Slashdot Log In
Libertarian Party Suit Could Mean A 3-Party Debate
Posted by
timothy
on Mon Oct 11, 2004 06:38 PM
from the but-probably-not dept.
from the but-probably-not dept.
v4mpyr writes "The lawsuit initiated by the Arizona Libertarian Party against the ASU and CPD has been successfully scheduled for a hearing. If the CPD cannot present a decent case for excluding Michael Badnarik from a private debate funded by public sources, they will have to exercise one two options: Let Michael Badnarik debate this Wednesday or reschedule and relocate the debate. Either way it will be a major win for the third parties. The official press release can be found here."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Or is it an "excuse" to cancel the debate? (Score:4, Interesting)
Woudn't the White House just as soon skip the third debate? But that would look bad. Aha, here are the Libertarians trying a court case - we can just let them spoil the whole thing, and we won't lose face.
I don't think they'll let the Libertarians in on the debate.
I think they'll cite logistical reasons not to move the debate.
I think they'll cite logistical and timing (not enough) reasons, as well.
I think they'll just cancel the debate - or let's say, "fail to be able to negotiate specifics for a rescheduled, relocated third debate."
The debates have been at least in-part a matter of "Bush damage minimization," because public thinking-on-his-feet isn't his strong suite. Actually, there were statements up-front that the Bush campaign was going to try and define Kerry, just like the Clinton campaign defined Dole. At the very least, the debates give Kerry a chance to get up and speak for himself. Whether that damages him in your eyes or not, they are his words, and not the Bush campaign putting words in his mouth.
I don't think anyone expects to see a Bush slam-dunk out of *any* of these debates. I don't think they really put the courts or Libertarians up to this. But I don't think they mind the thought of having the third debate get cancelled, in the slightest.
Parent
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:3, Funny)
judgement*
You misspelled election too.
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you really want 3rd party candidates, the candidates who clearly state their positions on the issues to mess with the Democrats and Republicans with their meaningless, but well rehearsed sound bites? What would happen, if in a a debate, a candidate took a stand? {gasp} Would our entire country fall to ruin? Or, might it force the other candidates to answer a question?
Just where in the constitution does it say that we have a 2 party system, and that those two parties should be the Democrats and Republicans?
As for the wasted vote argument, so you should choose your lesser of evils candidate, remember, if you choose the lesser of evils, you have still chosen evil. Vote your mind, and your conscience. If you always settle for a lesser of evils, how do they know that you are dissatisfied with the status-quo? Or are you happy with the lack of choice that we are suffering with if you only consider Kerry and Bush to be the only valid, viable candidates?
How many people are on the ballot in your state? http://www.politics1.com/p2004-ballots.htm [politics1.com] this site should list who has ballot access in your state. In my state, Ohio, there were 8 names to choose from on the 2000 ballot. (If you don't believe me, I'll make it easy for you to check my facts: http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/index.html [state.oh.us] ) Why should the choice only come down to 2 candidates with 8 people who went to the effort to gain ballot access?
The mainstream press actively avoids reporting on 3rd party candidates. When a presidetial candidate passes though a city 6 times during the campaign, and 2 daily newspapers, and 4 local television channels completely ignore the visits? People were there to greet the candidate, but not a press member to be found, hmm... this smacks of collusion with the press and the Democrats and Republicans.
What we need to fight for is better coverage of the other people who will appear on the ballots of our respective states. If airing the news is an FCC required service of broadcasters, how about equal time for all of the eligible candidates? Oh Horrors! What a concept! Let the people hear of the people on the ballot before they draw the curtain? This would hardly be fair to the powers that be! People might consider voting for someone other than a Democrat or Republican.
We complain about crooked elections in other countries. They can't get much more closed, and crooked than our own.
Parent
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:4, Interesting)
It would go something like this:
Badnarik: .......Something meaningful......
Kerry: That's preposterous! My party's bottom line is to find and kill the terrorists with other people's troops, while ours can have dinner with their spouses.
Bush: It's hard work, being president. The witch-doctor told me to "oooh eee ooh ah-ah, ting tang, falla walla bing bang."
