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.
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.
That should read; "Third parties were allowed." Right? Perot isn't running in 2004. The CPD "debates" only had two parties in their debates this election cycle.
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.
Making Bush & Keary debate Cobb & Badnarik would endanger "national security"? It wouldn't be the strangest "national security" claim that I seen, but I don't really see the threat.
"And student tuition and fees. And donations from alumni."
Most of the funding is by (tax-exempt) corporate donations.
"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?"
Because your name isn't on the ballots in enough states?
"Badnarik did what he did because he, like all Libertarian candidates for President, is a big huge attention whore."
Based on the number of matches on Google News, he's not a very good whore. :)
Not because third parties are barred. It was because the third parties are irrelevant. I don't remember seeing Nader in the debates in 92.
No. Just in 92, third parties are allowed. It's just that Perot was over 15% while the LP is somewhere south of 0.4 percent.
They weren't barred from Friday's debate? I must have been watching a different debate.
"I don't remember seeing Nader in the debates in 92."
He wasn't there. That's how it's been since the CPD was take from the League of Women Voters.
The weren't barred. They just weren't invited. If they were of any significance, they would have been invited.
OTOH, It would have been a great distraction having Mr. B up there talking about an immediate withdrawal from Iraq, legalizing cocaine, ending public education, taking away social security, same sex marriages, opening the borders, no passports, no visas, ...
Could you imagine providing true equal time for every fringe nutjob that crawls out of the woodwork to demand their "Constitutionally-protected right" to a place in the Presidential debates?
"Candidate Number 83,487,995, Candidate Number 15,927,061 stated that you are a 'big butthead'. You have two minutes to rebut."
Excellent rule, eh?
Made by a team of Republicans and Democrats to benefit Republicans and Democrats. How awfully convenient.
As Badnarik points out, the debates amount to a taxpayer paid, government sanctioned commercial for the 2 majors.
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.