Free Badnarik!

Julian Sanchez | October 8, 2004

So apparently Michael Badnarik managed to get himself arrested along with Green candidate David Cobb. Maybe they can join Lyndon LaRouche's campaigning-from-prison club.

Comments

|10.8.04 @ 11:39PM|#

How does the First Amendment's assembly clause square with Lib & Green's attempt to crash the party? Seems like the First trumps.

It's too bad that the Republicrats are exclusionary (and that Big News empowers them to be so), but I don't see how Lib & Green can claim a "right" to be present at the proceedings.

|10.8.04 @ 11:57PM|#

They were serving papers to the Commission on Presidential Debates in regards to the lawsuit in AZ. Badnarik even had the papers to be served in his jacket pocket when he was arrested.

|10.9.04 @ 12:35AM|#

Nobody, I'm not aware of Badnarik claiming that he had a constitutional right to attend the debate. (I have no clue what the Green Party candidate might have said on the subject.)

|10.9.04 @ 12:35AM|#

Nobody, that's why it's called civil disobedience.

|10.9.04 @ 1:16AM|#

very presidential.

point of principle and all that, but seriously -- this isn't kent state.

|10.9.04 @ 1:43AM|#

i'm glad that Badnarik did it, let's keep the pressure on!

|10.9.04 @ 2:10AM|#

gauis marius,

As I recall, a couple of folks were killed at Kent State. All these guys did was go past barricade and get arrested. They did not resist the arrest either.

Stewart Vardaman|10.9.04 @ 2:24AM|#

So, what's the bounty on asking Mr. Badnarik "how many times have you been arrested?"

|10.9.04 @ 5:23AM|#

This probably blows his chances for getting a security clearance. I don't know he could possibly function as president if all he could look at was unclassified material.

|10.9.04 @ 5:24AM|#

that's why it's called civil disobedience

It's not civil disobedience, it's a publicity stunt. "Civil disobedience" is a term applied to the refusal to obey unjust laws. There is nothing unjust about barring unwanted guests from a political event; freedom of association is a basic human right.

|10.9.04 @ 6:17AM|#

The problem is that the political event takes up MY taxes. If the commission on debates were actually non-partisan, they could legally be a 501c3 and life would be grand, but their claim to be non-partisan is clearly belied by their bi-partisan bias against third parties, whose members also pay taxes. If they want freedom of association, they need to cease their criminality and start obeying the tax-laws they themselves passed!
Not-Daniel

|10.9.04 @ 6:20AM|#

Wow! Now all the Badnarik voters can feel that they are pulling it for a Gandhi or an MLK :-)

Julian,

Good post and a great title!!

Regards,
"Free Mumia"

|10.9.04 @ 11:11AM|#

Douglas Fletcher said:

This probably blows his chances for getting a security clearance. I don't know he could possibly function as president if all he could look at was unclassified material.

I believe that crossing a police line is a lesser offense than DUI. Bush had a DUI conviction - did it affect his security clearance? Maybe that explains why he didn't know there were no WMD in Iraq. Doesn't explain why Kerry didn't know ether though, so it must be irrelevant.

Reinhold|10.9.04 @ 12:04PM|#

Promising to blow up a U.N. building probably ruined his chances of getting a security clearance...

|10.9.04 @ 12:23PM|#

"How does the First Amendment's assembly clause square with Lib & Green's attempt to crash the party? Seems like the First trumps."

I'd say there are a lot of constitutional problems with a taxpayer sponsored infomercial that excludes all but two candidates.

|10.9.04 @ 12:25PM|#

Regarding blowing up the UN building, he later said: "I'ma Libertarian. You know that I'd rather sell [the UN than blow it up]."

Flip-flopper! ;P

Calling the Kettle Black|10.9.04 @ 12:29PM|#

Sure Boris is a nutcase and he's way out in left field, makes the libertarian movement look bad, and all that. But no worse than when Stern co-opted the party in NY and then took a poweder.

