David Cobb to Crash Debate, Risk Arrest

RobertB-DC writes "The Washington Post reports that Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb plans to travel to St. Louis to protest his exclusion from the presidential debate. In a press release, the Cobb campaign says to expect 'non-violent civil disobedience' as the candidate enters the restricted area around the debate site." Alan Keyes tried that once. So did Ralph Nader.

Comments

I remember good old Nader...

[FooAtWFU]

I was around when the Nader-ites tried to crash the Wake Forest debate. They started up the road about a dozen houses from where I live, where there's a nice convenient park, and then they marched a mile or so to the university, shouting their chants rather loudly en route. They left a ton of slogans and stuff on the sidewalk in chalk. The stuff which was close enough was erased and replaced with my messages supporting my own favored candidate. It was a fascinating experience. :)

Inconsistency

[Boing]

Now, while I agree that third parties should not be excluded from major debates, I wholeheartedly believe that it is hypocrisy to engage in civil disobedience while running for the government office responsible for executing the laws of this nation.

Re:Inconsistency

[BoomerSooner]

First of these aren't debates. If you've ever seen a debate they can actually ask each other questions. The Woman's League of Voters ran the debates until 1992 I think when they let Perot in the debate which pissed off the two big parties and subsequently they formed their own Non-Partisin (actually it's bipartisan but who keeps up with names that represent reality anyway) Debate Commission. Sad really but until I can vote for a Socialist candidate that has a chance of winning I'm a democrat for life.

Who would have thought in the mid 80's the democrats would steal fiscal responsibility from the republicans. Oh wait they had fucking ridiculous deficits then too.

Re:Inconsistency

[BlueFashoo]

Actually, the debates were run by the LWV until 1984. The CPD let Perot debate in 1992, although these days they don't let third parties in by contractual agreement; which is hardly nonpartisan. See http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.phtml?title=Commi ssion_on_Presidential_Debates

Re:Inconsistency

[rpillala]

Civil disobedience isn't wrong, it's just illegal.

Re:Inconsistency

[shanek]

Perhaps you've forgotten that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land, that the Constitution says that Cobb and Badnarik are valid candidates, that they're both on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance of winning, and, as such, they have every right to be up there with Bush and Kerry?

Re:Inconsistency

[Boing]

Again, I don't think they should be excluded. But the Consitution does not establish the terms of a presidential or vice presidential debate, so it has nothing to do with that issue.

Re:Inconsistency

[Boing]

...it's just illegal.

Hence my problem with it by someone who wants to be the chief executor of the law.

Re:Inconsistency

[rpillala]

I suppose so but everyone has a conscience.

I don't understand

[j0nb0y]

I don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. A few more people will hear about him this way, but most of them will think he's a whacko. This isn't a very good way to make a first impression...

The media, in general, doesn't seem to be very friendly to protestors these days.

Re:I don't understand

[Artifex]

I don't understand what he's trying to accomplish. A few more people will hear about him this way, but most of them will think he's a whacko. This isn't a very good way to make a first impression...

Some Republicans have donated money to his campaign and Nader's with the idea that votes for them are coming out of Kerry's camp.
The whole "make your vote count by wasting it" idea.

Re:I don't understand

[dTaylorSingletary]

You say this and you have a Robert Anton Wilson quote in your sig? He's doing this because he can, because he should, and because it's his right and for the benefit of America that his voice is heard even if he is not allowed to speak aloud.

He is not doing it for himself. Or for what the media is friendly towards. People can think he's a wacko, but people as a rule are stupid. Individuals are what's he after, not "people".

There's a fine line in the difference, and it is abstract, perhaps intangible. But that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Re:I don't understand

[j0nb0y]

hehe. pretty scummy, but that seems to be how campaigns are run these days.

I don't think third party candidates are going to get many votes this election.

Re:I don't understand

[Anonymous Coward]

Why should he be included in the debates anyway? There isn't enough time and money to include every single "candidate" in the debates. If everyone knows you're only going to get a fraction of a single percent of the votes, then why should we bother with you?

I hate that we only have democrats and republicans, too - but it's not sensible to include every moron that wants to be president, in the debates.

Re:I don't understand

[Geoffreyerffoeg]

Yeah. This guy wants to run for President...and he's entering a debate illegally and promoting civil disobedience? Uh..

Even George Washington used military force against civil disobeyers.

Re:I don't understand

[burns210]

Boston Tea Party? Sit-ins? Ghandi?

