Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case
The New York Sun ^ | October 11, 2004 | Josh Gerstein

Posted on 10/11/2004 4:55:37 PM PDT by LibertyRocks

Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case
BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 11, 2004
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/2962

The third and final debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry has been thrown into doubt after a state judge in Arizona ordered a hearing on whether the event, scheduled for Wednesday, should be halted because the Libertarian Party's nominee for president has not been invited.

Judge F. Pendleton Gaines III instructed the debate's hosts, Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates, to appear in his courtroom in Phoenix tomorrow to respond to a lawsuit filed last week by the Libertarians.

"I'm happy so far with the way things are going," an attorney for the Libertarian Party, David Euchner, said in an interview yesterday. "He did not have to sign that order. The fact that he did is a good sign."

The suit argues that the university is illegally donating state resources to the Republican and Democratic Parties by serving as host for a debate that showcases Messrs. Bush and Kerry but excludes their Libertarian counterpart, Michael Badnarik, who is on the ballot in Arizona and 47 other states.

"They can't have debates that make public expenditures for private benefit," Mr. Euchner said. "A.S.U. is spending its money in violation of the state constitution."

A spokeswoman for the university, Nancy Neff, said she was unaware of the hearing tomorrow. "If that's the judge's order, then we'll be there for sure," Ms. Neff said.

While the university is constructing a massive press filing center and has incurred large expenses for security, Ms. Neff insisted the debate will take place at no cost to taxpayers.

"We are not spending public money on the debate. We have underwritten it using private donations, in-kind gifts, and private foundation funds," the university spokeswoman said. "The price we've been working with is $2.5 million, and that's what we've been trying to raise," Ms. Neff said.

Major sponsors for the third debate include a heavy equipment maker, Caterpillar Inc.; a local utility company, APS, and an Indian tribal group that owns two casinos near Scottsdale, the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian Community.

Ms. Neff acknowledged, however, that the university has yet to raise all the funds required for the event, which is scheduled to take place at an auditorium on the school's Tempe campus, just east of Phoenix. "We're still raising money even as we work on it," she said, adding that at the last tally about $2.3 million had been pledged.

Mr. Euchner said the university's claim that no public money is involved is laughable. "The fact they've got their hat in hand helps us," he said. "The evidence is pretty clear that if there's a shortfall here that A.S.U. is holding the bag. They made, essentially, an interest free loan."

Mr. Euchner said the state's involvement in the debate is part of what many Libertarians see as a pattern of improper use of government funds to promote the two major parties. "Taxpayers foot the bill for the Democratic and Republican national conventions," he complained. "Anything they can get the taxpayers to pay for that way, they do it."

Several legal experts said the Libertarians face an uphill battle in attempting to use the so-called gift clause of the Arizona Constitution to block Wednesday's debate.

"It doesn't strike me as a very strong ground," an author of a book on the Arizona Constitution, Toni McClory, said. "It's not a violation of the gift clause if the state is getting something of real value." While state universities have been hosts to presidential debates in the past, Arizona State is the only one to do so this year.

Ms. McClory, who teaches at a community college near Phoenix, said the publicity surrounding the debate might be considered a substantial benefit to the university. "It's giving the university a great deal of public exposure," she said.

A law professor at the University of Arizona, Robert Glennon, said the court dispute is likely to turn on whether Arizona State is seen as discriminating against the Libertarians. He said offering the Libertarians the use of a similar facility on campus would probably be enough to fulfill the state's obligations.

"So long as the state has a nondiscriminatory policy, the fact that one particular party or one religion uses it is of no consequence," Mr. Glennon said. The professor noted that the requirements to bring a case for abuse of taxpayer funds are often lower in state courts than in the federal system, but he said he was surprised that the judge granted the Libertarians a hearing.

Judge Gaines was appointed to the bench in 1999 by Gov. Jane Hull, a Republican. In his show-cause order issued Friday morning, the judge also required that the university and the debate commission be served with the lawsuit by Friday afternoon. An attorney for the university accepted service, but security guards at the commission's headquarters in Washington ordered process-servers to leave the building, Mr. Euchner said.