And if you think about it for thirty seconds or so there's a whole lot of stuff right here that isn't exactly on the short list of useful devices for politcal outreach programs.

So while we're all laughing about how clever the statue with the titties and the boner was, and how cutting edge our comments are, we're also putting Boris down for his "publicity" stunt.

From where I sit, it doesn't look a whole lot different, he just got more press (okay, not a whole lot more, but more).

Disclaimer: I don't belong to the LP anymore (been years). I have made all the same arguments about the LP and the bone head things they do that you guys do and have. I will still vote for Boris, regardless of what he said about the UN or his dumb publicity stunt. I mean, philosophically speaking, is there another choice?

|10.9.04 @ 1:07PM|#

Did this get ANY play in the major media? I'd like to send this information to just about everyone, but I'd prefer something other than the candidates own press release.

|10.9.04 @ 1:18PM|#

I watched ABC news in LA at 9:00 last night for a few minutes. They recapped the debate as the top story. No mention of those two getting arrested.

b-psycho|10.9.04 @ 1:22PM|#

"the statue with the titties and the boner"

...wtf?

Kettle|10.9.04 @ 1:59PM|#

B-psycho,

The statue was a .jpg posted with Ron Baileys sex typing (Sexing Babies) story on Reason Online's main page a few days ago. It was pretty classy.-VBG

|10.9.04 @ 2:01PM|#

A fair amount of bullshit about the supposed hypocrisy of a libertarian violating property rights because the debate was held in a private venue. The answer to that, of course, is the debates are funded by public money, Then you get into the whole argument about the impracticality of letting everyone with a soapbox have a voice in the debates. And the answer to that is -- the real debate is on the web, not on the idiot box.

|10.9.04 @ 4:26PM|#

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/9872659.htm

That website contains an Associated Press article on last night's incident for anyone who wants to get the word out. Post this in any sort of profile or online journal you have and let people hear about it unless you want to live in a country where the freedom of speech is restricted to Democrats and Republicans who are guzzling all our tax money.

|10.9.04 @ 4:27PM|#

http://www.macon.com/mld/macon/news/politics/9872659.htm

That website contains an Associated Press article on last night's incident for anyone who wants to get the word out. Post this in any sort of profile or online journal you have and let people hear about it unless you want to live in a country where the freedom of speech is restricted to Democrats and Republicans who are guzzling all our tax money.

Guy who Wears White Hat|10.9.04 @ 5:12PM|#

Bravo for Mssr. Badnarik & Cobb.

I wish Ed CLARK had done this in 1980. The Duopoly of Evil break the Constitution, make Big Media suck up to them to keep "White House Credentials" and expect respect.

Mr. Badnarik was WISE to not fight the arrest. Medical Costs and lost time campaigning are not worth it. He did however DO SOMETHING. I Wish Harry Brown,1996 & 2000, and Andre Marrou and all the Libertarians Presidential candidates had done this.

NOW it is good that the AZ case was "served" it all shows how the FOX News etc are all IN BED, FED, and RED with the Duopoly of Evil.

Only thing missing was 500 Greens And Libertarians in LOCKED ARMS to pierce the POLICE line and divert the police so Mssr. Badnarik and Cobb could actually Crash the Debate.

Horrah ! for Badnarik and Cobb, It is about
time. Many lower level candidates have been arrested just for running for office. It is time we show the world America IS NOW a Nazi Police state with velvet gloves. Question is, how long before the Duopoly of Evil take off the Velvet gloves concealing the IRON fist of brute dictatorship, without law.

|10.9.04 @ 5:48PM|#

White Hat:

A mass arrest would solve nothing, on libertarian principles. I was sanguine about Badnarik's line-crossing tactic, until I saw that the CPD was refusing service of the AZ lawsuit papers at their DC offices. Now it turns out that the papers had a 4 pm expiration,
so they wouldn't be valid anyway.

The whole thing was symbolism.

