Slashdot Log In
Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates
Posted by
CowboyNeal
on Sat Oct 09, 2004 08:33 AM
from the stuck-on-the-sidelines dept.
from the stuck-on-the-sidelines dept.
h8macs writes "Third party Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) were arrested while attempting to enter the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
No, if the person being served is aware of the service attempt. However, that person doesn't have to admit a process server onto their property if they don't want to.
Since in this situation the server (Badnarik in this case) was stopped by security, and the article doesn't suggest that the person being served was anywhere near the scene, then service hasn't performed. Waving a court document doesn't just get you anywhere you want to go.
If he saw the guy he was serving walking by, and while stopped by security shouted out something to the effect that he was serving process, and the target heard (or should have heard), then the court will generally accept that the person has been served (even if he doesn't accept the documents himself he's officially received notice).
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
Which suddenly makes me realize something which I completely forgot about. If Badnarik is one of the parties (or is a representative of one of the parties) involved in the lawsuit, he's not allowed to serve process. The fact that he's even trying to do so strongly suggests that this was solely a stunt.
In fact, it demonstrates WHY courts don't allow service by parties--to avoid unpleasant situations like the one that happened.
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
They may be a private entity, but they're using public property, namely airwaves and university grounds. So, the assertion that they should be free to regulate who takes part in the debates as they please is fallacious. Public resources equals public responsibility.
Also, in the wider picture, though technically the legality might be on the side of the CPD, what is the moral thing here? Is it right that third party candidates can not debate the major candidates in ANY venue? Is it right that badnarik and cobb have to get ARRESTED before someone will hear anything about them from the mainstream media? How many americans even know who badnarik and cobb are? This isn't democracy, it's plutocracy, and it's immoral, if not illegal.
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
-prator
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Libertarians are supposed to be against coercion, and that is all that the CPD exists for. I am glad that Badnarik did what he did.
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
The CPD explained here, it's a fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
It should shake the debate up a bit.
I have a number of issues with the Libertarian platform, but at least Badnarik (and Cobb) are doing the right thing to get the boat moving.
Parent
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:5, Interesting)
Except, unfortunately, as of this writing neither Google news nor CNN or FOXNEWS has any stories about this, or even returns any results for 'Badnarik arrest'. Not only is a presidential candidate on the ballot in 48 states refused entry into a presidential debate, but his arrest isn't even covered!
Parent
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, for fuck's sake. You guys have a political system that makes it essential impossible for anyone without multi-millions in backing to get anything like enough coverage to let voters know that they have choices outside the dualistic monopoly of the Democrats and Republicans, and you still think it's a bad idea for him to bring some attention to that fact?
Parent
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:5, Insightful)
Not me. I followed the link to their page, then clicked on "What exactly are Libertarians?", or however they phrased it.
Then I went, "Oh. That sounds like my feelings. I agree with that."
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
for one thing, although it is done by a private corporation, it is funded by the government.
It would be more accurate to say that it's funded by the Democratic and Republican parties. Do you remember when the debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters (or the Simpsons episode where a debate was sponsored by the League of Uninformed Voters)? Eventually the two parties started making demands to weaken the debate process, and the League decided it could no longer support the process. So a "private corporation" was formed to oversee the debates, and ensure they run by the rules desired by the two parties. They exclude other parties when they see fit, and include them likewise.
Lots of details here [pbs.org].
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Gee, I wonder why they can't get 1% of the vote. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that they are never invited to the debates!
Parent
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
We don't want every crackpot in the country involved, but there are several parties (Reform, Libertarian, Green, and others) that outght to be able to have a chance to participate.
I disagree. We do want every crackpot involved. Otherwise, it becomes very esy to exclude new parties.
Parent
Is this viewed as progress? (Score:5, Insightful)
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
Mike
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:5, Insightful)
How can you even ask that question? Badnarik and Cobb are two candidates with real platforms and real goals, and they deserve to be heard in the same way that President Bush and Senator Kerry are being heard.
And you're a supporter! How can you possibly say that you support these candidates when you understand that they have no real chance of winning unless they are treated in the same way as our "real party" candidates. Something must be done!
This is no different than people standing up for their rights during the civil rights movement, and frankly, I believe that they have done something to make a point. If I was there to stand with them, I would've. Something is terribly wrong with our system and they're the Martin Luther King Jrs. of this movement for change.
So don't tell me you're dissapointed the average american with the IQ of a chimp can't see that there's a reason for this. They're not going to win this time around, so they MUST make changes to the system so they have a real chance of winning the next time around.
To Badnarik and Cobb, I truly offer you the salute that you, damn well, deserve. Keep up the good work.
Parent
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry to disappoint you but it is important to understand that being in the debate is nowhere close to being a "breakthrough event". Just like all the other pet theories of possible breakthroughs. They've been tried. The problem is more difficult and less conspiracy-oriented than you think.
Parent
'ere, what's this then? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, sure, we'll peddle it on Afaghanistand and Iraq and nudge Iran to shape up, but the hell if we'll tolerate anything of that sort here.
