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: LibertyRocks
A questions: What would the Republicans have done back in the mid-1800s if the Democrats and the Whigs hadn't let Lincoln debate?

Sued them?

51 posted on 10/11/2004 5:43:06 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Jonathon Spectre
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.

He has an opportunity to debate; he merely needs to be at 15% in nationwide polls.

Of course, getting to 15% is too much like work for some folks.

52 posted on 10/11/2004 5:43:27 PM PDT by Poohbah (SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER...SKYBIRD SKYBIRD DO NOT ANSWER)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: Jonathon Spectre
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.

Please. That's pathetic. The main argument, which you've obviously ignored, is that there is no legal authority for this candidate to interject himself into what is basically a PRIVATE event. It goes against what the libertarian philosphy is supposed to stand for. It's hypocrisy.

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike the 'fringe' parties- they're willing to argue for certain principles when they benefit them, but once those same principles harm them, they'll run crying for the government to fix it for them.

It's just sad.
53 posted on 10/11/2004 5:44:05 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

OK, but is ASU the sponsor or the setting?


54 posted on 10/11/2004 5:44:29 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

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

It would be if that were the case. But the contention is that the funds are public, not private.

I think it's ironic that people who say things like that feel the need to obfuscate the issue.

55 posted on 10/11/2004 5:44:34 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
In today's activist judicial world, where the breaks always fall Democrat, who's to say that this isn't really a cover story by the Democrats to weasel out of the third debate so as not to give George Bush one more national stage to shine on?

-PJ

56 posted on 10/11/2004 5:45:23 PM PDT by Political Junkie Too (It's still not safe to vote Democrat.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
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!!!

Libertarians are more concerned with legal drugs than smaller government.

57 posted on 10/11/2004 5:45:56 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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?

The Libertarians are not a serious party. They attract fringe voters (witness their pathetic, and declining, performance over the last four presidential cycles).

It is not about fear; it is, in fact, about "embarrassment." Bednarik is even further left than Kerry in the war on terror.

Then there's that ole drug thang....

You can't really be serious about this. As someone else said, do the hard work and get 15% support, then you'll be allowed in. Suing your way into the debates is childish.

58 posted on 10/11/2004 5:46:41 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: z3n
Libertarian party is definately not well run at the mommet, or well represented.

Or well liked, and this latest stunt isn't going to help in that regard.

59 posted on 10/11/2004 5:46:55 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal Creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
The fringers are not part of the debates for the same reason children are not allowed to drive cars.

Typical goofy comment.

If you think that Democrats are adults and Libertarians are children, you shouldn't be allowed to post anymore than children should be allowed to drive.

60 posted on 10/11/2004 5:47:34 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

No, it's not obfuscating the issue. It's libertarians doing what they supposedly don't like - using the court system to interject themselves where the law doesn't allow them to be. It's just as bad as the lame democratic challenges to the florida results - use whatever tenuous links you can find to get a court hearing and hope you find a sympathetic ear.


61 posted on 10/11/2004 5:48:54 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
humanist moral-liberal construct rooted in fantasy ideology.

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

62 posted on 10/11/2004 5:49:44 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
A questions: What would the Republicans have done back in the mid-1800s if the Democrats and the Whigs hadn't let Lincoln debate?

The LP and their love for recreational drugs is nothing like Lincoln and the issue of slavery.

63 posted on 10/11/2004 5:49:53 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal Creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Libertarians are whiners. If the Libertarians would do the hard work of garnering 15% support, they'd be in the debates.

As it is, they can't even get 1%.

64 posted on 10/11/2004 5:50:05 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
"They attract fringe voters (witness their pathetic, and declining, performance over the last four presidential cycles). "

All small 3rd parties attrack fringe types. That is the nature of a minority party. If they weren't a part of a system that colludes to keep them from equal access to media, events, and funds, they would draw from non-fringe voters who don't normally go that way for the very logical and understandable conclusion that they would otherwise be 'throwing their vote away'.

Seriously, the closed mindedness in this thread has me thinking I should drop a protest ballot for Badnarik in November (I'm in Ohio. I hope it's not close)
65 posted on 10/11/2004 5:50:27 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Congressman Billybob

Thanks for your reply, I was personally unaware of your case. Honestly, I don't expect the debate cancelled, or that there will be a third podium, either.


