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."
Would a conviction automatically preclude Badnarik and Cobb from holding the office of President?
Oh, sure, we'll peddle it on Afaghanistand and Iraq and nudge Iran to shape up, but the hell if we'll tolerate anything of that sort here.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Well, He is a candidate. Don't you think he should be in the debates?
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
So, it is better version of democracy, you get to chose between the candidates that really matter. They were preselected for your convenience earlier. No, you can't know who selected them[1].
Excuse me, haven't I seen this before...? Ah, yes, in the (non-existant today) People Republic of Poland. The political system then was called "Socialist Democracy" or "Dictature of Proletariat".
Well, have fun in the "Land of the Free" -- been there, done that, can't say I liked it much.
Robert
[1] vide the case of the list of Republican Convention attendees
Bastard Operator From 193.219.28.162
Do they have a right to refuse to accept the court documents he was trying to deliver?
Doesn't matter. Private process servers generally don't gain any special protections in situations like this. They are liable under trespass statute and common law.
And, even if you're going to consider him a government officer for this case, it still violates Constitutional protections. Why would Badnarik, who campaigns bitterly against such government intrusions on private citizens and corporations, take part in such an intrusion?
The big question in my mind is why the Gallup folks hadn't picked these Badnarik and Cobb to be among the "undecided voters" in the audience. After all, they have clearly not decided to support "either" of the "two" candidates running for president.
I think it appropriate that they be called political prisoners. They fit the definition.
And if America does have political prisoners, then we are not quite the paragon of propriety and human rights we hold ourselves out to be. It's high time we American start to acknowledge this fact.
eat shiat and bark at the moon
Then he should have had the local Sheriff's department do it. That's how things are done in Georgia. If you get sued, the county Sheriff brings the papers to you.
..but here's some relevant inmformation again about this particular case in arizona:
http://lp.org/lpnews/0411/arizona-debate.html
Arizona LP files suit to stop state funding of presidential debate
Arizona Libertarians have filed a lawsuit that could stop Arizona State University from sponsoring the third presidential debate between George Bush and Sen. John Kerry, scheduled for Oct. 13. The lawsuit maintains that by spending up to $2 million to sponsor the event in Tempe, the university is making an illegal campaign contribution to the Republican and Democratic parties.
"It's a clear case of misusing state funds," said David Euchner, attorney for the Arizona Libertarian Party (AZLP).
"Arizona recognizes three political parties," Euchner continued. "A debate which included all three of those parties would be a legitimate expenditure on education and public information. A debate including only two of the three candidates is a partisan campaign commercial -- and an illegal donation to partisan political associations."
AZLP Vice Chair Barry Hess agreed: "It is so outrageous because the Republicans and the Democrats clearly violate their own Finance Reform Act, which in this case operates against all parties except the Republicans and the Democrats."
The AZLP and its treasurer, Warren Severin, are listed as plaintiffs in the suit, which seeks an injunction or restraining order against the use of state funds for the debate.
"Additionally, this use of these particular funds is in clear violation of the Arizona Constitution," Hess added.
The Arizona Constitution prohibits making grants or donations to any individual, association, or corporation.
Libertarians also claim that if special privileges are granted to Bush and Kerry, Arizona Libertarians will have been denied their 14th Amendment equal protection guarantee. The university and the Commission for Presidential Debates were named as defendants in the suit.
Representatives of the AZLP and of Libertarian Michael Badnarik's presidential campaign conducted a joint press conference after filing the complaint with the Maricopa County Superior Court.
"They have absolutely no right to use our tax dollars for what is effectively a very expensive television commercial for Bush and Kerry," Hess told reporters.
--which is what it was, an expensive televison commercial for the Democratic and Republican parties, partially paid for with public monies at a public venue, not all "private" money at a "private" venue. They seem to have a pretty good case,at least under AZ law, and obviously they are being stalled until after the election.
Heh.
