The Next DNC Chair: TOM PEREZ WINS, makes Ellison deputy chair

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

That's what we need.  A hapless blue dog from a Deep Trump state to alienate the coalition we have while not attracting any of the working class voters we've lost.

Dean is really the only good choice here.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Harry Reid endorses Keith Ellison

Looks like it's going to be Ellison!11!

*cringe*

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I said someone like Rahm- not rahm

As I said before we're applying a political, personal view to what is existentially a CEO position- did Reince Prebius tick any boxes, excite any wings or build a groundswell of support when he was elected? Of course not.

My point is that Rahm was great as the DCCC (in the same way Dean was great as DNC but is being throw off as 'muh lobbyist') We don't need someone who makes us feel good- we need someone who can be a complete bastard for the next 4 years

Correct

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

If Ellison wins, it'll be a good indicator that the Dems learned nothing from 2016.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So can someone actually explain the case for Ellison?  I'm genuinely curious, but so far all I see is some variation of "if you don't support him, you must be a racist/islamaphobic/a DINO" which is obviously stupid and insulting as hell.  What reason do we have to think Ellison is the right person for the job?

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

So now we're gonna have an anti-Semitic DNC Chair...and people here thing this is a good thing?  Scary!

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?

Having an anti-Semitic DNC chair gives the Republicans a pretty effective attack line, especially when called out on their race-baiting.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Does anyone in this thread understand that the DNC chair has virtually no influence over policy and that the vast majority of voters don't even know who holds the position much less vote based on it?

Having an anti-Semitic DNC chair gives the Republicans a pretty effective attack line, especially when called out on their race-baiting.

If he's an anti-Semite why does he always win St. Louis Park?

Read the replies to your thread asking the question and maybe you'll find out.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly only Ellison has impressed me so far in his plans for the DNC. It seems to be mostly an Ellison vs. Perez fight, and Perez hasn't really given too many reasons to back him.

I mean, Ellison is an anti-Semite, so...

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly only Ellison has impressed me so far in his plans for the DNC. It seems to be mostly an Ellison vs. Perez fight, and Perez hasn't really given too many reasons to back him.

I mean, Ellison is an anti-Semite, so...

If Ellison was actually an anti-Semite, which he is so obviously not, then he wouldn't have support from Jews like me, Sanders, and Schumer. Some of his remarks have been at odds with current US policy towards Israel, but I have said just as critical things. That does not make someone anti-Semitic.

If Donald Trump was actually a sexist, then he wouldn't have support from women like Laura Ingram, Shelley Moore Capito, and Kellyanne Conway

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Honestly only Ellison has impressed me so far in his plans for the DNC. It seems to be mostly an Ellison vs. Perez fight, and Perez hasn't really given too many reasons to back him.

I mean, Ellison is an anti-Semite, so...

If Ellison was actually an anti-Semite, which he is so obviously not, then he wouldn't have support from Jews like me, Sanders, and Schumer. Some of his remarks have been at odds with current US policy towards Israel, but I have said just as critical things. That does not make someone anti-Semitic.

Do you consider Trump anti-Semitic?

He certainly engaged in quite a bit of Jew-baiting during the general election.  The sense I get with Trump is more that while he doesn't believe a lot of that stuff, he's more than willing to trot out anti-Semitic dog whistles when it suits him (kind of like Ted Cruz).  Of course, I'd argue the fact that he knows better and does it anyway makes it even more repugnant. 

I should clarify with regard to Ellison, that there are different gradations and types of anti-Semitism.  I don't think Ellison is as anti-Semitic as the likes of David Duke or even Steve Bannon, I think his repeated defense of Louis Farrakhan (especially his claim that Farrakhan hasn't made anti-Semitic comments) speaks volumes.  His ties to the Nation of Islam worry me far more than his comments on Israel.  Ultimately, Ellison has a bunch of little things which on their own could potentially be overlooked, but taken together establish a pattern of behavior which suggests Ellison is very much a soft anti-Semite.   

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

With Obama's recent non-veto of an anti-Israel resolution, and the ADL, Alan Dershowitz and Haim Saban's statements, things are getting serious. Jews need reassurance that the Democrats are not going to abandon them.

