Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates 1071
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! (Score:5, Insightful)
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
"and justice for all" though.
-nB
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:4, Interesting)
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them).
Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want. I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:4, Interesting)
And you just hit on the point that separates the Libertarian from the anarchist. Libertarians tend to be quite brutal towards violent criminals. They want freedoms, but there's a quote that goes "your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose".
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them).
True, and True. There are plenty of private charities that have far more effect per dollar than the ones funded by the public trough.
Now the idea here is that private companies, trading on their reputation, are the ones that do the checks. The IEEE and UL labs, both important safety groups are both private companies. I'd see a number food safety companies come into existance. A maker of a food products would have to prove that their food is safe to the satisfaction of the certifying company in order to be able to put the company's trademark on their product, just as with UL underwriting.
Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want. I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.
Market serving the public's interest? It's a phenomenon of the public. We have seen multiple times that tightly controlled markets tend to do worse than markets that are more free. Russia had a tightly controlled market, and it collapsed. China has let the market become more free, and they're prospering today. The european market is often called stagnent compared to the USA one.
Now I will admit, free markets do tend to be more volitile than regulated ones. But do you think that scandals such as Enron/Worldcom occur because there isn't enough regulation, or because there's so much regulation that 'dubious accounting practices' become the norm?
Under a free market, the inefficient tend to get eliminated, replaced, by the efficeient. Corruption is almost by definition inefficient, so corruption tends to get weeded out.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
I can appreciate the free market in the abstract, but when looked at practically, the power is too concentrated in the hands of corporations, and consumers end up getting screwed.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Sometimes efficiency isn't the best measure of an economy's health.
If efficiency is all that matters, which of these two is better for the country:
1. I stay at home with my family. We eat a home-cooked meal, play board games, and talk to each other all evening. (total spent: $15, maybe. It was a fancy meal.)
2. I ditch my family and get dinner at McDonald's. ($6) Afterwad, I go to a strip club. I get hammered (spending $20 in the process) and buy a couple lap dances, stic a couple dollars in some panties, etc. ($30) Then I try to drive home, drunk. I hit another car, totaling both and putting three people in the hospital. ($30,000 will be spent on replacing the cars with one used and one new car, and let's say $100,000 in hospital bills) Total cost: $130,056.
It's an extreme example,yes, but the more time people spend doing stuff like option 2, the more money is being spent, the higher the veolicty of cash in the economy, and the more "efficient and effective" the economy is. And experience has shown me that, overall, the things that enrich my life the most aren't the things that stimulate the economy the most.
And I think that with this in mind it makes sense to consider that maybe the government policies that result in the biggest and most powerful whirlwind of cash aren't necessarily the government policies that are going to lead to everyone having the best quality of life.
Unless, of course, you've fallen into the trap of thinking that more money equals more happy. Yes, it does matter if you don't have enough money to make yourself comfortable, but of course the people who generally argue for high-GDP economic policies are also arguing agast government policies aimed at stamping out poverty. =D
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
The comission on presidential debates is a private entity. This is your free market at work, aren't you happy with it? What, you think that there should be some sort of "regulation" stating perhaps that any canidate that gets on a few ballots should be allowed to speak over the (privately operated) tv stations, in the (privately run) presidential debate? What are you, some sort of communist?
This is the problem with libertarians. It's all about free market, until the free market doesn't work, and then they blame regulations. Just accept life for what it is, some times free markets don't work. For instance, medicine. If your choice is to pay up or die, what sort of position does that put you in to execute your bargaining rights as a consumer? How would a free market fire department do? They'd arrive as your house was burning down and demand you sign over everything you own in order for them to fetch your daughter out of the burning house. This helps people how?
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just idiocy. Then why don't people set up independent fire departments? Nothing's stopping them. if they can do a better job than the beurocracy and make money on the side then why not, right? But unfortunately this doesn't happen. Could it actually be that fire departments work well as a public service? What happens if you buy fire coverage, but the guy next to you doesn't? Then if his house burns down it has a good shot of burning down your house too, doesn't that suck.
Also, sidewalks shouldn't be privatized. We could put a toll booth at every driveway, and every sidewalk (run out of money on your sidewalk card and I guess you just have to sleep in the gutter until someone finds you and "tows" you home), but why bother? That would cost way more than building the actual service in the first place. Basically, when it costs more to charge for a service than it does to provide the service, or when the optiimal strategy is to not get the service, even though this screws everyone else, the private sector doesn't do a very good job. Just accept it rather than resorting to extremely contrived allegories. Look at the real world once in awhile, you might like it.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Insightful)
The CPD explained here, it's a fraud (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Informative)
October 8
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.
EMPHASIS: 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.
Fred C
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Interesting)
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).
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.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Insightful)
Issues like the racist, tax-&-spend drugwar are kept out of the debates despite the fact that we have an immense percentage of the US population -- especially bl
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:4, Interesting)
However, as a presidential candidate under the Libertarian party, I would not have done it. I think it was primarily done for media exposure. And the ploy worked. Doesn't change my opinion of either of the two main candidates, and certainly doesn't change my opinion of the Libertarian and Green party candidates.
Someone told me the other day my vote on a 3rd party candidate was wasted. Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose and may very well determine the election this year. How is a vote that *didn't* go to one of the two major candidates a wasted vote when it's precisely the votes they pay attention to the most?
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:3, Informative)
You're right...it couldn't have been because 11% of self-described Democrats voted for Bush [cnn.com].
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.
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:You couldn't make this up! (Score:5, Informative)
-prator
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:4, Interesting)
And, even if you're going to consider him a government officer for this case, it still violates Constitutional protections. Why would Badnarik, who campaigns bitterly against such government intrusions on private citizens and corporations, take part in such an intrusion?
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.
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:4, 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.
And now an additional 2% have heard of him, and will recognize his name (for the next few weeks) as that whacko from the Liber-whatever party that got arrested.
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.
Sacrificing your prinicples in order to get votes... yup, he sounds like a natural politician to me.
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?
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."
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!
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Uhhh that's pretty obvious (Score:3, Interesting)
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].
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!
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.
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:3, Interesting)
Well, He is a candidate. Don't you think he should be in the debates?
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, if he can demonstrate beforehand that he and his platform will sway a significant number of voters to at least make him a viable candidate (like Ross Perot did).
Look, these debates didn't just pop out of thin air. The LP and the GP have had four years to build support for their platforms just for this election, and who knows how long just to build general support (the LP goes back to the 70's doesn't it? Don't know about the GP).
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, I don't see the absurdity.
He's got a mouth, doesn't he? Feet? Hands? A car? A phone? An organized party backing him? Well, get out there and talk yourself up as best you can. Shake hands, kiss babies, hold rallies, etc.
My point is that the Libertarian party platform is not resonating with most voters. So why waste our time?
Remember the events leading to the '92 election? There was a sense that the two parties had becom
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why does it matter who you think should be in the debates? If Badnarik thought he should be in the the Jeopardy Tournament of Champions, does that give him the right to trespass on the property of the recording studio and demand a seat?
The debates are just a popular TV show, after all.
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
When was the last time a third party team won?
Wasn't Lincoln a third party?
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:4, Interesting)
Such is the way of politics.
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.
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:3, Insightful)
All Cobb and Badnarik did was to further convince the average American that they are nuts. They need to start convincing the average American that they are legitimate candidates with legitimate platforms. The problem is that both the candidates and people like you don't realize that this was not he
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.
Re:Is this viewed as progress? (Score:4, Insightful)
"No publicity is bad publicity" ~~ P.T. Barnum
What does an arrest mean? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:What does an arrest mean? (Score:5, Informative)
To answer my own question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To answer my own question (Score:5, Interesting)
"On June 16, 1918 he made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War I, and was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison and disenfranchised for life. While in prison in Atlanta, he ran for President. On December 25, 1921 President Warren G. Harding released Debs from prison, commuting his sentence to time served.
In the 1920 election, while in jail, he received 913,664 votes, the most ever for a Socialist Party presidential candidate in the U.S. He was also a leader of the Industrial Workers of the World during this period."
Can you imagine a political prisoner on a 3rd-party ticket recieving a million votes today? Too bad the American public doesn't have that much balls anymore.
'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.
Re:'ere, what's this then? (Score:3, Insightful)
If a country can be deemed a democracy when not everyone ruled over and taxed is allowed to vote, not all the votes count for anything, and some candidates and parties are barred from the debates, then yeah, the US might still count as a democracy. And so might China.
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].
Re:They weren't just trying to enter... (Score:3, Interesting)
Wonder if the papers could be served on the CPD's attorney?? Would that count??