The real news appears to be that the Commission on Presidential Debates has refused, multiple times, to be served by court papers to halt the 3rd debate.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
And when the two parties have practically the same opinion?! Let's face it, both parties only nominate moderates, i.e., middle of the road candiates. They both believe that what's good for corporate America is good for America. They both believe in a strong US military. Neither will affect any real change.
This reminds me of a quote someone said about choice in America. I'll do my best not to screw it up. It went something like, "In America you can walk down a supermarket isle in any city and find hundreds of different breakfast cereals, all made out of the exact same ingredients."
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Well, you have to realize that "matching funds" that the Republicans and Democrats get every year for this crap essentially means that there is no way they are a "private corporation", even if they claim they used "private monies" to make it. The fact is, they are subsized by the government. Thus any smaller "joint ventures" are funded by the federal government.
However, as a presidential candidate under the Libertarian party, I would not have done it. I think it was primarily done for media exposure. And the ploy worked. Doesn't change my opinion of either of the two main candidates, and certainly doesn't change my opinion of the Libertarian and Green party candidates.
Someone told me the other day my vote on a 3rd party candidate was wasted. Au contraire! It is precisely the 3rd party vote that caused Gore to lose and may very well determine the election this year. How is a vote that *didn't* go to one of the two major candidates a wasted vote when it's precisely the votes they pay attention to the most?
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.
Except, unfortunately, as of this writing neither Google news nor CNN or FOXNEWS has any stories about this, or even returns any results for 'Badnarik arrest'. Not only is a presidential candidate on the ballot in 48 states refused entry into a presidential debate, but his arrest isn't even covered!
echo 'Header append X-HD-DVD "0x09f911029d74e35bd84156c5635688c0"' >>
Such is the way of politics.
Sticking feathers up your butt does not make you a chicken - Tyler Durden
Wonder if the papers could be served on the CPD's attorney?? Would that count??
Clearly the goal for Badnarik and Cobb was to get headlines, but here's an interesting exercise.
:-)
Go to cnn.com, and look at the coverage of the presidental debates. See any mention of this incident? Thought not.
Now, try a "Search cnn.com" for Michael Badnarik. When I tried it I didn't get a SINGLE HIT for his name. Not one. Not even a "here's a full list of candidates including the minor ones" page. Can someone confirm this isn't just some local quirk on my browser?
(Side note - headline at cnn says debates were an even match. CNN's own poll gives it to Kerry by something like 75% to 25%. It was funny enough to warrant a screenshot of the poll results and the headline together. Apparantly CNN's viewers must be more Democratic than they would like
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
How come Nader is shown in the CNN polls and not Badnarik, when Badnarik is on the ballot in more states?
Where have you been? Both the Greens and the Libertarians have been heavily involved in local and state races for years. (I believe there are a couple of Greens on my local city council right now.) Badnarik and Cobb aren't stupid - they know perfectly well that each of them has a near-zero chance of winning this one. The point of their campaigns is to build general, long-term support for their parties, and to break down the current duopoly.
And when the two parties have practically the same opinion?! Let's face it, both parties only nominate moderates, i.e., middle of the road candiates. They both believe that what's good for corporate America is good for America. They both believe in a strong US military. Neither will affect any real change.
It would be more accurate to say both parties only nominate conservatives, in the truest sense of the word. That is, those who seek to maintain the status quo rather than seeking change.
Politically they aren't really all that moderate. By global standards both candidates are "right leaning" or "fiscally and socially conservative", or "conservative and authoritarian" depending on which (somewhat arbitrary) labelling scheme you wish to use. They appear moderate because they're in the middle of the views that get presented to the US public - which is to say, the views held by the Republican and Democrat party. The views of other parties, which represent a large part of the rest of the politcal spectrum are simply not heard.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
Indeed. Searching cnn.com for Badnarik yields 0 results. Searching google.com for Badnarik site:cnn.com yields 3 results. It seems to have been suppressed somehow.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
Why does it matter who you think should be in the debates? If Badnarik thought he should be in the the Jeopardy Tournament of Champions, does that give him the right to trespass on the property of the recording studio and demand a seat?
The debates are just a popular TV show, after all.
Its a private corporation that's created by government, run by government people, and given all kinds of special protections.
Its like saying that the privatized Post Office is a private corporation. The Post Office is protected since it is illegal to establish regular mail routes. The only people who can walk up and down the streets of this country delivering mail is the Post Office. Its illegal for any other company to deliver something into your Mailbox.
And, UPS, Fed Ex, DHL, Airbone et al does remarkably well IN SPITE of such regulations.
Now, imagine a world without such meaningless regulations and how efficently things can run and you are beginning to understand the libertarian message.
Are you sure that the State University is not public property?
flossie
Write now. Defend liberty
Of course libertarians don't seem to believe in the public, only private interests.
As far as I can tell they are really just anarcho-capitalists that are trying to get into the government so that they can completely dismantle it.
I would like to see how they plan to fund what little of the government would be left (military and police maybe? since they want to do away with schools, and just about everything else) when they abolish taxes. Maybe we will voluntarily pay for them.
Beyond that I agree, we don't have a democracy. We have a really fucking broken republic that has been hijacked by private interests.
-Steve
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
"The "unwritten rules," in this area, preclude anyone BUT the big boys from playing."
They're not unwritten rules, the CPD have publically stated that they wish to preclude anyone but the big boys from playing.
I find it rather odd that they claim so many times on that page to be "non-partisan", even as they select rules such as to exclude parties they dislike.
National Public Radio has an audio link on this page http://www.npr.org/rundowns/rundown.php?prgId=3&pr gDate=8-Oct-2004 ("Campaign Security Screening Crowds for Doubters) in which citizens were denied entrance to appearances by President Bush. In several of the cases people wearing Kerry t-shirts were told they could not enter because the "secret service" had "flagged" them. One man, who tried to vouch for his companions, was removed because he had also been flagged simply because he was with them. One woman was refused entry to a venue because she had a t-shirt over her arm (not wearing it) advocating abortion rights. Several of the people were threatened with arrest by the Secret Service. There was at least one arrest at a location by local police who said they were acting at the behest of the "White House" while the Mayor claimed that they were acting on a request by the Secret Service.
The Secret Service denies arresting people simply because they are wearing Kerry t-shirts but admit that they would question anyone who was being removed from a venue by security people. While it is lawful for a private function to deny entry to people on whatever grounds they choose, for a Presidential appearance which has been paid for by the taxpayers, it is unlawful (and un-American) to deny any citizen entry for simply wearing a t-shirt that indicates opposition to that President.
No one ever had to evacuate a city because the solar panels broke!
You have got to be joking me. The government prevents me from murdering whomever I please, thus by the law of unintended consequences society would benefit if they just let me go ahead with it.
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them).
Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want. I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.
My only political goal is to see to it that no political party achieves its goals.
"Civil Disobedience" my @rse... they were attempting to exercise their legitimate rights. The fact that you have those ridiculous "No Free Speech" zones is the frightening thing... and that those who wish to exercise their rights to protest get herded into zones well away from the event is another abomination...
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
You forgot the report that they told the crowd beforehand that they CHOSE civil disobedience to get their point across. They weren't even trying to deliver papers. They were just trying to get arrested for publicity.
What they did was cross some line that some stormtrooper cops decided would be a "free-sppech zone". Last time I checked, America was a free-speech zone. Or are you advocating otherwise? Further, using color of law (e.g., police) to deny civil and constitutional rights is a federal felony. Are you adovcating this too? Third, as political figures, MB's and DC's free speech is even more protected under the law than "regular" speech. Or are you advocating censorship? Fourth, they were process servers, and interference with that duty violates Missouri state law. Or are you advocating that the police not follow the law they are supposed to make others follow? Last, they used riot police to arrest Presidential candidates! This isn't Putin's Russia or Hitler's Germany! Or are you advocating that is become them?
FYI, those papers were also served at the CPD office in Washington and the servers were refused entry by a rent-a-cop. So they had to serve them somehow. Now, are you upset becasue they did civil disobedience? If so I say BAAAAH!. Remember when Nader was given a ticket to first debate in Boston back in 2000 and was refused entry even though he had a contractual right to be there? It's the same thing in principle, that those who should be there and had the right to be there were denied. I tend to think the reason you don't like is becasue you lack the imagination and the spine to do it yourself.
You have got to be joking me. The government prevents me from murdering whomever I please, thus by the law of unintended consequences society would benefit if they just let me go ahead with it.
And you just hit on the point that separates the Libertarian from the anarchist. Libertarians tend to be quite brutal towards violent criminals. They want freedoms, but there's a quote that goes "your freedom to swing your fist stops at my nose".
Anyway, no man is an island and it's okay to seek help from your fellow man once in a while. The fact is that no one has the time to research every product they use (even if a consumer magazine does sum it up for them).
True, and True. There are plenty of private charities that have far more effect per dollar than the ones funded by the public trough.
Now the idea here is that private companies, trading on their reputation, are the ones that do the checks. The IEEE and UL labs, both important safety groups are both private companies. I'd see a number food safety companies come into existance. A maker of a food products would have to prove that their food is safe to the satisfaction of the certifying company in order to be able to put the company's trademark on their product, just as with UL underwriting.
Furthermore I've never seen any evidence that an unregulated market will always serve the interests of consumers. The market has all of the same problems that genetic algorithms do. If initial conditions and constraints aren't properly set, it ends up "cheating" and not giving you what you really want. I cannot take it on faith that the market will always serve the public's interest. This is effectively a matter of religion. I've never seen this assertion backed by anything more than some feeble anecdotes that fail to address the broader issues that might be at play.
Market serving the public's interest? It's a phenomenon of the public. We have seen multiple times that tightly controlled markets tend to do worse than markets that are more free. Russia had a tightly controlled market, and it collapsed. China has let the market become more free, and they're prospering today. The european market is often called stagnent compared to the USA one.
Now I will admit, free markets do tend to be more volitile than regulated ones. But do you think that scandals such as Enron/Worldcom occur because there isn't enough regulation, or because there's so much regulation that 'dubious accounting practices' become the norm?
Under a free market, the inefficient tend to get eliminated, replaced, by the efficeient. Corruption is almost by definition inefficient, so corruption tends to get weeded out.
I don't read AC A human right
Bush I's first elective office was Vice President. (He'd been CIA director.)
Jesse Jackson ran for president without holding any elective office. (He probably could have won an election for mayor of Washington D.C., and was suggested for that job by many. But as Mayor Barry used to say of Jackson, "Jesse don't want to run nothing but his mouth". He's now a talk show host on Clear Channel.)
What is really disgusting is the lack of coverage.
This happened right in front of all the reporters that were outside the building. There were 200 protesters. You'd think this is at least news worthy.
However, our major networks, sponsored by the same corporate dollars sponsoring the debates, refuse to acknoledge the existence of 3rd party candidates.
In fact, Eugene Debs, a Socialist Party candidate, once ran for president while incarcerated in a federal prison - and recieved nearly a million votes! From wikipedia -
"On June 16, 1918 he made an anti-war speech in Canton, Ohio, protesting World War I, and was arrested under the Espionage Act of 1917. He was sentenced to serve 10 years in prison and disenfranchised for life. While in prison in Atlanta, he ran for President. On December 25, 1921 President Warren G. Harding released Debs from prison, commuting his sentence to time served.
In the 1920 election, while in jail, he received 913,664 votes, the most ever for a Socialist Party presidential candidate in the U.S. He was also a leader of the Industrial Workers of the World during this period."
Can you imagine a political prisoner on a 3rd-party ticket recieving a million votes today? Too bad the American public doesn't have that much balls anymore.
The deepest flaw with the libertarian/free market arguement is that it requires a populace that makes intelligent decisions. As we all know we don't. Thus Bush is in power, Thus most americans are fat, ect.... In countries where regulations are few and far between. No product is trust worthy, scrupulous sellers are virtually non exsistant and short term gain int he only consideration. Now this might be because any country with few regulations tend to be under developed and it might be coincidence but there does seem to be a co-occurance or developement and regulation.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
For evidence of the opposite, see a market for lemons. (I haven't been able to find Akerlof's original paper on the Internet, but many descriptions of the general concept exist.)
He shows that in a market where the consumer does not know the quality of the things he/she buys (information asymmetry), the market will provide a strong disinsentive for sellers to sell high quality products. Food labelling laws allow the market to operate much better, and as a side bonus, occasionally prevent people allergic to certain kinds of food from ending up in the hospital.
I'd like to see a world where I can step into a store, whip out a pda with a bar code reader, scan a product barcode, and see ratings and reviews of that product right there in the store, downloaded from epinions or some similar site via a wireless network. Of course, public opinion of a product isn't everything. In the case of food contents, the public has no way of knowing without being told by the manufacturer if a particular food contains some additive that has negative long term health consequences.
-jim
LWV has hosted these for years. They dropped it this year due to the total facade that this is.
Check your facts. LWV stopped hosting the debates in 1988 due to collusion between the two parties.
Just a couple of comments:
We already have welfare reform - Clinton instituted it in 1996, and pushed 24% of recipients off welfare.
Immigration - I think we should move more towards merit-based immigration. We should aggressively recruit the brightest young adults in all countries and offer them financial assistance in moving to the US to become citizens. We should similarly recruit successful entrepreneurs. These are the people that will help America the most.
Green party: A group of naive idealists who believe that our complex world can be made to fit their 'perfect' but relatively simple philosophical framework. Unfortunately their philosophy if applied in the real world would result in a much slowed economy and widespread poverty, which is why their candidates wouldn't make it in Democratic circles. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them. Libertarian party: A group of naive idealists who believe that our complex world can be made to fit their 'perfect' but relatively simple philosophical framework. Unfortunately their philosophy if applied in the real world would result in corporate anarchy and widespread environmental destruction, which is why their candidates wouldn't make it in Republican circles. When it comes down to it, most people just don't agree with them.
include $sig;
1;
I can give a supporting argument. I work for a company that prints labels, mostly food labels. (Never thought I'd much use this area of expertise in a comment!)
Right now, companies are delaying as long as possible before putting trans-fat contents into their nutritional facts. A few companies are making the change early, but a lot are waiting until the deadline gets very close. This is obviously hard on my company, as all these customers will be requesting changes to their labelling at the same time. It'll make us money, but we'll be so swamped, it won't be efficient money (possible overtime, etc).
They do the bare minimum that is required of them by the regulations. The consumers that were basing nutritional decisions on these labels obviously put faith that the label is some indication of nutritional value, but in a case like trans-fats, something might not look as bad as it is, and consumers might eat more of it not knowing about trans-fats.
In the absence of nutritional facts required by law, it's more likely the consumer would base their consumption on 3rd party information that would most likely be more accurate in terms of total nutritional value, not just what some law says has to be on the label.
Of course, this ignores the most likely real reason for the labelling requirements, an excuse in court once more of these "fat law suits" hit the courts. It's the same way Philip Morris wants FDA regulation. Regulation means the companies can do whatever they want within the letter of the law and not worry about liability. It shifts responsibility from the producer and the consumer, to the government, and ultimately, the taxpayer.
The taxpayer gets a double hit as they must fund the administration and enforcement of the regulation, and then they must fund the cost of the labelling itself as it gets factored into every food product they buy. With the money they spent, they could have easily purchased a diet book with all the nutritional information already compiled in it, with most likely more detail and more up to date science.
I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
Oh yeah, and Arizona, which issued the Order to Show Cause, doesn't allow parties to the case to serve papers.
This type of article shows just how bad things have become in America. No respect for due process, no respect for the law, no respect for the people of the United States. I find it very suspicious that none of the major ``news'' agencies are covering this. Hopefully the Internet will bring third-party candidates a more level playing field and help them get the votes they need.
Schedule for Bill Moyer's Now
The Third Parties
Conventional assumptions about the electorate as polarized Republican and Democratic camps misses the trend of the last three presidential elections -- third-party candidates are tipping the outcome of presidential elections.
-- Lawrence R. Jacobs, director of the 2004 Elections Project for the Humphrey Institute PBS's ONLINE NEWSHOUR reports that the United States is home to more than 54 political parties, 37 of which have had candidates run for President. Although only a handful of third-party candidates have received more than 10% of the vote in all the years since 1860, third parties are often thought to have a major influence on U.S. policy and political debate.
Third parties often raise issues that major-party presidential candidates neglect, sometimes leading to substantial change in the public dialogue. Ross Perot, running on a platform that advocated reducing the federal budget deficit, received 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 election. The fact that Perot's key issue has been an important question in almost every campaign since is seen as somewhat of a victory for the Reform Party, even though their candidate lost the election.
In 2000, what might have been seen as the next high point for third parties was marred by controversy. Ralph Nader gained more than two million votes as the Green Party candidate, but some Democrats blamed Nader for causing candidate Al Gore's defeat by attracting votes that might have otherwise gone to Gore. But it is rare that third parties garner enough votes to warrant this kind of complaint. More often, third parties struggle to raise the millions necessary to run a presidential campaign, and have a hard time getting a fraction of the media exposure the Republican and Democratic candidates receive. Read about how third-party candidates are regularly excluded from the televised presidential debates.)
In the end, some voters who might support a third-party candidate's platform worry that their votes will be "wasted" on a candidate who is unlikely to win. Because of the way the United States electoral system works, only the candidate who wins the majority of popular votes in most states receives any electoral votes. (Learn more about the electoral college system.)
Despite these challenges, third parties continue to endorse candidates for the presidency. Each election year, dozens of people decide to run for the presidency. In October 2004, with the election less than a month away, Ballot Access News reports five third-party candidates will appear on a significant number of state ballots, an accomplishment in itself. Although there are few requirements for eligibility, a significant amount of paperwork is required to become a viable candidate. Each state has its own ballot laws, each one requiring that a party obtain a different number of signatures to get on that state's ballot. This is why third-party candidates are seldom listed on every state ballot.
THE WASHINGTON TIMES reported in September 2004 that third-party candidates in this election are as much or more of a threat to President George W. Bush than they are to his challenger John Kerry. Libertarian presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik told the TIMES, "We are playing to the conservatives who do not have a party to vote for. For example, Republicans have traditionally stood for smaller government, but this president has not adhered to that standard." Badnarik is currently on
..does a guy who can't even use motherfucking paragraph breaks get +5 informative?
Are all you people on crack?
Oh yeah, disinfo is a GREAT source. The very title of the website says "The gateway to the underground - news, politics, conspiracy and weirdness."
Even casually browsing the page will show you that they've never even heard of political neutrality, or fact-checking. And in their store, you can buy shit like "50 Things Youre Not Supposed To Know", "Book of Lies", and "Everything You Know Is Wrong". Great way to sell books. Give them provocative titles, and don't say what's in them. Perish the thought that you just fucking give away the content for free.
They're making money off of your stupidity.
You can fucking buy THONGS from them, for chrissakes. This is not the paragon of credibility. Especially when nothing is fucking cited, you goddamn retard.