The founding fathers, along with some of the biggest revolutions of all time(sit-ins for equal rights, just about the entire life of Ghandi) have been carried out through peaceful protest. What are on?

Re:I don't understand

[stinerman]

A few more people will hear about him this way, but most of them will think he's a whacko. This isn't a very good way to make a first impression...

This is why some of us in the tin-foil hat crowd think that Cobb may be a Democratic operative. There is some sketchy evidence that prominent Democrats (such as George Soros) funded Cobb so that the Greens wouldn't endorse Nader at their convention. Cobb's "safe-state" strategy also works well to keep the Greens out of the Democrats' hait.

Re:I don't understand

[Selecter]

Yeah, they were not all that friendly to Martin Luther King when he started doing that sort of thing, either.

It just doesn't matter.

[Noodlenose]

Alternative candidates have no hope in hell in a country that likes to export its sense of democracy with Black Hawk helicopters and carpet bombs, as the democratic process in the US is unfortunately as corrupt as a borderguard on the Algerian border:

As long as Members of Congress, Senators and Presidents get their main financial contributions from lobbygroups and multinationals (think Bush and the Carlyle Group and the Oilmultis), Democracy in the US just means that you intellectual halfwits vote for the guy with the more commercials.

Re:It just doesn't matter.

[BillyBlaze]

Well, I agree with you right up to the point you call us all idiots. I guess my question is, how do we get out of the situation? For that matter, how would non-halfwits get out of the situation? It doesn't matter how smart you are - you only get to vote once.

Re:It just doesn't matter.

[Quarters]

...you intellectual halfwits vote for the guy with the more commercials.

And you, the one with the outstanding grasp of the English language, are the genius?

Turfers behind OpenDebates, why Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the right wing extremists like Norquist that are behind the 'open' debates front organization, it would be interesting to know why Slashdot carries their water so often.

Re:Turfers behind OpenDebates, why Slashdot?

[Richard M. Nixon]

Given the right wing extremists like Norquist that are behind the 'open' debates front organization, it would be interesting to know why Slashdot carries their water so often.

Taking wisdom from people's signatures. (And I cant find the exact quote right now.)

The problem with Libertarianism isn't I must be Free, but that other jerk must be free as well.

Personally, I think that is an OK price to pay.

If you hear both the "extremist wackos" and the "progressives" then people in favor of open debates hope that the most sensible viewpoints will prevail.

The other thing is that this country is stuck in stagnation. The Republicans and Democrats don't talk about the real issues. And the mainstream media is owned by the same people who own the Republicrat politicians.

At the very least it would get more "regular everyday" people to start asking more questions.

It is a good idea no matter who is endorsing it.

If you are on the ballot in enough states to get you elected, you deserve to be in the debates. We should be electing the best man for the job, not the most electable man for the job. Why do you think we keep getting worse and worse choices for President.

I imagine a lot of people would prefer to see me back in the white house.

Re:Turfers behind OpenDebates, why Slashdot?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Norquist problem can not be reduced to a simple left/right hand wave. Doing so underestimates their grave intent. You are being suckered, even promoting, seemingly reasonable goals without examining the sales staff, much like the invasion of Iraq that has taken so long to unravel. If you bothered to educate yourself on the travesty that is embodied in Norquist you would begin to understand the depths of depravity that he and his ilk represent. You might be shocked to discover the parties he allies himself with, and their decisively unAmerican stench.

UnAmerican in the pre-Nazification sense.

Before you cite Godwin take the trouble to look up the facts. Every patriot must, especially after 9/11 (guess which side of 9/11 Norquist chose).

Oh, and Nixon was a crook. Ask Cheney, he knows, he worked for Nixon.

Well..

[DAldredge]

Has he blamed the fact that he hasn't been invited to the debats on racism yet?

From his /. interview that seams to be what he blames almost everything else on.

Re:Well..

[cavehobbit]

Yeah! It's not Easy being GREEN!

At some point common sense must prevail

[fmaxwell]

This is an example of what happens when people don't use common sense.

