Dan Amira wants more – and he has a point:
[I]t's not the number of debates that's the problem, it's the pacing. There were six debates in January, but just one February, and now none in March or for the foreseeable future. Consequently, the candidates very thoroughly debated the issues that were popular in January and before, but not the ones that have arisen over the past six weeks.
For example, you may have noticed that there have been some major developments in Afghanistan since the last debate took place on February 22. Wouldn't it be nice to hear the candidates discuss those events, and be pressed — by one another and by the moderators, before a national TV audience — on their plans for the future of the war? Could anyone in America describe what those plans are right now?
I agree on the pacing. And the emergence of social issues in the face of what looks like a slowly strengthening economy would provide a different dynamic. Newt must surely be desperate for airtime. And a lack of debates only reinforces the inference that Romney is just waiting, rather than campaigning. Earlier Dish on the subject here.