C-SPAN will broadcast the October 19 debate between Ralph Nader, Cynthia McKinney, and Chuck Baldwin, although it is not yet known if it will be broadcast live. The debate will be Sunday evening, October 19, at Columbia University in New York city. The moderator will be Amy Goodman of Pacifica Radio. It is possible that Pacifica Radio will also broadcast it. The debate is sponsored by Free and Equal Elections, whose webpage is www.freeandequal.org.
Bob Barr declined to participate because he is scheduled to speak somewhere else that evening. According to this MSNBC story of October 14, he will be campaigning at colleges in Ohio and Virginia during the period October 14-23.
Bob Barr should be going to this debate.
These are the candidates who could theoretically win and presumably Obama and McCain were invited as well.
This would be a good chance for Barr to gain some nationwide coverage.
I totally agree. Trying to place himself above the other minor party nominees/independent candidates is just plain stupid. Ralph Nader has raised three times the contributions that Barr has and Cynthia McKinney served in Congress at the same time he served. I think this is more bad advice from his campaign staff. (Hint: Russ, this is NOT Perot! There is no money to BUY loads of air time.)
I’ll third it. Unless the events had been setup well in advance of being invited to this debate, it would be better to be at the debate.
I knew this would set off another fire storm. I emailed the campaign and warned them that if barr doesn’t show it will look very bad especially given the Ron Paul fiasco. I also told them my advice if this debate is good enough for Nader, then it should be good enough for Barr. I told them Barr is not Ross Perot. Oh well.
The excuse that previous engagements have been made is true but so what, cancel them. Priorites friends !
I told them that If Barr doesn’t show ( and he still has time to change his mind) I will change my vote from Barr to Nader. And I will keep my word.
if Pacifica and/or C-SPAN broadcast this — live or not — yes, Barr needs to be there. heck, at this point, we’re at the endgame, and while he may have nothing to gain by showing up for this event, he certaily has nothing to lose either.
just do it, man.
this just in: Barr’s schedule next week just opened up a bit…
Presidential Candidate Bob Barr’s Visit to Thomas More Canceled
The visit from Presidential Candidate, Bob Barr, scheduled for Wednesday, October 22 at 2:30 p.m. has been canceled. Thomas More College, in consultation with Bishop Roger Foys, Bishop of the Diocese of Covington, felt it best not to host the event at this time. The decision to cancel the speaking engagement is based on Barr’s positions on some life issues that are not consistent with the teachings of the Catholic Church.
wtf…
You know, Bob Barr is a bit wishy-washy. Seems his voting record is a bit wishy-washy too. It’s funny Bob Barr gained his fame by being one of the leaders advocating impeachment of Bill Clinton. Now we have the most multi-impeachable president in history and where is he now? He voted for the patriot act then regretted it. He was for war on drugs now he’s not. He used to be against same sex marriage now he’s not. To be honest I’m not surprised he doesn’t want show up because the other candidates would kill him on his record. I definitely think it should be Ron Paul leading the Libertarian movement. And I’m a Ralph Nader supporter.
I definitely think it should be Ron Paul leading the Libertarian movement.
That’s a great idea. Problem is, Ron Paul isn’t interested in leading the Libertarian movement.
Great! It is about time someone will let Cynthia’s voice be heard on nationwide.
Vote Truth! Vote Cynthia McKinney! Vote Redemption! Vote Deliverance!
Is this the same thing as
http://www.thirdpartyticket.com/
?
That site says
“We will be holding the online debate on Sunday October 19th, 2008 from 7pm to 9pm EST. The candidates need only have a web cam, an internet connection, a phone and be available from 7pm to 9pm EST on Oct. 19th.
If all of the candidates can come together and make this happen we will be happy to pursue a debate at a physical location at a later date.
Please contact your candidate and let them know you want them to attend this debate!
Click here to contact Chuck Baldwin
Click here to contact Bob Barr
Click here to contact Cynthia McKinney
Click here to contact Ralph Nader
”
Same date, but no mention of a physical location or moderator?
If this is a different event, where is more info about this posted?
Bob Barr declined to participate because he is scheduled to speak somewhere else that evening.
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/events/
has nothing for October 19.
The schedule has him in Colorado on the 17th, Ohio on the 22nd (canceled according to one of the comments above), and Georgia on the 23rd.