Indeed, Mr. Badnarik and the Green Party nominee, David Cobb, were arrested Friday night after they crossed a police line at the presidential debate in St. Louis. Mr. Badnarik said he was trying to serve the lawsuit on a representative of the debate commission. The two candidates were released after being given tickets for trespassing and refusing a reasonable order from a policeman.

The commission, which is a nonprofit corporation, has insisted that it applies nonpartisan criteria to determine who is invited to the debates. The rules require that candidates have at least 15% support in national polls to qualify. None of the third-party candidates this year has met that hurdle.

Critics of the debate commission assert that it is little more than a front for the major parties. They note that the Democrats and the GOP issued a joint press release announcing the creation of the "bipartisan" commission and describing its purpose as facilitating debates between their "respective nominees." More recently, the commission has described itself as "nonpartisan," although its adherence to that standard remains in question.

Last month, a spokesman for the debate commission told the Sun that the panel could not comply with a provision in the agreement worked out between the Bush and Kerry campaigns that dictated the makeup of the audience for Friday's town meeting debate be one-half "soft" supporters of Mr. Bush and one-half "soft" supporters of Mr. Kerry. "We can't use soft Bush and soft Kerry supporters because we are a nonpartisan group, not a bipartisan group," said the commission spokesman, who asked not to be named. "We have said we'd use undecided voters."

In an interview with CNN last week, the editor in chief of Gallup, Frank Newport, said that more than 90% of those in the audience for Friday's debate had stated a "soft" preference for either Mr. Bush or Mr. Kerry. Mr. Newport did not indicate whether supporters of the independent candidate Ralph Nader or of Mr. Badnarik were considered for the audience.

In August, a federal judge in Washington sharply criticized the Federal Election Commission for ignoring evidence of bias on the part of the debate commission. Judge Henry Kennedy Jr. noted that in 2000 the debate commission gave security guards "facebooks" with pictures of third-party candidates and instructed the guards to prevent those in the photos from entering the debate venues, even with valid audience tickets. "The exclusion policy appears partisan on its face," Judge Kennedy wrote.

In a national poll taken in September, 57% of likely voters favored including presidential candidates other than the president and the Massachusetts senator in the debates. The survey, conducted by Zogby International, found 57% of likely voters in favor of adding Mr. Nader, and 44% in favor of including Mr. Badnarik.


TOPICS: News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: Arizona
KEYWORDS: asu; badnarik; bush; bushagreatleader; bushweloveyou; candidates; debates; election; electionpresident; ilovebush; kerry; libertarian; president; presidentbush2005; reelectbush; smokeadoobie; thirddebate; votebush2004; votegwb2004
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-360 next last
To: Protagoras
According to Libertarian philosophy, you have to wait until AFTER you are harmed before suing.

You have a vivid imagination. You haven't a clue about libertarian philosophy.

You mean that it is ok with Libertarians to sue BEFORE you are harmed? I thought their philosophy was "no-harm, no-foul". Where am I wrong?

101 posted on 10/11/2004 6:29:39 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

You still have responded as to how your previous claim of...

"The Libertarians are not suing to be included. They are suing to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a PRIVATE event!"

with the first line from the article:

"The third and final debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry has been thrown into doubt after a state judge in Arizona ordered a hearing on whether the event, scheduled for Wednesday, should be halted because the Libertarian Party's nominee for president has not been invited. "

Your version is even different from the official bednarik web site:

“If all of the candidates were invited, it might be portrayed as an educational program,” says David Euchner, the Tucson attorney pressing the Libertarians’ case. “When legitimate candidates whose names will appear on the Arizona ballot are excluded, the only word for it is ‘campaign commercial.’”

So he's not against taxpayer money being used for the debate - only if it's held without him.


102 posted on 10/11/2004 6:31:48 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

"the costs of the debates so far have been borne at least in part by the university themselves."

should read, "the cost of the debate so far has been borne at least in part by the university itself."

