Home / General / On Perez/Ellison

On Perez/Ellison

Comments
/
/
/
259 Views

hrzgal.dnc

I think Jeff Stein gets it right. To summarize:

  • This is not an ideological dispute. Both Ellison and Perez are solidly on the left of the party, and anyone who thinks Perez is a neoliberal is an ignoramus and/or a massive dumbshit. (Yes, yes, Perez nominally supported the TPP. But leaving aside the idiocy of defining a public official’s politics based on One True Issue — a process by which you can conclude that anyone is a heretic — all this means it that he was a member of the Obama administration. The Secretary of Labor doesn’t set trade policy.)
  • Both would, at worst, figure to be massive improvements over Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, admittedly for a position many people seem to think is vastly more important than it is.
  • There are two obvious points in Ellison’s favor for this particular job: his experience as an elected official and the fact that he’s already shown an ability to unify diverse factions within the party. Perez was an outstanding Secretary of Labor and should have been Clinton’s VP nominee, but I don’t see what he would bring to this particular job that would overcome those advantages.
  • So while Perez would be good, Ellison seems like the best choice.

…and, now, the strongest reason for supporting Ellison:

Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said Friday he’ll leave the Democratic Party if Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) is appointed the next chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

“I’m going to tell you right here on this show, and this is news – if they appoint Keith Ellison to be chairman of the Democratic Party, I will resign my membership to the Democratic Party after 50 years of being a loyal Democrat,” Dershowitz told the Fox Business Network.

FacebookTwitterGoogle+Share
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
  • Hercules Mulligan

    I am a big supporter of this piece, and I will only add that Perez can and should run for office as soon as possible, and if he doesn’t want to make the jump into the Maryland gubernatorial election, we should find him a House seat to take over ASAP.

    • Steve LaBonne

      Agreed. We need to develop our bench, and Perez seems like a real talent, so I can’t understand what sense it makes to put him in the DNC position rather than getting him into some elected office ASAP.

      • humanoid.panda

        Well, it seems to make sense to him :-)

    • ploeg

      Would Tom Perez care for hot dish?

    • Brien Jackson

      The downside to running against Hogan now is that he might well lise, and that would be that.

      • humanoid.panda

        This is a dynamic I am curious about: is there going to be a midterm backlash that hits even popular GOPers like Hogan?

        • Brien Jackson

          I think there will be, but I don’t know if it will be enough to topple Hogan.

          • sharonT

            What are Hogan’s approval numbers in Montgomery, Howard and Prince George’s counties? The Sun’s polling shows him to be popular in the Baltimore region, although I’m always a bit skeptical of those numbers. Is he as popular down in that part of the state?

            The only way Perez picks up a House seat is if he primaries someone in the 4th, 6th or 8th district, and I for one, have no interest in trading in Jamie Raskin for this guy. Now, running in the 6th district against Mr. Moneybags might be worth it, but I’ve heard that Donnelly might want to run against Hogan.

            • Brien Jackson

              Last I saw pretty good for a Republican.

              • sharonT

                Was it a WaPo poll or a Gonzalez poll?

                • Brien Jackson

                  Internal

            • Manny Kant

              You could get Delaney to run against Hogan, I guess, and try to get Perez into that seat. But Perez lives in the 8th, so that’s not ideal.

              Cardin could also retire.

      • Scott Lemieux

        We shouldn’t give up on beating Hogan — a lot can happen in 2 years, and that goes double with a historically unpopular Republican president about to take over — but I can understand why Perez is wary.

        • Phil Perspective

          LOL!! It doesn’t help when elected Democrats in MD kiss Hogan’s ass, like they do Baker in Massachusetts. That’s the real reason either might be unbeatable. The same went for The Big Chicken in New Jersey.

          • Brien Jackson

            Yeah, super popular Governor fighting cancer and trying to give the appearance of being a moderate. We should totally be a dick to that guy to win votes!!

            • sharonT

              If you live in Baltimore you should.
              He uses Baltimore City as a whipping post to keep the mooks that love him in Carroll County good and lathered up.

              He just cancelled th State Center redevelopment project, so that’s another large site in mid-town that’s going to sink towards blight.

