Libertarian presidential candidate Michael Badnarik was arrested on Friday, Oct. 8, when he crossed a police line in a planned political protest at the St. Louis, Mo., debate between President George W. Bush and Sen. John Kerry. Badnarik was attempting to serve the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD) with a court order from an Arizona Superior Court judge. The judge had ordered a representative from the CPD to appear in court to prove that a debate scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 13, does not constitute special treatment for the Democrats and Republicans. Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb also crossed the police line to demand access to the St. Louis debate, and was arrested. The two candidates were placed in handcuffs and taken to jail where they spent several hours before being released. A few area residents who were simply trying to get home when they crossed the police lines were also arrested, witnesses said. Badnarik was charged with two misdemeanor offenses -- trespassing and \"refusing a reasonable request from a police officer\" -- and was released without bond. His court appearance for the charges is scheduled for December, and Stephen Gordon, communications director for the Badnarik campaign, said the candidate \"hasn\'t decided whether he is going to contest the charge.\" Earlier Friday, the Badnarik campaign had announced that either he would debate Kerry and Bush in St. Louis or he would go to jail. \"A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates,\" Badnarik said in the announcement. \"And the CPD, as a non-profit, has received special treatment from government on the requirement that they be non-partisan in their activities.\" But the CPD hasn\'t been non-partisan, Badnarik continued, saying that \"bi-partisan\" is not the same thing as \"non-partisan.\" \"Unless I am allowed to participate, the debates become a massive campaign contribution to two of the candidates, illegal under the very campaign finance laws those two candidates have passed and signed as senator and president,\" he said. \"We\'d have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America,\" Gordon said. \"However, they have interposed the machinery of government between the American people and the honest debate which must precede any honest election. Now it\'s up to patriots like Michael Badnarik to force the issue.\" The third Bush-Kerry debate, to be held at Arizona State University in Tempe, Ariz., is scheduled for Wednesday, Oct. 13. Libertarians in Arizona filed a lawsuit Oct. 1, claiming that the state constitution prohibits donations of taxpayer money to corporations like the CPD. As a public university -- funded by tax money -- the university should not contribute to the debate, the Libertarian Party of Arizona\'s lawsuit claims. \"There are three candidates on the ballot in Arizona [Bush, Kerry and Badnarik], and the university -- in collusion with an allegedly non-partisan, allegedly non-profit organization, is spending about $2 million to publicize the views of only two of them.,\" Gordon said. On Oct. 8, Arizona Superior Court Judge Pendleton Gaines issued an \"Order to Show Cause,\" calling for representatives of the university and the CPD \"to show why a restraining order against the debate should not issue,\" said Jason Auvenshine, chairman of the Arizona LP. University representatives have said they plan to use money from private grants and other non-public sources to fund the debate, which is expected to cost between $2 million and $2.5 million. As such, it wouldn\'t be publicly funded, they maintain. But the Tempe, Ariz., City Council sent $20,000 to the university to be used for the debate, so public funds would still be used for the debate, Gordon said. The Libertarians will also show the judge a letter signed by the co-chairmen of the CPD, stating that the university had spent \"substantial resources on preparation.\" The order was successfully served to the university by Joel Beckwith, a Badnarik supporter in Arizona. Staff members from the Libertarian Party\'s national headquarters in Washington D.C. were able to serve the court order at the CPD office in DC. But later attempts to serve additional papers were rebuffed, when security officers refused to allow the Libertarians into their building or to bring CPD staff down from their office. The paperwork was left in the building, though, and that -- combined with audio recording and photographs as evidence that they attempted to serve the papers -- was enough to satisfy the judge, who agreed to hold this morning\'s meeting, according to David Euchner, the attorney representing the Libertarian Party of Arizona in its lawsuit. While some Libertarians disagreed with Badnarik\'s strategy, others said they thought his decision to cross the police line could be as significant as the civil disobedience demonstrated by Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr. and other civil rights activists. As David T. Terry of the Libertarian Party of Oregon said, \"The world has always been changed by small acts of insignificant people whose courage and commitment to principles made their acts significant. I suggest that after tonight, the two-party system will never be the same!\" Libertarians are now eagerly awaiting the results of today\'s hearing with Judge Pendleton. \"We\'re asking for one of two things to happen,\" Gordon said. \"We\'re asking for them to either shut down the debate, or reimburse the 17,000 registered Libertarian voters in the state of Arizona -- who have paid tax money that is paying for a debate from which they will not receive any benefit.\" www.lp.org
That\'s wicked cool. (If your username is Gilligan, don\'t listen to the next part of my post ) But I still think people who live in closely-contested states should vote for Kerry. Yes, the two party system is not fair, but if we get Bush as president again, people can say they took the moral highground....while the world is blowing up and you\'re drafted fighting some stupid war in Iran or Syria. This is not the year to vote on principle. Vote based on, \"Who will allow me to live to see my grandchildren?\" That\'s my stance, anyway.
accually panda, i couldnt help but read it. You said exactly the reason im voting for bush. This isnt the yr to vote for principle, if it was, id be voting my party, the Libertarian Party. BTW, 2 Dems started this new draft bill. 1 of them even voted against it. Bush has repeatedly denounced it, and says he is not going to restart the draft. Just thought id fill you in, since you brought it up. Living to see youer grandchildren with kerry? I feel less secure as a nation if he was our leader, he lacks the nad to make the tough decisions and is too easily influenced. I heard about that monday, i thought it was pretty cool too. Neal was talkin about it on his show monday. My only problem with the libertarian party is they would just leave iraq and afg, i believe, which would create worse problems. Other than that, i support almost every stance they have on every issue.
yeah our government tells stories, about thinbgs they\'ll do, and things they won\'t.......but when they got in power they broke most of them, and people were up in arms about it, and they they said.........\"well that\'s just political reteric to get the vote\"...........i hate all politicians...........Peace out.........Sid
I applaud the libertarians suing the debates. I even like the National Sales Tax idea and legalizing most drugs. However the Libertarians go a bit over board with the gun issue and the environmental issue. I have been told the Libertarians believe that a perosn should be able to do anything they want on land they own. This would just encourage environmental disaster. What\'s up with that?
How would it invite disaster? Private land owners are not the ones killing trees and distroying the earth. It is the businesses and land developers distroying the land. Even the ones who cut all the timber and sell it for money plant new trees to grow, so they can replace them and be cut later. Not many people own and pay taxes on wastelands.
at this point i kinda want a republican to be elected so when we get attacked again, and it will happen again, its inevitblity, i can run around going \"WE\'RE NOT SAFE ! WE\'RE NOT SAFE!\".
Well, perhaps if it was limited to private lands then OK. As long as they are not dumping chemicals on it. I mean, no one should be dumping chemicals anywhere, big business or private. Dumping chemicals would lead to disaster. So as long as it somehow watched then OK. I mean, I don\'t think the owner of a chemical plant or some other toxic polluter should be able to by land privately and then act recklessly just because he claims it is private. So in that sense there would have to be some kind of watchdog.
actually our government is the biggest polluter in the world! I had a thread about this http://forum.grasscity.com/showthread.php?t=47595 they don\'t want all land to be owned by private owners, \"Wouldn\'t we be better served if naturalist organizations, such as the Audubon Society or Nature Conservancy, took over the management of our precious parks? The Audubon Society\'s Rainey Wildlife Sanctuary partially supports itself with natural gas wells operated in an ecologically sound manner. In addition to preserving the sensitive habitat, the Society shows how technology and ecology can co-exist peacefully and profitably.\" yeah just check out that thread, their stance on the environment is amazing.
yep, US Democracy is the best example i can think of why democracys are a sham. though it may well be better than all the alternativeswe\'ve seen prior, the line is getting more and more blurry between democracy and dictatorship.