(I should probably finish editing _before_ I post, huh?) (o:


103 posted on 10/11/2004 6:32:16 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
They are also stating that it is taxpayers who are being harmed

They are NOT suing on behalf of the taxpayers.

104 posted on 10/11/2004 6:32:58 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
I thought their philosophy was "no-harm, no-foul". Where am I wrong?

I can recommend some books about different political philosophies if you like.

You really should read up before you start spouting nonsense. It makes you look silly and kills any chance of credibility for your arguments.

105 posted on 10/11/2004 6:34:13 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: Moonman62
"otherwise every crackpot would have to be allowed on stage."

It would make more sense to limit it to just those who are actually on the ballot.

106 posted on 10/11/2004 6:37:49 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
I can recommend some books about different political philosophies if you like. You really should read up before you start spouting nonsense. It makes you look silly and kills any chance of credibility for your arguments.

Just tell me which one you think it is:

A) It is LP philosophy to only sue AFTER harm is done, or
B) It is LP philosophy to be able to sue someone before they harm you.

Simple. Select one.

I claim it is A but you don't want to select either. Why not?

107 posted on 10/11/2004 6:39:29 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

And by the same standard, if the ASU debates are fully funded privately, then the organization holding the debate has the right to invite who it will.
Once again I am only trying to point out that our current system is geared by two parties, to remain two parties.
Campaign finance laws are structured to prevent any outside parties from gaining influence.
Still, I say put your money where you mouth is.
If you are GOP all the way, cool.
No one has the right to force others to fund ideas or idealists who are opposed to their own values.


108 posted on 10/11/2004 6:39:33 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

I would have thought you a libertarian.
Would it be possible to ask if you have a label that you consider appropriate for you political philosophy?


109 posted on 10/11/2004 6:40:01 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
Why are Bush and Kerry such frightened wimps that they fear openly debating third party challengers?
110 posted on 10/11/2004 6:41:48 PM PDT by Commie Basher
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dAnconia

Well, there's always the mechanism built into the CPD policy by which the Libertarian Party gets automatically included in the debates: all they need to do is get to 15% in national polls.


111 posted on 10/11/2004 6:42:43 PM PDT by Poohbah (SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
No, who did he debate and would I have learned anything new? I'm guessing not.

This is REALLY telling. Mr. B. goes on a national debate and Mr. P is not even aware that it occurred. And now Mr. P is upset that Mr. B is excluded from a national debate.

It seems that Mr. P. is not really very concerned about Mr. B and the LP when the people Mr. P. is arguing about are more informed than he is about the the LP and even took some time to watch the national debate that Mr. B. was in.

112 posted on 10/11/2004 6:43:04 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 95 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

If they actually WERE suing on behalf of the taxpayers, they would ask that the debate be shut down unless all money has been collected before the debate.

They're not doing that.

Even though libertyrocks claims otherwise, they're suing because bednarik is not invited. Hell, even bednarik's web site claims they'd be ok with it if he was invited. Which just proved EVERYTHING I've been saying in this thread, even though I've been attacked for being untruthful.


113 posted on 10/11/2004 6:44:32 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: dAnconia
"And by the same standard, if the ASU debates are fully funded privately, then the organization holding the debate has the right to invite who it will."

Yes. I agree with your 108 pretty much on all points, with the possible exception that I don't see a 2 party "system" so much as just the 2 parties doing what they can to hold onto power. Yes to your thoughts on CFR, though.

114 posted on 10/11/2004 6:44:55 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

just realized I should put untruthful down as 'untruthful', for the people that failed reading comprehension.


115 posted on 10/11/2004 6:46:18 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

----The Libertarin party is once again reminding me why I don't call my self a libertarian. They're sadly little more than a joke.----

Michael Badnarik guested on the Art Bell show this past weekend. Listening to him whine his way through a plea to be put into a debate hall with Bush and Kerry, three questions kept running through my mind:

1. Why should a presidential candidate now polling at around 1% on a good day be debating candidates with actual bases of support?

2. Coupled with this, why does a political party that, in 35 years of existence, has never managed to elect to national office so much as a CONGRESSMAN have any claim to a place at the presidential-debate table?