              His replacement for the Red Line light rail project is a “rationalization” of the bus routes, and a lane of Baltimore street dedicated to BRT and painted red.

              • Brien Jackson

                Don’t disagree, but I don’t live in Baltimore.

                • sharonT

                  Baltimore City bashing is Larry’s sweetest and quietest dog whistle.

                • Brien Jackson

                  It’s somewhst more complicated thsn thst, but yeah.

                • cpinva

                  “He uses Baltimore City as a whipping post to keep the mooks that love him in Carroll County good and lathered up.”

                  every republican in MD does, with a barely restrained emphasis on all those “blah” people living there, and sucking at the gov’t teat. gets the western MD rednecks all stoked up.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Well I’m not denying that there’s a dogwhistle aspect to it, but there’s some real regional interest dynamics at play too. Even many liberals here in QA county were pretty upset about the last round of toll hikes for the Bay Bridge under O’Malley while we weren’t getting any response from the state over a desire for a traffic abatement plan. The ICC definitely hade that worae too.

        • Brien Jackson

          Well personally it’s THE top priority for the next 2 years, but I’m gonna stay realistic. I think Perez would do well,but I’m hoping Dinna Edwards runs too.

          • Manny Kant

            Edwards seems…unlikely to beat Hogan.

  • Brien Jackson

    I’ve got no problem with Ellison himself, but the idea we should be conciously throwing bone to brocialists, especially the deluded conspiracy mongerers, is 100% wrong.

    • ploeg

      This reminds me of the story where an oil company offered a landowner a royalty of 1/8 of the total production, whereupon the landowner replied that the deal wouldn’t go down unless the landowner got a solid 1/16 of production. Let’s just offer them 2/16 and seal the deal.

    • ThrottleJockey

      Why wouldn’t you want to unify the party? And how do you field a successful candidate without these–new word I like it!–brocialists?

      • kped

        I agree, unity is good, and if this placates those tools, great! Ellison is liked by “neoliberal sellouts” too!

        But I also think it shouldn’t motivate liberals, because these “brocialists” don’t seem capable of reciprocating. Like…they really want it to be their way or the highway on everything. Fuck that.

        • humanoid.panda

          I think the term brosocialist doesn’t refer to the mass of Sanders (or Ellison) supporters, but only to people who think Perez is NEOLIBERAL SHILL.

        • ThrottleJockey

          Politics is addition not subtraction. If Clinton could make nice with Gingrich after impeachment I think we can all get along.

          Hopefully both sides understand one another better now and can find a candidate we can all support. They exist. My favorite would be Warren. I also wish Jerry Brown was younger. Perhaps even Sherrod or Tim Kaine.

          • Domino

            No offense, but how is Tim Kaine in that list along with Warren? Like, those are 2 of the furthest apart (I’d say Manchin and Sanders are on the opposite ends).

            I’m curious to see how Kamala Harris does, and personally would like to see Al Franken and Kirsten Gilibrand as serious candidates.

            • ThrottleJockey

              You know what? I was really disappointed when Clinton named him. I thought he was too moderate and not Latino enough. But I did a complete 180 on him during the campaign. I really liked him on the. trail and during the debates. And I confess I liked his Midwestern roots. Even though Warren is from Oklahoma that’s so close to Kansas I consider her a Midwesterner too. Midwesterners just come across as more plain spoken and pragmatic to me. It’s purely cultural bigotry on my part.

              Harris will be interesting. I’m not sure what To expect but Obama seems to be a big fan and that means a lot.

              • sharonT

                Ur, Hillary was from the mid-west

                • delazeur

                  Uhm, does Chicago really count as Midwestern?

                • Excitable Boy

                  It does unless you are a Clinton.

            • njorl

              Kaine’s personal history is significantly to the left of Warren’s. He tailored his politics to win elections in VA. I don’t know anyone who thinks Kaine tacked too far to the right in his races. You have to win to govern.

            • LeeEsq

              No more Baby Boomers please. We need younger politicians.

          • cpinva

            “If Clinton could make nice with Gingrich after impeachment I think we can all get along.”

            it was either that, or beat him bloody with a baseball bat. then some poor bastard janitor would have had to clean up the mess. personally, I think he should have, and paid the janitor overtime out of his own pocket, plus a decent sized tip. would’ve been worth it.

