Posted on 10/08/2004 9:55:37 PM PDT by soccer4life
8:38PM CT
The first report from St. Louis is in - and presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green Party) were just arrested. Badnarik was carrying an Order to Show Cause, which he intended to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). Earlier today, Libertarians attempted to serve these same papers at the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the CPD - but were stopped from approaching the CPD office by security guards.
Badnarik isn't unemployed. He's running for president. Bush and Kerry are drawing big government checks but are not doing their jobs because campaigning is more important. So Badnarik is smeared because he isn't drawing a fat government check to campaign?
Badnarik is smeared because he's a momma's boy who thinks he ought to be able to cut his teeth, politically, on the highest office in the land.
Let him run for city council, first.
>> Take them to GITMO :-)
Do you realize that ignoring a person's constitutionally recognized rights, declaring them an "enemy combatant" outside the laws of the US or the Geneva convention, and holding them indefinitely without due process or legal counsel is not the way the United States is supposed to work? Have you ever read the Constitution?
Yes, I saw your smiley face emoticon. But it's hard for me to read your statement as any kind of joke, given the recent blatant abuses of the Constitution.
Hey newbie.... Go back to DU
>> To be on the debates, candidates must be polling higher than 15%.
That makes as much sense as the advice my great grandmother used to give. "Stay away from the water until you learn to swim."
How is a third party candidate in the US going to break 5% of the polling without some coverage in the mass media? If this was a meritocracy, each legitimate candidate would be able to present his or her views in the nationally televised debate.
This looks a lot like the fix is in. Big Money buys both major candidates and the public gets to choose the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil.
Doesn't anybody want a president who works for the people instead of drug companies, oil companies, insurance companies, lobbyists from the association of trial lawyers, etc?
I read your comment back to me as coming from some anal retentive libertarian who might know a tiny bit about the Constitution, but doesn't know shiite about handling a post that was clearly humor.
Get a life and maybe you should wait a few days before you sign up and start lecturing people
See Ya
>> It hasn't been mentioned much in the papers this election.
It certainly seems like there has been a LOT less coverage of third party candidates this year. I wondered if the Nader curse of 2000 (Bush wins!) might have stirred up enough animosity that all third party candidates are tainted by association.
My other theory is the political situation has become very bad. Voter dissatisfaction has reached such a level that the third party messages would get a lot of traction with fed-up voters, so that message must be suppressed.
You'd think that two presidential candidates being arrested for civil disobedience would have been newsworthy, but no. The only way to learn about this issue is by digging on the internet. The story was spiked by all the major media outlets and is therefore below the radar of the vast majority of American voters.
>> rules are rules, and I don't condone thuggery.
It wasn't thuggery. It was a deliberate act of civil disobedience.
Badnarik had a legitimate claim that his voice was excluded from the presidential election process. He took the complaint to a judge in Arizona, in an attempt to participate in the Arizona debate. The judge issued an Order To Show Cause, requiring the Commission on Presidential Debates to appear in court to explain why Badnarik was excluded. He's on the ballot in 48 states (including Arizona) and the District of Columbia.
There was a previous attempt to serve the papers at the CPD headquarters. Security personnel stopped them in the lobby and would not allow them to reach the CPD offices. A copy was left and the security guard responded saying that the papers had not been served.
At the St. Louis debate, Badnarik and Cobb, in an act of deliberate civil disobedience, crossed a police line and were handcuffed and spent the evening in jail. This was not a violent act. They were not trying to break into the debate. They were trying to force the media to acknowledge their candidacies and allow them to explain their platforms to the voters. They were trying to offer a real choice for a change.
Learn to call a spade a spade.
>> They were not banned, just not invited
Prior to the women's suffrage movement, women weren't banned from voting, they were simply not invited to participate in the political process. For the first hundred years of our country's history, people of African descent were "not invited" to participate in elections either.
Right is right. Badnarick is on the ballot in 48 states and the District of Columbia. He's a legitimate candidate, and even in losing will add an enormous amount of substance and will provoke a lot of good thought in the presidential debates.
This issue is less about Badnarik winning in 2004 than it is about the Libertarian Party being allowed to reach an American audience. It's obvious that very few Americans are going to do the research needed to find the Libertarian Party website. That doesn't mean they don't have a valid message.
Polls consistently reveal that about 60% of Americans want the major third party candidates included in the presidential debates. This is how most voters decide between the candidates. If only the same, sad, old parties are represented, how will we ever improve the political climate in the US?
