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."
Ladies and gentlemen, I give you... the land of the free. ;-)
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
As a Badnarik supporter I enjoy the sentiment of what Mr. Badnarik and Mr. Cobb did and agree whole heartedly with them, but I'm not exactly sure how this help's the "radical" third party's persona.
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
Mike
When presidential candidates are arrested for trying to attend a presidential debate.
I can think of no sadder statement of our times than that. I now have absolutely no hope for our democratic system.
They shouldn't be surprised that they weren't let in.
... maybe even a C.
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 intended to make news and they did.
With what looks like a slight majority in the senate, which is a damn shame considering the privitisation, greed, lies and draconian laws that will be passed without any sane resistence.
5% is a better standard. They still wouldn't have gotten in, but in other elections, it could make a difference.
Why would Badnarik, who campaigns bitterly against such government intrusions on private citizens and corporations, take part in such an intrusion?
Because somewhere around (i.e. pulled from my ass) 97% of Americans have never heard of the Libertarian Party and 99.9% of Americans have never heard of Michael Badnarik.
He now gets prominent headlines and a nice association with freedom of speech. He's making himself impossible to ignore. The right thing to do, IMHO.
It should shake the debate up a bit.
I have a number of issues with the Libertarian platform, but at least Badnarik (and Cobb) are doing the right thing to get the boat moving.
May we never see th
Of course they got arrested.
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.
Only two parties are allowed to voice publicly their opinion?
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.
Consider the two major party candidates:
I contend that we cannot consider ANY third party candidate to be truly serious about running for President until they have run for AND WON a race wherein the votes cast were made from a statewide race (i.e. senator, governor, state attorney general, etc.). From a standpoint of viability, how can any candidate expect to win multiple states if he or she cannot win even one state first?
And really, the only way for these third parties to be considered serious is for those same third parties to have a base of representatives who have succeeded 1) on the local level, 2) on the statewide level (i.e. state legislature), and 3) on the national level (i.e. Congress). Neither of these parties have done that.
This is the recipe for success for any third party or third party candidate. These are very specific goals that can be attained. By working for these goals, a party or candidate can truly show that they are serious about political office.
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.
To within half a percent, pi seconds is a nanocentury. -- Tom Duff
If they hadn't been arrested, no one would have known they were there.
/. care about legitimate news?
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
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
The local press in St. Louis covered the antics of these candidates. One of them was having a hard time getting arrested. He kept throwing himself into the riot shields of the police and bouncing off. Then another serious candidate who looked like Santa Claus, but dressed only in tan shorts ranted and raved to reporters about the eeeeevil police removing his campaign banner that was leaning against the security fence. He was not arrested. When even the mainstream media depicts the actions of your candidate alongside those of eccentrics, maybe it's a problem with the actions of your candidate that are the problem and not a conspiracy of the media, police, and voters. But then again, I could be part of the conspiracy, too...
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?
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.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Quoth Bingo Foo: ----- Constitution Party nominee Michael Anthony Peroutka did not pull such a stunt and did not get arrested. ----- You are absolutely, 100% right. Of course, Constitution Party nominee Michael Anthony Peroutka hasn't done much of anything at all, so it's hardly surprising that he didn't do this particular thing. Tom Knapp
knappster.blogspot.com "When the going gets weird, the weird start blogging"
Sacrificing your prinicples in order to get votes... yup, he sounds like a natural politician to me.
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?
The candidates engaged in an act of civil disobedience, which in my opinion was justified. I applaud the fact that they were willing to experience the discomfort of being arrested in protest of the restrictive two party system.
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.
On the other hand, it seems like these days the definition of "democracy" has been stretched so much that it covers pretty much anything, so long as the rulers are chosen via an election in which *some* people are allowed to vote.
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.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
No, because we have secret ballots. If you voted in a primary, however, you were part of the selection process.
Considering Florida 2000 and the Diebold scandals -- not even mentioning the long, sordid history of "vote fixing" that's plagued US elections since the advent of political machines -- that's hardly certain.
You were definitely part of the selection ritual, at least...