        • sharonT

          And you don’t?

      • Brien Jackson

        This won’t unify anyone, because the brocialists aren’t capable of getting along with everyone else. Ever. We saw this dynamic in the summer after the platform was written, and you’re starting to see the seams of it now just because Ellison isn’t getting 110% support.

        • Phil Perspective

          LOL!! Have you seen Peter Daou’s Twitter feed since the election? Get a grip.

          • Brien Jackson

            You can save your energy knowing I don’t give a single fuck what you think.

            • tsam

              Like saying beetle juice 3 times

    • wengler

      If you’re going to keep fighting an ongoing war against Bernie supporters, you’re going to be very disappointed. Hillary Clinton losing this election is the greatest political disaster of my lifetime. It’s time for Democrats like you to wake up.

      • Brien Jackson

        That so many Bernie supporters online assume you’re talking about them when you reference Lee Fang-esque assholes really says a lot.

        • Fosco

          Who’s Lee Fang, and how is he related to Ellison?

          • Ronan

            Afaict , Lee fang is a psychopomp brien has created to embody everything wrong with the world at the moment, a rhetorical shortcut to represent pure political evil (I assume so anyway. no way anyone could care this much about a random Twitter Moron)

            Eta not a psychopomp, perhaps. Seems I misremembered this figure.

            • Brien Jackson

              Lol ok

              • Ronan

                ; )

                I do agree this fang dude seems a bit ridiculous (though admittedly I’m only going by second hand reports)

                • Brien Jackson

                  This is kind of my point though: these are small numbered people wuth outsized social media profiles whose whole schtick is being an asshole. “Sanders supporters” are not ultimately going to care that much unless we tell them that the brocialists are voices worth listening to.

        • JL

          That’s because we’re so used to other people online assuming that us liking and having supported Bernie means that we’re the worst kinds of BernieBro caricatures, even if we, for instance, volunteered for Hillary in the general.

          • Brien Jackson

            Then maybe give people a reason to assume better!

            • ThrottleJockey

              Oh come on when has JL ever given anyone here a reason not to think the best of her…It’s not like she’s me or anything. :-)

            • Origami Isopod

              Uh, do you know JL?

              • Brien Jackson

                Yes I do. And I don’t think that of him, but if people who get harrassed by BernieBros are skeptical of Sanders supporters online maybe don’t put the problem on the victims!

                • JL

                  Just for the record, I’m not a him. Either they/them or she/her works.

                  Not everyone who makes negative assumptions about Sanders supporters has been a BernieBro harassment target. Unreasonable Clinton primary supporters exist, just like unreasonable Sanders supporters, as we know, exist.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Um…ok. And? Who are and what relevance do they have exactly?

                  I mean it sure seems to me like people in your position eould have the MOST to gain from marginaluzing the nihilistic asshole btocialist crowd. And yet, the impulse seems to be to implicitly defend them by trying to shift all criticism to #NotallBerniesupporters territory.

            • Well, frankly, Brien, I for one don’t feel like being put on trial by the likes of you. You have decided that you hated Bernie Sanders and his supporters- that they are all the same, and you accuse us all of being destructive, not seeing that by tarring all your opponents with the same brush and essentially arguing for them us to be purged from the party, you do what you accuse others of.

              • Brien Jackson

                The fuck did this? If you see yourself in criticism of brocialists and anyone who will OUTRAGED if staunch progressive Tom Perez wins the DNC chair race…THAT’S HOW YOU VIEW YOURSELF and, apparently, who you choose to sympathize with. I didn’t toss any barbs your way, you’ve accused yourself.

              • JMP

                Why is it that, every single time anyone ever criticizes the Sanders dead-enders, there are always a bunch of obnoxious folks who immediately jump in with “NotAllSandersSupporters!” who always rail against the straw-men of Democrats who hate everyone who voted for Sanders, even though that describes absolutely nobody, and every single fucking time the criticism is being leveled at a small subset of the Bernie Bros who refused to vote for Clinton and never ever all of them?

                • Excitable Boy

                  Because it is a day that ends in a Y? Chinatown?

