Final Presidential Debate Halted[?]

[m3talsmith]

Sorry it's been so long since I posted. But I'm back again everyone (hello).

I noticed this wasn't getting a lot of attention so I thought I would bring it to the this board and get some discussion on it. Please read the article and respond.

-------
Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case


BY JOSH GERSTEIN - Staff Reporter of the Sun
October 11, 2004


The third and final debate between President Bush and Senator Kerry has been thrown into doubt after a state judge in Arizona ordered a hearing on whether the event, scheduled for Wednesday, should be halted because the Libertarian Party's nominee for president has not been invited.

[more]...
-------

[Osborn F Enready]

MetalSmith, welcome back, and I commend you on your material for discussion.

Most know how I feel on the topic, so how do the rest of you feel?

[bishop]

it's good to see.

even though i'm voting for kerry, i absolutely believe that other candidates should be included in the debates.

if anything, it's good for the public.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Bush must be downright giddy. Im sure he feels an Emperor should never be challenged to debate.

I believe this may be too little too late, unless something happens to one of the 2 major party contenders, there is not really any chance of the 3rd party even being considered in a majority fashion.

We have also been debating this HERE

[m3talsmith]

I feel that it's cheating the public not to have more options. Mr. Badnarik actually stated in one of his last interviews that, just a rough paraphase, "We had 50 contestants for Ms. America this year. Americans like choice. The elections are vitally more important than that. Why do we only provide the American people with just two choices?"

I'll get the full quote and post it later in an edit.

[PatrickHenry]

What more do Kerry and Bush have to say to each other anyhow?

They each have their own propaganda machines in high gear and don't need the publicity of the "impartial" debate forum.

This debate is a waste of time and money anyway so why let the charade go on?

The CPD should be honest with the public and admit that they are a partisn effort to keep the public from hearing the alternative parties and candidates positions on the issues. At least that would be honest. Not very democratic but honest...

[Osborn F Enready]

Here Here PAT! I couldn't agree more.

I think it should be done though, to prove to the American people who still hold out for the grand illusion.

My bet is, both Bush and Kerry will claim schedule difficulties, and blow off the third debate in a last attempt to keep them quiet.

We shall see....

[Scribbler1]

Originally posted by PatrickHenry, What more do Kerry and Bush have to say to each other anyhow? They each have their own propaganda machines in high gear and don't need the publicity of the "impartial" debate forum.  This debate is a waste of time and money anyway so why let the charade go on?

Quite right, it's ALWAYS bread and circuses. One more (or ANY) debate will do nothing to sway anyone at all. I really don't think there are all that many "undecideds" out there as we are led to believe. At this point, Bush has always had the diehard Republicans and Kerry all the diehard Democrats. Bush himself has converted many to the Kerry side by his actions and in doing so has given Kerry enough legitimate ammo to embarrass the President and make a lot of fence sitters take Bush's side like big brothers protecting their little sibling when he gets picked on in school. You can see that here.

As far as I'm concerned this election has become so utterly polarized that anyone who HASN'T decided who to vote for by now is so numb above the neck they shouldn't vote ANYWAY!

[OberonDOtherseid]

I think they all should be heard, but what gets me is the time restraints and the liberal bias in the moderators. Let them all speak, them all have equal time and equal leaverage. Let the libertarians and the Greenies speak, they all deserve to have a voice in this and stop limiting the time they speak. This is an important election, as all are, but seriously, there is no excuse to rush any candidate.

[gr8fuldaniel]

Dont you guys think they are more likely to change locations rather than let a 3rd party crash the party? Surely they can get a banquet room or something. Might have to postpone it a few days. I wonder if the Rep party didnt manage this somehow, because how bad its making Bush look. Canceling the debate could be the biggest gift Bush ever got. Same reason why they wont let Badnarik debate....He would make Bush pathetic.

[Starboy]

I think that all contenders should be heard and allowed to run. Perhaps if there were more choices we might be able to elect better presidents. Too bad that our current presidential electorial system only allows for two choices. There is so much we would have to change to make more choice possible.

Starboy

[m3talsmith]

Originally posted by Scribbler1, As far as I'm concerned this election has become so utterly polarized that anyone who HASN'T decided who to vote for by now is so numb above the neck they shouldn't vote ANYWAY!

Now, now Scrib. You're starting to sound like the talking heads on the radio; you know... Bill Limbaugh and Rush O'Rielly .

