Libertarians Win a Hearing in Debate Case

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

[flashbunny]

#5 would be an especially good idea. At least give it back to the states and stop the federal government wasting taxpayers money on overhead when the states could do it more efficiently.

[WildTurkey]

libertarian >>> Libertarian

[Cultural Jihad]

However, in this case the LP sued BEFORE they were wronged. Anything wrong with that picture? Can you imagine a world of private judges and everyone suing everyone for actions they think WILL happen but have not happened yet.

Odd considering that these ideologues try to argue against drunk driving laws for the very same reason, that no one should be hindered from swerving just because they might careen into someone, or even hurt themselves down the road. Perhaps they can prove they were forced or defrauded by the Commission on Presidential Debates, since their 2000 standard-bearer had previously defended Osama bin Laden on the afternoon of September 11th as the poor victim of our foreign policy who was merely acting in self-defense against our supposed force or fraud.

[WildTurkey]

#5 would be an especially good idea. At least give it back to the states and stop the federal government wasting taxpayers money on overhead when the states could do it more efficiently.

Mr. B. is running for FEDERAL office on a platform to eliminate public education. Maybe you have more info on this but if the FEDERAL program is to eliminate state programs, isn't that a little against the grain of the constitution and states' rights?

[Jonathon Spectre]

How utterly reprehensible to see people posting on FREE Republic saying that a "fringe candidate" who will be on the ballot in every state running for President should be denied the opportunity to debate.

Thanks, all you "The Republicans is mah TEAM!" nitwits for reminding me that so-called "conservatives" can be just as hypocritical and ignorant as the most mindless leftist shill.

[flashbunny]

yes, it is. I wasn't commenting on the state programs (I even mentioned it going back to the states), just the federal involvement in public education---a place that it has no constitutional mandate to be.

[Sam Cree]

I think the point is that Libertarians are using government coercion to force a private business to give them a public platform.

[LibertyRocks]

You missed my point. "Fringe" was in quotes because my point was that the Republican party was once a third party as well. My comment was meant to point out that simply because it is a third party doesn't mean it's on the fringe.

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.

Well, don't expect us to go home any time soon, either...
Another thing... If you REPUBLICANS who espouse smaller government and constitutional laws were doing your job - the Libertarians wouldn't be here in the first place!!!

[WildTurkey]

Thanks for reminding me. Bump this up to #1 on the list of things GWB fears from the LP:

1) 9/11 was the fault of the U.S.

Now that would be a tough one for GWB to answer in a debate.

[logician2u]

. . a private business . .

I think you have to consider ASU a public university. At least it used to be.

[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?

Sued them?

[Poohbah]

How utterly reprehensible to see people posting on FREE Republic saying that a "fringe candidate" who will be on the ballot in every state running for President should be denied the opportunity to debate.

He has an opportunity to debate; he merely needs to be at 15% in nationwide polls.

Of course, getting to 15% is too much like work for some folks.

[flashbunny]

How utterly reprehensible to see people posting on FREE Republic saying that a "fringe candidate" who will be on the ballot in every state running for President should be denied the opportunity to debate.

Thanks, all you "The Republicans is mah TEAM!" nitwits for reminding me that so-called "conservatives" can be just as hypocritical and ignorant as the most mindless leftist shill.

Please. That's pathetic. The main argument, which you've obviously ignored, is that there is no legal authority for this candidate to interject himself into what is basically a PRIVATE event. It goes against what the libertarian philosphy is supposed to stand for. It's hypocrisy.

Thanks for reminding me why I dislike the 'fringe' parties- they're willing to argue for certain principles when they benefit them, but once those same principles harm them, they'll run crying for the government to fix it for them.

It's just sad.

[Sam Cree]

OK, but is ASU the sponsor or the setting?

[Protagoras]

Ironic that a libertarian is trying to use the government to force his way into a privately funded event.

It would be if that were the case. But the contention is that the funds are public, not private.

I think it's ironic that people who say things like that feel the need to obfuscate the issue.

[Political Junkie Too]

In today's activist judicial world, where the breaks always fall Democrat, who's to say that this isn't really a cover story by the Democrats to weasel out of the third debate so as not to give George Bush one more national stage to shine on?

-PJ

[WildTurkey]

Well, don't expect us to go home any time soon, either... Another thing... If you REPUBLICANS who espouse smaller government and constitutional laws were doing your job - the Libertarians wouldn't be here in the first place!!!

Libertarians are more concerned with legal drugs than smaller government.

[sinkspur]

If Bush and Kerry have nothing to fear from these "embarassment" candidates and parties, why would they throw out the debate? just to keep them from being heard? What?

The Libertarians are not a serious party. They attract fringe voters (witness their pathetic, and declining, performance over the last four presidential cycles).

It is not about fear; it is, in fact, about "embarrassment." Bednarik is even further left than Kerry in the war on terror.

Then there's that ole drug thang....

You can't really be serious about this. As someone else said, do the hard work and get 15% support, then you'll be allowed in. Suing your way into the debates is childish.

[Moonman62]

Libertarian party is definately not well run at the mommet, or well represented.

Or well liked, and this latest stunt isn't going to help in that regard.

[Protagoras]

The fringers are not part of the debates for the same reason children are not allowed to drive cars.

Typical goofy comment.

If you think that Democrats are adults and Libertarians are children, you shouldn't be allowed to post anymore than children should be allowed to drive.