    • CP

      Well, sure, but most Sanders voters weren’t deluded conspiracy mongers. (The polling at the time showed that most Democratic voters had a positive image of either candidate). As long as Ellison is one of the sane ones, who cares?

      • Brien Jackson

        I have no problem with Ellison and I’m not saying this is a reason to oppose him. Just that if you’re doing it SPECIFICALLY to appease the brocialists you don’t actually understand them, is all.

    • econoclast

      I don’t agree. Assuming that Ellison is qualified for the job (I have no opinion on this one way or the other), this is a perfect time to throw a bone. The brosocialists are morons, and they’ve blown the DNC up in their minds to be a supervillain organization, so if they’re mollified with “one of their own” as DNC head, we should do it.

      • Brien Jackson

        They won’t be mollified, is the point.

        • efgoldman

          They won’t be mollified, is the point.

          Is there any reason to believe mollifying them over this (really nothingburger) issue would get them to vote for an actual Democratic candidate?

          • Excitable Boy

            Uh, no

        • JMP

          They’re largely the same people who actually did treat Obama as some sort of messiah, and then turned on him immediately after he took office and failed to give them the pony they thought he promised them; and you know that if Sanders had won the Presidency they would have turned against him on January 21, 2017 as well. Bros are just never satisfied.

        • Manny Kant

          If Ellison wins, they get to talk about how they backed Ellison from the beginning, and he betrayed them, whereas if Perez wins, they get to say that the DNC betrayed true progressives by picking Perez over Ellison.

      • tonycpsu

        He’s the right choice, and he’s the politically useful choice for uniting with the brocialists, and it sends a strong signal against Trumpism. He’s the correct choice by every measurement.

        So of course they’re going to pick Perez.

        • Brien Jackson

          Ellison is fine, but the brocialists will never unite with us.

          • tonycpsu

            Even if you’re right, it’s a losing strategy to pass up opportunities to unite the caucus. Sort of a Pascal’s wager effect — the price for reaching out is negligible in this case, but it could bring some of the more reachable Sandersistas into the tent. I see that as a good move.

            • Brien Jackson

              Ok fine, again I don’t have an objection to Ellison per se. But I’m not interested in a series of “we have to do this to make people who won’t take yes for an answer happy” arguments.

      • econoclast

        But, assuming he’s qualified, so what? Maybe they can be mollified and maybe they can’t. This is a low-cost way to find out which.

        • Brien Jackson

          As long as you don’t actively valudate The Intercept crowd in the process sure, I don’t disagree.

          • econoclast

            Since The Intercept is going to spend the next few years carrying water for Russian intelligence, I think we can count on them being self-invalidating.

    • JL

      How about to people from Sanders’ approximate wing of the party who aren’t brocialists or conspiracy mongerers? While I like Perez and want a bright future in elected or appointed office for him (possibly with an AG appointment or as a VP pick the next time we have a Dem presidential administration), it annoys me that the people who pushed him to run seem to oppose Ellison’s candidacy simply because he’s from the Sanders wing of the party. And I like Ellison’s ideas of what the party and specifically the DNC should be.

      I agree with Scott’s take, pretty much.

      • Brien Jackson

        Who is this? It seems to me that the people who pushed Perez to run is Barack Obama, who clearly likes Perez and has had him in his administration. Oh the conspiracy!!!! How unfair!!!

        • JL

          Who said anything about conspiracy? The NYT ran a story in November strongly suggesting that Obama and some of his aides pushed Perez to run because they didn’t want Sanders’ people to have control of the party. Politico ran a story with a quote from an Obama aide saying that Ellison isn’t the right guy to win over white working-class voters with messages of economic justice (given Ellison’s economic record I have trouble coming up with an interpretation of this that isn’t about Ellison’s race, religion, or both). That’s not some kind of nefarious puppetmastery, it’s just Obama and his aides doing something that I think is the wrong thing to do, for reasons that I think are bad reasons and a little bit offensive.

          Again, no problem with Perez as a political figure; I want a bright future for him and I certainly don’t despair at the thought of him running the DNC. I also think it’s great that two qualified, pro-labor men of color are the leading candidates in this race. I just find the attempts to stop Ellison to be somewhat of a slap in the face.

