Slashdot Mirror
Presidential Candidates Arrested at Debates
h8macs writes "Third party Presidential candidates Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) and David Cobb (Green) were arrested while attempting to enter the presidential debate at Washington University in St. Louis."
Answer the questions!
Nope, while not having a record is a requirement for a lot of federal jobs, it's not one for president. Look at Bush, he got arrested for DUI and they still let him be president.
Monstar L
Badnarik was trying to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates with an order to show cause (located here from an Arizona judge. Members of the LP attempted to serve the CPD earlier in the day at their Washington D.C. headquarters and were met with security guards.
The official Badnarik/Campagna 04 website has a page that is being continuously updated with news as it comes in, it appears that Badnarik is now out of jail and resting. The page is located here.
Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
We just had our election today and little Johnny Howard is back for a 4th term as Prime Minister.
MICHAEL BADNARIK ARRESTED
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 Collins reported to me from the ground that Badnarik and Cobb are in great physical condition and great spirit.
http://badnarik.org/newsfromthetrail.php?p=1346
Can't be said loudly or often enough:
l le ction=election_2004&collectionid=Michael_Badna rik
... I'd say "What a joke", except it is NOT funny that only the Demopublicans are allowed into the debate. Anyone who isn't a Republicrat is automatically excluded - BECAUSE it would cause people to ... GASP! ... think about the issues ... oh NO!
America is NOT a "democracy", NOR SHOULD IT BE.
It was founded as a republic.
Badnarik explains that in his course on the Constitution.
http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?co
In brief, a democracy always devolves into mob rule, whereas a republic as we designed it was supposed to protect minority rights. There are some things which it is just plain wrong to vote on.
As for the CPD
The sea changes color, but the sea does not change.
then they should get the mandatory 15% of the polled vote just like the rules say. It's not the Commission's fault that they're running lousy, disorganized campaigns.
Yes, but aside from the fact that the Constitution Party *does* advocate not changing the Consitution, their entire remaining platform appears to me to be stupid, short-sighted, and offensive. They dislike foreigners, free trade, and homosexuals (I must admit, when a party's platform says that a party is "anti-homosexual", images of the KKK and Nazi party start floating by). They have ties to anti-female equality ideas.
The closest organization in the US to the Consitution Party is the KKK.
May we never see th
Badnarik, Cobb, Peroutka, and Nader all debated on PBS's NOW with Bill Moyers last night. The transcript of these debates should be on the NOW website somewhere here:
b s.org/now/politics/thirdcandidates.ht ml
http://www.pbs.org/now/index.html
http://www.p
eat shiat and bark at the moon
He was at Washington University at the time, trying to get included in a debate at Arizona State University. It wasn't "their" property in any shape or form. The argument he's making is that because the next debate is on public land (at ASU), financed by public funds, he shouldn't be discriminated against. Makes sense to me.
Do they have a right to refuse to accept the court documents he was trying to deliver?
No, if the person being served is aware of the service attempt. However, that person doesn't have to admit a process server onto their property if they don't want to.
Since in this situation the server (Badnarik in this case) was stopped by security, and the article doesn't suggest that the person being served was anywhere near the scene, then service hasn't performed. Waving a court document doesn't just get you anywhere you want to go.
If he saw the guy he was serving walking by, and while stopped by security shouted out something to the effect that he was serving process, and the target heard (or should have heard), then the court will generally accept that the person has been served (even if he doesn't accept the documents himself he's officially received notice).
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.
I'm just trying to point out that everyone draws a line somewhere. Badnarik is on 49 ballots, Cobb is on a number less, and Nader is on even fewer. It'd be quite possible to draw a line somewhere where one third party candidate gets invited (ie a Perot) and others are left off. As long as the debates are private, the public won't have any significant say in who gets invited or what exactly the requirements to be invited will be.
I have worked extensively with LP candidates who WERE included in debates, at local and state levels. I have been an advisor to four different campaigns included in state-level debates over a period of a decade. And I can tell you that actually being included the debate has almost no effect in vote totals whatsoever. In the last case I saw, a repeat statewide candidate was included in MANY debates (the D saw it as being to his advantage, so he negotiated it)... and saw his vote total actually go down. Not some doof... a polished speaker with a legitimate "look" who was even a possible candidate for LP veep at one point.
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.
heres a list of the 200+ green party members who have been elected into public offices.
m l
http://www.feinstein.org/greenparty/electeds.ht
give me a minute to find a list of libertarians.
heres a list of the libs
http://www.lp.org/organization/officials.php
It's not private when tax dollars are funding it nor when it is taking place on state-owned property as with the Arizona debates.
This is merely pointing out that they're following their own rules, at least, concerning presidential candidates and debates... not hard to follow them if you get to make them up, I suppose.
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.
Everyone who is on the ballot in enough states to possibly win the election. There are 6 candidates who meet this criteria.
http://www.debates.org/pages/news_041006.html Here are the "rules" for admitting third party candidates into the debates. I feel SO represented, believe me. Whats the point?
If it's not broken, let's fix it till it is.
No we don't.
Jesse Ventura, not backed by a party, nor was he backed by millions and he was elected governor of Minnesota and he had enough name recognition he could have gone farther.
However, he was a little loose-cannony as governor.
Looking at the Libertarian and Green candiates, I've gotta say, guys, it's not the system that's keeping them from larger acceptance, it's thier platform and candidates. They are too fringy to get widespread support in the United States.
Don't hate the game when it's the players who are lacking.
Because it was held on public propoerty using tax dollars. No private property rights were violated at all.
Damnit, Jim, I'm an anarchist, not a F@#$!^& doctor!
However, if no one's ever heard of the party, who's going to vote for them? These 'presidental candidates' are as much PR for the viable local candidates as it is a way of pointing out flaws in the duopoly.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Search for just Badnarik, dropping the word 'arrest' or use the phrase 'Badnarik arrested' and it looks like quite a few local papers are picking it up. I bet AP will pick it up, but probably only as a paragraph or two in a general debate coverage story.
Well, He is a candidate. Don't you think he should be in the debates?
He probably should be, but I don't think you can simply say, "All candidates should be in the debate." Have you seen the list of all the candidates in all the different states? Should Joe the crackhead from down the street be allowed in just because he's a candidate, even though he's only on the ballot in one state and he barely made it onto that one?
Now if the argument was that all candidates on the ballot in over Y number of states should be in the debate, that I would understand.
Here are the current admissions requirements (according to the Commission's Web site):
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.
It's not like they're just being mean. Badnarik and Cobb apparently didn't meet the above criteria.
That would do it, probably, as long as the person doing it isn't one of the two parties.
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.
Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose ...
You're right...it couldn't have been because 11% of self-described Democrats voted for Bush.
Commission on Presidential Debates ( from Disinfo.com ) The Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a "private, nonprofit corporation -- [which] represents the interests of the Republican and Democratic parties." The Commission was established in 1987 following the 1986 agreement by the Democratic National Committee and the Republican National Committee "to take over the presidential debates." Previously, "from 1976 to 1984, the presidential debates were sponsored by the League of Women Voters." The Commission [1] The CPD has come under attack from democracy advocates, third parties and independent candidates for the presidency. They claim the CPD is little more than a front for the two dominant parties that allows them to maintain control over debate participants, formats, and moderators. This absolute control over the form also gives them indirect control over the range of issues that may be discussed, excluding many of the most critical issues on which there is either bi-partisan agreement or disinterest in discussion. All the while, the dominant parties maintain plausible deniability for the anti-democratic practices via the CPD. Criticisms of the CPD The commission describes itself as nonpartisan, but it is actually bipartisan: its co-chairmen are Frank Fahrenkopf and Paul Kirk, former chairmen of the Republican and Democratic parties, respectively. Questions concerning third-party participation and debate formats are ultimately resolved behind closed doors among Republican and Democratic negotiators. The commission, posing as an independent sponsor, then enforces these rules, shielding the major-party candidates from public criticism. In 1996, Bob Dole and President Bill Clinton maneuvered to keep Ross Perot from the presidential debates, even though Mr. Perot had received 19% of the popular vote after being allowed into the 1992 debates, posessed almost $30 million in federal matching funds, and a substantial majority of likely voters wanted him included. Open Debates points out that "most board members of the CPD have close ties to multinational corporations. Five are partners of corporate law firms, and collectively, the directors serve on the boards of more than 30 companies, ranging from gambling to pharmaceutical to agricultural to insurance companies. According to Open Debates, Fahrenkopf and Kirk still control the CPD. They don't just profit from corporate America as partners of corporate law firms and directors of corporations. They are also registered lobbyists for transnational corporations. Kirk has collected $120,000 for lobbying on behalf of Hoechst Marion Roussel, a German pharmaceutical company. "As president of the American Gaming Association (AGA), Frank Fahrenkopf is the lead advocate for the nation's $54 billion gambling industry. He earns $800,000 a year lobbying on behalf of 18 corporations directly involved in the hotel/casino industry -- ITT, Hilton -- as well as most of the major investment banking firms -- Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch. The debates are now primarily funded through corporate contributions. Phillip Morris was a sponsor in 1992 and 1996. Anheuser-Busch sponsored debates in its hometown of St. Louis in 1992 and 2000. "When the League of Women Voters ran the debates, things were a bit different. 'One of the big differences between us and the commission was that the commission could easily raise hundreds of thousands of dollars in contributions,' Nancy Neuman, former president of the League of Women Voters told Open Debates. 'They did it very quickly in 1988. Even though I would go to some corporations, I would be lucky to get $5,000. Why? Because under the commission's sponsorship, this is another soft money deal. It is a way to show your support for the parties because, of course, it is a bipartisan commission and a bipartisan contribution. There was nothing in it for corporations when they made a contribution to the League. Not a quid pro quo. That's not the case with the commission.'" In 2000, ReclaimDemocracy.org initiated calls to cease lobbying the CPD to "o
The debate may not be a "government operated" affair, but it's not the same thing as you or I holding a private party and choosing not to invite a few people. Government has been in full force, controlling/directing the way the debate will be carried out.
As just one example, I was trying to make a service call out in Chesterfield yesterday morning, and the entrance ramp from Interstate 270 onto Interstate 40 was blocked off by police. It caused me to be about 30 minutes late. Later in the evening, the radio was warning people not to even bother trying to drive anyplace that went near Washington University, since most of the roads in that area would be blocked off for the duration of the debate. (Show me any private party or business affair you know of where this level of government intervention is present?)
Considering the overall political climate though, Badnarik might have accomplished more by setting up a heavily publicized speech/dinner or something, scheduled for around the same time and vicinity as the debates. Might have worked out pretty well, giving the press a free meal and opportunity to listen to him voice his opinions - and timing it so it ended just in time for them to head over to the other debate to cover it too.
I thought so too, but Wikipedia says that Washington University is a private institution. However, I'm not sure exactly how the debates are funded, and I don't know if that would make a difference since it is on private property.
-prator
"It is not too soon for honest men to rebel." The reason Badnarik did this is because the Commission on Presidential Debates is a nonprofit and allegedly nonpartisan organization. With this status, the organization receives tax breaks because it is supposed to serve the public interest. However, the commission has failed to do this, as it has only served as a bipartisan (far from nonpartisan) campaign commercial for Bush and Kerry and much of the real issues facing America today are not being discussed. Badnarik was attempting to serve court papers to the Commission about a pending lawsuit against it because of misuse of public funds on the presidential debate currently slated to take place at an Arizona university. If you read on his website, you'll note that there was some trouble getting any employee of the Commission on Public Debates to accept these papers. This was nothing short of civil disobedience to protest the decay of politics here in the United States. Drastic times call for drastic measures. When something is proclaiming to be in the interest of the public, but is really only serving to exclude additional voices from interfering with the two dominant parties, someone has to take action.
They do not trade on thier reputation. UL labs has the force of government law and insurance companies. It is also an approved lab by the government regulators. It is illegal to sell a consumer appliance that is not approved by UL (or an equivalent lab). Also using such an appliance invalidates your insurance. So if you plug in that coffemaker that doesn't have a UL logo (or equivalent) and it causes a fire, you are up the crick without a paddle. Companies do not get UL approval for a PR gesture, they get UL approval because it is required. Although I agree that UL has a good reputation, UL gets its power because it is backed by regulation.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
Badnarik Gets Arrested At 2ND Presidential Debate 100804.mp3
o vies&identifier=mad_studios_-_let_badnarik_deb ate
- the 27 minute compilation of live audio from last night's Presidential Candidate's
arrest, courtesy of Mad Studios, is available now at:
http://www.tinyurl.com/4hpsz
Get it quick!
(this link will self destruct in 4 days)
Let Badnarik Debate!!!
the Badnarik files found at:
http://www.archive.org/details-db.php?mediatype=m
With respect to Libya, if you're referring to the current administration claiming the Iraq war inspired Libyan government to try and rejoin the world community, in fact negotiations on that began in '99. They were tired of sanctions.
-- perl -e'print pack"H*","6e656d6f406d38792e6f7267"'
Ah, more adventures in St. Louis....
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
http://www.constitution.org/vote/votescam__.htm
David Cobb arrested attempting to debate.
By the way, it appears that Cobb was the first one in -- Badnarik came in a minute later.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.
Well the libs only get about 5%, but 65% percent in mid 2004 dissagreed with the so-called patriot Act (Nazi Power Grab Act). The libs are the only party that I have seen that dissagreed with the patriot Act. Both Nazi Kerry and Bush want all your civil rights. The libs support lower taxes as well. Something the Dems & Reps claim to want, but never provide except to special groups (Excluding 1984). Adjusted for inflation 1984 is the only year where incomes went up for the last 20+ years or so. www.bls.gov just subtract inflation from the income numbers and boom you see the failure of socialism. Now we see the failure of Fascism. LOL.. Please stop the cycle vote for freedom vote for the libs.
This news wasn't mentioned much. Even doing a search on Google News barely return anything.