Aussie election today (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re:Cobb & Badnarik are "political prisoners" (Score:3, Interesting)
Incidentally, I was thinking of voting for Badnarik before this. Not a chance, now. What an idiot.
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?
Re:And there are better ways go about things.... (Score:3, Insightful)
But I don't think there's essentially anything wrong with what they did, even if the cries of "police state" are over the top.
Their antics effectively drive home a very simple and important message: Presidental candida
How is the USA a democracy when.. (Score:3, Insightful)
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."
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.
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.
No Arrest, No Publicity -- They're Happy Now (Score:3, Insightful)
These turkeys got exactly what they wanted.
And, since when is a candidate's partisan website a legitimate news source?
But, then, since when does
Human Rights Violation or cheap publicity stunt? (Score:3, Insightful)
League of Women's Voters (Score:4, Insightful)
LWV has hosted these for years. They dropped it this year due to the total facade that this is. If they were smart, they would hold 2 of them with Nadar, the Libertarians, and the Greens as well as leave it open to both Republicans and Democrats. IOW, rather than just the top 2, it should be open to the top 5. If the other 2 decide not to show up, well, just leave 2 open podiums there.
Right now, we have parties controlling who just showed that they are in total control. Worse, there really is little difference between them. Kerry has done as much as possible to say that he is for the iraqi war, but that he is different than bush. Likewise, he is for the patriot acts, but did not like how they were applied. hummm. Yeah, that is different.
At least the CPD is following their own rules. (Score:4, Informative)
CPD Announces Application Of Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria For October 13, 2004 Debate
October 6, 2004
The non-partisan, non-profit Commission on Presidential Debates ("CPD") announced today that it has applied its Non-Partisan Candidate Selection Criteria for 2004 General Election Debate participation to determine eligibility to participate in the presidential debate to take place at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona on October 13, 2004.
Pursuant to the criteria, which were publicly announced on September 24, 2003, those candidates qualify for debate participation who (1) are constitutionally eligible to hold the office of President of the United States; (2) have achieved ballot access in a sufficient number of states to win a theoretical Electoral College majority in the general election; and (3) have demonstrated a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate, as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results.
The Board of Directors of the CPD convened today to apply the criteria with the assistance of the Editor-In-Chief of the Gallup Polling Organization, Dr. Frank Newport. Of the declared candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John F. Kerry were found to have satisfied all three criteria. Accordingly, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry qualify to participate in the October 13 presidential debate. No other candidates satisfied the criteria for inclusion in the October 13 debate.
The candidates who have qualified to participate today previously have committed to participate in the debates sponsored by the CPD.
As previously announced, President Bush and Senator Kerry will participate on October 8 in a town meeting-style debate sponsored by the CPD. That debate will take place on the campus of Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri.
CNN doesn't seem to know Michael Badnarik exists (Score:4, Interesting)
Go to cnn.com, and look at the coverage of the presidental debates. See any mention of this incident? Thought not.
Now, try a "Search cnn.com" for Michael Badnarik. When I tried it I didn't get a SINGLE HIT for his name. Not one. Not even a "here's a full list of candidates including the minor ones" page. Can someone confirm this isn't just some local quirk on my browser?
(Side note - headline at cnn says debates were an even match. CNN's own poll gives it to Kerry by something like 75% to 25%. It was funny enough to warrant a screenshot of the poll results and the headline together. Apparantly CNN's viewers must be more Democratic than they would like
Re:CNN doesn't seem to know Michael Badnarik exist (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:CNN doesn't seem to know Michael Badnarik exist (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Ok, lets get realistic a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
However, the fact they were arrested isn't an indicator of a fascist government conspiracy. The area was restricted for security, and they crossed a police barricade.
There have been many frightening things done to people in this country post 9/11 in the name of security, but this wasn't one of them.
Re:Ok, lets get realistic a minute... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Ok, lets get realistic a minute... (Score:4, Insightful)
I think the source posting is just another sheep that needs to wake up. Sadly, Mr. sheep is one of many. This reminds me of a despair.com poster-
Meetings- None of us is as dumb as all of us.
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.
I'm not at all surprised ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sir, I agree to this Constitution, with all its Faults, if they are such; because I think a General Government necessary for us, and there is no Form of Government but what may be a Blessing to the People if well administered; and I believe farther that this is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become so corrupted as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other. ~ Benjamin Franklin
Personally Held At MP5 Gunpoint in 1992 (Score:5, Informative)
In 1992 Andre Marrou was the Libertarian Presidential candidate. The CPD told Marrou that he wouldn't be allowed into the debates unless the Libertarian party was on the ballot in all 50 states.