Barring candidates with less than 15% of polling is a chicken and egg argument that suppresses alternative parties and enforces the corrupt two party system where money buys access to government and nobody is representing the people.
Very few people vote for a candidate. Most Americans stopped considering political issues long ago and cast their vote against the other candidate. If you vote based on the choice of the lesser of two evils, you're still voting for evil.
Limiting media access to tightly control which candidates are viable is not right... unless you believe that money should be the sole determinant of what's right.
Wrong. Millions are going to go vote for Bush next Tuesday. We, unlike Libertarians, do not consider Bush evil.
Mr. B. was on two nationally televised presidential debates and the LP did not even issue a press release announcing the appearances. I don't think the LP is really ready to play with the pros.
>> ...maybe you should wait a few days before you sign up and start lecturing people
Sorry. I didn't know there was a waiting period. I did read some large bold letters on the Free Republic home page that said "Jump right in". So I did.
I'm also sorry if you interpretted anything I said as lecturing. I'm only presenting my opinion. I thought that was the purpose of this online forum.
If this is a cheerleading forum where everyone meets to reinforce their mutual political view, I'll move on. You wouldn't want me here, and I wouldn't want to be here. Just let me know the rules.
FYI - I believe in REAL fiscal conservatism. I do not see how anyone can claim the current administration has practiced anything close to fiscal conservatism. I mention this so the people on this forum can decide if I'm welcome here as someone with conservative beliefs based on a consideration of the issues, as opposed to a simple conditioned Republican response.
Hey slick, you responded to a comment I made that wasn't directed to you. Then you assume to know what I was thinking and then insulted my intelligence by questioning my knowledge of the Constitution. Now you want to give me an idiot lesson about "REAL fiscal conservatism" and then you describe my response as "a simple conditioned Republican response" Considering this is your first day here, I conclude that YOU ARE A TROLL
Hey slick, you responded to a comment I made that wasn't directed to you. Then you assume to know what I was thinking and then insulted my intelligence by questioning my knowledge of the Constitution. Now you want to give me an idiot lesson about "REAL fiscal conservatism" and then you describe my response as "a simple conditioned Republican response" Considering this is your first day here, I conclude that YOU ARE A TROLL
>> Mr. B. was on two nationally televised presidential debates
What debates? CSPAN? Relegating all but Democratic and Republican candidates to the third party debates, which nobody watches, is like sitting at the kiddie table at Thanksgiving. The message is, you aren't an adult, and nobody takes you seriously.
The third party debate reinforces the belief that these are not serious candidates.
Once again... If the majority of Americans want to see the significant third party candidates on the presidential debates, why are they excluded? Doesn't this seem like the tyranny of the majority, where those in power make the rules to stay in power?
A minor televised debate on one obscure station that isn't promoted and doesn't have the two major candidates is not a legitimate forum and is in no way comparable to The Presidential Debate, widely promoted and covered by all major media outlets.
The legitimate voices of third party candidates are being suppressed because they have an honesty that reverberates with voters and a genuine regard for the American people, instead of a vested interest in the political status quo that serves major corporations.
What about the Order To Show Cause, issued by an Arizona judge, and apparently ignored by the Commission on Presidential Debates? A judge certainly thought that Badnarik had a legitimate complaint about being excluded.
>> you responded to a comment I made that wasn't directed to you.
I thought this was a public forum. Should I only speak when spoken to? Or is this a public debate of the issues?
>> you assume to know what I was thinking
Absolutely not. I obviously have no idea what you're thinking.
>> then insulted my intelligence by questioning my knowledge of the Constitution
I did not intend to insult your intelligence. I did suggest that anyone who believes detaining US citizens without access to legal counsel or a trial by peers is acceptable governmental behavior should read the US Constitution. But that is more of a statement of fact than an insult to anyone's intelligence.
>> then you describe my response as "a simple conditioned Republican response"
I was clearly not speaking of you. I was speaking in the abstract. It was more of a question about the predominant beliefs expressed in this forum. If this is a forum where conservative beliefs are welcome, I'd like to hang around and discuss issues. If this is a forum where Republican policies are rubber stamped and everyone exchanges high fives for being a Republican, I'll move on. Just let me know.
From the responses I've received, I'm beginning to think this isn't a good place to express my views.
Apparently not legitimate enough to know even how to spell his name correctly :)
Cheers and Welcome to Free Republic
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.