Are there events that have not been added to his published schedule actually scheduled, or is the real reason something else?
At this point, it would seem rather implausible for Mr. Barr to claim that he is too far ahead of Ralph Nader and the other candidates in this event to debate them.
Particularly while he is trying to make a case that Obama and McCain should debate him!
This is the thirdpartyticket.com debate.
Barr’s campaign says he is holding a fund-raising event on Sunday evening.
Thanks Richard!
Odd that thirdpartyticket.com does not list does not list Columbia, Amy Goodman, candidates who have agreed to participate, or CSPAN.
Did Trevor Lyman email/call you, or is all this posted somewhere else? (If you can’t tell me, that’s fine. I’ll just list you as the source. But it’s still strange they have not put any of these developments on their own webpage).
I also find it odd that the Barr campaign does not list the fundraising dinner on their events page. Wouldn’t it benefit them to have those listed, with the hopes of increasing attendance from people who find out about it only by visiting the webpage, and then might come to the event and contribute as a result?
the debate IS a fundraising event…
At the start of the debate we will launch a money bomb for each of the candidates. Contributions will be made directly to the candidates via their respective websites. ThirdPartyTicket.com will report the totals of all the candidates in one location as the moneybomb proceeds. If a significant amount of funds are raised for one or more candidates the mainstream media will take notice! Please spread word.
couldn’t Barr raise even more money at that other fundraiser by having the attendees watch the debate and participate in the “moneybomb” for Barr…? you know, whoever raises the most money “wins” and all that?
Bob Barr is not to be trusted, his voting record alone proves that. Not to mention this is the 2nd big event he’s decided is not worth his time. I say vote Chuck Baldwin, he is, after all endorsed by Ron Paul.
If Bob Barr is committed to be in a physical location other than NYC that night, my recommendation (not that the campaign would listen to me, LOL) would be:
Stream Barr into the debate from his location, if technically feasible. Steve Gordon would know how to do it on the Barr campaign end, at a minimum, unless the location makes it impossible. I would think that between all the resources of the sponsors of the debate, CSPAN, Democracy Now and Pacifica, they could figure out how to do it on their end.
Play the debate live at the Barr fundraiser.
That way, Barr can benefit both from the C-SPAN audience/moneybomb as well as the advantage of being in person at his fundraising event.
I think this would draw more people to his event than a standard meet and greet would. Of course, that assumes that the campaign is actually interested in getting people to the fundraising event; perhaps they are not, since it is not yet on their website’s schedule of events.
My comment above is wrong. This is not the thirdpartyticket.com debate. This is sponsored by Free and Equal Elections, whose webpage I linked to in the blog item just now.
The thirdpartyticket.com debate idea is not happening.
Third PArty Ticket .com says that the debate is not at a physical location and that :The candidates need only have a web cam, an internet connection, a phone and be available from 7pm to 9pm EST on Oct. 19th.”
Hm…
I say vote Chuck Baldwin, he is, after all endorsed by Ron Paul.
Pastor Baldwin is too nonconcensually socially conservative, anti-immigration and anti-free trade for me, but those who agree with those positions should certainly vote for him, especially in those states where he is actually on the ballot.
To the extent that my vote would send a message, if I voted for him, it would send the message that the Republicans need to be play closer heed to the Moral Majority/Christian Coalition agenda, crack down harder on immigration, and institute an across-the board tariff. Sure, he is also for lots of other things I agree with, but the way that government works, on those areas where you want to increase the size and scope of government, you get a lot more attention than on those where you want to decrease it. Thus, I can only in good conscience vote for a candidate who would make government smaller in ALL areas.
Ron Paul’s endorsement alone is not enough reason for me to vote for a candidate with whom I disagree on so many issues. Ron Paul is IMO on balance the best member of Congress, and was certainly the best candidate with any sizable following in the major party presidential primaries, but he is not the Messiah.
Neither is anything that Bob Barr has said or done enough reason for me to support Pastor Baldwin, nor could it be; if I believed in voting for a candidate primarily so as to vote against another candidate, I would be voting for Obama. And I certainly will not do that.
If none of the candidates convince me to vote for them, rather than against another candidate(s), well…if I choose not to decide, I’ll still have made a choice.