...that we can choose Miss America from 50 contestants, but we just can't handle six legitimate candidates for President (who are on the ballot in enough states to win a majority of the Electoral College) in a debate?
Especially since we seem to be able to handle six Democrats in a primary debate...
The cnn.com poll and the poll discussed in their article are not the same. From the article:
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.
Visit the
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 candidates that are on the ballot in most states get arrested when they try to enter the building that's hosting a presidential debate. Ignoring all the details of went went on, that is pretty fucked up. FUD?
Yeah, it's FUD. But I genuinely fear that the vast majority of Americans won't get to hear a meaningfully different point of view on many important issues. I am uncertain that most voters know that Cobb, Badnarik (and Pertouka) exist, let alone know their stance on the issues. I doubt that these sanitized, lame excuses for debates will be adequate to really help an undecided voter make up their mind, or more importantly, help illustrate to non-voters why it is important for them to participate in the election.
It was an act of civil disobedience, one that I don't think anybody should be ashamed of (except the Commission on Presidential Debates and anybody else who tries to exclude 3rd party candidates from the process.)
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.
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."
With all due respect, this is not an insightful comment, but a naive one. There are not many third party candidates who have been elected to office of any kind because the two-party system controls every lever of power right down to the local dog catcher. In short, whichever party controls the local machinery of government blocks you at every single level. That's the heart of what I have to say. For more details, read on:
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
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.
The Commission on Presidential Debates isn't a governmental entity--it's a private corporation. Why doesn't Badnarik, as a "libertarian", respect their property rights?
for one thing, although it is done by a private corporation, it is funded by the government.
And a tax-exempt "non-partisan" one at that - yet they're performing a partisan politicical action by denying media access to particular political views.
= = = =
But IMHO the big issue is that they're acting as gatekeeper to political speech on the airwaves - which (according to current legal theory) are "Public" and "Held in trust" for their owners - the general population - which includes Libertarians and Greens.
Meanwhile, the media operates them under license from the government (a privilege which may be denied, not a right which can be defended) and the government engages in content control and limits even licensure to a small number of players. No new TV or radio broadcasters need apply - and one of the rules is that even if you DO buy up stations to create a new private network with a different political slant, you are prevented from buying enough to reach even a majority of the population.
If (as the Libertarians want) the airwaves were parceled an sold off (or homesteaded) to become private property, the situation would be different. THEN a broadcaster who OWNED a particular chunk of them would not be subject to losing a "license" if his CONTENT was politically incorrect. And a new player could buy or start small stations (of which there are plenty even now available cheaply) getting out any message he wished or renting time to anyone he wished. At THAT point "private property" arguments would apply.
Alternatively, broadcasting could be treated like speech and the airwaves as a commons (just as the real air and the real sonic "air waves" are now). Something like WiFi is treated - don't shout down anybody else and you can say what you want, with commonly-accepted protocols for who gets to talk next that exclude nobody and give all fair access. Then the commons / public space arguments would apply (and again Libertarians could take coercive actions - starting with an appeal to legal process - if someone systematically shouted them down in violation of accepted norms).
As long as broadcast radio and TV are using a resource under government-whim-modulated rules the fact that the broadcasters and their cartel management are private corporations gives them no "private property rights" to use to impress a Libertarian. Instead they're in the possition of a government crony receiving a handout in return for misusing it in support of the government's own insiders.
I see no hypocracy here at all. Any appearance of it simply shows how badly the Libertarians' private property arguments have been miscostrued in the public eye.
Which, of course, is a result of their lack of media access. B-)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
..Perot WAS at the debates and he had never been elected to anything. When he pulled a huge number of votes because finally there was some media coverage for a third party candidate,it terrified the R&D coalition of the crooked, and they changed the rules and laws on the whole thing. Even the leagueof women voters got fed up with them. And they make sure there's little press for any third parties, yet they cover medium ridiculous crapola like michael jackson and kobe bryant endlessly just about.
The fix is in, we live in a low key but increasingly dictatorial police state junta run by two cooperating for-profit private criminal cartels who have hijacked legitimate government and run it as a jobs program and as a way to be in a position to accept bribes for favors. Obvious as all get out.
I expect the actions of scoundrels to be immoral and unethical. However, what really bothers me is the callous complacency and self-interest of the electorate.
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
Words to men, as air to birds.
So can they get in trouble for that? I know that if you went out of your way to avoid getting served papers in various other regards (e.g. if you hid from your ex-wife's lawyers) you'd get arrested.
You can't even get your own "democracy" right and you insist on spreading "democracy" by cluster-bombing civillians.
That's strange. Last time I looked, the US was using precision laser-guided munitions wherever possible. The improvement in war technology is minimizing "collateral damage" among the UNinvolved civilian population.
But you do have a point. You might say Sadam was a civilian - the "civilian" head of a government. The terrorist organizations are composed mainly of "civilians" - people with no rank in the military forces of a recognized government.
As for "getting democracy right", don't forget that, when we tried a republic, virtually all of the rest of the world (with such notable exceptions as the Swiss and certain American Indian tribes) was being run by dictators, mostly hereditary, and the republic of Rome and democracy of Greece were used as examples of why it couldn't work and dictators were necessary.
We modeled ours largely on the Iriquois Confederacy. We haven't had an internal major genocide or civil war in well over a century. The rest of the world was inspired by the US but keeps trying other variants - and still seem to have major tribal warfare and genocides every couple decades or so. A substantial fraction of US war casualties come from bailing them out.
The US' experiment with representative government has been going on a LOT longer than those in most of the rest of the world, including Europe (which I presume you are from, since it's Europeans who bleat the most about the US not getting democracy right). When Europeans have a better track record on issues we consider important (such as wars (when to avoid, how to prosecute) and "ethnic clensing") their opinions on what constitutes "Real Democracy (TM)" may receive a more sympathetic hearing.
Meanwhile we've let a lot of oppressed masses in on our side of the pond, and some of them haven't yet figured out what it means to be free and equal - to the point that there's a major culture conflict going on over here. You're seeing one aspect of it in this presidential race. We DO tweak our Constitution from time to time - and are always replacing the judges who interpret it. The ideology that pushed for freedom may yet lose out, and the US may become another European model "gotten-it-right democracy". If so, heaven help the human race.
your president is a bumbling idiot
As compared, say, to his major opponent? The well-spoken con man who sometimes can't hold a consistent poltical position from one end of a sentence to the other? (Especially if both sides are popular in different contexts.) Who has no CLUE how to keep war at a distance? Who "has a plan" but "it's on my web site". Have you READ that "plan"? Is THAT what you want the US to become?
(Maybe it is. You aren't a US citizen, are you?)
at least 50% of your population are stupid, ill-informed idiots.
About half of ANY population is "below average". B-) As to ill-informed, given the state of the US broadcast media and US public and "higher" education (run by members of the the party opposed to the "bumbling idiot") it's hardly their fault, is it?
Fortunately we have always had a free press (even if we don't have a free broadcast medium). And now we have The Web, which isn't yet TOTALLY buried in polically-correct one-sided mouthings. SOME of the population has been able to get hold of enough information and exchange analysis of it to bcome informed and think clearly.
the majority of u.s. citizend actually think they're fighting al qaeda in iraq right now.
Gosh, AC. If they're not Al Qaeda, just who ARE those non-Iraquis that are blowing stuff up in Iraq?
But the last time I looked they thought the US was also fighting some remanents of Sadam's regime and a lot of non-Iraqui insurgents affiliated with other organizations tha Al Qaeda plus a mix of unaffiliated fanatics.
Terrorists flew aircraft into buildings
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
This brings up a question about the media then. The only third party candidate I've heard much on the major news outlets is Ralph Nader, and how's he's going to spoil the democrat's chances. However, he's the second lowest for number of states. Why is the media silent on Badnarik? Looking at the listings, we have two parties that mostly pull from the democrats, one from the republicans, and the libertarians that pull from both. At 49 states plus DC, the libertarian is the 'third party'.
I don't read AC A human right
yada yada yada. You didn't check your facts. ASU was served before 4 PM MT and the CPD DC office was served before 4PM MT and that was caught on tape. The service was also done via fax and email to CPD , so they were definitely served. The Badnarik thing was a formality. Since the order required advance notice they knew it was coming which is why they had the riot police in place. It's a sad day when a political organization hides behind the police to obstruct due process. It's even sadder that some people support those antics.
What the hell's the fall of communism got to do with this discussion?
Okay, so communism didn't work, but that does NOT mean that unregulated capitalism does work.
The reality is that "free markets" don't exist in the real world - they're more of a theoretical concept. The only way they exist is in some nihilist view (e.g. whatever happens is the consequence of a free market because it happens and is therefore the best outcome because it happens - this boils down to whatever happens, happens). Outside of the lab, the concept of free market is useful but not the end all and be all of understanding how the world works or how the interests of the public are best met (whatever that means).
I don't know what listing examples of dictatorships proves, other than some exist in the world, and they haven't failed yet. Are there some dictatorships that haven't abolished markets? Are there any truly free markets in non dictatorship run nations?
XML causes global warming.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was after labelling of food products became law in the United States that the worst epidemy of obesity ever seen happened.
Let's look at a simple correlation: it was shortly after the creation of Libertarian Party that the AIDS epidemic started.
Recite after me: correlation does not equal causation. Frankly, the "labelling of food products" is a very arbitrary starting point; it arguably started before the "fat clubs" in the East, where it was cool to be fat, before the labelling of food and it arguably started after the 1950's, where the weight/height data we use to judge normallacy was collected, long after the labelling of food.
Seems like everything generates a lawsuit these days, but couldn't we (we meaning any and all American Citizens) sue the CPD for fraud or something like it?
In essence they are purporting to the American People that they are presenting a "fair and balanced" view of the presidential candidates to the citizens of this country and they are not.
That, to me, is fraud. If it's not a federal crime to unfairly influence election results, it should be and it seems the folks who run the CPD are decidedly guilty.
If a lawsuit against the CPD is unreasonable, then what do you all think it will really take to overhaul the way our election process is run.
I for one feel that the current process has outlived it's usefulness and should be completely overhauled.
You misunderstand fascism, and the people you're citing.
the Nazi regime's implementation of Socialism, i.e., Fascism
Not even wrong. The Nazis used socialism, for practical reasons, but it was irrelevant to their fascism. Fascism is not an economic policy. It doesn't even have an economic aspect to it's ideology. At least not any economic policy we'd recognize as one.
they explicitly proclaim that the Soviet Union became to capitalistic and too 'state capitalistic', or as they say, Fascist.
Not really. You're misunderstanding them. They blame the fall of Sovietism on fascism, in the sense of the political structure. The ideology, forcing communism to happen by force, rather than just letting it evolve from socialist policies, is good, supposedly, but the policial situation in the Soviet Union had too many fascist traits, like the purges and the way popular sentiment had the Ukraine and the other member republics as somehow less fit than Moscow.
Fascism is not an ideology, at least not on the two dimensional map libertarians like to talk about. It goes off in a completely different direction. It deals in things like cultural conflict and war philosophy and pseudo-scientific definitions of "fitness" and other things Americans usually treat as means rather than ends. Fascism has a lot of substance under the water, the totalitarianism and everything is just the tip of the iceberg that fits on our conventional political maps.
Personally, I consider Libertarianism to be more of a direction than a stance. A force more than position.
Privatized sidewalks would, indeed, be an abomination. Privately contracted fire departments might work out pretty well, but they should still be universal. Etc.
But that's not really the point. The point is that heading in that direction is vastly preferable to heading in the direction we're heading now. There's an old saying that if you keep on going the way you are, you'll get to where you're headed.
This country is headed towards the doom of democracy: the realization by the majority that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury.
Libertarianism is a force trying to oppose that direction.
People may claim that third parties have no function in American democracy, but in fact their purpose is to do things exactly like what is reported here. Their point is to embarrass the major parties. Their point is to have their positions coopted by the major parties. Their point is to present a point.
Of course the major parties don't like this, but that's not the point :-).
To see the kind of effect 3rd parties actually have, compare the Socialist Party platform of the 20s and 30s to the modern day Democratic Party platform.