Re:'ere, what's this then? (Score:5, Insightful)
A republic implies only that decisions are made by a group of representatives, regardless of how they are chosen.
In our country, the representatives are elected by the general public. That makes our system a democratic republic, and therefore it can be considered to be a democracy.
Restricting the definition of democracy to only mean a pure system like ancient Greece would be pretty useless, since almost no country in history since then has actually used that system. Common usage of the term includes democratic republics. Every president that I can remember has gone on and on about the benefits of "freedom and democracy". Surely they're not talking just about a system of government that is not used currently by any country.
Parent
A Sad Day in America (Score:5, Insightful)
I can think of no sadder statement of our times than that. I now have absolutely no hope for our democratic system.
Well, they weren't invited, and the tried to enter (Score:5, Insightful)
What is sad though is that the status quo is a two party (and they are pretty much as bad as each other when it comes down to it) system in the US, and the complete lack of will to even consider that there are other parties.
A two party democratic system where both parties have corporate needs and their own interests at heart really isn't democracy is it? I mean, even the Russian Communist era had elections, you could choose Communist A or B
They weren't just trying to enter... (Score:5, Informative)
The official Badnarik/Campagna 04 website has a page that is being continuously updated with news as it comes in, it appears that Badnarik is now out of jail and resting. The page is located here [badnarik.org].
Chose between those who really matter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Excuse me, haven't I seen this before...? Ah, yes, in the (non-existant today) People Republic of Poland. The political system then was called "Socialist Democracy" or "Dictature of Proletariat".
Well, have fun in the "Land of the Free" -- been there, done that, can't say I liked it much.
Robert
[1] vide the case of the list of Republican Convention attendees
Why weren't these two in the audience? (Score:5, Interesting)
Cobb & Badnarik are "political prisoners" (Score:5, Interesting)
And if America does have political prisoners, then we are not quite the paragon of propriety and human rights we hold ourselves out to be. It's high time we American start to acknowledge this fact.
Badnarik & Cobb debated on PBS last night (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
http://www.p
Of course they got arrested. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you would read the article, it clearly states that they pushed their way through a police barricade. Presidential candidates are still US citizens just like everyone else, and as such, they are subject to the laws of the land.
What do you expect will happen if you push through a barricade? The police are going to welcome you in with open arms? This isn't a videogame where one gets an award for navigating a bunch of obstacles.
They knew exactly what they were doing and fully expected to get in trouble.
Re:Of course they got arrested. (Score:5, Insightful)
And your point is what? The people who got killed by police in Tiananmen, or East Germany, or the Soviet Union also violated the laws of their lands. They also knew what was might happen to them. Should they have just blindly accepted what their governments did and how they were exluded from the political process? What about African-Americans--should they just have continued to be quiet?
Parent
we looked at this earlier... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://lp.org/lpnews/0411/arizona-debate.html
Arizona LP files suit to stop state funding of presidential debate
Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties.
"It's a clear case of misusing state funds," said David Euchner, attorney for the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP).
"Arizona recognizes three political parties," Euchner continued. "A debate which included all three of those parties would be a legitimate expenditure on education and public information. A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial -- and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."
AZLP Vice Chair Barry Hess agreed: "It is so outrageous because the Republicans and the Democrats clearly violate their own Finance Reform Act, which in this case operates against all parties except the Republicans and the Democrats."
The AZLP and its treasurer, Warren Severin, are listed as plaintiffs in the suit, which seeks an injunction or restraining order against the use of state funds for the debate.
"Additionally, this use of these particular funds is in clear violation of the Arizona Constitution," Hess added.
The Arizona Constitution prohibits making grants or donations to any individual, association, or corporation.
Libertarians also claim that if special privileges are granted to Bush and Kerry, Arizona Libertarians will have been denied their 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee. The university and the Commission for Presidential Debates were named as defendants in the suit.
Representatives of the AZLP and of Libertarian Michael Badnarik's presidential campaign conducted a joint press conference after filing the complaint with the Maricopa County Superior Court.
"They have absolutely no right to use our tax dollars for what is effectively a very expensive television commercial for Bush and Kerry," Hess told reporters.
--which is what it was, an expensive televison commercial for the Democratic and Republican parties, partially paid for with public monies at a public venue, not all "private" money at a "private" venue. They seem to have a pretty good case,at least under AZ law, and obviously they are being stalled until after the election.
Why is it... (Score:5, Insightful)
Especially since we seem to be able to handle six Democrats in a primary debate...
NPR's segment on allowing people into debates... (Score:5, Interesting)
The Secret Service denies arresting people simply because they are wearing Kerry t-shirts but admit that they would question anyone who was being removed from a venue by security people. While it is lawful for a private function to deny entry to people on whatever grounds they choose, for a Presidential appearance which has been paid for by the taxpayers, it is unlawful (and un-American) to deny any citizen entry for simply wearing a t-shirt that indicates opposition to that President.
Re:What does an arrest mean? (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
To answer my own question (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:In Related News... (Score:5, Funny)
Where's my informative moderation?
Parent
The Constitution Party is not cool (Score:5, Informative)
The closest organization in the US to the Consitution Party is the KKK.