Anyways, I can't blame anyone for being undecided. Most of them haven't been given a good choice, and right now are probably gritting their teeth hoping they don't have to pull the lever on either main party candidates.

Also the media is not accurate when they claim the undecided figure. They often state them as undecided if they are not planning on voting Democrat or Republican. This is usually close to true.

It's our job to inform them of the alternatives and give them hope; and probably save their teeth from getting ground into powder. Just because they may have not wanted to choose between two poisons does not make them numb above the neck. We want them to be informed and to vote. That's what keeps our nation running.

You do not want the disaffected to not vote, because eventually when the other 50% of America that's disaffected gets sick of it all, we will have a total break down of the system, chaos, and it will be ever harder to put the pieces back together to start out right. Let's keep them voting and fix this system internally first: it's infinitely harder to fix it the other way.

[rhod01]

The two major candidates agree on the rules. they have to. It's basedon a contract, and they have obviously agreed to refuse minor-party candidates to participate by imposing the 15% poll rating requirement. Which is quite scandalous.

The 'undecided' % is usually 5-10%. The major parties get about 90% of the vote, in the USA. So they're deliberately rigged it.

[gr8fuldaniel]

[SIZE=2] This Just In [/SIZE]

Blognarik
Scroll down to #132
The Decision

The Arizona Libertarian Party and co-plaintiff Warren Severin were represented by attorney David Euchner. Arizona State University was represented by Carrie Brennan of the Attorney General’s office. Commission on Presidential Debates was represented by Glen Hallman of the firm of Gallagher & Kennedy, physically in court, as well as Lewis Loss, General Counsel for the CPD by phone. The judge started by ruling that the service was sufficient for purpose of notice of this hearing. Then, each side was given 30 minutes to argue the issue. Euchner reserved 15 minutes of his argument for rebuttal, and argued the case based on the violation of Arizona’s Constitution, Art. 9, Sec. 7, which prohibit gifts to private entities. He presented additional arguments based on the 1st Amendment, the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, and case law which was on point. Carrie Brennan argued the doctrine of latches (that the delay in bringing this suit worked an unfairness against the defendants). She further argued that the funding was provided by private parties, that there is great value to the University in hosting this, and that case law provides that such expenditures are allowed as long as they are not excessive or unreasonable. Finally, she stated that there is an adequate remedy for any violations of the constitutional gift clause, therefore injunction is not appropriate. Glen Hallman argued that Libertarians are not a special protected class, thus only a rational basis test applies to the equal protection argument, and using that test, the Libertarians were not discriminated against. Lewis Loss argued that the CPD is non-partisan, and that Bush & Kerry would not proceed if Badnarik were admitted to the debate. Euchner then rebutted, arguing that nobody remembers the location of the debates, and thus there is no value to the University in this expenditure, in other words, it is a gift to these two parties. As an example, Euchner argued that the only way debates are even remembered for any time is if they are parodied, such as on Saturday Night Live, and the rerun repeatedly. Further, even with a rational basis test on the equal protection clause, the judge should find for the Libertarians, because the discrimination is so blatant. At the conclusion of the arguement, the judge issued his ruling from the bench: 1. No restraining order, because of the doctrine of latches, and that there appears to be sufficient public purpose for this debate. 2. The Plaintiffs may continue to pursue damages for any violations of the constitutional provisions. In summary, we couldn’t stop the debates or get Badnarik in, but we may still be able to hold them accountable through damages. Post this far and wide. – Michael Kielsky http://elect.kielsky.com Comment by Michael Kielsky — 10/12/2004 @ 2:36 pm

[RickSp]

I feel a great deal of sympathy for Mike Badnarik and all those working on his campaign. At that point they have probably worked themselves half to death and still the media isn't taking them seriously. They get local coverage and radio interviews but they are invisible to the major media outlets. Badnarik could barely get himself arrested at the last debate. And when he did get arrested, no one covered it.

The media's point of view is simple enough. Nationwide, Badnarik is polling fractions of one percent. He is polling around 1% in the Midwest and perhaps more in New Mexico. Nevertheless, Badnarik is a rounding area. Perhaps this will change on Nov.2.

This all brings back memories of the Clark campaign of 1980. That was the high water mark for the Libertarian Party. We got over 1% of the vote. Hoo haa. Notwithstanding the progress the LP has made, my guess is that Badarik will get 0.5% of the vote.