What kind of meaningful debate would we have if we invited not only the mainstream candidates, but also Presidential candidates Stanford E. "Andy" Andress (Independent), Lawson M. Bone (Write-In), David C. Byrne (Write-In), John Joseph Kennedy (Write-In), James Alexander Pace (Write-In), Tom Trancredo (Write-In), Thomas J. Harens (Christian Freedom Party), Deborah Elaine Allen (Write-In), Andrew J. Falk (Write-In), Gene Amondson (Prohibition Party), Michael Badnarik (Libertarian Party), Walter F. "Walt" Brown (Socialist Party), Roger Calero (Socialist Workers Party), David Keith Cobb (Green Party), Earl F. Dodge (Prohibition Party), Charles Jay (Personal Choice Party), Ralph Nader (Reform Party), John Parker (Workers World Party), Leonard J. Peltier (Peace & Freedom Party), Michael A. "Mike" Peroutka (Constitution Party), and Bill Van Auken (Socialist Equality Party)?

All of the above are exercising their right to run for the office of President of the United States, but that doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of the country to allow them all to share the stage in a debate with the only two men who actually have a chance of winning the election. If one of those candidates was looking at 20% or more of the likely vote, you can bet your butt that they'd be invited, but .0013% - 2% doesn't cut it.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[ebrandsberg]

How about invite any candidate that is on more than 10% of the state ballots? Draw a line, but I agree that you can't have everybody that claims to be a candidate, but you should have some rules that dictate who should be invited that allows serious third party candidates in general.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Anonymous Coward]

Only about 5 or 6 candidates are on enough ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning the Electoral College. Invite those.

Have more debates or whatever. The people should rightfully expect to hear the views of all/most of the candidates BEFORE we decide who has a "legitimate chance" of winning the presidency. No one gets to 15-20% of the vote without a lot of exposure that we haven't been giving these 3rd party candidates a chance to get.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[BillyBlaze]

Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates. It's a chicken-and-egg problem - nobody knows what these people stand for, so nobody will vote for them in polls (on which they're often not included), so they can't get into debates, so nobody knows what they stand for, and so on. And the election system is set up so that anyone with less than probably 20% of the popular vote won't get a single electoral vote, and so that a vote for a third party candidate is often a vote against your second choice.

It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours. Frankly, I'd like it for an "outsider" to be able to ask questions in a debate - though first we should work on giving the two already in the debate the ability to do so, in order to, uh, debate. The whole thing's a sham.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[10101001 10101001]

that doesn't mean that it's in the best interest of the country to allow them all to share the stage in a debate with the only two men who actually have a chance of winning the election.

I don't know what country you're from, but in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election. The only real question is who that person is. Maybe letting anyone who has the ability and want to win should be allowed to speak in the debate? Nah, that'd be crazy. I mean, it's not like the US is decided by plurality and not majority. Stupid me.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[burns210]

Simple question, simple answer.

Make a provision for what qualifies a candidate:

Any candidate that is on enough state ballots to THEORETICALLY win the election, is invited to the debates.

Write ins and anyone not on enough ballots, are not. To invite them would cause too many logisitical problems that you outlined above. But if winning the election is atleast a possibility, then they would be welcome. I believe this would make it a 3 man debate(Cobb is on enough, i believe), I don't believe Nader is on enough ballots, but he might be, if so, it would be 4.

What is wrong with a 4 man debate?

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[burns210]

Bush, Kerry, Cobb and Nader. Am I missing one?

I agree though, mathmatical ability to win the election should be the deciding line.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, how sweet. 10101001 10101001 never finished high school.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Anonymous Coward]

You're actually missing the two on the largest number of ballots.

Here's the breakdown of the four:

Badnarik is on 48, all but New Hampshire and Oklahoma. He's the Libertarian Candidate.

For the following, I'm excluding what's listed as "write-in."

Peroutka is on 38. He's the candidate for the Constitution Party.

Nader is on 34. No idea how often the page is updated for the various court cases with him.

Cobb is on 28. Don't know if he can mathematically win with whatever states those are.

Here's the breakdown.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[egrinake]

Well, democracy usually implies that you have more choices than just the two branches of the business party (ahem, excuse my sarcasm).

Anyway - here in Norway (and it's the same in pretty much any other democratic country) we have about 8 main political parties, and quite a few smaller ones, ranging from communist to ultra-rightwing. In the pre-election TV-debates even parties which only have about 0.5-1 percent in polls are represented - in total around 10-12 people.

Now, I've been following the US presidential debates on TV with great interest, and I believe the norwegian debates are vastly better than the US ones, for obvious reasons. To pick a few; there are usually more than two solutions to a problem, there are more people likely to contest false statements, and you get shades of gray in moral and political dimensions.