Parent
Re:They intended to get arrested (Score:5, Interesting)
The real news appears to be that the Commission on Presidential Debates [debates.org] has refused, multiple times, to be served by court papers to halt the 3rd debate.
Parent
Re:How is the USA a democracy when.. (Score:5, Interesting)
This reminds me of a quote someone said about choice in America. I'll do my best not to screw it up. It went something like, "In America you can walk down a supermarket isle in any city and find hundreds of different breakfast cereals, all made out of the exact same ingredients."
Parent
Re:How is the USA a democracy when.. (Score:5, Interesting)
It would be more accurate to say both parties only nominate conservatives, in the truest sense of the word. That is, those who seek to maintain the status quo rather than seeking change.
Politically they aren't really all that moderate. By global standards both candidates are "right leaning" or "fiscally and socially conservative", or "conservative and authoritarian" depending on which (somewhat arbitrary) labelling scheme you wish to use. They appear moderate because they're in the middle of the views that get presented to the US public - which is to say, the views held by the Republican and Democrat party. The views of other parties, which represent a large part of the rest of the politcal spectrum are simply not heard.
Jedidiah.
Parent
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:5, Insightful)
Read some history books. Elected officials were -designed- to be from all walks of life (lawyers, carpenters, teachers, business owners, sailors, soldiers, librarians, philosophers, historians, musicians, explorer, etc). The idea was that you run for office, serve your term(s), and then go back to your job. That is what power to the people was all about.
In my opinion, a big part of the problem with our current setup is that people actually respect career and long-term politicians. I have a different theory: The more likely that a person has been in public office, the more likely they are to become corrupt.
Parent
This Is Not An Insightful Comment (Score:5, Insightful)
I live in Brooklyn, and have been deeply involved with politics since the primary campaign. I helped form an all-volunteer, grassroots organization of 15,000 people. As we citizen activists have learned more about our system of government, it has become clear that the legacy of the Tammany Hall patronage system is still very much with us.
For example, in each district there are these positions called district leaders. District leaders are elected, but largely selected by those who politically control the district. Voter turnout to elect district leaders is extremely low, and quite easily controlled by democratic clubs run by a mere handful of people.
Now, district leaders decide who works the polls on election day. Why is that important? Because the voting machines for the parts of the district that you know don't support you can suddenly stop working. Or the poll workers can tell you that you have to have five forms of picture ID in order to vote. Or they will go into the booth and "help" you vote. Any number of things.
On Sept. 14th, I was a poll watcher for a primary for the NY state senate in the 17th state senate district in North Brooklyn. There was a candidate backed by the local machine, run by the local boss Vito Lopez. Then there was a community activist challenging him. The local boss is the chair of the state housing committee and controls all the housing projects in the district. If he finds out that you didn't vote the way he wants, you may suddenly find yourself thrown out of your apartment.
Now, the local boss didn't need to cheat, but he did. He cheated as facilely as you and I breathe. Every sort of irregularity you can imagine. The two candidates for the state senate seat were members of the same party, but the challenger still got blanked by the political machine. Do you really think that a third party candidate would have a snowball's chance in hell in that kind of environment? Not bloody likely.
"Why don't third party candidates simply organize and run a concerted effort?" you say. Well, that is far harder than you think. Institutions made up of many people do not invent themselves overnight, and even without outside interference it is difficult to get even a like-minded bunch of people working together coherently. Whoever likened such a thing to herding cats was a wise, wise man.
Plus, there are all sorts of structural barriers to becoming a third party. In New York alone, there are very onerous requirements for getting on the ballot. There is this complex formula that is used to determine how many signatures you have to get, but basically you have to get approx. 1500 good signatures in one district to appear on the ballot in that one district.
You have to do the same to get on the ballot in every other district in the state, of which there are very, very many. The rule of thumb is to get at least three times as many signatures as you need, because your opponent might challenge your petitions and get names thrown out. That means 4500 signatures per district. On a good day, it takes one person 4 hours to get 50 signatures.
Do the math. That means 90 people committing one day in each district in order to gather the signatures. Now, multiply that number by the 31 districts in New York State, and suddenly you have 2790 people that you need across the state to commit 11,190 man-hours to getting you those signatures. That's a lot. If you can't inspire that many volunteers to gather signatures, then you have to pay someone to do it. The going rate is $10/hr. That means it could cos
Parent
A few questions... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Who wrote the rules?
2) How is one supposed to rise from zero to 15% if one cannot be heard?
3) Is the two-party system really the best system? Wouldn't more competition improve the political system?
Parent
Re:CNN doesn't seem to know Michael Badnarik exist (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:CNN doesn't seem to know Michael Badnarik exist (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:CNN doesn't seem to know Michael Badnarik exist (Score:5, Insightful)
A CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll taken right after the town hall meeting-style debate found respondents giving a slight, statistically insignificant edge to Kerry over Bush: 47 percent of them went for Kerry and 45 percent for Bush.
The net is not a good sample of voters, and AFAIK there's no fraud protection on the CNN online poll, so it's really not worth talking about.
Parent