I don't want to diss Michael B. I'm going to vote for him, but I've voted LP in every election since 1980, federal, state and, when possible, local. I do wish our candidate had a more substantial background, but what would it take to recruit the likes of a Gary Johnson to bolt a major party and pick up the libertarian standard? Any independently wealthy people want to burn their fortune running for Prez or VP, as David Koch did in `80? I'm convinced the Clark/Koch ticket yielded almost a million votes because they spent money on TV ads. At least the Bandarik folks have gone on air in tight states such as New Mexico, where a media buy might have the greatest effect.

Kevin

|10.9.04 @ 6:37PM|#

kevrob:

Adequate proof of the attempt to serve the CPD has been provided to the Judge in the case, so no worries there:

The following clarification was sent from David Euchner:

First, we did succeed in serving CPD. The Badnarik people were unable to execute service in St. Louis, but the LPHQ staff in Washington were very helpful to us and got the job done at the CPD office in DC. CPD attempted to evade service in DC as well, but the whole incident is recorded on audiotape and photographs. If they send someone to argue insufficiency of service of process, and I whip out our evidence, the Judge will be none too pleased with them.

By 1:30 Arizona time, I had confirmed via telephone with George Getz, Sam New and Margaret Taylor at LPHQ, and with Warren Severin in Tempe (our individual plaintiff) that service of process was complete (ASU did not resist at all, they were congenial to the Libertarian activist who served them). I called the court and let them know and our hearing is confirmed for Tuesday morning at 9am…

…As to why we didn't use professional process servers, the reason is simple. We were concerned that a professional would not feel the same level of urgency with getting this job done immediately that we felt. In order to serve process, there is only one requirement: that the server be 18 years old and not a party to the case. LPHQ staffers certainly had other things to do with their time, but when I explained the situation to them they were extraordinarily helpful. Kudos to George Getz and Sam New and Margaret Taylor for a job well done.

I think that answers all the questions posed here. Now that the logistics are taken care of, I need to prepare my oral argument for Tuesday morning. Wish me luck!

David Euchner
Attorney for Arizona Libertarian Party

|10.9.04 @ 6:41PM|#

Due to the fact that Michael Badnarik is on the ballot in 48 states and DC, he should absolutely be included in the debates! People are voting for the lesser of two evils this year and I am confident they would love to see more choices! Apparently Michael Badnarik is viewed as a threat to the duopoly which is precisely why we never hear a word about him in main stream media. Shame on MSNBC, Fox News and all the other major networks for not giving the public the truth!

|10.9.04 @ 6:50PM|#

First, they are correct that the debates violate the first amendment, because they are government-funded speech. Of course matching funds are also a violation of the first amendment, in that sense.

The idea that government officials can avoid getting legal papers served to them by simply keeping away people trying to deliver them is insane. It is, though obviously to a much lesser degree, an undermining of the justice system by its head official (in the case of Bush), akin to Clinton committing and encouraging perjury.

Incidentally, the entire concept of establishing "free speech zones" is a laughable violation of freedom of speech, as well. Perhaps the goons in charge should just make the whole system more efficient and simply place the "free speech zones" inside prison cells.

James Anderson Merritt|10.9.04 @ 7:05PM|#

Apparently, Badnarik's attempt to serve papers to the CPD was part of a multipronged approach in several places across the country, which was ultimately successful, even though Badnarik himself didn't succeed. Also, I think that the 4pm legal deadline was relative to Arizona time, which is 6pm in St. Louis. Assuming that Badnarik and Cobb tried to enter the hall a few minutes before the debate (which would have been necessary, had he any hope of either participating or being in the audience), I think they would have been on time to serve the papers.

Regardless, the CPD and ASU have been served. The hearing is on Tuesday. Let's see what happens.

HS|10.9.04 @ 8:10PM|#

Badnarik's conduct most definitely was an act of civil disobedience. He was refusing to obey, not just a single unjust law, but a combination of tax, spending and discriminatory rules unjustly depriving taxpayers from hearing him in the debate. Individuals acting in their private capacity have the freedom to associate. Individuals acting in their capacity as tax recipients do not.

|10.9.04 @ 8:40PM|#

How long have we had cyberspace?
Not long, and it has given us fragmented media at the same time retards worry about concentrated media.

Is it possible the US Civil War was the first major salvo at fragmenting US politics?

There's Mt. St. Helens about to blow.

Put politics against volcano/earthquake schedules. Hit and Run will erupt eventually.

Libertarians--the party--don't get what most Hit and Runners get, namely that we here will never be remotely satisfied with any politics that has the imprimatur of 51 percent of the unwashed.
(Okay, maybe unwashed isn't the operative image for we cyber-farts.)

|10.9.04 @ 8:44PM|#

Yes - Badnarik engaged in a "publicity stunt". For crying out loud, the silence about him is deafening.

Publicity?! Bush & Kerry not only get free publicity 24/7, but they also get paid publicity funded by us! Think about it, Bush supporters - you're paying equally for Kerry to be heard. Think about it Kerry supporters - you're paying equally for Bush to be heard.

Go Badnarik!

|10.10.04 @ 12:35AM|#

congrats to Badnarik -- the debates -- what a tragedy of the bored -- let Badnarik and Cobb in!

|10.10.04 @ 12:48AM|#

I'm proud of Badnarik and all that he is doing to fight the Elephant/Ass duopoly. I'm excited to vote for him, and stake my claim against the Republicans and Democrats out to get my hard-earned money and my persoanl freedom.

|10.10.04 @ 12:13PM|#

Should he or should he not? Lots of armchair quarterbacks have lots of opinions here. And, to a point, that's fine. But at the end of the day it was Badnarik and Cobb putting THEIR necks on the line, not yours or mine.

But the real question is: Why has the mainstream media ignored this incident? Because it was a lame publicity stunt? Puhleese! The Bush-Kerry debates are a lame publicity stunt!

Wake up folks! This isn't about the First Amendment or Private Rights. Its about power, and he who has the microphone has the power.

|10.10.04 @ 12:49PM|#

What Badnarik did was a publicity stunt, but so is much of what Bush has done in the name of the "War on Terrorism." Aside from the merits (or lack thereof) of the invasion of Iraq, Bush's decision to wait until within 2 years of the 2004 election before removing Saddam to keep it fresh in voters' minds certainly qualifies as a "publicity stunt." It was a publicity stunt when Bush spread fears of a dirty bomb conspiracy when the evidence was so flimsy that his administration didn't even bring charges against the alleged perpetrator, American citizen Jose Padilla, for fear that a magistrate or grand jury might not find probable cause. It was a publicity stunt when Bush landed on the aircraft carrier to announce "mission accomplished" in front of an audience that was required to cheer. It was a publicity stunt when Bush made a campaign appearance in Iraq in front of a similar captive audience during Thanksgiving of 2003. It was a publicity stunt when Bush provided Kerry with a similar cheering audience when he arrived in Boston before the convention. It's a publicity stunt when Kerry rails about "Benedict Arnold corporations," and unlike Libertarian conventions, which actually determine who will be nominated as a Presidential candidate, the Demoblican and Republicratic Conventions are pure publicity stunts, paid for with $100 million of taxmoney (if you include so-called "security measures" such as the unfree speech zone in Boston with razor wire only 5 3/4 feet overhead). I'm opposed to what Badnarik did, but he's a lesser evil than Bush and Kerry.
Previous posters rightly argued Badnarik and Cobb initiated force, and that Badnarik therefore did something unlibertarian. The fact is that simply to protect the rights libertarians cherish, Badnarik would, as President, have to initiate force on a much larger scale than he did Friday night. No government can long exist without collecting taxes, compelling witnesses to testify in court, and imprisoning some types of convicts instead of simply requiring them to pay restitution. All those would qualify as an initation of force, even if the tax rate were drastically lower and there were fewer victimless crimes.
I should confess that I didn't watch the CPD's exclusionary debates, except for a few minutes of the first. There's nothing Kerry or Bush can say to get my vote. As elected officials, they can be fairly judged by their actions in office, rather than their words. The aggression Badnarik engaged in during the CPD's debate and the aggression he'd commit if elected pale by comparison to what Bush and Kerry have already done.