66 posted on 10/11/2004 5:50:30 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

Liberty, I'm on your side here.
The ASU debates aside, the US taxpayer is raped too much by the two parties in their national conventions.
Not to mention matching funds for campaigns.
If anyone can give me a rational reason why MY taxes are spent to support ONLY two parties, please speak up.
My point here is that the government should pay NOTHING for anyone's campaign for election to any public office.
Period.


67 posted on 10/11/2004 5:50:32 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: z3n

If you vote for Bednarik in Ohio, you're nuts. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your "protest vote."


68 posted on 10/11/2004 5:52:10 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree
The underwriter.

From the article:

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.
The Arizona constitution prohibits using taxpayer funds for private gain, a provision that I suspect is more often than not ignored, (e.g., football/baseball stadia for the Cardinals and Diamondbacks), but which is nonetheless the law.

Probably written in the days before the New Deal when people were worried about socialism, don't you think?

These days, you'd have a tough time passing such a constitutional constraint on government.

69 posted on 10/11/2004 5:52:55 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
If you vote for Bednarik in Ohio, you're nuts. Nobody gives a rat's ass about your "protest vote."

Precisely the reaction I expected. Your taunt really drives me to want to do it. However, the idea that I could help Kerry win the election is far to alarming.
70 posted on 10/11/2004 5:53:38 PM PDT by z3n
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
No, it's not obfuscating the issue.

Of course it is.

It's libertarians doing what they supposedly don't like - using the court system to interject themselves where the law doesn't allow them to be.

Wrong on both counts. libertarians are not opposed to the court system. And where you got the bizarre idea that law doesn't allow suit to address grievances is anyone's guess.

71 posted on 10/11/2004 5:53:53 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur

Yep, it's perfectly legal to have some sort of cutoff point even if public funds are used, otherwise every crackpot would have to be allowed on stage.


72 posted on 10/11/2004 5:55:58 PM PDT by Moonman62 (Federal Creed: If it moves tax it. If it keeps moving regulate it. If it stops moving subsidize it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: z3n
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 the race for the presidency is about electing the executive leader of the United States, a very serious and important role. It is not about a freak show.

73 posted on 10/11/2004 5:56:19 PM PDT by Republican Wildcat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks

The Republicans were a major political force from the time they organized. They took 33% of the popular vote right off the back.

The Whigs went defunct after 1852. The other party in the 1856 election was the American party (Neo Know Nothings) - Miillard Fillmore's anti-Immigration/Irish/Catholic group of America-first bigots (predecessor to FRs little Neo -Know Nothing boder wedgie/anti Muslim mob) who took Maryland for 8 votes.

The 1860 was a multi party Republican-Two Democrat-Constitutional Union election where Lincoln won 59% of the electoral votes and about 39% of the popular vote. So the Whigs had nothing to do with Lincoln.

The LP has usefulness as an object of ridicule. That's about it.


74 posted on 10/11/2004 5:56:39 PM PDT by Barlowmaker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

My understanding is that libertarians believe in the rights to let private groups hold private functions.

And their big angle is that this is being held at a public university? This is akin to a group putting on a play using a public school auditorium, and another citizen suing to get a part in the play because it's being held on school grounds.

Libertarians would laugh at that case. However, since they're the perceived victim in this case, they're all for using the law to get their foot in the door.


75 posted on 10/11/2004 5:59:20 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Sam Cree

I'm pretty sur that ASU is not a "private business".
In fact it is a STATE University.
If ASU is a completely private college, then I apologize for my ignorance.
But I believe that it is a STATE run school.
Which uses taxpayer funds gladly.
So do the GOP and the DNC.
The LP doesn't.
Is that why you are so against the inclusion of a legitimate third party candidate?


76 posted on 10/11/2004 6:03:22 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I guess you admit that you think Democrats are adults but not any other party that has so far failed to garner the poll numbers to break into the rigged two party dog and pony show.

Truth be told, the phony poll numbers are the wrong criteria, a fair hurdle should be whether or not a party has attained the ballot. If it can do that in this fixed ballot access system, they should be able to voice their ideas, for better or for worse.

I'm not a Libertarian, but I believe in the market place of ideas.

The whole issue is whether or not public money is being used in a biased way. If the debates are privately funded and no stolen money is used, they can exclude anyone they please. It will be a sham, but hey, the whole thing is a sham.

What all you people are afraid of, is the real question.