And the masses of American lemmings will oooh and ahhh with the two mindless dopes that are vying for control, and be upset with the stir caused by Badnarik. Yes, I'm a cynical American, and I hate the choices presented by the dems and the 'pubs.
Parent
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:5, Insightful)
Just where in the constitution does it say that we have a 2 party system, and that those two parties should be the Democrats and Republicans?
Just where in the constitution does it say that we need to have a Presidential debate at all -- let alone that every little party needs to be included in said debate?
As for the wasted vote argument, so you should choose your lesser of evils candidate, remember, if you choose the lesser of evils, you have still chosen evil. Vote your mind, and your conscience.
I don't consider Kerry to be the "lesser of two evils" vote. Perhaps you disagree with me. I genuinely like and support the guy but I suppose YMMV. As for the argument of "There's no real difference between the parties" I'm sick and tired of hearing it. I suppose it's good for a cheap +5 on Slashdot but if you bothered to read any major newspaper you'd see that there are huge differences between Democrats and Republicans on any number of issues including foreign policy, abortion, stem cell research, tax policy, the direction of our Federal judiciary, economic policy, military posture, missile defense, homeland security, religion in government, environmental policy, social security etc etc.
These are huge policy differences but all people around here (and the third-party candidates) can focus on are the glaringly obvious mistakes that they both supported (DCMA) without even considering the fact that this is symptomatic of lazy Congressman who don't read bills or understand the issues more then any vast DNC/RNC plan to slice up the country.
Now I've never suggested that a vote for a third-party is a wasted vote. I have suggested that if you are a Green and you truly care about your platform this might not be the best election in the World in which to cast that vote. Even the Green Party itself has said as much. If you happen to be a Libertarian then I suppose you won't like Bush (he isn't a true conservative by any means) and you certainly aren't going to like Kerry -- so by all means vote for your guy.
We complain about crooked elections in other countries. They can't get much more closed, and crooked than our own.
Really? Anyone with the right organization and name recognition stands as good a chance as anybody else of being elected. Ross Parot stood a very good shot until he foolishly dropped out the race only to toss his hat back in later. He wasn't excluded from the debates. He shot himself in the foot -- his was the best third-party campaign since Teddy Roosevelt.
It would also be fair to point out that in American Politics (at least where the Presidency is concerned) the maverick usually loses. It doesn't even need to be a third-party person. Ask the John McCains and Howard Deans of the World how their Presidential campaigns worked out. McCain's loss you might be able to blame on the party establishment (not to mention the oh so lovely tactics Karl Rove used against him) -- but Dean had the effective support of large portions of the Democratic establishment and the primary voters still overwhelmingly picked Kerry. The mavericks and third parties do serve a purpose -- they set the tone of the debate and ensure that important issues (campaign finance in McCains case) aren't swept under the rug. But when push comes to shove the American people usually go with the mainstream and/or more experienced candidate.
Parent
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:3, Informative)
Not to mention, a political party only needs 5% of the vote to get federal funding in the next election which is a big step forward. The media *never* mentions that. If Nader, Badnarik or Peroutka could hack out 5% of the vote they would have a legit shot at the next election.
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:4, Insightful)
some more direct democracy in our government might do wonders
We don't need direct democracy. Direct democracy is scary and ineffective. Ever hear of the tyranny of the majority?
What we need is people interested in politics again. Especially local and state politics. You advocate direct democracy -- can you name your Assemblyman or even Mayor? Can you name a local school board member? Can you name your County Executive or the legislator from your district?
I'd bet money that most of the people on /. can't name a majority of those people -- and a good portion of the /. readership couldn't name any of them. I'd dare say that most of the /. readership is more into politics then the average American -- so what does that say about most other Americans?
Parent
Re:I seriously doubt the courts will allow this (Score:5, Interesting)
Interesting... I've never heard of such a thing. Would you mind posting a few snippets of the relevant sections of a few such State Constitutions, for our elucidation? And maybe a list of a handful of States that have such clauses in their Constitutions?
Not a troll, I'm seriously interested to see this info, as it's news to me.
Parent
Yay! (Score:5, Interesting)
Now, all I have to do is figure out a way from keeping them from bringing up Ayn Rand at my next party as they hang out at the punch bowl...
