Libertarians Lose Case to Block Presidential Debate

PMoonlite writes "As a followup to the previous Slashdot story, the judge ruled in favor of the Commission on Presidential Debates, refusing a restraining order on the basis of the doctrine of laches (unfairness due to delay of suit) and public interest, but allowing the Libertarians the possibility of seeking damages. So the debate will go forth at Arizona State University with only two of the three candidates on the state ballot."

Comments

shocked

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm just shocked. I really thought there was going to be a 3-party debate. Wow.

Commission on [fake] Presidential Debates

[sofakingon]

CPD EXPOSED: Commission on [fake] Presidential Debates.

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[mshiltonj]

And I refuse to buy the argument that the debates are just Bush and Kerry spewing the stump speeches, party lines and canned answers. While many of the answers were like that (on both sides) there were many unscripted moments and the debates still give us a chance to see the different personalities in action.

Reminds of the old line:

If you want get ahead in politics, you've got to have sincerity. Once you can fake that, you can do anything.

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[Dr. Smeegee]

stanman: Your post shows maturity, common sense and an aquaintance with and adherence to Civic Virtues... and as such, does not belong here. Perhaps appending "FP!" to your subject line would help.

Thanks.

Re:Libertarian voters don't otherwise vote Republi

[russint]

I just took the selectsmart test. I guess I will be voting for Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /usr/www/users/ssmart/PRESIDENT/president.php on line 33

Re:Does this shock anyone?

[cpeterso]

If Bush loses this election I would expect history to look at the first debate as the reason why.

If Bush loses this election, it's because of his debate performance and not all the past four years of his administration's BS?