On October 17, “ThirdPartyTicket” sent this press release, clarifying the status of both proposed minor party/independent presidential debates, the live debate and the internet debate.
On October 17, “ThirdPartyTicket” sent this press release, clarifying the status of both proposed minor party/independent presidential debates, the live debate and the internet debate.
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/update-on-third-party-presidential-debate-proposals/
IPR UPDATE @ 1706 Central Time
We received another call from Christopher Thrasher, quoted in the story below. There will not be a debate at Columbia University, and he is no longer with Free and Equal. He will be releasing a statement and providing details later.
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.
Earlier, I 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
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.
Earlier, I 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
freeandequal.org
and go to news
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.
Regarding Paul’s post:
I’m no fan of the NY Times but I doubt the times would claim candidates attendance have been confirmed with checking the accuracy first. Of course we may never know who they checked with (or whether they did at all but the supposition must of come from some place other than the NY Times).
Trevor Lyman (thirdpartyticket.com and breakthematrix.com) is still trying to have/host the online debate. The details are on the thirdpartyticket web page. I spoke to Trevor before he updated the page and the update concurs with much of what he said. He is listed as the contact because he IS the contact and he is making an effort to have the debate.
It seems odd that at 6:23PM Paul states Thrasher is no longer with Free And Equal but at 6:27PM he’s speaking for Free And Equal. Posted out of sequence?
FreeAndEqual.org no longer lists either Christina Tobin or Christopher Thrasher’s email addresses or brief bios (it had both as of yesterday) although the contact phone number is the one that Christina uses.
It seems that the physically located debate (as opposed to the online debate which is still being attempted) was announced to the media with very short notice and without candidate confirmation.
My fellow citizens:
Consider the simple question on Abe Lincoln: Why was he taken seriously when speaking at Coppoer Union ? – My take is that ‘he had an audience when having something to say ‘
I, like other US citizens, found the Democratic candidate Obama, and the Republican one, McCain, to be woefully inadequate in providing real answers to the important questions posed by Tom Brokaw.
In other words, to provide answers with workable solutions that have strategic vision for our nation.
Given the opportunity, any 2008 Presidential Candidate, that is worth their salt, should be able to address these questions forth rightly; and not by pointing fingers at others.
As a Presidential Candidate I did answer. This is in public domain: http://unity2008.org/Debates/Brokaw_SecondDebateQuestions.html
My answers are based on the book called the New Deal. As a Presidential Candidate, this is my platform and commitment to our nation. It was published in June 2007.
Like the book, the answers are written with the heart of a statesman, and the head of an engineer. Combined, this enabled addressing your debate questions competently with the passion and focus necessary for our nation.
Although a write in candidate for 2008 for those who feel empowered in at east five state, I believe what is written will meet or exceed the expectations of U.S. citizens for earning the trust necessary to lead our nation. Decide for your self !
Respectfully yours,
Orion Karl Daley
Presidential Candidate for 2008
for the Strategic Future of our nation
Author – The New Deal ISBN: 1419670948
Balanced Party http://unity2008.org
New York, NY, USA
Gene,
In case it was not clear, my several posts here are a copy of
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/10/update-on-third-party-presidential-debate-proposals/
The newest update is at the top, and they were originally posted at IPR earlier in the day.
You can see comments at IPR in the original by clicking on the link.
Since the first comment in the series is clearly timestamped from the original at 1706 central time, I am surprised you would not see that and believe the original was at 1823 (apparently of Alaska time).