          • Brien Jackson

            And I have a hard time believing anyone doesn’t get why they get sideeye when someone has the temerity to run against the candidate they like.

          • Politico ran a story with a quote from an Obama aide

            Politico has a pretty bad track record when it comes to reports like this. They also reported that Clinton was working on securing Henry Kissinger’s endorsement, a claim corroborated by no other evidence ever.

            • Manny Kant

              Not even corroborated by their own story, which made the leap from the two true statements that “Clinton is working to get endorsements from Republican foreign policy types,” and “Kissinger is a Republican foreign policy type” to “Clinton is trying to get Kissinger’s endorsement.”

    • Ronan

      Christ , give it a rest already.

      • manual

        +1

        God, this guy needs to get a grip. His whole narrative is unhinged.

    • SatanicPanic

      One of my main issues with Bernie supporters was that the two candidates weren’t different enough to fight over. So I’m not going to get in a big fight now. They want Ellison, fine, I like Ellison. I take your point that we shouldn’t automatically throw them a bone, but this is a no-cost bone we’re throwing.

      • Brien Jackson

        I don’t have a problem with the bone throwing per se, just with anyone thinking this will actually make them happy.

        • SatanicPanic

          hmmm good point

        • Bill Murray

          evidently no one knows the minds of other people better than BJ. and I used to not believe in psychicsa

          • Brien Jackson

            Right, it’s not like we didn’t already try this with the platform. How mollified they were!!

        • Who are these people to whom you’re referring?

          People who supported Sanders in the primary?

          People who think the Democratic Party should generally move in a more progressive direction?

          The ‘Never Hillary” crowd?

          Certainly folks in the third category will not be placated by any means but honestly, how many of these people are actually involved in the Democratic party and, hence, involved in this race?

          • Brien Jackson

            I think it encapsulates roughly all of the people who will be angry if Perez wins.

            • Incontinentia Buttocks

              LOL! Chuck Schumer, “brocialist.”

              • Brien Jackson

                I rather doubt Chuck Schumer is going to get huffy and start ranting about neolibersl shills if Perez wins. Oddly enough, you actually can support one candidate without making a mortsl enemy of the other if you’re, you knoe, earnest and well mesning.

              • Manny Kant

                Are you really claiming that Chuck Schumer is one of the people calling Perez a neoliberal shill and vowing their disgust with the Democratic Party if he wins?

    • urd

      brocialists

      Essentially I should now ignore anything you say on this subject.

      I’ll give you credit for being consistent, though.

      • Brien Jackson

        Let me show you the fucks I give about your thoughts…..

        • efgoldman

          Let me show you the fucks I give about your thoughts…..

          Go drown some feral kittens. THEN he’ll pay attention to you.

      • manual

        this seems correct

    • EliHawk

      The problem is this will in no way really solve the problem, and really just indulges the behavior. Basically, Sanders and his hard core supporters have stupid ideas about things, but let’s indulge them anyway. Sanders and allies raise a stink, poison the well, then turn to hard core supporters reluctance to use as leverage while they make demands. It’s not “Ellison would be a good DNC Chair,” it’s “If Ellison doesn’t get it, it’s rigged!” They sew divisions, then cite those divisions as a reason to be mollified, the same as their behavior in the late primaries. All the talk about ‘rigged,’ then the ‘I need this to get them on board, or else!’ Then, even when they gave him a ton of the platform, and a big speaking spot, his supporters STILL pissed all over the convention. So now, Ellison must win, because otherwise Ellison’s supporters will pout, and Perez’s won’t. And then you’ll lose the people we just told that Perez was corrupt. The problem is: As Sanders and co. keep poisoning the well, no concession actually brings them back in because he keeps telling them it’s all a corrupt system anyway, and can’t unring those bells. Unless they stop continuing to indulge this shit, Bernie’s going to keep relitigating the primary for four damn years. Don’t pretend he’s acting in good faith. He isn’t. He’s the one who keeps bringing cyanide to the town water supply.

      • Brien Jackson

        Right. And in many ways the existence of a fight to begin with proves the point: Anyone who actually cares about substantively moving the oarty to the left would see “Tom Perez- establishment candidate” as a cause for celebration in itself!

      • nemdam

        Exactly. IMO, it’s all downside to nominate Ellison if the purpose is placate the Bernie diehards. They will never be placated, and they will keep doing what they always do which is pick fights and sow division with the left. We need to unify to resist Trump, not fight with each over pointless battles about who’s neoliberal. Picking Ellison just enables them and delays what should be done which is to sternly reject them from the party. And it should be noted the reason they want Ellison is not because of policy, qualifications, or strategy, but because he supported Bernie. They want Ellison as a sign of loyalty to Bernie.

        • CP Norris

          To be safe, they should nominate someone who will have no risk of pleasing Sanders supporters. I’d prefer Joe Lieberman, but I’d settle for Max Baucus.

          • nemdam

            Sanders supporters who find Tom Perez unacceptable are supporters that can never be won over. Which is my point.

            • Excitable Boy

              Why is there almost no discussion of what Ellison and Perez bring to the table?

              Ellison is not that great on TV, neither is Perez to be honest. My concern is that Perez can concentrate on the job while Ellison wil have to balance his time on his Congressional duties. Perez has shown good organizational skills and has a good track record in turnaround with the Civil Rights division. Not sure that Ellison has shown that sort of skill set.

              Negatives for Perez: Dershowitz’ support and Obama’s track record in picking chairs.
              Negatives for Ellison: Vox and Lemieux’s lazy support, and Brocialist knee jerk support.

              • Ellison wil have to balance his time on his Congressional duties

                Ellison has said he would step down from Congress. Which actually is a strike against him — he’s a strong progressive voice in Congress, and he’s from the Midwest, and I’d like to keep as many Midwestern progressives in congress as possible.

                • Manny Kant

                  Ellison’s district is an extremely safe Democratic one. A “Midwestern progressive” is overwhelmingly likely to replace Ellison.

    • J Alfred Press

      They’re both basically interchangeable sellout dupes of the establishment, as far as I can tell.

      #sarandonorbust

    • MDrew

      Ay yi yi.

  • MacK

    I think you are right. This is not about factions, which was Wasserman Schultz’s failing, it is about building a 50 state party, state-by-state. If the factions take over it will be about building a party that can win California, but lose Ohio, or the Carolinas. There is at times too much failure to think – each state Demicratic Party need to be able to win its state. There needs to be enough commonality of principle and values to have a strong and sufficiently cohesive party to win the whole of the US, but enough room for the party to win the majority of the states. The Democrats are strong in certain states, but that very strength tends to make their message one that resonates only in California and the North East.

    I think there has been too much emphasis under the Clintons and Obama on a ‘national’ party at the expense of the local party, which has meant losing state legislatures and governors and a dearth of junior elected democrats ready to move up. There is a real danger in talking abiyt the Bernie Wing or the Clinton wing, the Obama wing in test it stays too focused on a one size, one model national message.

    • Phil Perspective

      … which has meant losing state legislatures and governors and a dearth of junior elected democrats ready to move up.

      Which is where the Clinton wing of the party has failed and why they need to go. They’ve controlled the party for 20+ years now. And where has that gotten us?

      • MacK

        Well, remember they did demolish the Republican Party in California and in the North East. It has not all been failure – indeed HRC won the popular vote. The problem is winning the popular vote is not winning congress – it may be winning many of the most important states, but it’s not winning enough states. Rejecting the Clinton wing would be as big a mistake as rejecting the Bernie wing.

        That is the crucial issue – the Democratic Party has to be able to win at the county, state and national level and not just say California. That means a party with a strong core message and values, but enough elasticity to be able to take say Georgia while keeping California.the party has become so focussed on a national message, it has failed to advance County and State messages.

        Tip O’Neill may be unpopular with some, but remember his aphorism “all politics is local” – coined when the Democrats controlled state houses and the House of Representatives.

      • The Clinton wing has not controlled the party for the last 8 years. Or is Obama’s crew now a subsidiary of Clinton Inc.?

      • econoclast

        So in 2008 when the Democrats controlled Congress and a bunch of state legislatures and governerships, you were a big fan of the Clinton wing?

