Esquire: People Want to Hear What Bernie Sanders Has to Say. The DNC Doesn't.

[Catherina]

Sep 21, 2015 @ 3:32 PM

News & Politics
Politics With Charles P. Pierce

People Want to Hear What Bernie Sanders Has to Say. The DNC Doesn't.
The party's insistence on six debates isn't helping anyone—except Hillary Clinton.

Remember that scene at the end of The Perfect Storm, when Mark Wahlberg bobs to the surface of a truly mountainous sea, and the camera pans away until he's almost invisible among massive waves? That was what I thought of when the mysteriously still-employed Debbie Wasserman Schultz got up on the stage at the New Hampshire Democratic State Convention and found herself deluged with chants of "More debates!" She came dangerously close to losing the hall entirely.

A couple of times, DWS tried to make the case that "we" should not be fighting amongst "ourselves" and that "we" should concentrate instead on keeping one of the increasingly loopy Republican candidates away from the nuclear codes. Fair enough, but an inadequate response to a legitimate concern that DWS is using every ounce of her barely distinguishable leadership of the Democratic National Committee to monkey with the nominating process to the advantage of her favorite candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton. It is not so much the limited number of debates that got up people's nose. It's that the DNC, led by its chairperson, actually threatened to sanction anyone who wanted to stage a debate, or a "candidate forum," outside of the formal party structure.

"While a six sanctioned debate schedule is consistent with the precedent set by the DNC during the 2004 and 2008 cycles, this year the DNC will further manage the process by implementing an exclusivity requirement," the statement announcing the debates explained. "Any candidate or debate sponsor wishing to participate in DNC debates, must agree to participate exclusively in the DNC-sanctioned process. Any violation would result in forfeiture of the ability to participate in the remainder of the debate process."

This is, quite simply, a crock. If a couple of candidates want to get up on a stage and knock around each other's ideas on Iran, say, or the carried-interest deduction, you're going to blackball them from the formal process? Who the fck are you when you're at home anyway? And this truncated process already is in play in New Hampshire.

...

Not much really changes, although this time the power of the oligarchy has learned from the lessons of the past while the political opposition does not seem to have done the same kind of homework. It is startling how easily a discussion of political power limits itself to a simple evaluation of polling numbers and the bank accounts of various PAC's and campaigns. The political power of the corporate class is so overwhelming that it is hard to see it whole. If nothing else, Sanders is trying to show how corporate power is connected to voter suppression, to militarized police forces, to income equality and to the basic corruption of the political system. He, at least, is seeing it whole. That is something that is worthy of debates, a lot of debates. Bring them on, Debbie.

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a38099/dnc-primary-silence-bernie-sanders/

[hifiguy]

1. Thanks to Charlie, who always tells it like it is,

and to you, Catherina, for this post.

The DNC is rotten to the core and so is HRH's attempted coronation.

[sabrina 1]

22. Yes, he does. I think it's time for Bernie Supporters, millions of them now, to give DWS an

ultimatum. As Pierce says, 'who is SHE' to issue these ultimatums?

So either she ends this charade, because EVERYONE sees through it, or she will do what she did in the last two mid terms, HAND the WH to Republicans. Maybe that's her goal?

[Dustlawyer]

24. If Biden would come out stating he declines to run, Bernie and O'Malley should debate each other

and whoever else is running in the Democratic primary so they could get banned. Who will Hilllary debate then?

[sabrina 1]

25. Chafee and Webb would have to agree also. Hillary would be fine with debating two candidates who

most people don't even know are in the race.

Maybe that's WHY they are in the race. As insurance that if the main candidates choose to go ahead and debate regardless of Debbie's rule, Hillary won't have to debate herself.

This was well thought out, by some pretty devious operatives.

[Dustlawyer]

26. I couldn't remember who else, but they have nothing to lose with more debates so I would

think they would go along. It would be funny as hell!

[sabrina 1]

27. If they would go along, it would be great and they should invite Hillary also.

If she refused to go, that would not look too great, and debating yourself isn't going to be much fun.

[bvar22]

49. DWS unashamedly help Republicans get elected in Florida

by refusing to endorse REAL DEMOCRATS who had already won their Primaries and were challenging Republicans for their Republican seats. This happened when DWS was the head of the DCCC's "Red to Blue" Program"
Oh the irony!

