[...and thus, the more covert side of the Campaign for Kerry goes, big and bad from behind keyboards.]
Posted on 10/08/2004 9:55:37 PM PDT by soccer4life
8:38PM CT
The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.
Bunch of schmucks.
Since Bednarik is unemployed, cooling his heels in the hoosegow will seem like every other day of his unproductive life.
Idiots. Go home.....
I really feel the third parties are formed by the liberals in order to dilute the vote helping the democrats. They have no place in national debates like this. Perot was allowed before, and he succeed to help bring us Clinton for 8 years, which I feel was his intent.
Hey, if Nader wants to be on the Debates, I support that. (and that goes for the Libertarian too.)
Maybe Nader would've talked about how the Rat/Kerry supporters out there were trying to get him off of the ballot in most states. That would've been fun.
I'm surprised they found the place, since they're so afraid of ZIP codes.
And Nader would've diluted the Left wing vote. Heehee.
What's good enough for the goose (the Rats) is good enough for the gander (Repubs)
Sounded like a male Libertinian got into the debate with a question about deficits, taxes and war.
Vote Nader!
Way to go, Zell!
I believe Badnarik and the Constitution Party both have a legitimate place in the debates. As for the Green Party guy without Nader, I doubt he's on enough ballots to get 270 electoral votes.
Take them to GITMO :-)
If Nader isn't legitimate, the rest of the third parties aren't either. To be on the debates, candidates must be polling higher than 15%.
Agreed. I was disappointed to hear that they were banned. Wonder who made that rule? Americans have the right to hear what third party candidates have to say. Banning them from debating is unfair. Are the "two party" candidates afraid of what they might say?
Badnarik probably wrote the question, and handed it to the guy to ask.
No.
My sympathies to the Nader supporters in PA who have been denied the right to have their candidate on the officially-printed ballot. "Democracy in action", thanks to the Democrats.
I don't believe the CPD who we can and can't hear from. I'm backing Bush, but the CPD is a disgrace to our Republic.
I don't believe them either, but rules are rules, and I don't condone thuggery.
Right, and the Democrats accuse the Republicans of "voter suppression" and screeching "let all the votes be counted!", when they're doing the exact same thing they accuse the Republicans of doing.
I know everyone here is talking tough in saying they wouldn't mind if Badnarik was allowed to debate or on the ticket, but like it or not, this election *is* close, and Badnarik is more likely to siphon conservative votes than liberal... We really need every vote we can get, and I am actually a little worried he's getting this much attention about this... ok, not really worried, but I hope it doesn't get much more attention in the media. You never can tell what the media is going to pull next...
I like the idea of having a minimum threshold in polling for participation.
How else can you limit the debates to any number?
Not a big L, because the Libertarian Party is full of schmucks.
BADNARIK & COBB.....sounds like a puppet show...
CFD (Commission on Presidential Debates ). It was run by the League of Women Voters from 1976 to 1984, then taken over by a non-partisan Republican / Democrat group. The major parties had issues with including John Anderson and Ross Perot. Easy to understand why...
Exactly pupdog. If you can't win enough electoral votes to get the Presidency, there's no point in being there.
There's 6 in this race, right? (It hasn't been mentioned much in the papers this election. Or maybe I haven't been paying as much attention as I should.)
That is a succinct and superb analysis on this situation. LOL!
Yep. (Even if you agree that only two parties should be allowed, the rules about allowed hand movements are over the top). Is CPD a NGO? Or just a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt group?
I once called the Libertarian Party the Chicago Cubs of political parties. After reading this, Cubs fans don't deserve to be insulted like that.
Great question?
Why isn't anyone in the national media asking this question. I thought the media/press was the watch dog of the government? Not in this case.
Badnarik is on 48 ballots and DC, Cobb is on 36 and I think Nader and Peroutka are on 30 or 32. Depending on what states you are on, mathematically one needs to be on at least 25 ballots. By this then the Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Greens, Constitutions and the Reform (Nader) should all be included in true Presidential Debates not the bi-partisan infomercials that are set up by the CPD. The CPD is unconstitutional on so many levels. What Badnarik and Cobb did on Friday night was admirable. Add to it the lawsuit in Arizona to stop the debate on Oct. 13 and you will begin to see some heads turn.
Absolutely. For instance, they might have asked President Bush why he considers himself to be a conservative, or something like that.
Tell 'em to watch the 3rd debate at Ralph's house!
Art Bell interviewed Badnarik on his overnight radio show last night. After the interview Art offered 4 or 5 hours of prime overnight radio time to Bush or sKerry. It might be kinda cool if the Prez would do a radio interview... Someone might want to inform his team about the offer anyway...
