware--the fact that many backers of "common sense gun laws" really do have the elimination of 2nd Amendment rights and eventual outright confiscation of all privately held firearms as their objective: Let's run that by again: Elliot Jacobson says, This instance is not a case of a father bonding with h

The Obligatory Libertarian Tax Day Post

The most disturbing factoid that I learned on Tax Day was that the average American must now spend a full twenty-four hours filling out tax forms. That's three work days. Or, think of it this way: if you had to put in two hours per night after dinner to finish your taxes, that's two weeks (with Sundays off). I saw a talking head economics professor on some Philly TV channel pontificating about how Americans procrastinate. He was laughing. The IRS guy they interviewed actually said, "Tick, tick, tick." You have to wonder if Governor Ruth Ann Minner and her cohorts put in twenty-four hours pondering whether or not to give Kraft Foods $708,000 of our State taxes while demanding that school districts return $8-10 million each?