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 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 351-360 next last
If you are unfamiliar with this case you may wish to know that the CPD willfully, and _knowingly_ tried to avoid service of the orders to show cause.

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.

1 posted on 10/11/2004 4:55:38 PM PDT by LibertyRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: MistyCA

Ping! Please add to your bump list?


2 posted on 10/11/2004 4:56:50 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Great! Bring all the candidates in. Libertarian, Socialist Party, Green, Constitutional Party, etc. Heck bring in the dog catchers as well. The more the merrier. Should be quite a show and draw record viewers from around the world.


3 posted on 10/11/2004 5:00:15 PM PDT by ImpBill ("America! ... Where are you now?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

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


4 posted on 10/11/2004 5:00:16 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

I notice that too, nice catch.


5 posted on 10/11/2004 5:05:11 PM PDT by IllumiNaughtyByNature
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
"Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event."
Not at all. You are confusing Libertarians with Anarchists. Completely different. Libertarians do not oppose the justice system whatsoever. If anything, Libertarians have a problem with the legislative and executive braches of the government over-reaching their constitutional limitaitons.

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.
6 posted on 10/11/2004 5:06:09 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Yet again the moral-liberal Me-ocrats in the so-called 'party of principle' have shown they are no friend of liberty or the rights of people to live in the kind of society they want to live in.


7 posted on 10/11/2004 5:06:09 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: z3n
Show me chapter and verse where the Constitution says all fringed ideologues have a right to be heard.
8 posted on 10/11/2004 5:07:44 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

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


9 posted on 10/11/2004 5:10:15 PM PDT by Xenalyte (Lord, I apologize . . . and be with the starving pygmies in New Guinea amen.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
"Show me chapter and verse where the Constitution says all fringed ideologues have a right to be heard."

The constitution was not the salient point in my post.

My point was that libertarians stand for individual liberties protected from the group (mob rule), or more aptly, the government. This government has built in a system that is now constructed to support the 2 party system and exclude potential 3rd parties. This is very much in the spirit of libertarianism to give the little guy a voice against the powers that would exclude him.
10 posted on 10/11/2004 5:11:21 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

OK, I really like the Libertarian Party.... but they should cope with the fact, that they are at the moment an irrelevant party. In order for a third party to join a debate it has to get some sort of popular support (e.g. Perot and the Reform Party).


11 posted on 10/11/2004 5:11:34 PM PDT by Kurt_D
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: z3n

no, I'm not. I know what libertarians believe - I hold some of the same beliefs.

Here's an analogies for you: The masters. Smoking bans in bars. Libertarians trying to get into a private event via the the court system.

The commission is a private organization. Not public. It's made up of the two parties. There is not constitutional authority that can give a private party the right to force their way into the debate. The debate is being held with privately raised funds as well.

This is almost as pathetic as the constitution party candidate saying he'll ban all abortions with an executive order that re-inteprets the 5th amendment.

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.


12 posted on 10/11/2004 5:12:43 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

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

Reply: That's the point you failed to see. This lawsuit is being brought because this event is NOT being paid for by private money. ASU has only raised PLEDGES of $2.3 million to pay for this event. Their own budget shows a price tag of $2.5 million. Who is left holding the bag if they fail to come up with the rest of the money - the Arizona TAXPAYERS...

That's why this suit is being filed.


13 posted on 10/11/2004 5:14:27 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | 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"

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).
14 posted on 10/11/2004 5:15:21 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad

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


15 posted on 10/11/2004 5:15:50 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Ah, the lawyers' anarchist party with its dream for a borderless nation of lawsuits speaks again! Anarchists haven't changed at all since the early 1900s, and they continue to support their friends in that other Party. And this is my polite way of saying it.


16 posted on 10/11/2004 5:16:45 PM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

no, the suit is being filed because the libertarian party is unfortunately run by incompetents and babies.

There is no conspiracy to keep the libertarian party down. The party does that well enough on it's own.


17 posted on 10/11/2004 5:16:59 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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).

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.

18 posted on 10/11/2004 5:18:41 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: z3n
Nonsense. The mere fact that the Libertarian Party is present on the ballots in 48 states certainly undercuts your hyperbolic statement that the government exludes potential (or even viable) 3rd parties.

People are well able to see the shabby political product sitting on the LP shelf and choose, in a freewill choice freely made, to walk away from it. Any other explanation or rationalization is sour grapes.

19 posted on 10/11/2004 5:19:23 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
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. Afterall, 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.