Of course, you always have to exclude someone from these large events, but in a democracy it is vital that multiple opinions be heard, and both the media and the political system has a responsibility for making this happen.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Bitsy Boffin]

If these were real debates, I'd disagree. But the fact is that these are little more than mostly scripted, well rehearsed, mutually and contractually agreed soapbox speeches.

If these were real debates, then it's important that you bring in as many views as possible, not because the "smaller" candidates might have a chance of winning the election, but because they are the ones who will ask the hard questions and to help expose the truth behind the candidates so that the population can make a more informed decision, on all the issues - not just "The War".

If one of those candidates was looking at 20% or more of the likely vote, you can bet your butt that they'd be invited

The debates are run by the two main parties, they contractually agree between themselves, behind closed doors, as to how the debates are run. A 3rd candidate would have to be wielding an very large stick indeed to have any chance of getting in.

http://www.opendebates.org/

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[fmaxwell]

Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates.

Absurd. The majority of voters have made their decisions long before the debates and only a small percentage will be swung by the outcome of the debates. "Third party" candidates aren't excluded from the debates. If any of them had managed to get enough support, they would be included in the debates, as Ross Perot was.

It's possible that you just don't want a multiple-party system, and that's fine. But be honest about it - it's not necessairily against our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, even if it's against yours.

Don't presume to tell me what I want and what my motivations are. It's very much in our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, and that's why you can't have a line-up of two-dozen or more candidates on the stage at once. How meaningful is a 90 minute debate that has two dozen competing participants?

"For each question there can only be a 5.8 second response, a 3.2 second rebuttal and, at my discretion, a discussion extension of one minute in which each candidate will be allowed to speak for 2.5 seconds. A green light will come on when .6 seconds remain in any given answer, yellow at .3, red at .1 seconds, and then flashing red means time's up. There is also a backup buzzer system if needed."

Yes, that would really be a great benefit to the voters. Or were you proposing that we extend each debate to 18 hours to give each participant the same time that Bush and Kerry now enjoy?

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[HanzoSpam]

Don't presume to tell me what I want and what my motivations are. It's very much in our nation's interest to have meaningful debates, and that's why you can't have a line-up of two-dozen or more candidates on the stage at once. How meaningful is a 90 minute debate that has two dozen competing participants?

That's what we call a straw man. You could restrict the debates to candidates who were on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win enough electoral votes to be elected. That happens to be six candidates, in this case. Considering that six candidates or better are frequently accomodated during primary debates, there's no reason they couldn't be accomodated during presidential debates, as well.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[fmaxwell]

I don't know what country you're from, but in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election.

Perhaps English is a second language to you, but "chance" means "possibility." So if one says that only two men have a chance of winning the election, it means that the race is down to those two men. It means that there are no other people with a foreseeable possibility of winning.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Anonymous Coward]

Umm.. you do relize Badnarik(Libertarian Party) is on the ballot in 48 states right? He beats out both Cobb and Nader.

Gosh darnit! why do people alwayls ignore the Libertarian guy!

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[fmaxwell]

That's what we call a straw man.

No, it is not. The person to whom I was replying was in favor of letting all candidates share the stage. He wrote: "Most of the reason none of those people have a chance is that they are excluded from the debates." The implication being that they should all be allowed to participate in the debates or they would be denied their chance to have a meaningful candidacy.

You could restrict the debates to candidates who were on the ballot of enough states to theoretically win enough electoral votes to be elected. That happens to be six candidates, in this case. Considering that six candidates or better are frequently accomodated during primary debates, there's no reason they couldn't be accomodated during presidential debates, as well.

While that's an improvement, I think that one has to recognize that the purpose of the primaries is more to weed out the weak candidates than to decide between the two strongest. Six candidates rather than two means that each candidate gets less than 1/3 of the talking time that the two candidates do today. That, to me, seems inadequate.

It's a tough balancing act to run these debates. If they get too long, many people won't watch them. Look at C-Span if you doubt me. If they are too short, the voters won't learn enough from the exchange. If there are too many candidates sharing the stage and talking about a wide variety of issues, voters will become confused; "Was Brown the one in favor of gun control but against the Kyoto treaty or was he the one who was pushing for alternative fuel tax deductions who told Smith that there was more to running a country than name dropping?"