Re:Yay! (Score:3, Insightful)
Most democrats weren't so happy about it last time.
The third parties are being censored! (Score:5, Interesting)
At least FOX is censoring its guests. They cannot mention Badnarik on the air.
I emailed one person in question directly here is his reply:
I am the Muslim Outreach Coordinator for the campaign of the Libertarian U.S. presidential candidate Michael Badnarik. On August 20, a staffer for the O'Reilly Factor television show pre-interviewed me for an appearance to give an opposing point of view to O'Reilly's guest Muhammad Ali Hasan, founder of "Muslims for Bush." On the way to the studio to tape the program on August 26, however, I received a call from O'Reilly's staffer informing me that although I would be identified as a Muslim supporter of Badnarik, I must not mention the Libertarian Party or Badnarik's name on the air. I assured the staffer that I would not turn the segment into a Badnarik campaign ad, but objected that preventing me from mentioning Badnarik's name even once would muzzle my main point that one need not support Kerry to oppose Bush. The staffer insisted that I make the point without mentioning either Badnarik's name or that of the Libertarian Party. When I declined to accept these terms, the staffer had the driver they hired take me home.
Another local Muslim with no connection to the Badnarik campaign, Khalid Turaani, was hurried to the studio to take my place. On the air, O'Reilly sought to rebut Turanni's criticism of Bush with criticism of Kerry. Turaani spontaneously replied that, as a conservative, he would never vote for Kerry and intended to vote for the Libertarian candidate Michael Badnarik. Watching this turn of events at home, I was reminded of a verse in the Qur'an: "They plotted their plans and God made His plans, and God is the best of planners."
Yours truly, I. Dean Ahmad, Ph.D. Bethesda, MD
below is the link where i first found the story.
http://www.registerguard.com/news/2004/09/26/ed.co l.nathan.0926.html
Link (Score:3, Informative)
Old school, IRC link... (Score:3, Informative)
get mirc (free chat prog)mirc.org
The channels are #libertarian and #badnarik on EFNET
Re:The third parties are being censored! (Score:3, Funny)
I support Bush for practical reasons, but there is a lot to like about Badnarik and America needs to hear about him. If FOX, claiming to be "fair and balanced" intentionally pulls that kind of stunt, they should be horribly ashamed of themselves.
NY Sun article: "Libertarians Win a Hearing..." (Score:3, Informative)
For a moment (Score:5, Interesting)
The final debate was, by the original agreement, to be on the subject of domestic and economic policy. This is so far a subject which has gone mostly uncovered in the debates. Only the first debate was meant to be explicitly on foreign policy, but both the vice presidential and townhall debates were dominated by discussion of foreign policy, and more specifically discussion of Iraq. Both of these debates began with discussion of Iraq, and all the most firey and attention-grabbing portions were during the Iraq portions. The domestic halves of these two debates were a bit more cursory and did not delve into the details of economic policy.
Meanwhile, economic policy is where the Kerry campaign's true strength is. It is easier to make the Bush campaign look bad over Iraq, but it is not in any way easy to make the Kerry campaign look good over Iraq. Economic policy, however, is an area where the Kerry campaign has a chance to make itself look actually good [economist.com]. Kerry can point to distinct policy differences and make a legitimate argument that these differences would result in real improvement. He just needs to grab the public's attention somehow. Since the last few weeks have been utterly dominated by discussion of Iraq both inside and outside Kerry's campaign, however, there has not been a chance for this to happen.
Kerry has a chance to swing the national debate over to domestic and economic policy at least for a little while in this debate. Since Kerry did not begin to heavily harp on Iraq until shortly before the foreign policy debate, it is likely Kerry will take this opportunity. The debate also offers Kerry a chance to convince the country to briefly sit down and listen to his economic views. Meanwhile, the domestic policy debate offers no positive opportunities to the Bush campaign. The best Bush can hope for is to ramble about marriage and small business owners enough that he can distract viewers from what Kerry is saying; he has no points of his own to score. The question is not whether Bush or Kerry will benefit from wednesday's debate. The question is how much of Kerry's benefit from Wednesday's debate Bush will be able to blunt.
If Badnarik gets his order granted, this becomes moot. The final debate will suddenly have an unplanned random factor plunged into it enough to totally disrupt the debate. Not only would Badnarik's mere presence in the debate be a distraction from the two candidates there, but his input and any obligation on the part of the major-party candidates to respond to it would effectively prevent discussion on the subject of which of the two major-party candidates would offer a better economic policy. Kerry could still attempt to outline his economic policy. Viewers would not pick up on it. It would be lost in the chaos.
My conclusion: Allowing Badnarik into the debate would be a serious impairment to the Kerry campaign, and have little to no effect on the Bush campaign. The Kerry campaign would lose its one given opportunity to outline to the nation a major plank of its platform. The Bush campaign would neatly get to opt-out of a potentially embarrassing debate. This would be a disastrous result for Kerry's chances of winning and an extremely positive result for Bush's.
Re:For a moment (Score:5, Insightful)
>of the two major-party candidates
Have you even been watching the debates? The candidates pretty much have pre-worked out spiels and just go through them when a question is even close. Sometimes you'll notice they completely miss answering the question or end up repeating one of them and trying to hide it. There's no discussion going on here.
Adding an "unplanned random factor" as you call it might get some decent telling responses from candidates instead of having us sit through more of the same "say what they want to hear and hide the rest" spiels as we've been getting in speeches.
Parent
Re:For a moment (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:For a moment (Score:5, Insightful)
Supporters of the welfare system, supporters of state-sponsored education, supporters of the freeway system, people who believe the U.S. military does some degree of good in the world, people who believe U.S. foreign aid does some degree of good in the world, and some other people. I could probably go on if you'd like.
There is, in fact, a middle ground between anarchocapitalist libertarianism and "insane" "statist"s, as you put it, and most of America is in this middle ground. The idea that the government performing functions rather than the public sector is inherently bad all the time is something which perhaps is sound as political theory, but it is not something which is a plurality political viewpoint within the united states.
The ideoloigical left is not as you think. In 2000 their issues were environmentalism and anti-globalism. In 2004 their issues are anti-war and anti-globalism, both of which put them into the ABB camp, but also makes them mistakenly support Kerry instead when he is no better, and most of them haven't figured that out yet. Badnaik is what they want on both counts, and he wants to make sure the sovereignty of the US is not compromised militarily nor economically. Neither Bush not Kerry can truthfully make that claim. But since they are both liars I expect them to.
No, having followed the ideological left very closely for the last four years I can tell you that this is definitely not the case. There has been a certain degree of issues shift within the ideological left but on all of the ideological left's issues except personal liberty there is definitely a consensus that Kerry is better than Bush, if only slightly. The only question within this group is whether Kerry is better enough on these issues to justify supporting him. This is a question that has been debated fiercely for about the last six months straight. If you believe that it just hasn't occurred to the far left that Kerry might be a flawed candidate and Badnarik is going to wake them up to this, you are deeply mistaken. No one in the ideological left is viewing Kerry through rose-colored glasses. At best (best for Kerry, I mean, of course) they are realistically facing the idea that either Kerry or Bush is going to win this election and they can help either one or the other.
Again, in 2000 the ideological left was faced with a democratic candidate who from their viewpoint could not be differentiated from the republican candidate, and so they abandoned in great numbers. The entire focus of the 2000 Green Party Nader campaign was on pointing out that the two parties were too close and that Gore was no better than Bush, and the left needed to split off and vote third party in order to remind the democrats not to ignore their base. This was a line the ideological left bought at the time. Since then Bush has proven no, he is in fact worse than Gore would have been, and the Democratic party did not as hoped freak out and start recognizing its base-- in fact if anything it's shifted further to the right, seemingly mistaking losses caused by a disillusioned base for losses caused by a national trend toward conservatism. Pretty much all of the people who supported the Greens in 2000-- which is pretty much all potential far-left voters in 2004-- recognize this has happened, and they are not interested in repeating 2000 again this year. The Greens could very certainly make a serious contention as a third party candidate this year if they desired. They are not trying. There is a reason for this.
Meanwhile, personal liberty, the war in Iraq, and reform of the electoral system are virtually the only areas in which the ideological left agrees with Badnarik. The ideological left has been loudest about the wars against Iraq and personal freedom in the last four years,
Parent
One of three things will happen (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, that assumes that the claims aren't just dismissed out of hand, regardless of the law.
Re:I know one reason to exclude him. (Score:5, Insightful)
Locking out third parties permanently prevents them from getting elected, as they can't even bring up the issues which our two Socialist parties -- the communists on the left and the fascists on the right -- won't bother with or are in agreement with eachother on. There is very little significant difference between a Dem and a Rep.: both don't think that people are capable of running their own lives, and think that they're better fit to run everyone's lives than everyone else is fit to run their own lives.
The importance here is it allows for a real debate, and for topics to be brought up that may start eroding at the cartel Dems and Republicans have created to systematically keep third parties out of contention.
Parent
Re:I know one reason to exclude him. (Score:5, Interesting)
Badnarik is on the ballot in AZ, along with Bush and Kerry. The debate is in AZ, with AZ taxpayer money. Logically, then, it seems like he should be in the debate. But then again, I want Badnarik to embarass the hell out of Bush and Kerry. I'd feel the same way if it was Ralph Nader or any of the other third-party candidates. I want any third-party candidate in there to show the public how nearly indistinguishable the two major parties are these days.
-paul
Parent
Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
# Badnarik
# Bush
# Cobb
# Kerry
# Nader
# Peroutka
IMHO they should all be allowed to debate if they can rustle up enough support to make it on the ballots. The second requirement, high polling, is irrelevant because of it does not accurately represent the will of the people. That part should be eliminated.
Parent
Re:Bad Idea (Score:3, Interesting)
I've seen many debates on a smaller scale that involved more than two people, and they worked fine. I agree there has to be some arbitrary limit, but 2 seems awfully restrictive, especially when you take into account the two total losers we ended up with. 3 or 4 would at least give you better odds on seeing someone actually worth voting for, rather than a
Re:Bad Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Bad Idea (Score:5, Interesting)
Second, I would suggest that getting the third party candidate on the debate is probably silly. However, I would suggest that the other alternative, of not using government/tax payer money is a grand idea. It's just silly that the Democrats and Republicans can run debate and then use public money to finance the damn thing. It's silly. They can easily put up the money themselves.
I know I'd be unhappy on a tax payer in that state. Finally, getting a third party candidate wouldn't be a bad idea, if only because it could introduce a lot of the public to a third party candidate for the first time in a long while. Other then Ross Perot, I don't believe there has been a legitimate candidate in my life time. I'd love to see them get a chance to be on prime time. They have a lot of good ideas, and can challenge the existing candidates from another point of view. If only to see how the major candidates respond to them.
Kirby
Parent
Re:Bad Idea (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway (Score:3, Informative)
If it was a national law there would of been no "negotiation" about how many debates and all the silly rules those debates entail and Buchan
the "debate commission" (Score:5, Informative)
A third party is only permitted if the Democratic and Republican campaigns believe it advantageous to their interests. The CPD is not "official" or "federal" in the sense you seem to assume.
Parent
Re:Badnarik doesn't have the votes anyway (Score:3, Insightful)
And you need a certain percentage of the popular vote to be recognized as a political party by the State of Arizona. I'd imagine this is a different number used by the CPD. This would be moot except that the corporation in question is accepting money from the State of Arizona in an effort that excludes a political party recognized by said state. You're supposed to meet the state's standards before they're allowed to spen
Re:A bit about third parties (Score:3, Insightful)
In the Presidential electoral system we have today, a person has to have (in most states) the greatest number of votes of any candidate in order to claim the electoral votes for that state. Naturally falling out of this is the tendency for as few parties as possible to be represented. Since there is at least a variety of views expressed by U.S. voters, there w
Re:Why does Slashdot... (Score:5, Insightful)
Pretend you are in jail on death row. You find that you have a 50% chance of lethal injection, 45% chance of the electric chair, or 5% chance of escape... which would you vote for?
Statistics has nothing to do with it. People need to realize that you don't have to vote based on who is most popular or who has the highest chance of winning. The point of voting is to vote for the person you think is right for the job, regardless of what your neighbor says.
