Badnarik (libertarian) Sues Over 3rd Debate
coil
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
Amateur pirate. Professional monkey. All pance. Join Date: 2002-04-12 Member: 424Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">contends it is violating AZ constitution</div> <a href='http://www.nysun.com/article/2962' target='_blank'>http://www.nysun.com/article/2962</a>
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
Judge F. Pendleton Gaines III instructed the debate's hosts, Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates, to appear in his courtroom in Phoenix tomorrow to respond to a lawsuit filed last week by the Libertarians.
...
The suit argues that the university is illegally donating state resources to the Republican and Democratic Parties by serving as host for a debate that showcases Messrs. Bush and Kerry but excludes their Libertarian counterpart, Michael Badnarik, who is on the ballot in Arizona and 47 other states...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's an interesting argument, and the article continues to say that it likely won't succeed (the university claims it is funding the debate with private donations, and that the debate itself serves the public good by increasing press exposure for the university). But still interesting. I'd love to see Badnarik up there with Bush and Kerry, if only to watch his fiscal conservatism rip Bush a new one.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->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.
Judge F. Pendleton Gaines III instructed the debate's hosts, Arizona State University and the Commission on Presidential Debates, to appear in his courtroom in Phoenix tomorrow to respond to a lawsuit filed last week by the Libertarians.
...
The suit argues that the university is illegally donating state resources to the Republican and Democratic Parties by serving as host for a debate that showcases Messrs. Bush and Kerry but excludes their Libertarian counterpart, Michael Badnarik, who is on the ballot in Arizona and 47 other states...<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's an interesting argument, and the article continues to say that it likely won't succeed (the university claims it is funding the debate with private donations, and that the debate itself serves the public good by increasing press exposure for the university). But still interesting. I'd love to see Badnarik up there with Bush and Kerry, if only to watch his fiscal conservatism rip Bush a new one.
Comments
What I would have loved to see is a series of debates such as occured with the Democratic primaries in which we could have seen several of the other parties candidates at once. Eventually the less popular candidates could have been weeded out until we get the final debates with just the two candidates we have now.
(just an off the cuff remark, I make no claims for the feasibility fo such an idea)
What would be funny: in a response to your post, the candidates elect to debate with Saddam Hussain.
What would be really funny: Saddam wins.
What would be funny: in a response to your post, the candidates elect to debate with Saddam Hussain.
What would be really funny: Saddam wins. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
No one really wins a presidential debate... Its just watching a bunch of giant ego's float around and ocationally smash into eachother furiously, in the end no real damage done... Which is why I want to see some 3rd party candidates in the fray once in a while. They have nothing to lose, see what sence they can knock into the system!
Yes? its not like we really interupted you, being an online forum and all...
Ross Pero?
I didn't mean win the election (Saddam is ineligable), but rather win the debate.
Yes? its not like we really interupted you, being an online forum and all... <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Am I getting that old that people don't remember that?
"Can I finish"
-Ross Perot 1992 Presidential debate