Slashdot Mirror
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."
The debate never would have been cancelled. It might have been postponed and moved to a private place, but a precident has been set. It is now ok to use taxpayer dollasr to get the current politicians reelected.
Do you really think so? I'm not so sure. Why wouldn't Bush Co. take the chance to get out of the last debate that focuses on his weak suit (Domestic Policy) where Kerry will probably clean his clock (again)?
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.
Whether you or right-wing, left-wing, centrist, committed voter or not the debates are useful and they are apparently making an impact. If Bush loses this election I would expect history to look at the first debate as the reason why.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
You're absolutely right. Neither Bush nor Kerry's people would allow them to debate Badnarik. Hell, Bush can barely debate one opponent anyway. But shouldn't this fact bother us a little bit?
"Al animals are equal but some animals are more equal than others."
George Orwell - Animal Farm
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Further for many, it is only the fear of the opposition party (dem/rep) that prevents them from voting with their consience as it stands. If I thought a Bull moose reunion tour likely, I would be even more likely to vote libertarian. As it stands, I tend to vote for integrity vs voting for positions although where someone stands does have influence with me. I would vote dean or lieberman or mcain or bradley over bush or gore or kerry.
although certain stands(Constitution party belief that we ought to be a capital C christian nation) frighten me even though as a Christian I believe those values are important I do not believe they should be backed by the force of law. for example Homosexual Unions, If we were to strike every states "marriage code" and replace it with a civil union code allowing any combination or number of adults as defined by state law to enter into inheritance and child raising covenants binding under state law but not to be refered to as marriage, I would back that 100%. but IMO marriage is a word historically defined as a bisexual bipartner relationship.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
continues on to destroy the damned CPD by asking for the equivalent of their 2008 budget for damages.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Note: I live in Arizona
Well, Bush has arrived and Kerry will be here soon. The media circus is ramping up. No one seemed to doubt that "the show" would go on.
I don't plan on watching the debate, though. If Badnarik had been able to participate, I probably would have, because a three-way debate might have offered me a lot more insights into the candidates views. Don't get me wrong, I'm not a libertarian, and most probably won't vote libertarian. But watching Bush and Kerry spout their canned and polished diatribes at each other won't enlighten me any.
Sig cancelled due to lack of interest
I'm voting for Feingold because of his opposition to the Patriot Act. The Republican (Michels) keeps bashing Feingold for voting against the Patriot Act and promises that he (Michels) will vote to renew it. Feingold has also been in the front lines of legalizing importation of Canadian drugs while Michels keeps claiming that Feingold is against importation. Frankly, Michels scares the cr*p out of me.
When it comes to the Presidential race, I don't like Bush's policies (he doesn't deserve re-election) and I don't like Kerry's policies (he doesn't deserve election).
As for the "third-party" product verification -- what makes you think I'm going to trust a "third-party" that has Microsoft (or Diebold or GM or ??) as their largest (or only) customer? I'm far more likely to either make my own judgement OR trust an expert of my own selection.
For some reason, a lot of people think that the choice is limited to corporations or government. That's a very limited view of the options -- especially since corporations only exist by government decree.
IMO this is something that Libertarians do not communicate well. While many Libs may disagree with me on this, I would like to point it out.
There is nothing in most STATE constitutions which say you cannot make a state social security system, state owned roads, state taxes etc.
If the Libs were ever elected on a federal level, I forsee each state and/or local communities making their own laws reagarding those local issues which the local populace is more concerned and informed about. Thus, you would have some "Green" cities and states, some "Libertarian" cities and states, etc. Big government for the sake of Homogeniety is not IMO a good thing.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Yes, I believe that the public WOULD be served by having Bushie and Kerrie back out. It would show, in no uncertain terms, that these are not really debates, but publicly funded infomercials for the Ds and the Rs. Picture the CNN/Fox/PMSNBC news stories if B and K dropped out in protest over Badnarik showing up. They would have an impossible time keeping the Libertarian party secret anymore.
I just thought I would add that while the judge in this case did rule that the debate could go on, they did leave room for the libertarian party to seek punitive damages in the future.
That's the part that chills me the most. The judge has basically said that the activity he's allowing might just be illegal. But instead of evaluating the plans before they become history, he's putting the question off until later (and given the effort pursuing such a suit requires, it's possible the suit will die here and now).
As a general case, such a deferment of justice is bad enough, but in this specific case, the effects are chilling to the core. I personally think the LP would be far worse for America than "four more years" (and *that's* saying a lot). Even so, we need fresh views and true "spoilers" in the debates. What the judge has, essentially, done is sold-out our democratic process.
He's taken away our responsibility to provide, and right to demand, that our democratic process serve to inform and mobilize our electorate. In exchange, we get "the possibility" of a few bucks down the road.
Even if the LP were to win $10million in damages, we'll have all gotten the shaft. Doesn't the judge realize that if both parties had to fork over $50million each to keep the debates closed, they would? Isn't it abundantly clear that even if there were no other reason submitted before him, that *that's* reason enough to force reform in the debate system?
Like the sign said, "Now, we're all wearing the blue dress."
I would like to see third parties be allowed in the debates. I would like to see extensive reform of the system, but not this cycle. There's too much on the line,...
And then 2008 rolls around and you'll say:
I would like to see third parties be allowed in the debates. I would like to see extensive reform of the system, but not this cycle. There's too much on the line,...
I've heard this line of crap every year since I became seriously interested in politics (let's see...One, two, three, four, five, six, oh my god, seven presidential elections ago!).