The Libertarians worked overtime to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Not an easy task when many states intentionally block alternate parties.
In 1992, the Presidential debates were held at Washington University (www.wustl.edu). Since Marrou had been on the ballot for several months at that time, we were looking forward to an interesting debate for once.
Days before the debate, Marrou was told that he would not be allowed in the debate because they had changed their rules and they were only going to allow participants that had a reasonable chance of winning (like Ross Perot). Of course that is a completely self-fullfilling prophecy. At that time I had heard that the CPD was a private corporation and I found it interesting that the major stumbling block was that it was controlled by Rebublicans and Democrats with no FEC (Federal Election Commission) oversight. This from an bureacratic FEC that will fine or bring you up on charges if you file the wrong paperwork or speak out against the candidates after a certain designated time period.
Of course the Libertarian party members were outraged that they would be stifled after working so long and hard to get on the ballot. We're talking about basic democratic rights here. Since the presidential debates would be held on campus and there were a number of open public forums at the University at the time, we decided to hold a peaceful march down a sidewalk completely away from the debate stage.
We did the typical 60's things -- printed up posters, had little slogans. We were completely non-violent. Most of us had our kids in tow.
After we started walking and doing our little slogans (like "We Thought This Was A Democracy"), somehow mysteriously, the onlookers in the crowd separated from the marchers. I had a bad feeling about this.
One of the Libertarians, a gentle giant of a programmer, was acting as photographer. When the crowd moved aside, he went with them and took pictures of the march. Suddenly there was some yelling. One of the police who had been milling around the area walked toward our photographer and suddenly attacked him, yelling "We know what your trying to do!" This cop was followed by another two.
Anyway, Libertarians having a large geek contingent, were armed with CamCorders. When the cops attacked the photographer, I and others began yelling, "Get it on video". At least three separate people got this entire exchange on video. The cops proceeded to beat the photographer, eventually doing nerve damage to his arms. All the while the photographer was yelling "I'm not resisting arrest". They arrested him and hauled him off to jail in St. Louis City.
Strangely, Washington University is in St. Louis County. All three cops were from the City and out of their jurisdiction. After throwing the photographer in the St. Louis City jail for essentially taking pictures, they failed to book him. Thus began the beginning of my disillusion with the entire US judicial and democratic system.
Then it gets stranger. Back at Wash U, strange military dudes in black camo with German Shepards surrounded the us and our children. Using MP5 submachine guns they hearded about 50 of the Libertarians behind a fenced baseball backstop about 10 yards from the sidewalk where most people were going to the debates.
Incredibly and symbolically nearly all of St. Louis' TV crews and reporters from the St. Louis Post walked right past us, didn't turn on a TV camera, didn't ask us for an interview. Bill McClellan, Reporter, man of the people, walk right by without the slighest slowdown in his gait. Not the slightest bit of curiosity. I'm not talking about coverage of the Libertarian party, I'm talking about 50 citizens with children in tow held at with
Green Party's David Cobb press release (Score:4, Informative)
David Cobb arrested attempting to debate [votecobb.net].
By the way, it appears that Cobb was the first one in -- Badnarik came in a minute later.
Re:In Related News... (Score:5, Funny)
Where's my informative moderation?
The Constitution Party is not cool (Score:5, Informative)
The closest organization in the US to the Consitution Party is the KKK.
Re:The Constitution Party is not cool (Score:5, Informative)
You've obviously never read the Texas GOP party platform [rlctx.org]. Most of the current GOP leadership (Rove, Bush, DeLay) are members and have presumably signed this document in order to meet its bylaws.
Here are some excerpts (I've bolded a bit):
Believe me, there's no shortage of chestnuts like this if you click on the link [rlctx.org], and read it yourself. Read that last bit again and remember that the House GOP and the White House are run by signatories of this document.
Re:In Related News... (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.ht
give me a minute to find a list of libertarians.
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php
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.
Re:Neither have ever held political office before (Score:3, Insightful)
But if they don't believe in what either party stands for, they would have a big problem in local and state elections as well. Sure, occasionally, a third party or independent candidate slips in, but it's rare, and even then, they are rarely truly "independent".
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
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?