Huh?

Am I reading too much into this, or are you subtly suggesting that Ellison shouldn't be DNC chair because he's Muslim?

I know that's probably not what you're saying, but I just got that impression from your reply.

It's his Nation of Islam connections that seem to be the problem. Personally, I don't care about it, but we need Jewish Americans (not just Bernie) on board.

Is J Street not enough?

J-Street does a lot of good work, but honestly, no.  J-Street really isn't enough; not when Ellison has a history of defending the likes of Louis Farrakhan (a man who has been quoted as referring to Hitler as "a great man") and has real ties to an anti-Semitic hate group (The Nation of Islam).

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm not sure if sounding like Hillary Clinton is a good move for Perez.

Tom Perez ‏@TomPerez  3h3 hours ago
It's not enough to be progressive—We need a progressive who gets things done.

Personally I never liked this slogan because it seemed to imply the natural state of a progressive is someone that doesn't do anything.

Hahaha no, it's not.  The case for Perez over Ellison that is currently being made is totally vacuous.

If Perez and the Obama camp want to make a good faith argument, they should talk about why Perez's strategy is superior to Ellison's for bringing the Democrats back into the promised land long-term.

Kind of hard to make any comparisons, considering Ellison doesn't seem to even have a strategy. 

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm not sure if sounding like Hillary Clinton is a good move for Perez.

Tom Perez ‏@TomPerez  3h3 hours ago
It's not enough to be progressive—We need a progressive who gets things done.

Personally I never liked this slogan because it seemed to imply the natural state of a progressive is someone that doesn't do anything.

Hahaha no, it's not.  The case for Perez over Ellison that is currently being made is totally vacuous.

If Perez and the Obama camp want to make a good faith argument, they should talk about why Perez's strategy is superior to Ellison's for bringing the Democrats back into the promised land long-term.

Kind of hard to make any comparisons, considering Ellison doesn't seem to even have a strategy. 

TBF, both have been pretty, maybe unacceptably vague, but Ellison said 50 state strategy/having an unabashed aggressive message+policy programme that goes after working class voters even if its at the expense of large corporate donors.  Perez said he too believes in a 50 state strategy.

The point is that there isn't that much to recommend Perez over Ellison, other than the Obama camp likes him better, which should be a red flag.  I guess if you're a pro-settlement hardliner, that's a reason to avoid Ellison.

I don't think the DNC should be chaired by a man with ties to an anti-Semitic hategroup and a history of defending a shameless racist and anti-Semite who has repeatedly praised Adolf Hitler as "a great man" (once going so far to say that he'd be proud to be referred to as "the black Hitler").  If that somehow makes me a pro-settlement hardliner, so be it.  Either Ellison is himself an anti-Semite or he's an idiot for not being able to tell that Farrakhan is one.  Funny how Ellison magically saw the error of his ways the moment he decided to run for a House seat; I call BS on his so-called change of heart concerning the Nation of Islam.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm a little late to this party I see.

Anyways, I now think that it is within the Democrats' best interests to vote for Ellison as the next chair.

I think many of you would like this article from Vox: Democrats would be smart to embrace Ellison

Democrats need to build on to the party and not lose core coalitions like Millennials and it sends a bold message to send a Black Muslim like Ellison to be a leader during Trump's tenure as president.

The country is already polarized. Dems, don't polarize your own party.

Anyways, are there any new news on Keith Ellison endorsements?

The problem is that Ellison is anti-Semite.

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

I am on lunch break, but when I get home from work today, I'll post what I can find.  There's nothing wrong with asking for evidence of Ellison's anti-Semitism, although you could've done it without the little playground taunt lecture.  I can only speak for myself, but I wouldn't use the term casually.  I'd like nothing more than to take another look at the evidence out there and be able to conclude I was mistaken (in which case I'll be the first to admit it) because it'd be a bit of a relief (conditions are such that there is a serious danger of a sharp, bipartisan rise in "politically acceptable" anti-Semitism in the U.S.).  Anyway, I'll get back to you later today.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

Weren't you a #NeverHillary Democrat in the campaign? I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a Hillary hack would think Perez is a genuinely good choice (as opposed to the lesser evil).