Debbie said she didn't want to upset those she does business with.

[sabrina 1]

52. Yes, she did. And no one should ever forget that, NOR should the forget the over 60

Dems who ENDORSED Chris Christie AND voted for him in the NJ Gov. Race AGAINST a really good Progressive Candidate.

And the DNC abandoned that race, which could EASILY have been won, had the Dems not betrayed their own candidate.

So I laugh when I see people here THREATEN voters with not being able to post on an internet forum if they don't support DWS's pick for the WH considering that NONE OF THEM want to talk about her throwing seats and power to REPUBLICANS.

They have lost all credibility. She is now going to lose the WH as she lost the Senate and Congress for the Dem Party, which actually may be what she is supposed to do.

[madfloridian]

2. Hi Catherina, did you see Pierce's Sept 14 post?

Wow he nailed it.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251608603

[Catherina]

5. I saw it through twitter but thanks for the reminder so I could rec it

He nailed it again!

[Sienna86]

3. So let's get ALL Dem candidates to agree to a debate outside of DNC regulation.

Let a neutral organization plan one, and let's see who's in. one that offers the premise of going forward if ALl Dem candidates agree to debate. I'm wonder who would have a scheduling conflict?

[mak3cats]

8. The League of Women Voters would be the best...

...they used to moderate the debates until they were told they had to play by party rules and not their own.

http://lwv.org/press-releases/league-refuses-help-perpetrate-fraud

The debates have gone downhill since then.

[Marie Marie]

12. Yup - waaay down hill.

The League of Women Voters always did an impeccable job of running debates - bring them back, Now!

[Live and Learn]

15. Yep, and those were real debates. nt

[punguin54]

21. Sad but true

[NuttyFluffers]

40. *sigh* a lost public service. why we tolerate it, i dunno.

intra-party debates coordinated, hosted, and/or managed by the party itself is just asking for party machinery corruption. no third party and no sunlight should equal no legitimacy.

[bvar22]

50. The League of Women Voters used to host REAL debates,

but both Parties didn't like being asked hard questions.

Control of the presidential debates has been a ground of struggle for more than two decades. The role was filled by the nonpartisan League of Women Voters (LWV) civic organization in 1976, 1980 and 1984. In 1987, the LWV withdrew from debate sponsorship, in protest of the major party candidates attempting to dictate nearly every aspect of how the debates were conducted. On October 2, 1988, the LWV's 14 trustees voted unanimously to pull out of the debates, and on October 3 they issued a press release:

[font size=3] "The League of Women Voters is withdrawing sponsorship of the presidential debates...because the demands of the two campaign organizations would perpetrate a fraud on the American voter. It has become clear to us that the candidates' organizations aim to add debates to their list of campaign-trail charades devoid of substance, spontaneity and answers to tough questions. The League has no intention of becoming an accessory to the hoodwinking of the American public."[/font]

According to the LWV, they pulled out because "the campaigns presented the League with their debate agreement on September 28, two weeks before the scheduled debate. The campaigns' agreement was negotiated 'behind closed doors' ... [with] 16 pages of conditions not subject to negotiation. Most objectionable to the League...were conditions in the agreement that gave the campaigns unprecedented control over the proceedings.... [including] control the selection of questioners, the composition of the audience, hall access for the press and other issues."

[/font]

It is becoming quit clear that DWS and Hillary are trying to "hoodwink the American Public".


You will know them by their WORKS.

[arcane1]

4. "He, at least, is seeing it whole."

Which is one of many reasons he has my vote.

[beam me up scottie]

6. K & R

[mak3cats]

7. Wholehearted K & R!

The lack of debates is not just stifling our Presidential candidates, but it will affect down-ticket races as well since the only brand out there is the Republican one. DWS is doing a grave disservice to our entire party. The last I checked, I am a member of the Democratic Party, not the Autocratic Party. I hate unfair tactics, and the debate schedule and exclusivity rules are a perfect example. It makes me sick.

[Uncle Joe]

9. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Catherina.