3. Why does Badnarik even care that he's not included in the debates, since John F'n Kerry is doing a fine job articulating his cut-and-run strategy on the War on Terror for him?

With what they're pulling now, I'm even less impressed with the Libertarians than I have been in the last couple of cycles. I'm libertarian in very many ways, but I want nothing to do with that party.

-Dan

116 posted on 10/11/2004 6:47:59 PM PDT by Flux Capacitor (Chris Reeve 1952-2004)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

I hadn't seen your post yet.... Here is my reply:

FIRST - and this is important - I am not a lawyer. I do not represent the LP, the AZLP, or any other part of the party at present time. Technically, I am a small "l" libertarian at the present time although I was active in the party a few years back. The following is my personal understanding of the case upon perusing the court documents and reading press releases, and media accounts of the events.

I believe your misunderstanding is where the media comes to play in all of this. The reporter is focusing on one aspect of the case. Unfortunately, it is a mere part and not the part of legal merit. The full charge against the university is such:

It is a misappropriation of taxpayer dollars to fund an event in which there are exclusionary practices. In other words, taxpayer dollars cannot be used to fund events in which private individuals or organizations could be deemed to profit and from which other parties are excluded.

The university's claim is that it is merely host to an event that will be paid for by private donations. The AZLP contends that taxpayer dollars are being used for this event.

Perhaps I didn't speak clearly in that post you cited either...
I said, "The Libertarians are not suing to be included. They are suing to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to fund a PRIVATE event!"

Perhaps, I should have stated it as follows, "The Libertarians are not suing to be included. They are suing to prevent the use of taxpayer dollars to fund _what_ should_be_ a private event. Furthermore, they are suing for the right of inclusion if it is deemed that it is being funded with taxpayer dollars and therefore is a public event."

In any case, I don't want to unintentionally mislead anyone Republican, Libertarian or otherwise on the exact nature of the case so...

***I will post a better explanation of the case itself in a few minutes taken from a more "expert" source, along with links to the actual court documents.***


117 posted on 10/11/2004 6:52:26 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

Thank you. I see what you mean. That clarifies my ideas,and I agree.


118 posted on 10/11/2004 6:55:27 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Please read my post #108.


119 posted on 10/11/2004 6:59:23 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: dAnconia

I read it.

If the CPD wishes to say 15%, 10%, or 5%, or whatever figure in nationwide polling is the trigger for an invitation, then that's their call.

Faced with the decision between doing hard work to get up to 15%, or going judge shopping, the LP chose the latter.

F*** 'em.


120 posted on 10/11/2004 7:04:06 PM PDT by Poohbah (SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: A2J
I think Bush should seize this opportunity to make a stand in inviting Nader and the Libertarian Party to this week's debate to see Kerry's attitude. After all, it has been Kerry filing suits all over the country in an attempt to bar Nader from being placed on state ballots. Bush could pull a "Reagan" and insist on their inclusion or threaten to back out.

Now that could prove to be a coup. He would appear the hero of free speech and Nader would get a voice. This is as sly as the Dems, something they would do under the same circumstances.

121 posted on 10/11/2004 7:05:20 PM PDT by Bellflower (A new day is coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

Perhaps IF the feds were to hand out more cash to everybody except the two major parties, there would be such a possibility, now wouldn't you agree?


122 posted on 10/11/2004 7:07:31 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Here is a link to the actual court documents, I will let the lawyers speak for themselves.

http://thelfactor.org/arizona_state_lawsuit.html


123 posted on 10/11/2004 7:08:39 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: dAnconia

Once upon a time, they were handing out money to the Reform Party...and then Buchanan cratered it.

Hell, the Libertarians could qualify for federal matching funds (a sign of seriousness; an even greater sign of said seriousness would follow when they turned down those funds on principle) at 5% nationwide, IIRC.

Bottom line: they'd rather be a bunch of a$$clowns than do anything that might actually get them closer to winning an election.