By the way, your sig doesn't exactly promote intelligent discourse and I'd urge you to consider changing it. Just a suggestion. Not a flame, insult, or attack.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[10101001 10101001]

No, English is not my second language. If you want to define it as possibility, then either there's the possibility that one person will win or there's the possibility that anyone who meets the qualifications will win (limiting it to those with enough ballot access is another definition, given that I don't believe all states allow write-in). Claiming only one of two men has a possibility of win seems disingenuous. For quite some time, the President of the US has been elected by a plurality (about 50% of the eligible populace votes). That would seem clear evidence that if there were three strong contenders, one would probably win by slightly over 33% of those who vote (though I've no idea if the percentage of actual voter would increase).

The only thing stopping this would seem to be is a strong refusal that a 3rd party can exist for an extended period of time. The established parties and its members were the main cause of this; in the past, elections used to be won by actual majorities, so any party split would mean a 50%, 50%-n, n% for n > 0% or similar split nearly guaranteeing the party who didn't split would win. With nearly the majority of eligible voters not voting, there is clearly room (ie, possibility) for there to be a 25%, 25%, 25%, 25% split or something similar. Further decline in voting might provide a 5 way or 6 way split. It seems clear to me that the current situation is ripe for a multi-party system. Though in the end, only one person is elected.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[fmaxwell]

If you want to define it as possibility,

I don't define words. Dictionaries do: "The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability."

then either there's the possibility that one person will win

That's a given: Only one person will win.

or there's the possibility that anyone who meets the qualifications will win (limiting it to those with enough ballot access is another definition, given that I don't believe all states allow write-in).

No, that's not a possibility. There is ZERO chance that, say, Cobb will win. There is ZERO chance that Kenneth Lay will win. It doesn't matter if Bush and Kerry strip naked and go at it doggie style on national television. Neither Cobb nor Lay have ANY chance of being elected. None.

Claiming only one of two men has a possibility of win[sic] seems disingenuous.

No, it's realistic. There is no other person running who has any chance of winning this election.

For quite some time, the President of the US has been elected by a plurality (about 50% of the eligible populace votes). That would seem clear evidence that if there were three strong contenders, one would probably win by slightly over 33% of those who vote (though I've no idea if the percentage of actual voter would increase).

But we don't have three strong contenders. We have two. So it makes no sense to complain that there are only two people in the debate.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[10101001 10101001]

How can you claim there is zero chance Cobbs will win given that he's on enough ballots *to* win? The same goes for Badnarik. While I agree that there are currently two strong contenders, that doesn't mean Badnarik or Cobbs can't be made a third if enough people just decide to make him one. I certainly choose that for Badnarik. Why can't you?

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[fmaxwell]

How can you claim there is zero chance Cobbs will win given that he's on enough ballots *to* win? The same goes for Badnarik.

Because there is a difference between a mathematical possibility and an actual chance.

While I agree that there are currently two strong contenders, that doesn't mean Badnarik or Cobbs can't be made a third if enough people just decide to make him one.

I think that we are talking at cross purposes. I'd be demanding that Badnarik share the stage with Bush and Kerry if Badnarik had a strong enough enough base of support to make him a viable candidate with an actual shot at winning. If Bush, Kerry, and Badnarik were at 35%, 35%, and 30%, you can bet that Badnarik would be given a place on that stage - as he should be in that circumstance.

But what we have now is a race that's down to two contenders. The rest of the field has support in the single digit or fractions of a percent ranges.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[10101001 10101001]

But where do you get the 35%, 35%, 30% except from the vote itself? You can't very well use the standard on who gains 15%+ in an election as a basis for who gets to speak in the debate before the election. Using such for parties that gain 15%+ on the previous election might be a basis, but even then both Democrats and Republicans are automatically dismissive of there being a strong third party even though half the country doesn't vote which clearly leaves enough people to vote a third party candidate in.

To me, it seems clear that the only way a third party candidate has any reasonable chance of being elected is to stop acting like he has no chance of being elected. That means discussing him in the news and his position as well as allowing him to join in the debate. It might be the case that a large portion of voters vote Democrat or Republican based solely on party labels, that stance is more assumed than proven. If it were true, then including third parties in the debate or in national discussions would have no effect on the outcome of the vote.

The truth is, at least 1% of voters and possible 90% of non-voters who are eligible to vote are discontent with Democrat and Republican effectiveness at carrying out promises. It seems it's more Democrat and Republican fear than anything which is stalling third party candidates because they realize if they win 1% this year, they might win 5-10% next, and so on. Democrats and Republicans want to believe that people are actually choosing their candidate, not making a choice between "the lesser of two evils" (exception this year, as it's more or less the campaign slogan). It seems to me the only way to truly guarantee this is to stop putting up all sorts of barriers under the assumption only Democrats and Republicans will win.