Art Bell did a wonderful service to the LP last night. That was an incredible interview and Badnarik did a great job explaining his platform and giving details into how he would make things happen, Bush and Kerry don't do that at all.
I agree. The debates should include third party candidates. HOWEVER, admission should be limited to those either polling above a certain percentage, or on the ballots in a minimum number of states; otherwise, you'd have every little fringe group candidate trying to participate. Perhaps the town hall format would work well for a debate with four candidates.
Self-avowed Libertarian ideologues try to rule from the bench since all they need is one vote.
The debate in '92 with Perot worked. You are immediately saying that when these candidates get together that they won't be cordial to one another... Watch the third party debate which is on CSPAN right now. These four candidates all have great disagreement with each other but are able to sit and listen and speak when it is their turn.
By your thesis, Bush and Kerry wouldn't be able to do this. You are saying that they would not be able to sit in a room and actually debate a subject and do it in a respectable manner.
Excuse me, "liberty?" The debates, in case you weren't aware, are run by a private organization, a private organization that's free to invite whomever it chooses. You know, that whole "freedom of association" thing. No true libertarian would argue that anybody has a "right" to appear in a debate.
I said the Libertarian Party is full of schmucks, and I stand by that. I support the Party's platform 100%. But its tactics are inept and guarantee that it will remain a fringe party until it fades away entirely. Every four years they waste millions of dollars on a quixotic attempt to win the Presidency, when that money could be better spent on a few key winnable Congressional races.
If the Libertarians were serious about winning, they'd ally with the other third parties and devote all of their resources to implementing election reform, such as instant runoff or Condorcet voting. As things stand now, people like myself who agree with the Libertarian Party find it in our best interests to cast our ballots for Republicans.
The CPD is a private organization using taxpayer dollars to fund and bi-partisan infomercial. All of the debates are held on American college campuses not in private auditoriums. The universities when they are assigned a CPD debate, they are told to spend their own resources to put on the debate. Where do these resources come from? Taxpayers. THAT IS WRONG. That is a fundamental stance of the Libertarians and that is why Badnarik did what he did and take a stance and chance getting arrested.
He is a true patriot and we need more Libertarians like him.
You misunderstand me. I am in favor of third parties' inclusion in the debates. Badnarik, Nader, et al. would be the picture of decorum. The guys I would not necessarily welcome are all the small, insignificant parties such as the Socialist Workers, American Communists, etc. If they received enough poll/ballot listings then they could participate, but otherwise, they'd need to sit out.
The very thought of these two getting a wood shampoo gives me that special feeling.
The LP is small and insignificant. At the latest count, there are more socialists in Congress than LP'ers.
Third parties are allowed. Remember Perot?
Besides, you can go to CSPAN right now and see the third party debates.
Assuming I'm parsing this correctly, this is essentially correct. But if I may say so, you're not a very good libertarian. Below I explain why.
All of the debates are held on American college campuses not in private auditoriums.
You may be misunderstanding the meaning of the word "private" here. Universities are indeed public, in the sense that they are largely owned by the government. So, for that matter, is the White House. That does not give me the right to waltz onto either of these, pull off my pants, and plop down on the couch. Libertarians believe that publically-owned properties should be kept to a minimum, they do not believe that public property means universal access... which would have absurd consequences for national security, among other things.
The universities when they are assigned a CPD debate, they are told to spend their own resources to put on the debate. Where do these resources come from? Taxpayers.
And student tuition and fees. And donations from alumni. And from licensing fees for the school's athletic teams. Universities have many sources of revenue, of which taxpayer support is but one.
Some of the money a university shells out to host a debate comes from taxpayers, yes. So does some of the money that the university shells out to put on a lecture. That doesn't mean that any schmoe can wander onto the stage.
THAT IS WRONG. That is a fundamental stance of the Libertarians
That may or may not be a fundamental stance of the Libertarians (I wouldn't know, not being one) but it sure as hell isn't a libertarian stance.
Badnarik has the right to stand on that stage with John Kerry and George W. Bush? Why? Why does he have the right but not me? Why can't I be up there too?
If your answer is that Badnarik is running for President... well, so am I! Anyone can announce his candidacy. I think the fee is a few hundred bucks. Badnarik represents a political party? Well, I can start my own party, the Freedom Party, now do I have the right to debate? But, you say, Badnarik's political party is much larger than mine? Well, Bush's political party is much larger than Badnarik's.
and that is why Badnarik did what he did and take a stance and chance getting arrested.
Badnarik did what he did because he, like all Libertarian candidates for President, is a big huge attention whore.
CPD is a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt, non-profit, nonpartisan organization. They would lose thier tax-exempt status if they were bi-partisan, rather then nonpartisan. That's how the tax code is written.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.