Full Version: Bush-Kerry; Cobb-Badnarik; which was better?
A lot of ink has been spilled about the Bush-Kerry debate and we've had tons of threads started about the various aspect of debate #1. For those who lived under a rock or didn't see it for any given reason, you may view it here. At the same time, there was a third party candidate debate between Michael Badnarik of the Libertarian party and David Cobb of the Green party. To view the third party candidate debate, click here or here. You do have to put up with some Libertarian commentary before you get to the debate, but I think it's worth it. Also be prepared for about twenty minutes of "we've gotten the shaft, blah!,blah!,blah!" hand-wringing. Also watch out for Harry Browne who gives a long-winded speech on why third party candidates can't make it. Is the debate about the candidates or Harry Browne stealing the show?? Give it a rest Harry. 
Questions for debate:
1.)After viewing both debates: Who would you say you were most impressed with and why? What specific examples or instances made you think a given candidate had the best vision to make you vote for them?
2.)Who won the third party debate? Why would you say they won? If you are not a third party person-I would love to hear your prespective on this.
3.)If you are not a third party partisan, have you been swayed to vote for either Cobb or Badnarik?
4.)Why might other third party candidates not be invited to the third party debate? Where was Nader?
Questions for debate:
1.)After viewing both debates: Who would you say you were most impressed with and why? What specific examples or instances made you think a given candidate had the best vision to make you vote for them?
2.)Who won the third party debate? Why would you say they won? If you are not a third party person-I would love to hear your prespective on this.
3.)If you are not a third party partisan, have you been swayed to vote for either Cobb or Badnarik?
4.)Why might other third party candidates not be invited to the third party debate? Where was Nader?
While I agree more with the Green party, I think Michael Badnarik did better in the debate. He was generally more informed and composed, while Cobb was very emotional and was sort of shouting "Why wont anyone listen to me!!!" I was a little shocked by some of Badnarik's statements, though, like insinuating that creating limitations on gun ownership can lead to taking away religious freedom rights.. I just don't see that happening.
However, I have to be pragmatic and realize that only Bush or Kerry will win this election, so I might as well vote for the 'lesser of two evils.' If these men were running for something other than president, I would probably vote for Cobb.
I don't know about why Nader wasn't debating, but I'd just like to add that I think it's a shame that these men have to take the back seat to Democrats and Republicans by speaking basically informally in a half-full room being taped on a shaky camera. It's also terrible that most people don't have a clue who these men are or what their parties stand for.
Like I said, I agree with the Green party more than most of the others, but to tell you the truth, these two men don't seem very 'presidential.' Maybe it's just that I'm used to people like Kerry and Bush being in the forefront of everything.
However, I have to be pragmatic and realize that only Bush or Kerry will win this election, so I might as well vote for the 'lesser of two evils.' If these men were running for something other than president, I would probably vote for Cobb.
I don't know about why Nader wasn't debating, but I'd just like to add that I think it's a shame that these men have to take the back seat to Democrats and Republicans by speaking basically informally in a half-full room being taped on a shaky camera. It's also terrible that most people don't have a clue who these men are or what their parties stand for.
Like I said, I agree with the Green party more than most of the others, but to tell you the truth, these two men don't seem very 'presidential.' Maybe it's just that I'm used to people like Kerry and Bush being in the forefront of everything.
QUOTE
While I agree more with the Green party, I think Michael Badnarik did better in the debate. He was generally more informed and composed, while Cobb was very emotional and was sort of shouting "Why wont anyone listen to me!!!"
That was the exact feeling that I had of the guy. I've heard Badnarik numerous times, and although I don't agree with him on more than a few issues, he's rational and backs up his assertions using the constitution. Cobb was definitely too emotional-Howard Dean on amphetamines?? All kidding aside, he was not presidential in any way and did not exude any feeling of confidence in viewers(myself mostly) that other than bashing other people, he has no plans to correct things.
I haven't whatch this third party debate, but their was one during the Republican National Convention. You can check it out at c-span.com. So while I haven't seen this one, I think I can tell you my opinions on your questions.
1. Compared to the Presidential Debate and the Third Party debate of August, I would say Badnarik was the most impressive. One of the reasons I say this is his response to Cobbs proposed 'living wage'. Its not a matter of me having to pay my employees more, its a matter of how many do I have to fire to afford it.
2. All I can say is Badnarik convinced me to vote for him by simply stating how it doesn't make sense to him that people would vote for the lesser of two evils since your still voting for evil, and you don't vote for third parties because they don't have a chance.
3. Well, I am a partisian, although a couple issues I don't agree with my party. It swayed me to vote for Badnarik for the simple fact I want him to lead instead of voting for Kerry because I want Bush out.
4. In the August debate and October debates Nader and Peroutka (SP) were invited and both turned it down both times. In fact, Kerry and Bush were also invited.
1. Compared to the Presidential Debate and the Third Party debate of August, I would say Badnarik was the most impressive. One of the reasons I say this is his response to Cobbs proposed 'living wage'. Its not a matter of me having to pay my employees more, its a matter of how many do I have to fire to afford it.
2. All I can say is Badnarik convinced me to vote for him by simply stating how it doesn't make sense to him that people would vote for the lesser of two evils since your still voting for evil, and you don't vote for third parties because they don't have a chance.
3. Well, I am a partisian, although a couple issues I don't agree with my party. It swayed me to vote for Badnarik for the simple fact I want him to lead instead of voting for Kerry because I want Bush out.
4. In the August debate and October debates Nader and Peroutka (SP) were invited and both turned it down both times. In fact, Kerry and Bush were also invited.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.