  • tonycpsu

    There’s nary a dime’s worth of ideological difference between them, but in addition to the two points mentioned in Ellison’s favor, I wouldn’t discount the symbolic value of having an African-American Muslim be the face of the opposition party at a time when Trumpist bigotry is ascendant. Perez himself has some symbolic value as a Latino, but not the giant “no, fuck you” that Ellison would be.

    • Murc

      Ellison is also an old-school labor rabble-rouser from the upper midwest. Traditionally those are qualities us Democrats look for.

    • ThrottleJockey

      Perez himself has some symbolic value as a Latino, but not the giant “no, fuck you” that Ellison would be.

      You must have forgotten that Trump launched his campaign by saying Mexicans were nothing but rapists and murderers.

      And as much as Latinos have hung in with the Democrats despite Obama deporting record numbers of them I’d say we owe them.

      • tonycpsu

        Nope. Ellison is marginalized on the race and religion axes, Perez only on race. So unless you think Perez’s ethnicity matters more than the combination of Ellison’s ethnicity and religion, it’s clear that Ellison’s a better symbolic rejection of Trumpism.

        ETA: The “Nope” was to your first paragraph, before you edited it to add the second paragraph.

        • ThrottleJockey

          Interesting quantification there. I follow your math but I think it’s an open question if Republicans hate Mexicans or Black Muslims more :-D

          • JL

            It doesn’t matter to your larger point, but Perez is Dominican, not Mexican. Worth not conflating Latino groups.

            • Perhaps also not worth conflating “Black and Muslim” with “Black Muslim”: Ellison is the former, and not the latter.

              • ThrottleJockey

                True I should have said Latino and I couldn’t come up with a way to say black and Muslim that wasn’t clunky (eg I’d normally say white Catholics or black Protestants).

                • I think “black Muslim” works fine (in print, or on-screen unmediated by a screen reader).

    • CP

      And having an African-American Muslim who was also a Sanders supporter should do quite a lot to dispel the notion that fighting for economic justice and fighting for the rights of minorities are somehow contradictory.

    • SatanicPanic

      Well let’s not be so eager to light the Oppression Olympics torch. Guessing which of us Trump hates the most is fun as a parlor game but really none of us knows for sure.

      • Hogan

        At this level, the real honor is just being nominated.

        • dl

          who isn’t nominated?

          • All the children shall have prizesarmbands!!!

      • gmoot

        Surely there’s a black, Muslim woman out there somewhere, preferably one who is also gay and larger than a size 4. That’d make Trump’s tangerine hair sizzle all the way down to its hair plug roots.

    • Warren Terra

      While realizing that we shouldn’t be validating the other side’s racism and various bigotries, I do worry that naming as our party’s chief spokesperson someone who is black and Muslim would make Steve Bannon spontaneously orgasm. I’m not saying we need a Jim Webb figure who will agree with the Republicans that only white folks matter, but in general I wonder how we’ll ever reach the people currently being brainwashed by Fox News to fear everyone who’s not Ward or June Cleaver, and I wonder if Ellison might just not be the right person to reach them.

      • tonycpsu

        but in general I wonder how we’ll ever reach the people currently being brainwashed by Fox News

        The error in your logic is the baseless assumption that we have to reach them in particular. We just need to reach an equal or greater number of persuadable voters, which Ellison can help do by energizing parts of the left that might be in need of some reasons to not climb into a bomb shelter and set an alarm for 2020.

        • Origami Isopod

          The error in your logic is the baseless assumption that we have to reach them in particular.

          Also, that they can be reached at all. Allocate resources to the many more who are more easily persuaded.

        • efgoldman

          The error in your logic is the baseless assumption that we have to reach them in particular.

          The other error is that most voters neither know or care who the DNC chairperson is. S/he does not, generally speak to the public except to be interviewed occasionally on the Sunday showz or morning shows.

          • Warren Terra

            The DNC chair appearing on Sunday Morning shows and on cable news the rest of the week is the visible part of their job, the part that calls on their political skills and can’t be substituted by their staff. So, yes, that’s the part I worry about the optics of picking Ellison.

            The other part their staff can’t fill in on is schmoozing donors, but I have no idea what goes into that.

            • efgoldman

              I have no idea what goes into that.

              My guess is, starts with a lot of ass kissing.