Barr is afraid to debate anybody. He demands that BO and JM debate him but he would not be debate the other candidates he did do the third party ticket debate and will not do this one either. He also would not debate the other Libertarian candidates for president always claiming that he was not an official candidate yet.
this just in:
Still to Come, the Third-Party Debate
The only question mark is Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party candidate. Mr. Barr has made it clear that he will only debate Mr. Nader and no one else.
Christina M. Tobin, an event organizer and a Nader campaign staffer, said that she “challenges†Mr. Barr to show up.
“Let him show that he is a true Libertarian,†said Ms. Tobin, who described herself as life-long Libertarian. “This is a golden opportunity to get exposure and for people to hear his views. For him not to show up would be denying his Libertarian principles.â€
Come on, Bob… don’t sit there and take this crap. just show up.
My comment above is wrong. This is not the thirdpartyticket.com debate. This is sponsored by Free and Equal Elections, whose webpage I linked to in the blog item just now.
The thirdpartyticket.com debate idea is not happening.
Thanks for the correction, Richard.
With 9,541 people having pledged to donate to ThirdPartyTicket.com, I would have thought that they would make some announcement that it was not happening, and perhaps directed people to the Free and Equal debate?
It’s also rather odd that Free and Equal is still listed as one of the sponsors of Third Party Ticket, yet neither website clarifies this change of plans.
Is there something about this debate that Trevor Lyman, or the other sponsors of ThirdPartyTicket (dailypaul.com, breakthematrix.com, opendebates.org, stealbackyourvote.org) do not endorse? Has Free and Equal asked to be removed as a sponsor of ThirdPartyTicket?
I just saw this website yesterday on third party and strategies for making third parties viable (it’s from ’96 but I think it’ll do):
http://amyglenn.com/POLS/third_party.htm
Chuck Baldwin For President
Paulie,
Why is it that anti-illegal immigration always becomes anti-immigration? The founding fathers also would not have been free traders. The country was run on the income from tariffs for many years. The more I learn about Barr the less I like him. Originally I thought that if Baldwin were not on the ballot and Barr was I would vote for him now I think that if I do not have the opportunity to vote for Baldwin I will vote for Nader. The LP chairman here in CT does not even support Barr.
What I would like to see play out,
McCain goes to the debate, since he is all ready behind Obama in votes.
Potentially what this could do is draw some good national attention to the third party debate, causing Obama to lose some support(perhaps significant).
This would then force obama to attend a third party debate.
And lo and behold, america finds out that McCain and Obama are really McBama.
And peace and prosperity will return to america, and we will look upon the past 30 or so years as if we woke up from a very bad nightmare
Bob Barr is a neocon plain and simple. Just look at his voting record.
In Liberty
Bird
Why is it that anti-illegal immigration always becomes anti-immigration?
1) Why else would you make immigration illegal? I say legalize it.
2) In his case for Baldwin over Barr
http://thirdpartywatch.com/2008/10/05/lets-get-a-little-practical-why-im-going-for-baldwin-over-barr/
Cody Quirk references the site
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez2008.html
Which compares the five leading presidential candidates on a variety of immigration proposals. They left out Cynthia McKinney, whom I expect I would probably agree with more on the immigration issues than any of these five.
It is worth noting that I am in complete 100% strong disagreement with every single proposal they list as “excellent”.
Chuck Baldwin has an “excellent” rating from this reprehensible outfit on every single plank.
You will note that he also gets an “excellent” rating from them on the issue of “Reduce legal
immigration — Protect Americans from mass foreign worker competitions, congestion & sprawl”.
To be honest, I am not at all happy with Bob Barr’s grades from this repulsive group. I would be far happier to vote for him if he had an “abysmal” rating on every single one of their abysmal proposals.
The founding fathers also would not have been free traders. The country was run on the income from tariffs for many years.
They were wrong, and the tariffs hurt the country tremendously. They were one of the two leading causes – some people say THE leading cause – of the conflict most people call the “civil war” in the US. They were a major contributing factor to the world wars. They held back the US economically from what it could have been otherwise.
You can similarly say that the country now “runs on” the income tax, FICA tax etc. NO. It runs despite of the income tax, FICA tax, etc., and it ran despite of, not because of, tariffs in the past.
