I’m live-blogging the debate between Bob Barr, Ralph Nader and Chuck Baldwin. All three have a theoretical chance to win the presidential election but are, of course, mostly in it out of principles. You can watch the debate live yourself by clicking here.

The first question is about whether or not the three can join forces instead of working against each other. Wouldn’t that result in more positive results?

Ralph Nader agreed that they share a lot of views, helping American workers, etc. which he says are supported by a majority of American voters. However, he said, there are also many differences. “There are a lot of differences between us,” Nader said. “I believe in more candidates, more parties.”

Bob Barr said it was “completely ridiculous” to make such a suggestion days before the election. He then proceeded to explain the value and principles of his Libertarian Party, which are different, in many ways, from those of the others.

Chuck Baldwin went on to say that he was “very much pro-life and pro-traditional marriage,” so there are many differences. However, he said, “I am not sure I would oppose” letting different third parties merge with each other.

The second question was about impeaching George W. Bush: “we’re two months away from removing him from office,” Barr said thanking God,” so the point was “mute.” Nonetheless, Bush had overseen policies such as the illegal wiretapping of American citizens. Congress should have “looked into this” months and years ago, now is too late.

Baldwin agreed saying that point is indeed mute, but that it “illustrates the lack of accountability by the two major parties that control each other.” “The other branches” were supposed to bring balance, judgement and accountability. “The problem is that we did not have that accountability” for years, Baldwin said, because the two major parties are more interested in their own interests and not in those of the nations.

“Unanimity,” Nader said, calling the Bush adminstration “criminal.” He went on to say that Bush and his top officials can still be prosecuted for their “crimes” when they step down. The moderator then summarized the views as follows: Baldwin and Barr don’t want impeachment, Nader does. Barr then explained this not to be the case: Nader simply wants them to be prosecuted in a normal manner.

The third question was about social security, welfare, etc. The person asking the question – the questions are asked by the public not by the moderator – pointed out that America’s social security program will collapse if nothing is done. He wants to save his own money, and opt out of the social security program, do they support this?

Baldwin said he supported it, Barr did as well. The latter explained that both Barack Obama and John McCain are unwilling to talk about this subject because they know that it can only be fixed by radical measures, which they are not willing to make, fearing it may cost them votes. “It didn’t come up in any meaningful way” in the debates between Obama and McCain, Barr said. He also pointed out that the social security program is an act of aggression; if people don’t pay, they can be put in jail.

Nader disagreed, arguing that social security is necessary for quite some Americans while “the Wall Street crooks fill their pockets.” These normal Americans, Nader said, “work two jobs,” but don’t have education, and, if people can opt out of social security, they will have nothing when they are too old to work 80 hours a week in sweat shops.

The fourth question: Iraq. What to do about Iraq, which is becoming increasingly costly for the American people?

Nader said big negotiations should be started with all involved, and withdraw within six months or so. The money could then be used to improve schools, infrastructure, etc.

Barr lashed out at both Obama and McCain saying that the latter seemingly wants to remain in Iraq for years to come. Obama, he said, “is unclear. He talks a great game,” Barr said, “but he now seems to say we move them from one” operation and “shift them to another… to Afghanistan.” “We have to realize that we” defeat “terrorists” by fighting “smart,” not by occupying an entire country. “That is not good policy and it is completely unnecessary,” Barr said.

The last candidate agreed partially, but emphasized that Iraq should be left behind stable. He then said that, as president, he “would never invade a foreign country without a declaration of war by Congress.” If “we would have done that,” Baldwin said, “I personally believe Bin Laden would have been found and killed.” He then went on to say that “we cannot leave our troops in Iraq,” also due to the problems caused by Russia.

The last question was asked by the moderator who asked what the three candidates would do to help improve the American economy.

Nader said the U.S. should become less dependent on foreign countries for energy, other products, etc. The more the U.S. relies on itself, Nader said, “the better off we are.” He then went after globalization, calling it “an unhealthy form of dependency” and dubbing it “corporate globalization.” These corporations, Nader said, have no bond with the United States anymore, but only with themselves, and work with and strengthen fascist, communist and dictatorial regimes.

Baldwin: the reason for the high unemployment in the United States, for factories closing down, moving abroad, etc. is NAFTA. “It is essential that we bring our work home back to America,” the leader of the Constitution Party said. “I would like to get rid of the department of education,” he said to save money, and a bunch of other ones. “I would cut spending across the board,” he went on to say, and “charge imports” extra. This, he said, would “bring prosperity back” to the U.S.

Lastly, Barr: “what the federal government needs to do is to get out of the way.” The government has to do away with most regulations, such as CAFE (for the automobile industry). “In so doing we will indirectly make America more competitive in the global market place,” he said, unemployment would decrease, wages would end up rising.

The end.

As far as I know, PoliGazette was one of the few reasonably sized blogs to live-blog this debate, which is a shame considering that these candidates spoke far more openly and honestly about their plans than either Sen. McCain and Sen. Obama. And these candidates have a theoretical chance of winning the election, which should automatically result in them receiving more attention.