20 posted on 10/11/2004 5:20:29 PM PDT by A2J (Oh, I wish I was in Dixie...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"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).
21 posted on 10/11/2004 5:22:14 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: z3n

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


22 posted on 10/11/2004 5:23:45 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (Rudi Bahktiar is hot!!!! Too bad she works for CNN.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
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.
23 posted on 10/11/2004 5:23:54 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: z3n

"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.


24 posted on 10/11/2004 5:23:55 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

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.


25 posted on 10/11/2004 5:25:25 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: MikeinIraq
"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.
26 posted on 10/11/2004 5:25:43 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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.

27 posted on 10/11/2004 5:26:50 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: All

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.
28 posted on 10/11/2004 5:28:18 PM PDT by familyop (Essayons)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"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.
29 posted on 10/11/2004 5:28:39 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
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.

30 posted on 10/11/2004 5:29:09 PM PDT by Congressman Billybob (Visit: www.ArmorforCongress.com please.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: z3n

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


31 posted on 10/11/2004 5:29:20 PM PDT by MikefromOhio (Rudi Bahktiar is hot!!!! Too bad she works for CNN.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: z3n; LibertyRocks

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.


32 posted on 10/11/2004 5:29:38 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: z3n

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


33 posted on 10/11/2004 5:29:43 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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.

34 posted on 10/11/2004 5:31:04 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"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.
35 posted on 10/11/2004 5:31:36 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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.

36 posted on 10/11/2004 5:33:59 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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

37 posted on 10/11/2004 5:34:45 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: z3n

"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.


38 posted on 10/11/2004 5:34:57 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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.

39 posted on 10/11/2004 5:35:46 PM PDT by Poohbah (SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"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?
40 posted on 10/11/2004 5:36:02 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

#5 would be an especially good idea. At least give it back to the states and stop the federal government wasting taxpayers money on overhead when the states could do it more efficiently.


41 posted on 10/11/2004 5:36:29 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: z3n

libertarian >>> Libertarian


42 posted on 10/11/2004 5:36:30 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Odd considering that these ideologues try to argue against drunk driving laws for the very same reason, that no one should be hindered from swerving just because they might careen into someone, or even hurt themselves down the road. Perhaps they can prove they were forced or defrauded by the Commission on Presidential Debates, since their 2000 standard-bearer had previously defended Osama bin Laden on the afternoon of September 11th as the poor victim of our foreign policy who was merely acting in self-defense against our supposed force or fraud.
43 posted on 10/11/2004 5:36:52 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
#5 would be an especially good idea. At least give it back to the states and stop the federal government wasting taxpayers money on overhead when the states could do it more efficiently.

Mr. B. is running for FEDERAL office on a platform to eliminate public education. Maybe you have more info on this but if the FEDERAL program is to eliminate state programs, isn't that a little against the grain of the constitution and states' rights?

44 posted on 10/11/2004 5:38:52 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
How utterly reprehensible to see people posting on FREE Republic saying that a "fringe candidate" who will be on the ballot in every state running for President should be denied the opportunity to debate.

Thanks, all you "The Republicans is mah TEAM!" nitwits for reminding me that so-called "conservatives" can be just as hypocritical and ignorant as the most mindless leftist shill.

45 posted on 10/11/2004 5:39:51 PM PDT by Jonathon Spectre (Nazis believed they were doing good.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

yes, it is. I wasn't commenting on the state programs (I even mentioned it going back to the states), just the federal involvement in public education---a place that it has no constitutional mandate to be.


46 posted on 10/11/2004 5:40:28 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: z3n

I think the point is that Libertarians are using government coercion to force a private business to give them a public platform.


47 posted on 10/11/2004 5:40:53 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

You missed my point. "Fringe" was in quotes because my point was that the Republican party was once a third party as well. My comment was meant to point out that simply because it is a third party doesn't mean it's on the fringe.

A questions: What would the Republicans have done back in the mid-1800s if the Democrats and the Whigs hadn't let Lincoln debate? What would your party have done then? Just given up and gone home? I think not.

Well, don't expect us to go home any time soon, either...
Another thing... If you REPUBLICANS who espouse smaller government and constitutional laws were doing your job - the Libertarians wouldn't be here in the first place!!!


48 posted on 10/11/2004 5:41:39 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
Thanks for reminding me. Bump this up to #1 on the list of things GWB fears from the LP:

1) 9/11 was the fault of the U.S.

Now that would be a tough one for GWB to answer in a debate.

49 posted on 10/11/2004 5:41:50 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
. . a private business . .

I think you have to consider ASU a public university. At least it used to be.

50 posted on 10/11/2004 5:42:47 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 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