Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case

The New York Sun ^ | October 11, 2004 | Josh Gerstein

[z3n]

"LOL!!! Nader says the same thing.
The fringers are not part of the debates for the same reason children are not allowed to drive cars."

Nader will never appeal to a large segment of the voters. Even Ross Perot, with all the money he dumped into his campaign(s) and got into the debates could not muster more than small fractions of the voting population

Libertarian party is definately not well run at the mommet, or well represented.
However, the fear comes from the fact that the libertarian party, giving some good representation and enough momentum (not even as much as Perot got) could easily threaten to appeal to large blocks of both democrats and republican voters (the small government republicans and the social liberal democrats).

[MikefromOhio]

you smell fear? what your fringe group is getting excluded because no one wants to see them getting embarrased by the candidates? what?

[Cultural Jihad]

The REPUBLICAN party was once a "Fringe" third-party too.

Stop the presses! Our system of self-governance will catapult a fringe party to national prominence and majoritarian rule in spite of the supposed gubermintal conspiratorial oppression, provided their ideas resonate with a very large number of people. I'm sorry to break the news to you, but the LP ain't that vehicle since it is a humanist moral-liberal construct rooted in fantasy ideology.

[flashbunny]

"I smell fear. Seriously. Where does this kind of attack come from? Both parties fear the libertarian party far more than they do any of the others, including those who have had some limited success in the past (reform, green)."

Then you better check your deoderant. Seriously.

Listen, I'd like the libertarian party to become more popular. The country and the republican party need more libertarian principles to help it move back towards the constitution.

However, the party in its current state is a joke. Remember harry browne? The only person in election 2000 with LESS charisma than joe lieberman??? A man that couldn't lead a horse to water if he was on an island???

Second, the libertarian party's position on things like immigration and national security are a joke. I wouldn't trust them to secure my yard for a cookout, let alone the country.

You may get some jollies thinking both parties fear the libertarian party, but right now they're little more than a nuisance to them. Sad but true. Their leadership is plain incompetent and they don't know how to build a party. As a result, the expansion of libertarian princples are withering on the vine.

[Barlowmaker]

The Republican Party has never been a fringe party. In 1856, the first Presidential election featuring a Republican candidate, they received 114 of 296 electoral votes. The Republican Party, behind Abraham Lincoln, won the Presidency in 1860.

[z3n]

"you smell fear? what your fringe group is getting excluded because no one wants to see them getting embarrased by the candidates? what?"

I'm not a libertarian. I'm arguing this on principle, not because I am a libertarian. Go ahead and attack though. You prove my point when you act so reactionary and start assuming things like that.

[sinkspur]

Even Ross Perot, with all the money he dumped into his campaign(s) and got into the debates could not muster more than small fractions of the voting population

Another laugher. Perot got 19% of the vote in 1992, which was several million votes.

No Libertarian candidate has EVER gotten even one million votes.

The Libertarians disgrace themselves with their gutlessness on the war on terror. You boys better figure out that we have to fight these terrorists over there, or we'll have to fight them here.

And you clowns won't fight them here, either.

[familyop]

Folks, the Libertarian Party wants to eliminate "...all restrictions on immigration..." That's in its official Platform. There are other positions that extremely few of us would agree with, but read carefully through their Platform to find those.

See it under "Transitional Action" (which is under "Immigration").

http://lp.org/issues/platform/immigrat.html

This is another very polite method I use to disagree.

[z3n]

"And you clowns won't fight them here, either."

Yet another one making assumptions.
*shakes head*
Go back and read through my posts and you will see very clearly where my party affinity lies and where I stand on the WOT, for that matter.

[Congressman Billybob]

This is a tempest in a teapot. In 1976 I tried a case all the way to the US Supreme Court on the issue of the exclusion of both Gene McCarthy and Lester Maddox from the Presidential Debates of that year. As a matter of constitutional theory, the Libertarians are absolutely right, especially with the wrinkle that public facilities paid for by all the taxpayers are being used for these exclusionary debates.

With that said, this case is going nowhere. If the trial court issues an order against the debates, the Circuit Court of Appeals will reverse it in a trice. And they will use my old, failed case as a precedent.

Congressman Billybob

Latest column, "America Fails the 'Global Test' "

If you haven't already joined the anti-CFR effort, please click here.

[MikefromOhio]

no one else is smelling fear. You said it, not me....

[WildTurkey]

Congratulations. The LP is the party of the courts. Repeal almost all laws and then only AFTER you are harmed, you go to the courts. Note, also, that they want the court system privatized and subject only to a review panel consisting of, you got it, lawyers!

However, in this case the LP sued BEFORE they were wronged. Anything wrong with that picture? Can you imagine a world of private judges and everyone suing everyone for actions they think WILL happen but have not happened yet.

[sinkspur]

Then why argue for a bunch of cowards? The Libertarians would doom us all.

[WildTurkey]

In this case, why wouldn't a presidetial cadidate on the ballot be allowed to have a voice in a debate if there wasn't a two party collusion against it.

Because in the last election they only got 0.36 percent of the vote and polls show no improvement.

[z3n]

"Then why argue for a bunch of cowards? The Libertarians would doom us all."

I am for the libertarian candidate not being excluded from the debate, that is all.

[sinkspur]

I am for the libertarian candidate not being excluded from the debate, that is all.

If the judge forces the debate commission to allow Bednarik and Nader and Peroutka into the debates, the commission will cancel the final debate.

And that will be that.

[WildTurkey]

Both parties fear the libertarian party far more than they do any of the others, including those who have had some limited success in the past (reform, green).

GWB gets up every morning and worries about how he will counter the LP's proposal to:

1. Open our borders
2. Legalize gay marriage
3. Legalize cocaine for minors
4. Eliminate state sanctioned marriage
5. Eliminate the public education system
6. End the war on terrorism

[flashbunny]

"I am for the libertarian candidate not being excluded from the debate, that is all."

Then you are for using the court system to accomplish something that it has no constitutional power to do.

[Poohbah]

I am for the libertarian candidate not being excluded from the debate, that is all.

Then the Libertarian can do the legwork necessary to get himself to 15% in the polls--the CPD's long-standing rules have that as a trigger point.

But it's easier to go shopping for a loony-a$$ judge and sue.

[z3n]

"If the judge forces the debate commission to allow Bednarik and Nader and Peroutka into the debates, the commission will cancel the final debate."

That would be sad. Wouldn't it? If Bush and Kerry have nothing to fear from these "embarassment" candidates and parties, why would they throw out the debate? just to keep them from being heard? What?