[rhett o rick]

10. A couple of things struck me. "DWS tried to make the case that "we" should not be fighting amongst

"ourselves"" What audacity. She means don't fight with us (the Oligarchy) and do what we say. Well Ms. Schultz, you ain't one of "us". You are a tool of what we are fighting. It's way past time to throw you and your Oligarchy puppet friends out of OUR party. We are the Party of the People and you and Clinton represent the 1%.

"If nothing else, Sanders is trying to show how corporate power is connected to voter suppression, to militarized police forces, to income equality and to the basic corruption of the political system. He, at least, is seeing it whole. That is something that is worthy of debates, a lot of debates. Bring them on, Debbie. "

Corporate power (ala Goldman-Sachs) is connected to voter suppression, militarized police forces, to income inequality, to election thieft, and to the basic corruption of the political system.

This is war. This is a class war. You have to choose sides. If you choose sides with the 1% you are not a Democrat.

We must tell DWS and Clinton and Goldman-Sachs to get out of our Party. The Party of the People.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

32. +1,000 n/t

[NuttyFluffers]

37. "no infighting!" is code for "when i hit you, you can't hit back."

it should always be looked at with suspicion when the power structure calls for timeout, especially after they land a suckerpunch.

[rhett o rick]

46. Exactly. Funny how bullies always whine when you fight back. nm

[RiverLover]

11. A crock it is. A dirty, corrupt crock that is very very hard to continue watching.

R&K for posting, Catherina.

Unrec to dirty, corrupt, fixed, establishment politics.

[antigop]

14. K&R nt

[MindfulOne]

16. Damn right!

Thank you.

[Live and Learn]

17. I don't see how anyone can support the buying of elections and the silencing of candidates.

And yet, I do see them even on DU.

[Old Crow]

20. Me too.

It's caused me to think a lot lately.

Is this place (A) Democratic Underground--as in: a place where people who love the concept and practice of democracy hang out? Or is it really (B) Democratic (Party) Underground, where everyone is expected to support whatever is deemed best by the party's bosses and top contributors--even if it is contrary to democracy?

I joined thinking it was A. Clearly a lot of people here think that it is B.

[Live and Learn]

23. I find it downright frightening. Maybe we weren't really invited to the party.

After all these decades as a Democrat, they are making me feel downright unwanted.

[Admiral Loinpresser]

33. The owners of this site

are in the "B" camp.

[MisterP]

18. the DNC *has* nothing to say--"words" and "ideas" are dangerous newfangled stuff

[jalan48]

19. Great Post.

The curtain has been pulled back and the DNC has been shown to be bankrupt of any real ideas. It's all about maintaining power.

[Betty Karlson]

29. No: it's about maintaining the status quo.

Not just power, because that objective would come with a readiness to embrace a candidate who can already boast "Republicans for Bernie" groups.

This is about maintaining a whole socio-economic system (with them on top). That includes mass incarceration of PoC. And Police brutality and institutional racism. That includes unequal protection for LGBT. That includes predatory interest rates. Mass surveilance and dragnet spying on American citizens. You name it, they maintain it. This is about the status quo.

[Euphoria]

30. ^^ this^^! nt.

[jalan48]

38. I was speaking of the Democratic Party

It has it's own economic setup which favors a specific class of people within the party. These folks don't want a new power group with a different agenda gaining power. To simply play the same old "the Republicans are worse" game is a mistake. Times are changing.

[Betty Karlson]

53. I can only agree with you. eom

[Betty Karlson]

28. Mr. Pierce has his heart in the right place.

Ever since he left the NYT he's become more authentic in the expression of his views.

[Enthusiast]

31. Kicked and recommended a whole bunch!

[Darb]

34. More weak sauce. 6 debates is not enough?

Bullshit, 6 is too many. Law of diminishing returns. IMHO, only weak minds are taken in by witty quips and one-liners at debates. There is plenty of resources out there to help people to make up their minds.

Stow the whining, it is getting tiresome, Esquire included.

Did you ever get the idea that maybe Bernie doesn't get his 20 Democratic Primary debates because he has been a Democrat all of 6 months? He didn't need the party now he wants to run it?

[RiverLover]

35. 2008 Dems won the WH. We had 29 Democratic debates. Coincidence?

