"In the real world, there's no way around the fact that the president has to deal with multiple issues every day, and the people won't accept a president who doesn't take the whole job seriously."
Says my son John, commenting on the news that Lawrence Lessig has dropped out of the presidential race. The reason Lessig gives is not, however, that people won't accept a candidate with a single-issue campaign, but that he never became well-known enough, and he blames the Democratic Party for excluding him from the debates.
But I wouldn't criticize the Party for failing to open up the debates for the purpose of helping advocates of single issues. And my reason is precisely what John is talking about: I don't take this person seriously as a real candidate.
याची सदस्यत्व घ्या:
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा (Atom)
पोस्ट्स
३८ टिप्पण्या:
"...there's only one issue that matters."
Vagina.
That about covers it all.
I am Laslo.
The Vagina, though, has many penumbras, of which only one is reminiscent of tuna.
I am Laslo.
Laslo Spatula said...
That about covers it all.
Based on your commenting history, I'd have thought you spent a significant amount of time thinking about a number 2 issue as well.
...and the people won't accept a president who doesn't take the whole job seriously.
If only.
The single issue Republicans Are Evil ticket seems to hold it's own.
Oh, shit! The bumper stickers just got put on the car.
You just can't run for president based on a fantasy that there's only one issue that matters.
Especially when your one issue is we need to gut the 1st amendment.
He has branding issues as well. Lawrence Lessig sounds like they guy changing the oil on my car.
Says the person who voted for Obama because of one issue.
The candidate had a "seriousness" deficit.
So does Sanders, btw, who says Social Security is fully funded for over 19 years, while Obama just signed a budget agreement that raises the DEBT to nearly 20 trillion dollars.
Lawrence Lessig dropped out?!!
He had already decided his promise to resign if elected after getting legislation through Congress was a mistake, and that he couldn't run on only one issue, so I believe the reason he gave is the real reason.. that he just couldn't get known, and the exclusion from the debates. The essential step of his campaign was getting into the debates.
(If he had $100 million he would have been included, because the media would have treated his campaign as potentially serious, and he wouldn't have had to spend the $100 million, or even $1 million to do it.)
He says the Democrat Party changed the rules on him. At first the rules were that he had to get at least 1% in 3 polls within the six weeks prior to the debate. He already now had that in 2 polls and could have gotten that in a third.
The new rule is that it has to 1% if 3 polls ALL taken AT LEAST 6 WEEKS before the debate. Not within the last 6 weeks, but at least 6 weeks before.
He says unless he could time travel there was no way to do that. He felt he couldn't ask people to give more money under these circumstances.
Of course he could still shoot for the third debate. Anyway, the fact is he never would have been included unless he was making enough commotion they thought he was better in.
Lawrence Lessig is not a true leftist. Leftists keep on running. Sometimes, they eventually get elected, like Bernard Sanders got elected mayor of Burlington, Vermont.
I can see myself voting for a one issue candidate, depending what that issue was, say for instance "shrinking the size of Government"...
Larry!
One fewer clown in the Democrat race.
Heh -- Lawrence Lessig has gotten more play in this thread than his entire campaign:)
Good start, for a Harvard Law Professor. Now, if he'll just go on to kill himself, he will have done Americans a real service.
Laslo beat me to it.
That is Hillary!'s campaign in one word.
I remember Reason magazine championing him as a candidate. Because nothing says "Libertarian" like stifling speech.
It is why I cannot take Libertarians all that seriously. I have Libertarian LEANINGS, but I'm not nearly moronic enough to be full Libertarian.
Getting money out out of politics? LOL. Nothing about Mexicans or mass deportations? What a fucking joke candidate!
Wait, Hillary! is not a single-issue candidate?
To be fair he lasted longer than Scott Walker, who is a joke human being.
Yes, @Sebastian, you are correct that Hillary! is a single-issue candidate.
And her issue is: Hillary!
She stands for nothing else.
If she were elected (God grant that it be not so!), the one issue on which you could be sure that she would stand firm, without hesitaion or compromise would be:
(All together now) Hillary!
"garage mahal said...
To be fair he lasted longer than Scott Walker, who is a joke human being."
Now you only hope of not having him as your governor is to move.
Remember Garage:
"Due to repairs inside the Rotunda, the Solidarity Sing Along will be outside until November 11- you'll find us on Carroll Street, near the State Street corner. "
lessig was already a douche on copyright. So I'm glad he crashed and burned. Now that I know he ran on a single issue it only highlights what an autistic he is.
Interesting how the Democrats have turned into such a self-satisfied reactionary party with zero interest in really changing anything. Sanders makes a few feeble bleats the 1 percent but the vast majority of Dems love the way things are and just want more of the same.
Lessing does make an excellent case against infinite copyrights. BTW, I love this phrase:
"Helprin does not suggest amending the Constitution. Rather, he suggests interpreting it so that the qualifying phrase "for limited times" could be taken literally to mean very long times, presumably centuries."
I'm sure Kagan, Bryer, Ginsberg and "wise Latina" would agree. why amend the Constitution? Just get the SCOTUS to rule that black means white.
Don't need no more Harvards.
Stanford is the ticket. Carly.
But I wouldn't criticize the Party for failing to open up the debates for the purpose of helping advocates of single issues. And my reason is precisely what John is talking about: I don't take this person seriously as a real candidate.
Bullshit. You don't take the issue seriously! And that issue is the whole reason that Democrats aren't walloping the Repubicans by margins averaging 60 to 40 at every election. Republicans are the ones who can't stand to compete in any system other than one that legitimizes legalized bribery, and everyone with a brain knows that.
R&B,
Since when is Hillary! Rodham Clinton, a Republican?
"Getting money out out of politics?"
It is instructive that low information voters think this group of words in this order and using grammar as displayed means something.
They think if only the correct people, that they vote for, are elected then "the little guy" will have a shot at a fair chance to live a decent life.
By asking the question displayed, they show they believe, like a particularly dumb youngster, somehow money won't influence people who are politicians, because other people wrote laws, because the "right" people were elected.
How about getting death out of life? Just hire the right folks to create the science we need and boom, done. "We" landed on the moon after all, right?
How about getting math and the use of numbers out of banking and finance?
We can at anytime get the anal humor eliminated from Laslo's reitoire, can't we? Somebody must know a legislator that can hire someone to write the right words. This is still the USA right? Danny? Noonan?
Next let's eliminate misleading, lying deception across all levels of the legal system, simply by using the legal system to do so via the written word.
We can finally remove all the wisdom lacking in every human and become, each and every one of us, God Himself. We simply must elect the correct people to hire the correct people to legislate all, and I mean every single last one, no exceptions, just like eliminating money from politics, ideas we know to be the right thing to do.
And damnit you fools, PASTE DAMN HASTE ya nitwits!!!!!
!!!
!!!
Wait, perhaps the people making the statement are using crude, macabre humor to suggest starving politicians of the resources for shelter, food, hygiene, etc.?
"How about getting death out of life?"
This is it! Sometimes I just want to cry, I'm so happy.
I don't take any of the people running in either party seriously as real candidates.
"How about getting death out of life?"
The Candyman can!
He had already decided his promise to resign if elected after getting legislation through Congress was a mistake, and that he couldn't run on only one issue
The only thing I saw him clearly calling a mistake was his pledge to resign after succeeding on his one issue: "The resignation idea was a total bust. No one liked it. At all." He added: "After we pass that reform, I will remain as president to make sure the reforms stick." But that only reinforces that he'd have a one-issue presidency — it would even be his reason for remaining in office after he won on that issue! I'm not convinced that he ever departed from his basic premise that his campaign and presidency would be all about that one issue. He did add, very briefly, near the end of his long article about this: "But beyond that priority, I would do everything else a president must do, too." That's pretty weak sauce. As far as I know, he never followed through with even hinting at what else his campaign would be about.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा