Debbie Wasserman Schultz is gagging and bounding the Democratic Party as the Republicans prepare to unleash an all out assault on the airwaves. Time magazine states:
At a time when half the country goes to vote the RNC is ramping up the pace of its debates, while the DNC is slowing its down. By limiting the total number of debate to six it also ensures that the half of the country which votes in the ten weeks after March 15th has little or no chance to hear directly from the candidates.
And by further scheduling the date and time of the already limited debates for reduced audience potential and network reach, Wasserman Schultz is likely to seriously damage the Democrats ability to reach voters, build Party infrastructure, and bring energy to down-ballot candidates. And the strong-arm banning of candidates who participate in non-sanctioned debates is a final gag on democracy. Wasserman Schultz fiddles with her earplugs and blindfolds on as the Democrats burn. What to do?
I would propose that upon the conclusion of the January 17 DNC debate, Sanders, O'Malley, and ANY other Democratic Party presidential candidates who choose to participate should schedule at least bi-weekly (or more), prime-time, week-day debates in Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina, and Texas (largest delegate count for March 1 primaries) hosted by key Democratic interest groups such as labor, environmentalists, civil rights, women's rights, LGBT rights, Latino rights, Democratic veterans groups, progressive science organizations, etc. These debates can have a depth and structure that highlight the biggest problems faced by the nation in a rational and comprehensive way that contrast and cut through the fear-mongering soundbites of the Republican debates.
These debates can continue into additional states ahead of the March 1 primaries and key states for the Democrats to win in the general election thereafter.
Wasserman Schultz could protest and whine all she likes, but at that point, candidates can disregard her ineffective and Party-sabotaging decrees and bring the electorate at large into the fold.
This would serve the following purposes:
- Give all the candidates a chance to discuss their ideas and policies in-depth.
- Put the Democrats in front of as much of the electorate as possible ahead of the primaries - at least on par with the Republicans.
- Relegate the DNC and Wasserman Schultz to the sidelines after the January 17 debate and break their corrosive grip on the democratic process.
- Connect the Democratic candidates to key Democratic interest groups and engage these groups in the process.
- Engage the Party broadly and allow for the increased energy to fuel down-ballot candidates and ballot measures.
- Create an elevation in interest and energy as the primaries are occurring.
- Build significant momentum ahead of the general election.
I would hope that no matter who is ahead after January 17, ALL the candidates would be willing to ditch the DNC for sanity's sake and bring their message to the electorate as broadly, deeply and energetically as they are capable, as this is in the interest of American democracy at large.