Libertarians Lose Case to Block Presidential Debate 153
PMoonlite writes "As a followup to the previous Slashdot story, the judge ruled in favor of the Commission on Presidential Debates, refusing a restraining order on the basis of the doctrine of laches (unfairness due to delay of suit) and public interest, but allowing the Libertarians the possibility of seeking damages. So the debate will go forth at Arizona State University with only two of the three candidates on the state ballot."
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
It wouldn't necessarily have been worse for bush. IF Badnarik had been successful in the debate, AND in the general election, it is possible he would have gained enough votes to take electors, and putting the election before the House where the Republicans are likely to be in control again this year... Win-win IMO.
And in what state do you think he could have captured a plurality of the vote? I'm not bashing your point -- I'm just wondering. Even if he absolutely crushed Bush or Kerry -- what state could he get a plurality in?
And I doubt that Bush wants to be reelected by a bitterly divided House of Representatives. It would be even less of a mandate then he has now. Not that he wouldn't take it anyway but I'm sure that isn't his "win-win" scenario.
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
The debate never would have been cancelled. It might have been postponed and moved to a private place, but a precident has been set. It is now ok to use taxpayer dollasr to get the current politicians reelected.
Do you really think so? I'm not so sure. Why wouldn't Bush Co. take the chance to get out of the last debate that focuses on his weak suit (Domestic Policy) where Kerry will probably clean his clock (again)?
And I refuse to buy the argument that the debates are just Bush and Kerry spewing the stump speeches, party lines and canned answers. While many of the answers were like that (on both sides) there were many unscripted moments and the debates still give us a chance to see the different personalities in action.
Whether you or right-wing, left-wing, centrist, committed voter or not the debates are useful and they are apparently making an impact. If Bush loses this election I would expect history to look at the first debate as the reason why.
Not shocking but a little scary. (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this quote says it all (Score:4, Insightful)
George Orwell - Animal Farm
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
believe that within both parties is at least a plurality and possibly a majority that wants to select other than the evil of two lessers.
I can't help but disagree with this statement. Perhaps as somebody with libertarian views you are dissatisfied with Bush. I know lots of republicans that are. Especially in the Northeast (we don't have too many religious-right types around here -- Republicans up here usually stand for small-government and fiscal responsibility).
But I can't buy that a majority of Democrats aren't happy with Kerry. We had a field of ten people to choose from. Voters overwhelmingly choose Kerry. They are behind him. I see the "Lesser of two evils" argument from the non-committed voters -- not from a "plurality of the Democratic party".
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
although certain stands(Constitution party belief that we ought to be a capital C christian nation) frighten me even though as a Christian I believe those values are important I do not believe they should be backed by the force of law. for example Homosexual Unions, If we were to strike every states "marriage code" and replace it with a civil union code allowing any combination or number of adults as defined by state law to enter into inheritance and child raising covenants binding under state law but not to be refered to as marriage, I would back that 100%. but IMO marriage is a word historically defined as a bisexual bipartner relationship.
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
From the libertarian point of view, these debates don't matter in the slightest.
The public will get screwed either way.
At least the lp.org would get some attention from the corporate media for a change... would they?
-metric
I hope AZLP (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to watch anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, Bush has arrived and Kerry will be here soon. The media circus is ramping up. [azcentral.com] No one seemed to doubt that "the show" would go on.
I don't plan on watching the debate, though. If Badnarik had been able to participate, I probably would have, because a three-way debate might have offered me a lot more insights into the candidates views. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a libertarian, and most probably won't vote libertarian. But watching Bush and Kerry spout their canned and polished diatribes at each other won't enlighten me any.
Re:Libertarian voters don't otherwise vote Republi (Score:3, Insightful)
When it comes to the Presidential race, I don't like Bush's policies (he doesn't deserve re-election) and I don't like Kerry's policies (he doesn't deserve election).
As for the "third-party" product verification -- what makes you think I'm going to trust a "third-party" that has Microsoft (or Diebold or GM or ??) as their largest (or only) customer? I'm far more likely to either make my own judgement OR trust an expert of my own selection.
For some reason, a lot of people think that the choice is limited to corporations or government. That's a very limited view of the options -- especially since corporations only exist by government decree.
Re:Libertarian voters don't otherwise vote Republi (Score:3, Insightful)
well, getting rid of the non-constitutional institutions. The fed, to me, _is_ a company. One that has a monopoly over what it does and can force it's customers to do whatever it wants. I trust private companies which can't force me to do something.
you have no control over the federal government.
slight control over your state government.
a bit more control over your local government.
regulate using your $$$, not the government.
-metric
Something you missed. (Score:4, Insightful)
There is nothing in most STATE constitutions which say you cannot make a state social security system, state owned roads, state taxes etc.
If the Libs were ever elected on a federal level, I forsee each state and/or local communities making their own laws reagarding those local issues which the local populace is more concerned and informed about. Thus, you would have some "Green" cities and states, some "Libertarian" cities and states, etc. Big government for the sake of Homogeniety is not IMO a good thing.
Re:I think this quote says it all (Score:4, Insightful)
Notice also a search on BADNARIK also returns zero hits on CNN.
How come /. is full of R's and D's who are always complaining of media bias against each other. How come they cant see it here?
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Still a recourse (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the part that chills me the most. The judge has basically said that the activity he's allowing might just be illegal. But instead of evaluating the plans before they become history, he's putting the question off until later (and given the effort pursuing such a suit requires, it's possible the suit will die here and now).
As a general case, such a deferment of justice is bad enough, but in this specific case, the effects are chilling to the core. I personally think the LP would be far worse for America than "four more years" (and *that's* saying a lot). Even so, we need fresh views and true "spoilers" in the debates. What the judge has, essentially, done is sold-out our democratic process.
He's taken away our responsibility to provide, and right to demand, that our democratic process serve to inform and mobilize our electorate. In exchange, we get "the possibility" of a few bucks down the road.
Even if the LP were to win $10million in damages, we'll have all gotten the shaft. Doesn't the judge realize that if both parties had to fork over $50million each to keep the debates closed, they would? Isn't it abundantly clear that even if there were no other reason submitted before him, that *that's* reason enough to force reform in the debate system?
Like the sign said, "Now, we're all wearing the blue dress."
If not NOW, WHEN?? (Score:3, Insightful)
And then 2008 rolls around and you'll say:
I would like to see third parties be allowed in the debates. I would like to see extensive reform of the system, but not this cycle. There's too much on the line,...
I've heard this line of crap every year since I became seriously interested in politics (let's see...One, two, three, four, five, six, oh my god, seven presidential elections ago!).
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
I would tend to look at the fact that I live in a red state and, as of the Democratic primaries, I couldn't find a single person other than myself that wanted to vote for Bush. I know he's an incumbent and that it's difficult to unseat an incumbent, but a lot of people really, really despised him this election year. I seriously don't know how Kerry has managed to screw the race this badly, he should be far and away ahead by now.
--trb
Mainstream press (Score:3, Insightful)
Eminem video irks Michael Jackson
Elvis 911 call ends in Blues Brother's arrest
Office pool claims $214M Powerball pot
Are these stories really more importnant than this one, even if Badnarik is a fringe candidate? Even if you click on CNN's "politics" section you won't see a story about this. I think the news outlets have become far too involved in politics and spinning politics rather (no pun intended) than just reporting them.
Re:Does this shock anyone? (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's look at some of Kerry's idiocies: he's said that Bush was mistaken on the war in Iraq, but that he's going to continue the very same mistaken policy. He's also wrongly supported the war on Afghanistan. What a pathetic cop-out.
"Wrongly supported the war on Afghanistan"? They were giving refuge to the man who murdered 3,000 civilians. What more cause did we need? Even I supported Bush on this one -- if not the half-assed way he went about it.
But as far as Iraq goes what the heck else can we do now? Unless Kerry can invent a time machine we are stuck with the problem that Bush created. Do you purpose pulling out and letting the country fall into civil war or under a Taliban style regime? What would you do?