124 posted on 10/11/2004 7:09:56 PM PDT by Poohbah (SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: A2J
Afterall, it has been Kerry filing suits all over the country in an attempt to bar Nader from being placed on state ballots.

Just think if Nader was invited and Kerry did anything to keep him out what it would look like for him. Lots of Naderites would be outraged for sure!

125 posted on 10/11/2004 7:10:02 PM PDT by Bellflower (A new day is coming!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

all of which proves my claims which you tried to refute: They don't really care about taxpayer funds going to pay for this. If they did, they'd only be suing to stop it. Instead, they want to get bednarik in.

It will likely be shot down on standing because of their contrived reasoning. They have standing as taxpayers to try and stop the event, but they have none to get a third party (bednarik) who is non-resident into the debate.

Think about what they're ultimately trying to do. The logic, if you can call it that, is so contrived that it's ridiculous.


126 posted on 10/11/2004 7:11:09 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: Bellflower
Now that could prove to be a coup. He would appear the hero of free speech and Nader would get a voice. This is as sly as the Dems, something they would do under the same circumstances.

It could come with a double-edged sword in that Nader would add to the anti-Bush chorus, but would take time from numbnut Kerry, which would be the goal.

Bush being showcased between two flaming liberals? It would be beautiful to see.

127 posted on 10/11/2004 7:11:25 PM PDT by A2J (Oh, I wish I was in Dixie...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras; Cultural Jihad; yall
Cultural Jihadic :
[libertarianism is a] "humanist moral-liberal construct
rooted in fantasy ideology."

______________________________________


Kinda like your fantasy of a violent
theocracy waging holy war against our culture.
62 Protagoras

______________________________________


Good point.
FR's communitarian clique is here tonight with their bells on. -- Sad souls.
128 posted on 10/11/2004 7:15:12 PM PDT by tpaine (No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another. - T. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

You obviously paid no attention to my post #108.
I said,
"Campaign finance laws are structured to prevent any outside parties from gaining influence.
Still, I say put your money where you mouth is.
If you are GOP all the way, cool.
No one has the right to force others to fund ideas or idealists who are opposed to their own values."
The GOP and the DNC have no right to one red cent of mine that I do not donate VOLUNTARILY.
That they use MY money to further their political agendas without my consent is a cause of much distrust.
That is my point.
Whether you think the LP is a group of degenerates is your business. But your assertion has no meaning to me.
If you believe that the Federal Government should decide that you will be ruled over by one of these two parties, then do so without my support or money.


129 posted on 10/11/2004 7:25:27 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Have you read the actual court documents, yet?

They ARE requesting an injunction that it be stopped.


130 posted on 10/11/2004 7:25:39 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks; 06isweak; 0scill8r; 100American; 100%FEDUP; 101st-Eagle; 101stSignal; 101viking; ...

Third debate questionable ??? Ping


131 posted on 10/11/2004 7:28:19 PM PDT by MistyCA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: dAnconia
Campaign finance laws are structured to prevent any outside parties from gaining influence.

The standard response of crybabies everywhere. "WAAH! The system's not giving me everything I want on a silver platter! WAAH! It's rigged! WAAH!"

Will someone tell that overgrown mama's boy Badnarik to grow up?

132 posted on 10/11/2004 7:28:33 PM PDT by Poohbah (SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Some poor judge gave them a hearing? Woop de doo!


133 posted on 10/11/2004 7:34:13 PM PDT by A CA Guy (God Bless America, God bless and keep safe our fighting men and women.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MistyCA

Toooooooo funny, bet old MZ. HeinzKerry picks up the tab.


134 posted on 10/11/2004 7:34:19 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

"No matter what side of the issue you are on I think we can agree that an organization who would attempt to avoid legal service is not one that should be hosting debates, no matter who funds them or who is in them."
Hear, Hear!!!
I'm not voting for Cobb, or Badnarik or Nader, but I absolutely believe it is important to allow alternative party candidates to appear at these events. That way we can have real debate instead of bipartisan "blah, blah, blah."


