Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates

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."

You couldn't make this up!

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)

Re:You couldn't make this up!

...and the home of the brave :-)

Re:You couldn't make this up!

The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't a governmental entity--it's a private corporation. Why doesn't Badnarik, as a "libertarian", respect their property rights?

Re:You couldn't make this up!

Do they have a right to refuse to accept the court documents he was trying to deliver?

Re:You couldn't make this up!

Do they have a right to refuse to accept the court documents he was trying to deliver?

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).

Re:You couldn't make this up!

He was at Washington University at the time, trying to get included in a debate at Arizona State University. It wasn't "their" property in any shape or form. The argument he's making is that because the next debate is on public land (at ASU), financed by public funds, he shouldn't be discriminated against. Makes sense to me.

Re:You couldn't make this up!

It isn't always that simple. Regulation is always a lack of freedom, yet used correctly can actually help the free market. Requiring food manufacturers to be clear on the label about what goes into food helps people make smarter decisions about what they buy, and actually helps keep the free market.

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.

Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious

Why would Badnarik, who campaigns bitterly against such government intrusions on private citizens and corporations, take part in such an intrusion?

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.

Re:You couldn't make this up!

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].

Re:You couldn't make this up!

If your candidate isn't even likely to break a full one percent of the vote, why should they be wasting people's time and money and, in the process, detracting from reviewing the real candidates?

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!

Re:You couldn't make this up!

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.

Is this viewed as progress?

As a Badnarik supporter I enjoy the sentiment of what Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Cobb did and agree whole heartedly with them, but I'm not exactly sure how this help's the "radical" third party's persona.

I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?

Mike

Re:Is this viewed as progress?

I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?

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.

'ere, what's this then?

Can't be having any kind of democracy here in the US.

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.

A Sad Day in America

When presidential candidates are arrested for trying to attend a presidential debate.

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

They shouldn't be surprised that they weren't let in.

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 ... maybe even a C.

They weren't just trying to enter...

Badnarik was trying to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with an order to show cause (located here [thelfactor.org] from an Arizona judge. Members of the LP attempted to serve the CPD earlier in the day at their Washington D.C. headquarters and were met with security guards.

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.

So, it is better version of democracy, you get to chose between the candidates that really matter. They were preselected for your convenience earlier. No, you can't know who selected them[1].

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?

The big question in my mind is why the Gallup folks hadn't picked these Badnarik and Cobb to be among the "undecided voters" in the audience. After all, they have clearly not decided to support "either" of the "two" candidates running for president.

Cobb & Badnarik are "political prisoners"

I think it appropriate that they be called political prisoners. They fit the definition.

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

Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and Nader all debated on PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers last night. The transcript of these debates should be on the NOW website somewhere here:

http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
http://www.pb s.org/now/politics/thirdcandidates.ht ml

Re:What does an arrest mean?

Nope, while not having a record is a requirement for a lot of federal jobs, it's not one for president. Look at Bush, he got arrested for DUI and they still let him be president.

To answer my own question

According to Yahoo! [yahoo.com]:

Article II, Section I of the Constitution offers the following three requirements for becoming president of the United States:

* The candidate must be at least 35 years old.
* The candidate must be a natural-born U.S. citizen.
* The candidate must have resided in the U.S. for at least 14 years at the time of the election.

Those are the only stipulations -- the Constitution doesn't mention anything about rap sheets. So technically you could preside in the White House after doing a stint in the Big House.

Re:In Related News...

Neither did Jesus...

Where's my informative moderation?

The Constitution Party is not cool

Yes, but aside from the fact that the Constitution Party *does* advocate not changing the Consitution, their entire remaining platform [constitutionparty.com] appears to me to be stupid, short-sighted, and offensive. They dislike foreigners, free trade, and homosexuals (I must admit, when a party's platform says that a party is "anti-homosexual", images of the KKK and Nazi party start floating by). They have ties to anti-female equality ideas.

The closest organization in the US to the Consitution Party is the KKK.