As with Ron Paul, I do not consider the founders to have been perfect, infallible or messianic. They did advance the cause of freedom on balance; but they also supported many things that were dreadfully wrong, such as the continuation of legal chattel slavery (and, for a period of time, of the genocidal slave trade), genocidal wars against the native population, state churches in several US states as late as the 1830s, the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, and so on.
Tariffs were among the evil policies they kept in place.
The more I learn about Barr the less I like him. Originally I thought that if Baldwin were not on the ballot and Barr was I would vote for him now I think that if I do not have the opportunity to vote for Baldwin I will vote for Nader.
None of these candidates has fully convinced me to support them. The “least evil” calculation seems a bit over-complicated, and its dubious result seems to be not sufficiently compelling to give me a reason to make the effort of penciling in a choice.
McCain goes to the debate, since he is all ready behind Obama in votes.
I’ve read that his contract with CPD forbids this, although I don’t have a source for that at the moment.
Bob Barr is a neocon plain and simple. Just look at his voting record.
His voting record is conservative, but not especially neoconservative. He says he has changed his mind on a lot of issues since then, although some of these changes don’t (at least yet) go as far as I would like.
If you preclude the possibility that anyone who has a bad voting record can change, you greatly hamper the ability of libertarians – or any alternative – to make a real change.
The questions of whether Barr’s change of heart is sincere or far-reaching enough are separate issues. But if his past record is all it takes for you to disqualify him, I’ll have to disagree.
Also, his record is mixed: on at least some issues he was one of the best members of Congress. On others, among the worst.
Why is it that anti-illegal immigration always becomes anti-immigration?
1) Why else would you make immigration illegal? I say legalize it.
2) In his case for Baldwin over Barr posted at TPW,
Cody Quirk references the site
http://www.betterimmigration.com/candidates/2006/prez2008.html
Which compares the five leading presidential candidates on a variety of immigration proposals. They left out Cynthia McKinney, whom I expect I would probably agree with more on the immigration issues than any of these five.
It is worth noting that I am in complete 100% strong disagreement with every single proposal they list as “excellentâ€.
Chuck Baldwin has an “excellent†rating from this reprehensible outfit on every single plank.
You will note that he also gets an “excellent†rating from them on the issue of “Reduce legal immigration — Protect Americans from mass foreign worker competitions, congestion & sprawlâ€.
To be honest, I am not at all happy with Bob Barr’s grades from this repulsive group. I would be far happier to vote for him if he had an “abysmal†rating on every single one of their abysmal proposals.
The founding fathers also would not have been free traders. The country was run on the income from tariffs for many years.
They were wrong, and the tariffs hurt the country tremendously. They were one of the two leading causes – some people say THE leading cause – of the conflict most people call the “civil war†in the US. They were a major contributing factor to the world wars. They held back the US economically from what it could have been otherwise.
You can similarly say that the country now “runs on†the income tax, FICA tax etc. NO. It runs despite of the income tax, FICA tax, etc., and it ran despite of, not because of, tariffs in the past.
As with Ron Paul, I do not consider the founders to have been perfect, infallible or messianic. They did advance the cause of freedom on balance; but they also supported many things that were dreadfully wrong, such as the continuation of legal chattel slavery (and, for a period of time, of the genocidal slave trade), genocidal wars against the native population, state churches in several US states as late as the 1830s, the suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion, and so on.
Tariffs were among the evil policies they kept in place.
The more I learn about Barr the less I like him. Originally I thought that if Baldwin were not on the ballot and Barr was I would vote for him now I think that if I do not have the opportunity to vote for Baldwin I will vote for Nader.
None of these candidates has fully convinced me to support them. The “least evil†calculation seems a bit over-complicated, and its dubious result seems to be not sufficiently compelling to give me a reason to make the effort of penciling in a choice.
citizen1 – you’re wrong, Bob Barr did debate his opponents for the LP nomination (on cspan).
In any case, he should participate in this debate. No one thinks he’s on par with McBama, so there’s no point in giving up the free press.
Ron Paul is a Republican and did more damage to the Third Parties this year than anyone could imagine.
Bob Barr should be at this debate. I don’t have much sympathy for third party candidates who complain about being excluded from major debates but skip out on the third party debates like this one.
citizen1 – you’re wrong, Bob Barr did debate his opponents for the LP nomination (on cspan).
He could not have very well skipped that debate and still hoped to win the LP nomination. The format was carefully controlled and the questions pre-screened.
All the other candidates for the nomination debated at several other debates in Denver, except Barr. All the other candidates, except Barr, debated each other at several state conventions before Denver. Barr spoke at many of those conventions, but since he was not yet a candidate, he did not debate anyone.
Paulie, I’ll take your word for it (I wasn’t in Denver) but I’m pretty sure I saw him in other debates. I remember seeing a Reason Mag debate on Youtube, for example. I think Barr is following bad advice here, he’s not averse to debating.
Reason mag was the only one. It was a joint forum, no back and forth. Root and Gravel were the only other candidates invited.
debate sounds nice
WTF BARR WHY ARENT YOU GOING?
http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/726125.html
This article says that the debate will be streamed on thirdpartyticket.com, and Barr only wanted to debate Nader.
Bob Barr shoots himself in the foot once again. . .
You’re all acting like any of them have a chance at winning. lol Let Barr ruin his campaign and get over it…there wasn’t a shot of him winning anyways.
What’s being done to reform Presidential debates? I say if you’re on a number of state ballots to hypothetically win an Electoral College majority, you should debate. I would support a proposal where the first debate would include all candidates on enough ballots to hypothetically win an Electoral College majority, the second debate would include candidates with at least 5% nationwide and the third debate with candidates with at least 15% nationwide.
Ben,
I assume you are right and that I misunderstood what I was told. Barr had many oppurtunities to debate and refused to that is a fact.
I think that Bob Barr and Alan Keyes were sent to the LP and CP convention to hi-jack those parties with neo-cons and one was hi-jacked and the other wasn’t.
barr is a disgrace to the libertarian party. i have no idea who im voting for yet, but im currently leaning towards either nader or baldwin, unless i can write in our true hero on my ballot dr. ron paul!
Bob Barr get with the program
I like Barr, generally, but his refusal to support the third party movement is pissing me off. None of them are going to win anyway, so why not make a statement? If all four were there, the debate would be a classic. Without him, much of the impact is lost.
The thought that keeps coming to mind when contemplating Barr’s choice to sort his socks on the 18th is that he may be afraid that he will show poorly against Baldwin (a great man whose party needs to become truly Constitutional). I have decided to vote for Baldwin, though I was for Barr before he took aim at first one foot, then the other.
Final nail in the coffin? Most likely.
Must have been too much of Borat’s cheese…
I will be writing in Ron Paul. If we all did that, wouldn’t the dictators and fascist get a big shock. And, we could actually win. Why not combine efforts and stand behind Paul. He is not the messiah, but he is the one thing we ALL agree on. Much better than McBama. I would like to see a list of Congress critters that Ron endorses. Here in Alaska we only have one in the house, and both of our senators sold us down the river on the bailout and patriot act. I would love to give some money to help some good people get elected. The presidential race is lost (unless we all write in Paul). So let’s get some congressional votes to overturn anything McBama bin Biden tries to do. Your congress critter or mine, a vote is a vote. Long live what’s left of the republic!!!! freezen@mtaonline.net
My co worker hit the nail on the head with the republicrats- you can vote for Darth Maul, or Darth Vader, but either way the empire is still in charge.
My projections for Vote Totals of the 3rd Party Candidates.
Constitution 100,000 to 200,000
Green Party 50,000 to 200,000
Libertarian 250,000 to 500,000
Nader (ind) 2,000,000 to 15,000,000
The Constitution Party will declare themselves the fastest growing 3rd Party in the country.
The Green Party will implode after this fiasco. McKinney is barely visible and her website is a mess. They had reason for optimism after qualifying for more ballots than 2004. Tonight after the 3rd debate McKinney was interviewed on KPFA Radio. She was asked if she would stay with the Green Party. She evaded the question. The Greens will be deposited o the Ash Heap of History after this showing.
The Libertarians continue their long slow arduous decline. After the dust settles they will find themselves Ballot Qualified in less than 25 states. 2012 should be the last for them.
Nader (ind) Nader has built up a strong base this year unlike 2000. Nader has communicated with several state parties where he appears this year that he would lend his office forming a national party if he breaks the 5% Threshold. But his Congress Watch Project will be the focus of his post election efforts. That undertaking would most likely be a 501c3 operation.
Nader’s vote total will be dependent on how badly the Republicans poll.
The projections of non-establishment parties vote totals is entertaining…for about twenty seconds. I think the only thing that matters is the aggregate vote against the establishment. Regarding the Libertarians (my party), the Koch machine (CATO Institute, Reason magazine) has been trying to kill the LP for decades. They may succeed, but by 2012 the country may be in active civil war.
I will be writing in Ron Paul. If we all did that, wouldn’t the dictators and fascist get a big shock. And, we could actually win.
In most states, those votes will not even be counted.
I have decided to endorse and cast my vote for Ralph Nader. I do not regret spending my money to the Barr campaign along with my efforts and time as I do wish Barr and The Libertarian Party the best of luck and I hope for The Libertairan’s Party sake, Barr changes his mind and attends the debate. For me this hesitation was the last straw.
To me this proves the Ron Paul fiasco was not a fluke and it seems just another mistake in a long line of mistakes during this campaign. WOW , barr really had a chance to explode but instead he has imploded. Oh well , no hard feeling, Best of luck, and keep spreading the word:
VOTE THIRD PARTY !
pls do not write in Ron Paul’s name, it will not be tabulated and this is a wasted vote
“Why is it that anti-illegal immigration always becomes anti-immigration”?
It doesn’t; but when (like the Constitution Party) you campaign for a “moratorium” (a complete halt) to legal immigration, then your position becomes one of “anti-imigration.”
paulie,
This is a pipe dream, but theoretically, if the plurality of voters wrote in Ron Paul’s name, and the officials didn’t count it, there would be revolution in the air (r3VOLution to be specific).
Maybe its just me, but probably because I blew off all my steam (and vote) at Barr during Snubgate, I’m not as angry at him right now as I should be.
If Barr had wanted to make a serious effort at getting record totals in this election, first thing he should have done was choose Steve Kubby as his running mate, instead of Wayne Asshole Root. Next, he should have fired Russ Verney, not make any remarks about Jesse Helms, and skipped the meeting with Al Gore. Then, he should have stood up against government intervention in the market (namely Fannie and Freddie) before it was cool and attended the Ron Paul conference and any third-party debates. He should have stopped his disaffected Republican appeal and started appealing to Paulites, anti-bailout people, and pro-civil liberties leftists. Had Barr done all of these things, he might be looking at Nader 2000 numbers, rather than Badnarik 2004 numbers.
HJ
Agreed on #55; as for #54 …no, you are not going to have a plurality, and no, you wouldn’t know it even if you somehow did.
State rules on counting write-ins are known ahead of time. Why would any state count votes that are ineligible to be counted? For instance, many (I think most) states requires write-in candidates to formally request to have their votes counted, and Ron Paul has not.
If a plurality of people wrote in “send me $5,000” would that make the feds liable for the money?
In her show on Thursday Amy Goodman did say she’d be the moderator for the ThirdPartyTicket.com debate, see
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/10/16/breaking_the_sound_barrier_third_party
YES!
Finally a real debate with real people talking about real issues!
THank you C-Span.
Thank you Nader and Baldwin.
Any third party that doesn’t join this debate is either stupid or a coward.
I agree, a 3rd party debate needs to be planned as soon as soon as possible for 2012, its only obvious, big government and big business will not let anyone inside their pearly gates.
It’s been confirmed! C-SPAN will cover it live. Nader and Baldwin have agreed to debate.
Please encourage McKinney to attend. In this NPR interview yesterday, she said her main goal right now is to open the political discourse. McKinney, Nader and Baldwin have a wide range of issues to discuss. The candidates will be able to ask their own questions. Oh my gosh, if she turns this down, just because Nader supporters worked to help make it happen, she is not doing her cause any favors.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95956631
I’ve talked to the organizers, because their mission and phone number and fax number are clearly posted. They have sent her campaign numerous messages and tried to get her input.
TONIGHT, Thursday, 10/23/08. C-SPAN, 9PM Central, LIVE, and also http://www.rtrradio.com/ will stream it LIVE!
Check out http://www.freeandequal.org for more info.
These will make the McBama debates seem like they didn’t even know what issues are facing or nation, or just didn’t want to mention reality to our people. Come on McKinney, you know you want to… 🙂