I came around a week or two before the RNC, actually.  I really don't like Hillary, but she was far better than Trump.  And that's exactly how I see Perez: the lesser of two evils.  Neither would be a good Chairman IMO, but I think Perez is at least a better choice from the fundraising perspective which is a key part of the job (DNC chairs have little influence over party policy positions).  I'd rather Ellison stay in the House and try to move up in leadership, it seems like a much better fit.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Yeah, keep that cynical use of identity politics going. Despite the fact Ellison wrote a paper on Farrakhan twenty years ago, let's dump an actual chance at rebuilding the Democratic Party and go with "safe choice" Tom "progressive who gets things done" Perez.

So your idea is to tell Jews that we shouldn't worry about anti-Semitism and that if we do then it's just "identity politics?"  Pathetic.

You are in a setting in which most of us care about opposing antisemitism but also don't believe that there is any credible evidence that Keith Ellison is an antisemite. There's an easy way to resolve this: Show us that Keith Ellison has done antisemitic things.

Instead, you are taking a claim that ought to be treated seriously and treating it as the equivalent of a playground taunt. It is  wrong, it disgusts me, and I know that you can do better than that.

You know, I have to say, I read some more about this and it looks like most of the stuff Ellison said was in 1989 or 1990.  I still think that Perez is a better pick, but I'm much less invested in this race now.  Mea Culpa

Weren't you a #NeverHillary Democrat in the campaign? I can't imagine why anyone who isn't a Hillary hack would think Perez is a genuinely good choice (as opposed to the lesser evil).

I came around a week or two before the RNC, actually.  I really don't like Hillary, but she was far better than Trump.  And that's exactly how I see Perez: the lesser of two evils.  Neither would be a good Chairman IMO, but I think Perez is at least a better choice from the fundraising perspective which is a key part of the job (DNC chairs have little influence over party policy positions).  I'd rather Ellison stay in the House and try to move up in leadership, it seems like a much better fit.

Perez may be semi-progressive, but that really begs the question of why he's running if Ellison is in the race as well. The answer, to me, is only three things:

- He's running as a progressive who's a "don't let Bernie Sanders get his way" option for centrists.
- He's running as a "safe choice" after the accusations against Ellison surfaced.
- He's trying to stay relevant if he decides to run for governor of Maryland in 2018 or 2022.

Perez may be semi-progressive, but I've frankly seen nothing but vague statements about "vision" when it comes to his campaign. Compared to Ellison, who's coming out with plenty of promises, he's weaksauce.

And Ellison's vision is what, exactly?  You can't really argue Perez or Ellison being anything to the table on that front.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

Excellent editorial:

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/why-tom-perez-strong-competitor-against-keith-ellison-democratic-party

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I'm going to have point out that it's highly ironic that someone with the username "Malcolm X" bashed Ellison for alleged antisemitism and his association with the Nation of Islam. It's really comical that Malcolm X has been white-washed to the point where most people can have a respect or admiration for him when he was an immensely inflammatory character.

Actually, I just kept my username as random names, words, phrases, etc involving the letter X ("Malcolm X," "Malcolm Xavier," "Mr. X," "Plain Old X," "X," "X is Tywinning," "Senator X," etc, etc), but thanks for playing  It's pointless and kinda stupid, but I liked it all the same and that's what matters.  "Malcolm X" just happened to be the one I had when I got tired of changing my username every few months.  

However, while we're on the subject of Malcolm X, I might as well respond to your attempt at playing "gotcha."  What I respect most about Malcolm X is his ability to transform himself and critically re-examine his core beliefs in a way that few of us ever seriously attempt even once, much less repeatedly over the course of our lives.  Malcolm X transformed himself from a common criminal into a self-educated, charismatic leader with a remarkable (bordering on stupid) level of fearlessness and an undeniably sincere belief in the theological and political views for which he advocated.  It is possible to both admire his ability to transform himself so dramatically – to essentially rebuild himself as a human being from the bottom up – and at the same time abhor the anti-Semitic, racist cult to which he belonged for quite awhile.  It's not like he's either a savior or a monster, that's far too simplistic.  