77 posted on 10/11/2004 6:05:33 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Flashbunny - They sued to prevent ASU from using PUBLIC money (Taxpayer dollars) to host this debate. They are not whining "I should be there!". The lawsuit itself while prompted by the exclusion is more about the proper use of taxpayer money and the procedures by which ASU funds public/private events on the campus. By their own admission ASU doesn't have enough PRIVATE money in pledges to cover even the ESTIMATED budget of the event, which would lead to the university being responsible for the remaining costs. Since the University is funded by taxpayers, the extra costs would then be paid by the taxpayers money.

Let them (ASU & CPD) show the judge they have collected enough private money to cover the debate and the extra security, etc... and there's assumingly not a problem then. If taxpayer dollars are going to be used, then they'd better buy a third chair...

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


78 posted on 10/11/2004 6:07:12 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny
My understanding is that libertarians believe in the rights to let private groups hold private functions.

First thing you have gotten correct. The rest of the analogy is goofy.

If you want PRIVATE debates, let the Parties involved pick up the cost. ALL of it. Otherwise, it's not private.

79 posted on 10/11/2004 6:08:32 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
Maybe you should read the first line of 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. "

Is bednarik even a resident of arizona? If he isn't, he doesn't even have standing to be included, because he can't claim to be an injured party no matter whether they raise enough funds or not (him not being an arizona taxpayer and all).
80 posted on 10/11/2004 6:09:58 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: LibertyRocks
If taxpayer dollars are going to be used, then they'd better buy a third chair...

They don't have to buy a third chair. All they need to do is let him and the Socialist have access to the room the next night. Case closed.

81 posted on 10/11/2004 6:10:01 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 78 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
Nobody's "afraid" of anything.

A presidential debate is between serious candidates who have a chance of winning.

Bednarik...well you know the rest.

82 posted on 10/11/2004 6:10:53 PM PDT by sinkspur ("I exist in the fevered swamps of traditional arcana. "--Cardinal Fanfani)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: dAnconia

If that is your augment. Every candidate would have to be there at the debate It would be like the California recall election debate where there were dozens of candidates. You don't learn anything there except who is the best one line artist. I think it should be canidates that have a chance to win. Ross Perot had a chance to win, but all he did was put Bill Clinton into the white house, he took all the moderate votes from Bush 41.


83 posted on 10/11/2004 6:11:12 PM PDT by OKSTATE99 (Oklahoma Republican)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: logician2u

I approve of that clause in the Arizona constitution.
Otherwise, though, I am more confused than I was before concerning exactly who is responsible for the debates.


84 posted on 10/11/2004 6:11:17 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Republican Wildcat
. . a very serious and important role. It is not about a freak show.

From the comments I've seen here following the recent Bush/Kerry "debates," I would have to disagree with you, RW. Kerry has been called everything but human.

If you can, put yourself in the shoes of the estimated one-third of the voting-age population which aligns itself with neither of the dominant political parties. Then ask yourself, why am I asked to choose between the candidate from Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, whose disagreement on the most trivial matters would, to an outsider, seem almost contrived.

As a political junkie, you no doubt are familiar with what the Libertarian Party stands for, are you not? And the Constitution Party, also? And the Reformers, if they have a platform left after the 2000 fiasco?

Don't you think the vast unwashed who read only the sports page and maybe the horoscope column in the daily papers are entitled to know that there are valid points of view other than that enunciated by spokesmen for the dominant socialist/fascist parties?

85 posted on 10/11/2004 6:13:18 PM PDT by logician2u
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: Barlowmaker

You may be right about the Whigs... I apologize. I should have picked a more reliable source of information before posting...

By the way, the source I used was the GOP website...

http://www.gop.com/About/GOPHistory/Default.aspx
"In 1856, the Republicans became a national party when John C. Fremont was nominated for President under the slogan: "Free soil, free labor, free speech, free men, Fremont." Even though they were considered a "third party" because the Democrats and Whigs represented the two-party system at the time, Fremont received 33% of the vote. Four years later, Abraham Lincoln became the first Republican to win the White House."


86 posted on 10/11/2004 6:13:19 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras
If you want PRIVATE debates, let the Parties involved pick up the cost. ALL of it. Otherwise, it's not private.

It will not be known till AFTER the debates how the money was raised. Until the debate is done, Mr. B is not harmed.

According to Libertarian philosophy, you have to wait until AFTER you are harmed before suing.

87 posted on 10/11/2004 6:13:19 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: z3n
I tend toward Libertarianism..

However, much as I would like to see a Libertarian candidate in the debates, the party is not ready...
The Libertarian party still does not have it's act together..
It continues to support unrealistic goals, ( legalization of drugs ) ignore constitutional responsibilities, ( defend our borders ) and generally act like a geeky boys club instead of a political party..

Libertarians need to set Realistic Political Goals that fall within their philosophy.. show some responsibility..

In the meantime, I'll vote for Bush.. He's earned it..

88 posted on 10/11/2004 6:14:29 PM PDT by Drammach (Freedom; not just a job, it's an adventure..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
It is not about fear; it is, in fact, about "embarrassment." Bednarik is even further left than Kerry in the war on terror.

Not even Kerry believes that 9/11 was the fault of the U.S. At least I don't think he thinks that.

89 posted on 10/11/2004 6:14:48 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

no, not the first thing I got correct. Maybe the first thing you understood.

The parties involved - the republicans and democrats don't pay for all the cost. It's paid for by donations.

Most likely the sites for these debates all lobied for them to be held there. It's their responsibility to make sure they are paid for. Maybe next time they should hold it at a regular private theater and forget about trying to make these universities happy for the publicity. Maybe that will keep the small government libertarians happy next time.

I guess my analogy was a little off...because bednarik isn't even a resident of arizona - he's a resident of texas. So my analogy would have to be changed to a someone from texas lobbying to get a part in a play in arizona because it's being held at a public university in arizona.

Bednarik has no standing as a 'wronged' person in this case - he isn't an arizona resident. So trying to force his inclusion on the grounds they claim is even more absurd.


90 posted on 10/11/2004 6:16:45 PM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

Did you watch the Mr. B. debate on 10/6?


91 posted on 10/11/2004 6:16:53 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
A presidential debate is between serious candidates who have a chance of winning.

It's important to recognise that that is YOUR definition.

And the truth is, both of the major parties are scared to have any different ideas introduced to the public. It muddies up their little game and may result in them having to answer some really tough questions. They sure don't want that.

92 posted on 10/11/2004 6:19:03 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
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.

It's easy to knock down strawmen of your own imagination. Just make stuff up,,and deabte yourself! LOL

93 posted on 10/11/2004 6:21:08 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies]

To: dAnconia
"Is that why you are so against the inclusion of a legitimate third party candidate?"

I am not particularly against the inclusion of a libertarian candidate on principle. If taxpayer funds are being used to stage the "debates," I kind of think that everyone on the ballot should be represented.

I was thinking that the debates were privately funded, but if I'm wrong in that, and it's starting to seem that I am, then I am probably inclined to change my position.

I note that the Florida ballot includes 4 names other that the big 2, including Socialist Workers Party, Green, Constitution, Reform.

94 posted on 10/11/2004 6:22:34 PM PDT by Sam Cree (Democrats are herd animals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey
Did you watch the Mr. B. debate on 10/6?

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

95 posted on 10/11/2004 6:23:11 PM PDT by Protagoras (When your circus has a big tent, you can fit a lot of clowns inside)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: Drammach

Well put.


96 posted on 10/11/2004 6:23:51 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: flashbunny

Badnarik isn't the one suing. The Arizona LP is suing ASU and the CPD, on behalf of their membership and the residents of Arizona.


97 posted on 10/11/2004 6:23:55 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: OKSTATE99

I agree. But read my post #67, my problem lies with the funding of national campaigns by the Federal government.
If I vote GOP or Dimokrat, I still believe that my taxes should not go to pay for the other side. Or my side.
Using taxpayer funds for ANY political campaign is WRONG! PERIOD!
The way it is set up now, only two parties can ever hope to be heard.
The MSM knows and supports this.
If you treasure freedom of thought, you should be all for the repeal of all campaign finance laws.
Those who benefit are not likely to allow that.


98 posted on 10/11/2004 6:27:26 PM PDT by dAnconia (When someone makes something idiot-proof, someone else will just make a better idiot.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: Protagoras

If you really want to get torqued, go here!

http://usinfo.state.gov/dhr/democracy/elections/candidates_and_parties.html


99 posted on 10/11/2004 6:27:44 PM PDT by WildTurkey
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: WildTurkey

Mr. Badnarik is not the one claiming to be harmed in this lawsuit. He is not suing. The Arizona LP is. They are also stating that it is taxpayers who are being harmed already as ASU has only gotten PLEDGES of support from these private organizations and the costs of the debates so far have been borne at least in part by the university themselves.


100 posted on 10/11/2004 6:29:25 PM PDT by LibertyRocks (It's been a long time - hello to old friends here! (o:)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | 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