The DNC chairperson is going to have a hard time keeping her leadership position and holding on to her office

Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been the U.S Representative of Florida’s 23rd congressional district, and since January 4, 2005. She is also currently the Chairperson for the Democratic National Committee. She has held this position since April 5, 2011, but lately her leadership has Democratic voters and leaders questioning her capabilities regarding that position.

The person holding her position as leader of the DNC should be an unbiased, and trustworthy. This individual should be the face of the Democratic Party, but Debbie Wasserman-Schultz has been rapidly losing her credibility. The hashtag #dumpdebbie (us news perm link) has surfaced on the Internet in the last few weeks while tensions have been running high over accusations of showing favoritism to presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

She has been accused of purposely scheduling debates at inconvenient times, as well as not allowing each candidate to have the proper allotted time to get their point across at these debates .In the past she has also been accused of misusing funds from donors. These claims aren’t new.

Her popularity with democrats has been pretty fickle over the last few years. She has been viewed among progressives as a woman who is simply trying to further her career. Her grievances with Senator Bernie Sanders and his supporters may seem trivial, but they are problematic.

Recently she landed herself in hot water after she took sides with remarks made about Bernie Sanders’ response to the protesters at the Nevada Convention. Sanders supporters have fired back in way that could hurt her career.

They have been donating to her running mate Tim Canova. Up until now Wasserman has held her position as a Representative for the Florida 23 congressional district for 6 terms without an opponent. Now she has to face Tim Canova, who was once an adviser to Senator Bernie Sanders and has a real chance at dethroning Wasserman Schultz.

If Wasserman Schultz is the mirror image of what the establishment wants then Tim Canova might be the polar opposite. Canova proposes a financial reform campaign that will “take big money out of politics” he is refusing to take a penny from corporations and their political action committees such as SuperPacs.

He will take small donations from regular citizens instead. This is a fundraising plan that is identical to the one that Bernie Sanders has in place. There is far more that separates Tim Canova’s policies from Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, such as his stance on medical marijuana, and ending “The war on drugs.”

Recently, Democracy for America, a well-known democratic organization went on record to announce their endorsement of Canova. This endorsement is a major deal for Canova campaign. So what does this mean for Debbie Wasserman-Schultz? It can mean a lot. No, it won’t automatically affect her position as Chairperson for the DNC, but it could be the beginning of the end for her.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out. Can Wasserman-Schultz hold on to her Chair long enough to make it to the Democratic Convention in November? Will these claims of favoritism and fraud come to anything? Will Tim Canova have his chance to shake up the establishment? At this point everything with the Democratic Party is ‘up in the air, so only time will tell.

9 COMMENTS

  1. I never thought that I would find myself defending the Democratic party center, especially after I have officially re-registered as a Green Wasserman-Schultz represents a district in Florida, not New York, not California, not Vermont. Her first job is to do whatever it takes, emphasis on whatever, to get Congress back in the hands of the Democrats. That will not happen if she is perceived as a tree-hugging, left fringe purist. I appreciate the energy of progressive thinkers but first we have to retake the reins of power and then we need to change the rules. Talking about changing rules when you neither have nor understand power is not a way to win.

  2. Beating an incumbent is never easy. Mainly because incumbent politicians, as unpopular as they might appear nationally, tend to enjoy very high favorability in their home districts/states. Those are the people that matter most. What she does might have an effect on us but they vote for her.

    So the question is: are the voters of her district happy with what she’s done for them in congress. Do they feel like they need something more progressive? Extra funds to her challenger is fine but if they’re okay with the job she’s done then she needs to stay there (and, ultimately, if they’re okay with her they’ll vote her back in).

  3. It seems to me that if Debbie Wasserman-Shultz really wanted to serve the type of people that support her, she should quit the DNC and join the RNC. Her backwards views (just on marijuana and healthcare) and her propensity for cheating and lying would fit right in there.

  4. “If Wasserman Schultz is the mirror image of what the establishment wants then Tim Canova might be the polar opposite. “….. I think if someone took the time to think about what is written in this sentence, they would realize it was NOT what the writer wanted to say!!

    “Mirror image” = Opposite…. The correct form would be >>>
    “If Wasserman Schultz is the image of what the establishment wants then Tim Canova might be the polar opposite.”

Leave a Comment