Morning Schmo: Debbie Republican Schultz doubles down on few debates

[merrily]

On today's Morning Joe, Steele challenged Shultz on the debates. She ducked the issue by repeating over and over how delighted she was that all candidates were participating in the debates. And, the idiots allowed her to get away with that.

Scarborough brought up that O'Malley had said the process was undemocratic. No one mentioned the petitions or the demonstration outside the DNC this week, or the exclusivity rule or that Bernie Sanders had also objected to the paucity of debates and the exclusivity rule..

From the schedule put up on the screen, it looks as though the first debate is scheduled for October 13. So much for August/September and September/October.

The (New) Democratic Party has now:

Instituted super delegates, giving them collectively about 20% of the primary vote (in addition, of course, to the individual votes they cast at the polls, just like the fools who pay their salaries and campaign expenses, via taxes and donations)

Avoided primaries and attempted to avoid primaries, including Presidential

Required liberals in Congress to subsidize the less liberal in Congress

Limited Presidential primary debates, both those it holds and those held by others in which a candidate for the Democratic Presidential nomination may participate

Get the message yet?

[JackInGreen]

1. Morning Joke isn't going to challenge her

I'm sure they think it's a hoot that Hills former national campaign co-chair is putting off the debates as long as possible.

[merrily]

2. That, and, with Presidential campaign season here, her appearances benefit the show and they don't

want to alienate her.

The tension between "access" to newsmakers and the First Amendment is a serious issue, esp. when you have the White House calling MSNBC executives down to D.C., even Jon Stewart.

However, our msm is so corrupt at this point that it barely matters.

[Le Taz Hot]

3. The Superdelegates are the one thing we can't get around.

If Bernie doesn't make it to the nomination it won't be because he doesn't have the support of the people. It's because the Democrats are going to STEAL this nomination process. Yeah, I said it. STEAL it. And people wonder why I'm not a Democrat. The DNC is every bit as corrupt as the RNC and we're seeing that in action right now. I have no problem writing in Bernie's name in the General because I'll be damned if I'm going to vote for a THIEF.

[GoneFishin]

4. I will not vote for a Republican in the primary or GE. I will vote for Bernie sanders. That's all.

[Le Taz Hot]

5. LOL!

Neither will I but The Borg thanks you for your cooperation.

[GoneFishin]

26. I will vote for Bernie. Resistance is not futile. I will not be assimilated. The Borg! Perfect. LOL.

[merrily]

8. Democrats may eventually be able to get the Party to be more democratic.

Democrats adopted this years before Republicans. Just saying.

[Le Taz Hot]

9. "Eventually"

being the operative word. I'm 60 years old. I don't have that kind of time.

[merrily]

10. It's not going to happen in five minutes, that's for sure.

But, unless you are a registered and active Democrat, you cannot put any pressure on for change in this policy.

Right now, I don't think even the left wing of the Party is trying to put pressure on. I've been trying to raise consciousness about the issue. No one seems to care much, except the occasional Third Wayer, who tries to tell me professional politicians deserve this.

[sabrina 1]

14. I don't agree that people inside the party are not putting pressure on the leadership.

They ARE, but look what has happened to ANYONE within the Party who took part in trying to drag it out of the hands of the Third Way. The Leadership made sure to support a challenger in primaries, or allowed them to be redistricted out of the races.

See how THIS forum treats someone like Grayson, eg. The smear campaigns against anyone not totally on board with DWS who btw, will do everything she can to stop Grayson from getting into the Senate, isn't coming from the Right, it is coming from within the party.

[merrily]

16. Democrats have been putting pressure on the Party to eliminate the Party's super delegates?

That is good to hear, but I have no noticed it.

However, the pressure for more debates was obvious to me and DWS managed to ignore it.

[daybranch]

18. We progressives are pressuring, maybe they only masquerade as left wing.

We have to work harder! Go Bernie! With the help of millenials, lets win back democracy from the democratic party establishment. Lets do something great!!!

[Le Taz Hot]

27. The Party doesn't bow to pressure

from us little people. You said it yourself, "no one seems to care much." There's a reason for that. They bow to the pressure of the .001% and no one else. Their party members are but a small inconvenience to them that they can order to vote for "The Lesser of Two Evils" and their members will dutifully frog march into the abyss. I want no part of that corrupt, bought-out organization.

[stillwaiting]

32. If the Democratic Party steals the nomination from Bernie via Super Delegates then the Republicans

will win.

I WON'T vote for the Democratic nominee if that happens.

And, I've voted for the Democrat in every possible election for 2 decades.

[PatrickforO]

6. I've got an idea. Why don't WE ALL call up Wasserman Schultz's office in DC

And tell her we want debates now?

I am willing if you are, and if 20 or 30 thousand of us called every day, maybe we'd get some action.

Think?

[merrily]

7. Can't hurt.

However, there have been several online petitions and there was a demonstration and the DLC/DNC is heavily invested--in every sense of the word--in Hillary's candidacy.

So I am not sure it would change anything, but, that's never stopped me from making a call or sending an email anyway.

[jwirr]

12. Also include getting rid of the exclusivity rule. That is the most undemocratic rule there is and

why we have NEVER had it in our rules until now. Limiting discussion is absolutely undemocratic.

[winter is coming]

19. +1. Rachel's been dogging the Fox News choosing which candidates get the primetime

debate slots for weeks. It's time she talked about this, too.

[jwirr]

20. We can hope.

[blackspade]

11. She is awful.

[TexasBushwhacker]

39. She STILL can't/won't answer the Democrat vs.

Socialist question. You would think she would have checked Wikipedia after being so dumbfounded by Chris Matthews question. But she doubled down on STUPID for Chuck Todd, dodging the question instead of answering it.

