Libertarian Candidate Arrested.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-08 11:42pm

Linky to his own site with the scoop

Looks like there might be a small delay on that lawsuit.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-08 11:53pm

Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Party’s 2004 presidential nominee, will debate John Kerry and George W. Bush in St. Louis on Friday. Or he’ll go to jail instead.

“A majority of Americans say that I should be included in the events sponsored by the Commission on Presidential Debates,” says Badnarik, 50, of Austin, Texas. “And the CPD, as a non-profit, has received special treatment from government on the requirement that they be non-partisan in their activities. Bi-partisan is not 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.”

At 8 p.m. on Friday evening, Badnarik, along with the demonstrators expected to assemble in protest against his exclusion, will proceed to the police line erected to keep himself and the other legitimate candidates out during broadcast of the “bi-partisan campaign commercial.”

And then he will cross it.

“We’d have preferred to see John Kerry and George Bush stand up like men to debate the issues facing America,” says Badnarik’s communications director, Stephen Gordon. “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.” In Arizona, the Libertarian Party is taking the state university to court to prevent the expenditure of state money on a similar event.

Badnarik has previously debated David Cobb, the Green Party’s candidate; Michael Peroutka of the Constitution Party; and Walt Brown of the Socialist Party. Kerry and Bush, as well as Independent Ralph Nader, declined to participate in those debates. Tomorrow morning, he will proceed from a New York taping with Bill Moyers to St. Louis, ready to take on the Republican and Democratic machines in defense of American democracy.

Voters in 48 states and the District of Columbia will be able to vote for Badnarik on November 2nd. More than 600 Libertarians currently serve in public office across the United States.
-30-

Additional press information:

- The protest will proceed from Northmoor Park on Big Bend Ave., just south of Washington University to the corner of Big Bend and Forsyth, where the police line is expected to be arrayed. Badnarik’s crossing onto the Washington University campus will take place at that point, some time between 8 and 8:15 p.m. Badnarik and Green Party presidential candidate David Cobb plan to cross the police line together.

- The headline quote is from Thoreau, and intended to apply to the US occupation of Iraq:

“In other words, when … a whole country is unjustly overrun and conquered by a foreign army, and subjected to military law, I think that it is not too soon for honest men to rebel and revolutionize. What makes this duty the more urgent is the fact that the country so overrun is not our own, but ours is the invading army.” – Henry David Thoreau, On the Duty of Civil Disobedience

Post by **LadyTevar** » 2004-10-09 12:00am

..............
Well... THIS will be a fine kettle of fish... Wonder if they'll get gassed?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2004-10-09 12:52am

Oh, man. It's quite a way to make a statement while simultaneously destroying his chances to win popular acclaim. This may win him points with a few radical groups, but only further de-legitimizes his campaign and his party. For shame.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 12:59am

Master of Ossus wrote:Oh, man. It's quite a way to make a statement while simultaneously destroying his chances to win popular acclaim. This may win him points with a few radical groups, but only further de-legitimizes his campaign and his party. For shame.

For a third party candidate, any publicity is good publicity. He is literally being excluded from meaningfully participating in the polical process, and the system needs to be changed. If it takes him being arrested and he is willing to do it, more power to him, and I hold him in even higher esteem for having the courage of his convictions, and being willing to risk arrest in the name of correcting an injustice.

But then again, I am a fricking nutbag

Crayz9000 · Post by **Crayz9000** » 2004-10-09 01:28am

The Green Party candidate has also been arrested.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-09 01:30am

Master of Ossus wrote:Oh, man. It's quite a way to make a statement while simultaneously destroying his chances to win popular acclaim. This may win him points with a few radical groups, but only further de-legitimizes his campaign and his party. For shame.

It didn't delegitimize the civil rights movement...

I don't agree with either man's politics, but I do agree with the sentiment that they should be allowed in on the debates. As much as the two big parties like to think they're the only game in the country, they're not. Besides, it's a chance to make them both (the Green Party moron especially) look like idiots on national television!

sketerpot · Post by **sketerpot** » 2004-10-09 11:01am

Rogue 9 wrote:Besides, it's a chance to make them both (the Green Party moron especially) look like idiots on national television!

That's why they need to be oh-so-polite about it. They shouldn't even mention their politics other than the fact that they're third-party candidates and they want to give voters more choice. Add on something about govenment sponsorship of the two major parties, and they've got a pretty good argument.

A little off topic: considering that the president's main powers are appointing administrators, commanding the military, and vetoing bills, I'd say that Badnarik could probably do a better job than Bush or Kerrey despite his occasional tinfoil-hat views. He probably couldn't mess up the appointments as much as Bush, he doesn't like getting involved in foreign wars, and I can think of no way to better unify a fragmented and partisan congress than to have the president suddenly start vetoing everything they do.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 11:39am

wHy do you think I am voting for him.

The thing with Badnarik is that he will stick stricktly to his constitutional duties. He knows and loves the fact that it isnt within presidential power to say, affect the minimum wage or mess with the econoomy. That is congress's job, and if he vetoes something, he frces it to go to a supermajority, so it will only go through if it is VERY important.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 02:02pm

The problem with Badnarik is that he completely lacks any real political ambition.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:05pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:The problem with Badnarik is that he completely lacks any real political ambition.

Oh, he has it, he simply wont pander to anyone.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 02:09pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Oh, he has it, he simply wont pander to anyone.

What ambition? When has he done anything to indicate that he's serious about getting elected, rather then merely getting his name our there or score points for himself?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 02:34pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Oh, he has it, he simply wont pander to anyone.
What ambition? When has he done anything to indicate that he's serious about getting elected, rather then merely getting his name our there or score points for himself?

He uses what limited funds he has to get advertizements in the media, and campaigns across the country.

Problem is, he has limited(very limited) funds

He is a middle class guy, he isnt independantly wealthy

RedImperator · Post by **RedImperator** » 2004-10-09 02:38pm

The two majors parties have stacked the deck in favor of themselves, but the reality of American politics is that it's going to naturally form a two party system without anyone's help. I don't know if including someone who's going to be extremely lucky to capture 2% of the vote in the debates is a good use of the limited time they have available.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 04:15pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:He uses what limited funds he has to get advertizements in the media, and campaigns across the country.

Problem is, he has limited(very limited) funds

He is a middle class guy, he isnt independantly wealthy

I've never seen any advertising or campaigning from him. Hell, I had to google "Libertarian Party Candidate" originally to find out who the Libertarians were running and his little webpage was the first time I had ever heard of him. It's no wonder he to stage a publicity stunt by getting arrested, no one would even know he existed otherwise.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 04:17pm

OK, I suppose my message wasn't quite true. A student at Pitt was putting up flyers for a PA Libertarian Senator, and it mentioned Badnarik in the body text.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 04:20pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:He uses what limited funds he has to get advertizements in the media, and campaigns across the country.

Problem is, he has limited(very limited) funds

He is a middle class guy, he isnt independantly wealthy
I've never seen any advertising or campaigning from him. Hell, I had to google "Libertarian Party Candidate" originally to find out who the Libertarians were running and his little webpage was the first time I had ever heard of him. It's no wonder he to stage a publicity stunt by getting arrested, no one would even know he existed otherwise.

Again, the very limited funds.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 04:23pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Again, the very limited funds.

Then he ought to woo some backers with large sacks of money that they are willing to spend on him if he's serious, shouldn't he?

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 04:24pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Again, the very limited funds.
Then he ought to woo some backers with large sacks of money that they are willing to spend on him if he's serious, shouldn't he?

Third parties dont get many endorsements because their chance of winning is... nil... Self perpetuating cycle.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 04:28pm

Alyrium Denryle wrote:Third parties dont get many endorsements because their chance of winning is... nil... Self perpetuating cycle.

Then he's really got to convince them that he's viable and give them a good reason to take a chance on him. That means some amount of corporate dicksucking. If he's not willing to do that, chances are he's not serious about being President.

Rogue 9 · Post by **Rogue 9** » 2004-10-09 04:52pm

Gil Hamilton wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Third parties dont get many endorsements because their chance of winning is... nil... Self perpetuating cycle.
Then he's really got to convince them that he's viable and give them a good reason to take a chance on him. That means some amount of corporate dicksucking. If he's not willing to do that, chances are he's not serious about being President.

Or is simply convinced that doing so is wrong. Could also be that the man has principles. I don't know that he does; I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I wouldn't discount the possibility.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2004-10-09 04:55pm

Rogue 9 wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote:
Alyrium Denryle wrote:Third parties dont get many endorsements because their chance of winning is... nil... Self perpetuating cycle.
Then he's really got to convince them that he's viable and give them a good reason to take a chance on him. That means some amount of corporate dicksucking. If he's not willing to do that, chances are he's not serious about being President.
Or is simply convinced that doing so is wrong. Could also be that the man has principles. I don't know that he does; I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I wouldn't discount the possibility.

A politician with principles? Don't be silly! Such beasts died off aeons ago.

More seriously, if he doesn't have his own money, won't take other people's money, simply put he's going nowhere, and he's not even heading there quickly. It takes money to get your name out there.. Someone will leap up and screech and whine about how that's not fair, but I didn't make it so.

Gil Hamilton · Post by **Gil Hamilton** » 2004-10-09 05:55pm

Rogue 9 wrote:Or is simply convinced that doing so is wrong. Could also be that the man has principles. I don't know that he does; I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I wouldn't discount the possibility.

Like I said, he has no political ambition. At some point in any politicians career, he's going to have to suck a dick or twenty to get things done.

Post by **Alyrium Denryle** » 2004-10-09 05:55pm

SirNitram wrote:
Rogue 9 wrote:
Gil Hamilton wrote: Then he's really got to convince them that he's viable and give them a good reason to take a chance on him. That means some amount of corporate dicksucking. If he's not willing to do that, chances are he's not serious about being President.
Or is simply convinced that doing so is wrong. Could also be that the man has principles. I don't know that he does; I'm just playing devil's advocate, but I wouldn't discount the possibility.
A politician with principles? Don't be silly! Such beasts died off aeons ago.

More seriously, if he doesn't have his own money, won't take other people's money, simply put he's going nowhere, and he's not even heading there quickly. It takes money to get your name out there.. Someone will leap up and screech and whine about how that's not fair, but I didn't make it so.

well, he will take their money, but he wont suck corporate dick to do it. It puts him in a position where he owes someone a favor... and we all know where that leads

Petrosjko · Post by **Petrosjko** » 2004-10-10 12:59pm

Libertarians, Greens, and third parties in general waste their time with presidential affairs anyway. What they should be focusing on is local platforms, where they can actually capture seats. City councils, mayorships, state reps.

They need to establish a base and a record to run on, before they even think of having national ambitions. I know that none of the third party candidates honestly expect to win a presidential election, but they burn a good chunk of their limited resources just getting their names on the ballot.