And Bernie is more of a Democrat than most in a congress filled with DINOs.

What 6 debates does is not only hide Hillary from the public eye, but also keeps Democrats out of the media discussion in the deluge of rethug debates.

[pocoloco]

36. You are absolutely right!

Can't figure out all the gnashing of teeth? It's only gonna take
one debate!

Once every one gets a closeup of Hillary along with having to listen
to her droning voice more than a few minutes will be all it takes!!

Game over!

[Lucky Luciano]

39. More debates increases the chances that everyone can see at least one debate.

I think what matters is the percentage of people that see at least one debate...the pec enrage of people that see all debates is less important.

More debates increases the probability in a big way of a person seeing at least one of them and that is a big consideration.

[ChisolmTrailDem]

42. If the OP is weak sauce, then your comment is salty water. nt

[pinebox]

44. 6 is a joke.

While you sit here and say this;

Bullshit, 6 is too many. Law of diminishing returns. IMHO, only weak minds are taken in by witty quips and one-liners at debates. There is plenty of resources out there to help people to make up their minds.

Stow the whining, it is getting tiresome, Esquire included.

Did you ever get the idea that maybe Bernie doesn't get his 20 Democratic Primary debates because he has been a Democrat all of 6 months? He didn't need the party now he wants to run it?

The entire country is hearing Republicans because they are HAVING debates, unlike Dems. CNN had 23 million viewers. How many did they have for Dems? ZERO. You can't sell something without advertising. The truth is, the DNC is banking on Hillary's name and the possibility of the first female POTUS. That's it and that's why.

Wake up!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

54. "Stop the whining. It's getting tiresome".

I'll take that under consideration when you agree to do the same.

[gregcrawford]

41. The DNC...

... is SUPPOSED to be an impartial organization, not a tool of manipulation on behalf of a "preferred" candidate. Schultz should be dismissed immediately. Her incompetence has cost the Democratic Party seats in both houses, but the system itself has been corrupted, and must be fixed. The DNC sandbagged Howard Dean, too, just as it is trying to do to Sanders. Maybe they just don't like Vermonters, but I think it is far more pervasive that that.

To paraphrase Kissinger while he was orchestrating the illegal overthrow of the democratically elected Salvadore Allende of Chile, the will of the people (democracy) cannot be allowed to interfere with the malign intentions of the ruling elite. There is too much at stake.

So, too, must the best interests of the people be dismissed in favor of the best interests of the oligarchy.

[left-of-center2012]

43. The DNC (in DWS) have chosen their candidate

And she's not named Bernie.

[randome]

45. He would have been a contender! If not for those meddling DNC kids!

[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[TygrBright]

47. Reccing for Pierce's LaFollette reference.

"Fightin' Bob" is watching and cheering at every campaign stop Bernie makes.

The message is the message: It's OUR country, not the "powerbrokers" or the billionaires or the oligarchs' and their helots'.... OURS.

WE are the ones who let the reins drop, with woefully predictable results.

EVERYTHING is done by and for those who show up, who care, who put out the effort. Who take the time. Who wear out the shoe leather, who pound against the walls, who shout into the wind, again and again and again.

Not because any one of us can do anything to stop the smash-and-grab raid on our economy, our democracy, our society... not one of us can.

But WE ALL CAN.

happily,
Bright

[Smarmie Doofus]

48. Interesting peek at what is probably their evolving strategy:

>>>>that "we" should not be fighting amongst "ourselves" and that "we" should concentrate instead on keeping one of the increasingly loopy Republican candidates away from the nuclear codes. Fair enough, but an inadequate response to a legitimate concern that DWS is using every ounce of her barely distinguishable leadership of the Democratic National Committee to monkey with the nominating process to the advantage of her favorite candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton.>>>>


"Vote for ME..... because I'm not Trump!"

Truthfully... it's about the best anyone can say about her.

[randys1]

51. DNC, DWS and Clinton campaign are making things worse by refusing to do more.

Why Hillary cant recognize this is doing her more harm than good, I dont know.

Although, having said that, outside if this MINISCULE TINY group of people, including ALL viewers of MSNBC, for example, does America know anything about this as an issue?

Remember, we represent almost nothing as in numbers.