135 posted on 10/11/2004 7:34:31 PM PDT by Commander8 (Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth? Galatians 4:16)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah
Libertarianism: Infantilism rooted in traumatic toilet training episodes.
136 posted on 10/11/2004 7:35:20 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
I can't understand all the ruckus when none of the LP's here even bothered to watch the national debate with Mr. B on 10/6!

The guy gets national attention and they are not even aware of it. I guess that is why the LP only gets about 0.36 percent of the vote.

137 posted on 10/11/2004 7:38:20 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies]

To: Poohbah

For one thing I am not Badnarik.
Again, I am NOT saying the system should give anything to the LP that it does not give to the GOP or the DNC.
READ CLOSELY!
I have said over and again, the Federal Government should NOT be handing out MY money(and,by the way,YOUR money too) for the purpose of campaigning for public office.
To ANYONE.
Is there something about this idea that makes you so angry?
Or are you just that obsessed with anti-LP rhetoric?


138 posted on 10/11/2004 7:39:00 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 132 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

Libertarian irony alert!

139 posted on 10/11/2004 7:40:02 PM PDT by FreeReign
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
Hey, this is actually going forward?

I first heard about this early, early Sunday morning. I put on WABC radio in the car about 1:30am. I didn't know that Art Bell was on. I left him on because it was a short drive, and this was what they were talking about.

TS

140 posted on 10/11/2004 7:40:08 PM PDT by Tanniker Smith (Random Childhood Memory #4: "You might, rabbit, you might.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

If the Libertarians are included, the 2 real candidates should back out.

I'm not interested in what an obviously losing party has to say.


141 posted on 10/11/2004 7:41:21 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Xenalyte
It's in the same place you find the right to privacy. Take a look

You mean the unwritten and unexpressed "penumbra" of rights that are there to be asserted when it pleases the courts, while plainly stated rights like those regarding arms, seizure of property, etc., are ignored?

The Libertarians are free to purchase as much air time as they can, given their enormous popular base.

142 posted on 10/11/2004 7:41:41 PM PDT by pierrem15
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Oh hell yes. Invite the Potatarian. He can promise two pot plants in every garage, and tax credits for Twinkies.


143 posted on 10/11/2004 7:42:08 PM PDT by Enterprise (The left hates the Constitution. Islamic Fascism hates America. Natural allies.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

The Republicans were never a 'fringe' third party. Upon the death of the Whig Party, a portion of the Whig constituency and other dis-affected (non-Democrats) created the modern-day Republican in 1854-1855.


dvwjr


144 posted on 10/11/2004 7:42:28 PM PDT by dvwjr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Tanniker Smith

The hearing is tomorrow morning.


145 posted on 10/11/2004 7:42:50 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks; All

There is a controlling case on point from the Supreme Court. In Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a publicly-funded debate venue may exclude candidates based on the reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion.


146 posted on 10/11/2004 7:43:26 PM PDT by calif_reaganite
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: xzins
I'm not interested in what an obviously losing party has to say.

Neither do the Libertarians. Apparently none of them knew about or watched Mr. B. debate on national TV last 10/6.

147 posted on 10/11/2004 7:46:13 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
They are also stating that it is taxpayers who are being harmed

Not so. They never state the taxpayers are harmed. If fact, the remedies listed do NOT mention taxpayer relief at all except the LP wants their money back if they are not included and the debate goes forward.

148 posted on 10/11/2004 7:48:32 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

If I were the President, I'd sent a very clear, back-channel word of warning to ASU and to the Presidential Debates Commission.

Deviate from any agreement and plan on be unemployed until 2008.


149 posted on 10/11/2004 7:50:46 PM PDT by xzins (Retired Army and Proudly Supporting BUSH/CHENEY 2004!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
"I'm happy so far with the way things are going," an attorney for the Libertarian Party, David Euchner, said in an interview yesterday. "He did not have to sign that order. The fact that he did is a good sign."

Since the judge did not "have to" it sounds like judicial activism. The same thing we have been complaining against.

150 posted on 10/11/2004 7:53:06 PM PDT by weegee (John Kerry: "I'm Oprah! EVERYONE gets a tax hike!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-360 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson