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.
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
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
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
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
I realize this is going to get them attention, but is it going to help their cause?
How can you even ask that question? Badnarik and Cobb are two candidates with real platforms and real goals, and they deserve to be heard in the same way that President Bush and Senator Kerry are being heard.
And you're a supporter! How can you possibly say that you support these candidates when you understand that they have no real chance of winning unless they are treated in the same way as our "real party" candidates. Something must be done!
This is no different than people standing up for their rights during the civil rights movement, and frankly, I believe that they have done something to make a point. If I was there to stand with them, I would've. Something is terribly wrong with our system and they're the Martin Luther King Jrs. of this movement for change.
So don't tell me you're dissapointed the average american with the IQ of a chimp can't see that there's a reason for this. They're not going to win this time around, so they MUST make changes to the system so they have a real chance of winning the next time around.
To Badnarik and Cobb, I truly offer you the salute that you, damn well, deserve. Keep up the good work.
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.
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
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.
..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.
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"' >>
Read some history books. Elected officials were -designed- to be from all walks of life (lawyers, carpenters, teachers, business owners, sailors, soldiers, librarians, philosophers, historians, musicians, explorer, etc). The idea was that you run for office, serve your term(s), and then go back to your job. That is what power to the people was all about.
In my opinion, a big part of the problem with our current setup is that people actually respect career and long-term politicians. I have a different theory: The more likely that a person has been in public office, the more likely they are to become corrupt.
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?
How come Nader is shown in the CNN polls and not Badnarik, when Badnarik is on the ballot in more states?
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
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."
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