That's the funny thing about people: they are often complex and don't always fit perfectly into the little one-dimensional boxes folks like yourself are always trying to shove them into.  A person can be great in one way, but terrible in another.  Martin Luther King cheated on his wife, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a great civil rights leader just as the fact that he was a great civil rights leader doesn't change the fact that he cheated on his wife.  By the same token, O.J. Simpson was and always will be one of the greatest football players who ever lived...but all that means is that he was an incredible football player.  It doesn't change the fact that he's also a murdering low-life, both can be true.  It's not entirely your fault that you seem to have such a hard time with this concept though, it's human nature to be uncomfortable with ambiguities and plenty of folks are just like you are far more comfortable simply pretending they don't exist.  But I digress, we were talking about Malcolm X.  

Malcolm X did not truly become a great man until after his Hajj (where he seems to have had an epiphany from seeing Muslims of all colors praying together and getting along just fine) and his break with the Nation of Islam.  After he returned from his Hajj, he no longer preached hatred the way he once had and truly became one of the most important civil rights leaders of his time rather than simply a boogeyman for white suburbia to get all stirred up about.  Again, we see a man who was constantly evolving as a human being and willing to fearlessly challenge his own pre-existing beliefs, even setting them aside when he saw that they were wrong.  

As for the Nation of Islam, he broke with them over Elijah Muhammad's affairs and efforts to silence the women he'd been sleeping with as well as Muhammed's refusal to support his calls for the Nation of Islam to work with other civil rights groups, African-American elected officials, and other religious organizations (particularly in regard to the issue of police brutality, something Elijah Muhammed and much of the rest of the NoI leadership refused to join Malcolm X in vocally condemning).  While Malcolm X was part of a cult for some time, the sincerity of his views and his ability to critically examine his own worldview likely made such a break inevitable.  It was only a matter of time before he realized that there was a rotting core of hate and hypocrisy at the center of the Nation of Islam.  Had Malcolm X not been murdered, he would've no doubt gone on to become an even greater man and certainly a far more influential one.  

Like many people, there was a great deal to admire and praise about him, but he also held some truly horrible views during an important part of his life.  In the end, whether you look at him as a man who repeatedly transcended himself until he became a truly great man whose life was cut tragically short, as a demagogue whose sole contribution to society was the hatred he once preached, or as something in between these two extremes, one cannot deny that he was a remarkable and very complex man who had a truly rare ability and willingness to constantly rebuild himself from the bottom-up (for better or worse) by fearlessly challenging his own core values and beliefs about the world in away most people are afraid to ever truly attempt once, much less three or four times.  I think that's pretty admirable, but that's just me.

Of course, I wouldn't want Malcolm X to be chairman of the DNC either

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

wow I must have touched a nerve.

I observed something that was highly ironic, you don't have to justify your choice of username; you could call yourself Stalin, who cares honestly.

Not really, I just gave you the benefit of the doubt and assumed you might be interested in having an intelligent conversation for once.  Also there's nothing ironic about the username, but you'd already know that if you'd actually read my post.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

TYT Politics is the best thing happening if you ignore the monologue videos. Amazing reporting - Jordan based on Standing Rock & then covering the Texas Pipeline & effect on conservatives, Flint & even Indiana Lead poisoning.

And ofcourse Nomiki Konst covered both DNC Chair & Vice-Chair races with interview of Elizabeth Jaff (running for DNC Vice-Chair) & of DNC Chair candidates (Jeemu - Texas black woman & Ray Buckley NH Chair).

Liked Buckley & his criticism of huge ad spend & proposal to introduce conflict clause. He is DNC Vice Chair & says he has no idea how DNC spends its funds. I don't think he has done a particular amazing job as NH Chair but I thought he was pretty decent. 3rd favorite after Ellison & Buttigieg!

I thought Buckley has had some sort of scandal that nearly ended his career, could be thinking of someone else though.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

I hope we choose Pete.

1. He's a solid choice and straightforward.
2. He would put an end to the proxy primary fight.

I can live with this, tbh.