|10.10.04 @ 1:25PM|#

The reason Badnarik and Cobb are protesting is because the Center for Presidential Debates was given authority over the debates on the condition that they be "non-partisan". Instead, they are acting "bi-partisan". Even though both Badnarik and Cobb are on enough ballots to mathematically win the presidency, they were for some reason denied access to the debates. They claimed they are using a guideline of 5% or more in a major national poll, but all the national polls dont' offer the polled the option of the third parties (except Nader). So, the logic is cricular - they can't get in the poll because they're not in the debates, they can't get included in the debates because they're not included in the polls.

Oddly, Ralph Nader, who LOST the Green Party primary, was going to be allowed in, that is until they realized Bush was winning by several percentage points, so they didn't need him to balance the two parties.

TheBlackTruth|10.10.04 @ 1:27PM|#

Those contending that Badnarik and Cobb DIDN'T have a "right" to be at the debates are mistaken. You see, ASU is a state government-funded entity and as such, is barred from making contributions to any political party. The state of Arizona, using ASU as a conduit, violated several statutes and constitutional principles by sponsoring a bi-partisan event on the campus of ASU. They needed to invite EVERYONE or no one.

James Anderson Merritt|10.10.04 @ 5:45PM|#

If you want to see pictures of the protest earlier in the day, and the confrontation on the police line on the evening of the debates, go here:

http://badnarik.org/supporters/blog/2004/10/10/badnarik-arrest-pictures/

You can click each picture to see a larger version of the image. Click the very last picture and read the fine print in its larger image, which provides a clue as to what that picture is showing you.

If suppression of a story like this happened elsewhere in the world, we would tsk-tsk and consider ourselves so lucky (and superior!) to be free of dictatorship and its ham-fisted control of media. This kind of thing used to happen in the USSR and behind the iron curtain; we shamed and criticized the communists back then. What do we do now that is is happening here, allegedly under the auspices of a "free market" press with constitutional guarantees against censorship?

The only mainstream account I have seen so far, which mentioned the protests at the St. Louis event, much less the Badnarik/Cobb confrontation with the police and subsequent arrests, was a separate AP piece on protest, which AP subscribers were free to ignore -- and apparently most did. My hometown newspaper didn't carry it. The big newspaper of my region did, but not anywhere near the front page: you have to use the search engine to find it. Protests were not mentioned in any of the "mainline" accounts of the debates that I have seen so far. If you have seen one, please post its URL here.

MC|10.11.04 @ 2:00AM|#

...its just this combined stunt would give the impression that both parties share similiar ideals or goals, which I SINCERELY hope they don't in the least.

In the interviews and debates that I've seen, featuring Badnarik and Cobb together, the two consistantly made it absolutely clear that they are seperated by very deep ideological differences that cannot be reconciled. Given this, the danger that people will mistake one party for the other is minimal, and even if it does happen, a quick examination of party platforms will quickly remedy any confusion.

Reguardless of their differences, there are still some special issues where Greens and Libertarians, as third parties, share a common cause. Even if their specific ideologies cannot be reconciled, Badnarik and Cobb still recognize the value of working together on issues like ballot access and getting into the debates with the Republicans and Democrats. Sure, in the process Libertarians are likely to be exposed to Green ideas. But then, so too will Greens be exposed to Libertarian ideas. Why push people away when we could take the opportunity to share our beliefs, perhaps shifting the Green's distrust of our current government into a distrust of big government in general? At any rate, having our ideas questioned and challenged forces us to (re)examine and defend them, which in turn leads to stronger and more convincing arguments.

E. Naeher|10.11.04 @ 10:40AM|#

The single AP story which mentioned the arrest in graf four made no mention of the lawsuit (which to me is the bigger story).

The silence is deafening. The AP story was picked up by a bunch of small papers but NYT and WaPo didn't touch the arrest.

|10.11.04 @ 1:06PM|#

Here is the link to why Michael did what he did. Maybe those who only take it upon themselves to "assume" what the reasons are need to read...Peace..
http://badnarik.org/press/release.php?p=1344

|10.11.04 @ 5:42PM|#

The best news story about this comes from the Washington University newspaper, Student Life. http://www.studlife.com/news/2004/10/11/News/Third.Party.Candidates.Arrested-748825.shtml.

The incident got a small mention in the Post-Dispatch, in an article that encompassed all protesting, with the anarchists and college peaceniks.

|10.11.04 @ 7:06PM|#

MC, I realize they share a common goal on those issues, but the Greens are little better than true communists on many issues. and I respectfully would say that getting a Green to distrust big government would be about as easy as getting a Democrat to admit that the whole Welfare and Medicare thing is all a big mistake. The Green's primary political contention is that government force should be used to oppose, or at least impede, scientific research and industrial development. Come to think of it I think I like them less than real communists, who had a certain fetish for industrialization.

Robert Buchanan|10.12.04 @ 5:08PM|#

Aeon, you bring a lot of good points to the fore, but the simple fact is that if Greens and Libertarians work together on the few issues we do share common ground on, our chances of increasing visibility and publicity for both parties improves.
Badnarik, Cobb, Nader and Peroutka (and their respective parties) all agree on one point: that the war in Iraq was unjustified and that the occupation of Iraq is wrong. That's far more than you can expect from Bush or Kerry. In a time like this, it's better those of us in third parties to focus on what we have in common, not on what divides us. On both foreign and economic policy, Bush and Kerry are nearly identical. Immigration, drugs, guns, and (surprise!) ballot access are just a handful of the topics that neither Bush nor Kerry would touch with a ten-foot pole. But the four major third-party candidates are willing and able to tackle any of these subjects any time in a debate.
I'm a hardcore Libertarian, and I disagree strongly with with te Greens on most issues. But this election cannot afford to be without a unity between third parties regarding such a divisive and important topic. If we can show that our respective parties offer sound and intelligent alternatives to the big two, we'll be that much closer to achieving real progress.

Robert Buchanan|10.12.04 @ 5:10PM|#

Aeon, you bring a lot of good points to the fore, but the simple fact is that if Greens and Libertarians work together on the few issues we do share common ground on, our chances of increasing visibility and publicity for both parties improves.
Badnarik, Cobb, Nader and Peroutka (and their respective parties) all agree on one point: that the war in Iraq was unjustified and that the occupation of Iraq is wrong. That's far more than you can expect from Bush or Kerry. In a time like this, it's better those of us in third parties to focus on what we have in common, not on what divides us. On both foreign and economic policy, Bush and Kerry are nearly identical. Immigration, drugs, guns, and (surprise!) ballot access are just a handful of the topics that neither Bush nor Kerry would touch with a ten-foot pole. But the four major third-party candidates are willing and able to tackle any of these subjects any time in a debate.
I'm a hardcore Libertarian, and I disagree strongly with with te Greens on most issues. But this election cannot afford to be without a unity between third parties regarding such a divisive and important topic. If we can show that our respective parties offer sound and intelligent alternatives to the big two, we'll be that much closer to achieving real progress.

Mad Studios|10.14.04 @ 12:13AM|#

Only you can do it. Download the Badnarik videos and keep us in
the number one slot. Share and post the links as many places as
possible before the election.


http://www.archive.org/movies/movies-details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=Bush_vs_Badnarik_Round_01

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=mad_studios_-_let_badnarik_debate

http://www.archive.org/movies/details-db.php?collection=election_2004&collectionid=war03_005_Patriot_Video_5_People_As_Poems_-_Election_Time

Throughout history, it has been the inaction of those who could have acted; the indifference of those who should have known better; the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most; that has made it possible for evil to triumph.

From your friend in Liberty at:
http://www.BushOutTheDoorIn2004.org
(visit for link to audio of Badnarik's arrest in .mp3 format)