[SoapBox]

13. Wow...

I'm sure I'll get flack but...this shit is kind of sleazy, just like the Pukes and Baggers.

The hell with the "people"...the so-called leadership wants what they want.

For my California mates, did ya'all see the post yesterday that Kamala Harris endorsed The Annointed Money Grubbing One? Just a bit disappointed in that!

And can we get that graphic with DWS phone number posted again?

[merrily]

15. She wants the party behind her run, just as Sanchez does and just as

Guiterrez does for Chicago Mayor, not to mention that a campaign appearance from Bubba, or Obama, or some other party notable usually does a Democratic candidate some good.

[winter is coming]

22. Slanting the debates in favor of HRC is not a good way to get the supporters

of other candidates to work for her in the general.

[merrily]

29. That probably does not matter.

If she is the nominee, she will have more than enough money to hire people. And, the choice will be between the Democratic nominee and some Republican numbskull.

[winter is coming]

30. And this sort of lame ass stunt feeds perfectly into "both parties are corrupt".

Sooper-genius move.

[merrily]

31. yep.

[Le Taz Hot]

28. No, I didn't see that!

She just lost my vote. How disappointing. Just what we need, a DINO to replace a DINO. Shit, and I thought we were home free on that Seat. Well, maybe she too will get rich by voting for War Without End just lie DiFi has.

https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=picture+of+dianne+feinstein%27s+home&view=detailv2&&id=A4ECF2EC3147129BE1174C2E9BDCDA662A62BABF&selectedIndex=0&ccid=63QuOsBS&simid=608039573033977717&thid=JN.Xgx3W5m06xJL%2bWCC8H9IzQ&ajaxhist=0

[Fast Walker 52]

17. "O'Malley had said the process was undemocratic"-- why?

I don't get the reference. There's a lot of inside baseball stuff in the OP I don't get.

[winter is coming]

21. Basically, the DNC is rigging the game in HRC's favor by delaying, limiting,

and spacing out the debates. HRC has a shit-ton of name recognition, which gives her the early advantage. HRC's opponents will likely see their polling and fundraising numbers boosted by the visibility that a national debate will provide, so delaying the first debate puts HRC's opponents at a decided disadvantage. Limiting the debates reduces the number of opportunities for Hillary to make a costly gaffe, and spacing out the debates gives her time to recover.

In all, it's a schedule calculated to deliver a nominee while exposing them to a minimal amount of risk, but it accomplishes that by putting candidates who aren't the frontrunner at a decided disadvantage. So the process is corrupt because it clearly favors one person, and it's incompetent, because we want a nominee who doesn't need to have the way smoothed for them. It does us no good to get a nominee who got there because they had very few chances to blunder if that nominee blunders in the general election.

[JDPriestly]

24. A. It is not a good way to get the best candidate because after all our candidate has to be able

to debate the Republican candidate. Hillary was lousy in the debates in 2008, and from what I can tell she still has that "I'm the valedictorian here, so i'm right" attitude when she gives her speeches -- like she is talking down to you and not with you.

Of all the candidates, Hillary needs the practice in thinking on her feet that more debates would give her most of all.

What is more, we need to get Democratic Parrty ideas and values out there. We need to get our arguments out there before the public.

The debates are the best way to do that.

This is the worst decision in decades. I just can't believe it.

We are ceding the airwaves and the TV to the Republicans. Already, there is almost no liberal or progressive media. And now the stupid Democratic Party leadership is forgoing an opportunity to at least get our views out there in debates.

I just cannot believe the stupidity of this decision. One of the stupidest in a long tim.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her team need to be fired. How do we Democrats end her reign?

She and her team lost the 2014 election.

Who decides who gets her job in the DNC?

[Fast Walker 52]

34. I see- thanks for the explanation!

BTW, is your user name a reference to Game of Thrones?

[winter is coming]

35. Yes. Although today, it's also an affirmation that this heat will eventually end! n/t

[Le Taz Hot]

36. Did you see that video

with Seth Myers having a dinner party and he invites John Snow? I laughed so hard I cried. One of the funniest things I've ever seen.

[winter is coming]

37. Yes! n/t

[Fast Walker 52]

40. I'll check it out-- thanks

[JDPriestly]

23. My prediction: Thanks to these corrupt and self-interested decisions, the Democrats may lose

in 2016. And the results will be disastrous.

We need to take back the Democratic Party. Teddy Roosevelt took back his party from the corrupt leadership it then had and beat Tammany Hall in the process (not all by himself; I am exaggerating quite a bit just to make it simple). We need to do the same.

Process often determines outcome.

Debbie Wasserman Schultz is "nice," and what we often forget is that corruption can be very "nice."

We need to have many more debates.

Regardless of what candidate you favor, the debates are one of the most important ways to get your party's ideas out in front of the talkers and repeaters and persuasive leaders in families and schools and even bars. It's the self-selected people who watch debates who also influence a lot of voters out there.

We need these debates. Who wins or loses is not the issue. What is said is the issue.

By not holding debates, we are giving up a lot of air time to the Republicans.

We need a grass-roots movement to replace the current leadership of the Democratic Party. They serve themselves, not us.

[Scuba]

25. We not only need more debates, we need them before the first primary!

[MerryBlooms]

33. I don't have a problem with just 6 DNC debates, but the DNC should not

be preventing candidates from participating in non DNC debates.

[merrily]

38. Or taking sides in a Presidential primary.