Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case

The New York Sun ^ | October 11, 2004 | Josh Gerstein

[xzins]

If the Libertarians are included, the 2 real candidates should back out.

I'm not interested in what an obviously losing party has to say.

[pierrem15]

It's in the same place you find the right to privacy. Take a look

You mean the unwritten and unexpressed "penumbra" of rights that are there to be asserted when it pleases the courts, while plainly stated rights like those regarding arms, seizure of property, etc., are ignored?

The Libertarians are free to purchase as much air time as they can, given their enormous popular base.

[Enterprise]

Oh hell yes. Invite the Potatarian. He can promise two pot plants in every garage, and tax credits for Twinkies.

[dvwjr]

The Republicans were never a 'fringe' third party. Upon the death of the Whig Party, a portion of the Whig constituency and other dis-affected (non-Democrats) created the modern-day Republican in 1854-1855.


dvwjr

[LibertyRocks]

The hearing is tomorrow morning.

[calif_reaganite]

There is a controlling case on point from the Supreme Court. In Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998), the Supreme Court held that a publicly-funded debate venue may exclude candidates based on the reasonable, viewpoint-neutral exercise of journalistic discretion.

[WildTurkey]

I'm not interested in what an obviously losing party has to say.

Neither do the Libertarians. Apparently none of them knew about or watched Mr. B. debate on national TV last 10/6.

[WildTurkey]

They are also stating that it is taxpayers who are being harmed

Not so. They never state the taxpayers are harmed. If fact, the remedies listed do NOT mention taxpayer relief at all except the LP wants their money back if they are not included and the debate goes forward.

[xzins]

If I were the President, I'd sent a very clear, back-channel word of warning to ASU and to the Presidential Debates Commission.

Deviate from any agreement and plan on be unemployed until 2008.

[weegee]

"I'm happy so far with the way things are going," an attorney for the Libertarian Party, David Euchner, said in an interview yesterday. "He did not have to sign that order. The fact that he did is a good sign."

Since the judge did not "have to" it sounds like judicial activism. The same thing we have been complaining against.

[LibertyRocks]

Cultural Jihad in post #8 said, "Show me chapter and verse where the Constitution says all fringed ideologues have a right to be heard."

To which my reply was that the republican party was once a "fringe" third-party.

Then I clarified my reasons for calling it a "fringe" third-party in post #48. It is Cultural Jihad's opinion that all 3rd parties hold fringe ideas.

I go on further to explain that the Republicans were indeed seen as a third-party by referencing the GOP's own website in post #86. The source for my information on GOP history is; "http://www.gop.com/about/GOPHistory/Default.aspx"

[flashbunny]

have you read mr bednariks web site yet?

Try reading that before you post further.

[wizr]

This is the looongest, ugliest campaign I think I've ever seen.

Damn tired of attorneys, and some judges, too.

[WildTurkey]

They ARE requesting an injunction that it be stopped.

er, a temporary restraining order OR their money back. I propose that the the debate go ahead, and after the debate it is determined how much public monies were used. Divide the total AZ population into the deficit and mail each member mentioned in the suit a proportional check.

For example, if AZ comes up 100k short , divide 6 million into 100k to get the each persons share. That would be about 2 cents worth. About what each Libertarians thoughts are worth.

[alwaysconservative]

Thanks for the ping!

[familyop]

"Since the judge did not "have to" it sounds like judicial activism. The same thing we have been complaining against."

Google "outright libertarians"

[dcwusmc]

Perhaps the "fringers" would become more mainstream if the American Public were to learn more about them in this sort of setting. Which exposure, being anathema to both wings of the ruling party, the republicrats are loathe to provide. And face it, the libertarians are far closer to conservativcs than Bush, Rove and Company are. True they are wrong on open borders, AT LEAST until the welfare state is dismantled... but B, R & Co aren't even waiting for that before opening the back door!

[WildTurkey]

A questions: What would the Republicans have done back in the mid-1800s if the Democrats and the Whigs hadn't let Lincoln debate? What would your party have done then? Just given up and gone home? I think not.

The Republican Party received 33 percent of the vote in the PRIOR election. They would have easily met any threshold for the Lincoln debates. Ping me when the LP gets even 3.3 percent of the vote. They are now nearer to 0.33 percent of the vote.

[o_zarkman44]

A privately funded event????? Public campaign contributions pay to get the candidates there. Air Force 1 is funded by taxpayers. When candidates raise a certain amount of money public matching funds kick in.

Since when did an election contest become privately funded?
Your premise is that if candidates want to go to private events to traipse around in front of the cameras and spin unaccountable rhetoric, then no one from the public domain can challenge their exclusion. And if private funding of political campaigns is used, the public is locked out of the process except for the sound bites we get on the biased news.

A nationally televised debate event is about as public as it can get, regardless of who sponsors the event. If our election process is to remain open, then ALL candidates must participate equally. Just because one may disagree with a candidate or his party does not give one the right to suppress their freedom of speech as a participant.

[WildTurkey]

And face it, the libertarians are far closer to conservativcs than Bush, Rove and Company are.

Huh? Even the Libertarians have stated that the gay, socialist, NORML convention crowd is closer to them.

You just cannot say that a party that believes in gay marriage, open borders, abortion on demand and legalized drugs is even anywhere close to conservative.