If you didn't know, neither Democrats or Republicans were the founding parties of the US. If various party coups can occur in US history, it's clear one could happen now as well. And maybe with instant runoff voting, there could be more than just two major parties consistently in the future. I know few people who actually fit the Democrat or Republican mold anyways.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[fmaxwell]

But where do you get the 35%, 35%, 30% except from the vote itself?

From statistically valid polls.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. There is only one contender. Anyone who bothers to open their eyes and look around knows full well exactly who will win on 11/2.

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Russ Nelson]

Badnarik is on the ballot in at least 48 states.

Otherwise, I agree with you 100%. The deciding rule should be "on the ballot in enough states to be electable", not "already has enough mindshare".
-russ

Re:At some point common sense must prevail

[Russ Nelson]

I dunno, people manage to keep track of who is sleeping with who on Jerry Springer. I have a severe lack of trust in anybody who says "voters will become confused." If voters are that stupid, then they should just elect a dictator and be done with the whole silly democracy thing. But then, I don't think voters are that stupid.
-russ

so this is what democracy looks like

[drfrog]

so how do othe rviable candidates actually get heard

so sad
this is a travesty to democracy

Oh....

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because he's not allowed to speak. I thought it was because the people didn't want to listen.

Seriously, if he was a statistically meaningful contender, he'd be there. The debates would be illegitimate if he weren't in that case. Since he's not a contender, what he brings to the table is not meaningful. How can I tell? The audiance is silent.

How about the libertarians start realistically. By putting what few resources they have behind their strongest canidates for modest but achivable aims. Like a congressional seat, the state legislature, mayor of a prominent city, or even a large school board. The fact that they're so commited to an all or nothing flame out tells me a lot about them. In general, they are the party of the impractical. If their canidates can distinguish themselves the excecution of their ideals will build their party for them. Right now, they're a bunch of jack-offs who feel entitled to an audiance.

Re:Oh....

[Rheingold]

Cobb is a Green, not Libertarian. And Greens are running for a lot of local and state offices.

Not so.

[Squeeze Truck]

In 2000 Nader had a ticket to attend the debates but was turned away anyway.

What "chance" means

[some guy I know]

in the US the Presidential Office is held by exactly one person. So, there's only one person who has a chance of winning the election.

There is only one person (at most) who will actually win the election. Everyone else (who meets the constitutional requirements) has a chance (even me!), however slim that chance may be.

Here is a more common example that will, hopefully, illustrate "chance" more clearly: If you flip a coin, only one side will face up once the coin has landed and stopped moving. But until the coin is flipped, both sides (and, possibly, even the (third-party) edge!) have a chance of facing up when the coin lands and stops moving.

I'm planing on doing it for the next set

[Marxist Hacker 42]

In 2008, if my fledgling party gets off the ground enough to pay for the plane tickets, we will have whoever our primary candidates end up being at every debate- if nothing else than to break the rules of the debate by heckling the stage.

Badnarik is going to be there as well

[Selecter]

Michael Badnarik is going to be there and attempt to cross the line with Cobb at the same time. It's not a Green Party protest, it's going to be done jointly by Badnarik and Cobb together at the same time.

I smell a rat in that The Green Party seems to be getting the publicity for this when the Libertarians have opnely made it a joint deal and mentioned the Greens in their press release, but there's no mention of the Libertarians or Badnarik in the story or on the Green website right now.

If they are smart they will have plenty of video cams to record the action independently of the press.

why the silly rules?

[Mondongo]

Excuse me the off-topic, but I live in Argentina; I read the New York Post, I check Electoral Vote nearly everyday, and I enjoyed the BushBashing on the last debate (go Kerry!).

That said, I cannot figure out why the silly rules that the candidates cannot speak to one another, can't come near the other, etc... WTF? I'd prefer the Democrats to win, but why are so wussies? Can't they say "we want a debate and Kerry'd like to call Bush a LIAR to his face!" ?

Maybe if I lived in the US I'd understand this things... :-)

thx!
j.

Re:why the silly rules?

[Anonymous Coward]

Those rules are for their own good. They want to be restricted because they both know that if they were to be walking around and talking back and forth, etc etc, that they would end up looking like jerks that no one would vote for at ALL. The existing debates are essentially joint live TV commercials not "debates" in any sense of the word, similar to how the DNC and RNC conventions were actually public relations, and not conventions (the Greens and Libertarians actually had conventions at which decisions were actually made that were not foregone conclusions).

Here is some common sense

[PackMan97]

Why not just invite those candidates who can win the electoral college? That seems like a very sensible requirement.

That would mean inviting the following:
Badnarik - 49 states, 527 possible electors
Cobb - 28 states, 286 possible electors
Nader - 36 states, 299 possible electors (in court in 5 more for a total of 41 with 388 electors)
Peroutka - 38 states for 366 electors ( 1 in court that would add 4 electors)

See isn't that easy. These four, along with Bush and Kerry are the only candidates that can win the electoral college. Why not allow them in the debates?

The Democrats had debates with nine and ten candidates during the primary and we didn't see Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt and Kucinich get excluded despite the fact they routinely polled less than 15% and had no chance of winning!

If the Democrats can put on a national debate with ten candidates, certainly we can do it with only 6 candidates?

Re:Here is some common sense

[fmaxwell]

See isn't that easy. These four, along with Bush and Kerry are the only candidates that can win the electoral college. Why not allow them in the debates?

Becuase you would cut, by a factor of three, the time that Americans could hear from those who have an actual, rather than mathematical, chance of winning. I'll admit that polls aren't perfect, but when Cobb isn't even showing as a blip in the polls, he just can't win, so why take precious time out of a debate to let him participate?

The Democrats had debates with nine and ten candidates during the primary and we didn't see Mosley-Braun, Sharpton, Lieberman, Edwards, Gephardt and Kucinich get excluded despite the fact they routinely polled less than 15% and had no chance of winning!

And those debates lacked much substance. They were a way to weed out the chaff and nothing more.

Libertarians not to be left out

[CrkHead]

Badnarik plans on crashing as well. Text of campaign email:

*"IT IS NOT TOO SOON FOR HONEST MEN TO REBEL ..." Badnarik: I will debate or be arrested*

October 8, 2004 For Immediate Release Contact:
Stephen P. Gordon Office: (512) 637-6867 Cell: (256) 227-8360
communications@badnarik.org
{mailto:communications@badnarik.org}
Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's 2004 presidential nominee, will debate John Kerry and George W. Bush in St. Louis on Friday. Or he'll go to jail instead.

"A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates," says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. "And the CPD, as a non-profit, has received special treatment from government on the requirement that they be non-partisan in their activities. Bi-partisan is not non-partisan.

"Unless I am allowed to participate, the debates become a massive campaign contribution to two of the candidates, illegal under the very campaign finance laws those two candidates have passed and signed as Senator and President."

At 8 p.m. on Friday evening, Badnarik, along with the demonstrators expected to assemble in protest against his exclusion, will proceed to the police line erected to keep himself and the other legitimate candidates out during broadcast of the "bi-partisan campaign commercial."

And then he will cross it.

"We'd have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America," says Badnarik's communications director, Stephen Gordon. "However, they have interposed the machinery of government between the American people and the honest debate which must precede any honest election. Now it's up to patriots like Michael Badnarik to force the issue." In Arizona, the Libertarian Party is taking the state university to court to prevent the expenditure of state money on a similar event.

Badnarik has previously debated David Cobb, the Green Party's candidate; Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party; and Walt Brown of the Socialist Party. Kerry and Bush, as well as Independent Ralph Nader, declined to participate in those debates. Tomorrow morning, he will proceed from a New York taping with Bill Moyers to St. Louis, ready to take on the Republican and Democratic machines in defense of American democracy.

Voters in 48 states and the District of Columbia will be able to vote for Badnarik on November 2nd. More than 600 Libertarians currently serve in public office across the United States. -30-

Additional press information:

- The protest will proceed from Northmoor Park on Big Bend Ave., just south of Washington University to the corner of Big Bend and Forsyth, where the police line is expected to be arrayed. Badnarik's crossing onto the Washington University campus will take place at that point, some time between 8 and 8:15 p.m. Badnarik and Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb plan to cross the police line together.

- The headline quote is from Thoreau, and intended to apply to the US occupation of Iraq:

"In other words, when ... a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army." -- Henry David Thoreau, /On the Duty of Civil Disobedience/

It's not just Cobb

[Megami-sama]

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party's candidate did so as well.