Parent
Why not? (Score:3, Interesting)
Amongst: Intel, AMD, Transmeta, IBM POWER, SPARC, VIA etc, it's unlikely that Transmeta will "win". But it still gets more than its market share worth of "broadcast" here, whenever there's something remotely interesting going on.
Having competition can help keep the regular winners from being lazy or even colluding.
It's almost like having the American Idol thing but only giving the bulk of air-time to two competitors who the organizers think have the best cha
Re:Why does Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
The main problem here is that the voting system itself induces people to vote based on the popularity polls. They vote for the candidate they see as the lesser of two evils rather than voting for the candidate that they really want because they fear that they could end up splitting the vote between the two candidate that they prefer and thus the least-preferred candidate will win. If we would adopt a sensible voting system, then this wouldn't be a problem.
Re:Why does Slashdot... (Score:3, Interesting)
foreign policy - bush invaded afghanistan and iraq, kerry supported invading and iraq
taxation - both keep most of the current tax code - kerry to raise taxes slightly on the richest
gay marriage - both against it
abortion - yep, i guess they're different here, although i had difficulty deciphering kerry response in the debate
patriot act - bush proposed it, kerry voted for it
IP law - no difference
Re:Why does Slashdot... (Score:3, Insightful)
Kerry supported giving the President power to persuade Iraq to give in to inspections, which was working until W blew it and went to war. Kerry did not support the war as it was executed by Bush.
gay marriage - both against it
True, but there's more to the story, as usual. Bush supports modifying the Constitution of the United States to specifically exclude a class of people from a right. This is unprecedented in the hi
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
The point of the lawsuit is that the state of Arizona recognizes three parties - Democrat, Republican and Libertarian. That means when you register as a voter, you either register as a Democrat, Republican, Libertarian or Independent. When you go to the polls, you see the candidates of those three parties, plus any Independents, on your ballot.
Despite that fact, there are only candidates from two of those parties. That would be perfectly fine if this debate were privately funded, but it is in fact funded by Arizona taxpayer money and held at Arizona State University, which is a taxpayer-funded institution. That means that the debate is obligated to include candidates from all three recognized parties, or move to a privately funded location and host the debate using nothing but private funds.
If all 54 of the parties you listed were recognized by the state of Arizona, then yes, a publicly funded debate would have to include candidates from every one of them, unless those candidates declined to attend.
Parent
Re:What? (Score:3, Informative)
No, it is a bi-partisan entity. That is the whole complaint! Read a little...
Re:What? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'll try again. The university is not ENDORSING anybody. It's hosting a debate put on by a private organization. That organization has opened the debate to ANY candidate, from ANY party that exhibits a sufficient level of public support to be considered a serious contender. There is nothing intrinsically partisan about doing so. You may think that they shoul
Re:What? (Score:3, Interesting)
By getting to the minimal amount of support that gets them to start paying attention to you. It's not the polling organizations job to do your marketing/campaigning for you. It's not the governments job to force them to. It's YOUR job! Your failure to do so is not THEIR fault. Ralph Nader is mentioned by name in almost every singl
Re:Double-standard (Score:5, Interesting)
This is the Libertarian Party we're talking about, not the Anarchist Party. Libertarians aren't necessarily about having NO government, just the least government necessary.
Anwyay, as it is we have a system, laws, taxes, etc. in place... and while Libertarians would seek to make some fairly progressive changes in some of those areas, we have to work within the system in order to change it. It's not hypocritical, it's pragmatic.
Parent
Single standard (Score:3, Informative)
Let's be very clear: the state should not be excluding legally qualified candidates from any context featuring candidates just because they are not part of the dominant party. That is election fraud, and is exactly what single-
Re:Double-standard (Score:3, Informative)
If you know anything about the Libertarian party platform, I think you would understand this move. Government money (OUR money) is being used to fund a political debate that is purposefully excluding candidates that will be on the ballot. If Libertarians just sit back and accept that, they aren't encouraging the Government to be hands off, are they?
It's very Libertarian to step in and try and stop the Government from robbing (sorry, 'collecting taxes from') tax
by the way (Score:3, Informative)