Right, the Democratic Party, a political machine owned and operated by big money interests and collusion, shuts-out Professor Lessig and his/our issues - electoral reform notably. The annointed candidate, Hillary, is the issue for an increasingly corrupted Dem Party no less beholden to big money and special-interest influence than the RepubliCons - just slightly different creeps controlling the program! The Dem convention should be a boring, predictable, well-scripted affair, with all the usual suspects adoring and praising Shillary, but no trace of an "open" convention or unaffiliated delegates. Advocates for reform like Lessig likely will not even get to speak at the dem convention charade. What a breath it would be if there were enough rebels to actually give people like Lessig and Sanders an even shot.......
The corporate war parties had Jill Stein illegally arrested and held in a warehouse for just showing up to the door of the debate last time. No Democrat would debate her. I can't understand what sort of mental illness makes Lessig think he shares values with Democrats.
If you know something we don’t, it is not sufficient to just allude to it, as if we all knew what you were talking about, you need to explicitly state facts, and preferably include a link, and then your opinion will most likely make sense.
They should have waived the stupid rules and included Lessig in the debates. So with three months until the Iowa caucus there are only three candidates. I think until the FBI's report on Hillary's e-mails is released, whenever that occurs, anything can happen. If you believe the candidates a progressive has to win. Of course many people question Hillary's credentials as a progressive. So basically we have a candidate who claims she is a progressive that can get things done, a candidate who claims he is a progressive and a democratic socialist, and a candidate who claims he is a pragmatic progressive and what counts is actions not words.
Lessig shares the same mental illness that makes you, and me, and the rest of the usual suspects read this piece and comment here about the party you despise. Which is what it's about; no, not the hokey pokey but the failings of our country in truly being a representative democratic republic. I supported Mr. Lessig's entry wholeheartedly and will be sorry to see him quit the primary. He's absolutely right about the issues he raised, of course. Surprisingly, to me any way, was that only 20% of the people who voted in 2012 actually gave a dime to any candidate of any party which ran in the national election. So, there's that, too. Mr. Lessig needed more money to get his message out, apparently. Same problem as Jill Stein, too, apparently. Putting aside the irony of that Orwellian dilemma, feel free to despise Mr. Lessig and myself. I'm a Sen. Sanders supporter but, hey, your broadsides are actually enjoyable to read. To paraphrase FDR, " I relish your scorn. " As someone who's actually in that 20% and, who know what " putting your money where your mouth is ", means. Even if it's only $100-200 bucks once in a while to get the topic of campaign finance into the discussion. You know, like what that lowdown, no good, racketeering Sen. Sanders is doing with his democratic socialism.
I hope Lessig endorses Bernie Sanders in the Democratic Party primary. He should also endorse Dr. Jill Stein in the Green Party primary and other candidates for President calling for radical reform of election financing. This would demonstrate Lessig's commitment to the cause he has advocated, rather than his own candidacy.
Alternatively, Lessig could join the Green Party Presidential Primary. He certainly would be included in the Greens' Presidential debates. He might even win their nomination and carry his campaign into the General Election.
Well maybe he does, and that's the problem ....
Note, it wasn't a matter of waiving the rules, they actually changed them such that it was impossible for him to participate .... And not a peep out of Sanders, and i don't expect he would support the inclusion of a 3rd party in the electoral debates, either .... his idea of a "political revolution" doesn't include any non-Dem voices or choices ...
So does Sanders support Lessig's participation in the debates? The silence is deafening ....
He, like Sanders, is a Dem .... Kucinich got screwed by his party, too, but he stayed .... go figure
The Democratic Party has made a mockery of their election process and showed everyone the length they will go to keep someone out. I always wanted to believe that Democrats held themselves to a higher level of ethical conduct than Republicans. Guess I was badly mistaken!
With the primary system we have now the candidates are no longer chosen by the party leaders but mainly by the voters so it appears the leaders are trying to control the outcome of the primaries in this indirect way through the debates. The Republican candidates are in full revolt against the RNC and the Democratic candidates have been calling for more debates.
The Democratic party shut out Lawrence Lessig and it will just be a matter of time before one way or another, that Bernie will be shut out too.
Like I have said since Nader ran for POTUS, the democratic party is nothing but the fake opposition party.
It's not just the outcome of the primaries, but of the election itself - when 3rd party candidates are handcuffed to chairs for hours to keep them from participating, without a protest from D/R candidates - or their supporters ...... Those Dem candidates calling for more debates or a "political revolution" - will they call for allowing third parties in the election debates, or is their "political revolution" confined to members of an exclusive club, those who practice the secret D/R handshake and have the right D/R monogram branded on their gluteus maximi, dropping their shorts to gain entrance ....
"Political revolution", my gluteus maximus - a tempest in a teacup, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing ,,,
So why did Sanders join it? Oh, I know. "strategy" .....
So the Democratic Party is so democratic that it won't allow its members to stand for the job of POTUS if they don't take part in a democratic Democratic Party debate and that it will exclude Democratic Party members from taking part in such democratic debates.
Do I detect a whiff of Catch-22?
I think the concern, imo, is not that he won't get his message out, not that he's expecting to get elected
and someday people will finally accept that you can't beat this system by playing by its rules. they just change them.
they've been doing this since the 1972 elections. you find a kicker that can get the ball through the uprights, they'll move the goalposts back. it's just how this works. our problem is getting people to accept that rigged systems cannot by definition self-correct.