            • JL

              From what I’ve seen, Ellison does pretty well on TV. His enthusiasm comes through, he’s personable, he knows how to speak the language of populism.

      • Gizmo

        Thats an interesting question. To what extent is the chair of the DNC in change of reaching these people versus recruiting good candidates and helping them win?

        I like the idea of having a mid-western labor rabble-rouser for chair. Hopefully he’d give things a shake and recruit candidates with some outsider edge. I’m with Digby on this one – the party has to stop backing the blue dogs and other faux-republicans with establishment ties. Voters will take a real republican over over a fake one. To me, that has been the most aggravating thing from the party in recent years – the party has been way too conservative when it comes to choosing new talent.

        • Brien Jackson

          Except those are the Democrats who have won in Republican leaning areas.

          • efgoldman

            those are the Democrats who have won in Republican leaning areas.

            And the blue dogs are mostly gone. They’re the ones who got swept out in 2010.

          • Phil Perspective

            LOL!! They don’t even run Democrats in those areas. And when they do, they are often party switchers.

          • Aexia

            Just have to look at all the blue dogs the Netroots breathlessly supported in 06 & 08 when it was about running in every state and then ruthlessly turned on the moment they realized socialists don’t get elected in South Dakota.

        • sharonT

          I don’t think that the DNC chair recruits candidates for office. I thought that was the responsibility of the House and Senate campaign committees and state level campaign committees.

          I thought DNC chair pulls together big picture strategies, helps fundraiser and hopefully allocate funds to state parties. Hires and manages HO staff, crafts messaging, etc.

          • nemdam

            Correct. The DNC chair does much less than people think. This race is largely meaningless which aggravates me even more that this is being used as an excuse to relitigate the primary. The DSCC and DCCC recruit Senate and House candidates respectively.

            • Brien Jackson

              Well, it’s certainly not as though the DNC chair CAN’T do that.

              • TopsyJane

                The DNC chair can play a role in developing candidates and recruitment. Howard Dean certainly did.

                • Aexia

                  You seem to have misspelled “Rahm Emanuel”

            • Phil Perspective

              And the DSCC and DCCC has done exactly what the past 6 years? The DNC Chair isn’t meaningless but whatever toots your horn.

        • What does “labor rabble-rouser” mean for Ellison? It looks to me like his pre-government career was in civil rights litigation, and it doesn’t look like he’s ever been on a labor committee in either the Minnesota state House or the US House. He’s been on the Banking Committee.

          I’m sure Ellison is impeccable on labor issues in terms of positions, but Perez would seem to be the one with the stronger labor bona fides simply by having been an activist Labor Secretary.

  • kped

    The “left” is really strange on this issue. “Perez is the establishment choice!”…uh…Ellison is backed by Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, and a bunch of “establishment” dems. They so want to turn this into a “left insurgent” vs “neoliberal sellout”…but it’s 2 people that us “neoliberal sellouts” are pretty high on…so it’s not that battle. but i guess if it makes those children happy, we can pretend that Ellison winning is a victory for “them” over “us”.

    • ThrottleJockey

      Yes that framing by some out there is just bizarre.

      • kped

        I really think it’s just people can’t accept “yes” for an answer. They need conflict to feel special, so damn it, they’ll create conflict if it kills them!

        But again, if it makes them feel good, great! Let Ellison have it. And I hope he is great at it!

    • CP

      The “left” is really strange on this issue. “Perez is the establishment choice!”…uh…Ellison is backed by Pelosi, Schumer, Reid, and a bunch of “establishment” dems. They so want to turn this into a “left insurgent” vs “neoliberal sellout”…but it’s 2 people that us “neoliberal sellouts” are pretty high on…

      In the same way that the media insists on talking about “moderate Republicans” years and years after the last ones were either put out to pasture or got with the program, left-wing purists insist on seeing DLC/neoliberal sellouts everywhere despite the fact that the party took a giant left turn away from that in 2008 and has continued to move away from it ever since.

      • Phil Perspective

        … left-wing purists insist on seeing DLC/neoliberal sellouts everywhere despite the fact that the party took a giant left turn away from that in 2008 and has continued to move away from it ever since.

        LOL!! Dude, the DCCC recruited a Romney voter to run in my district. A district HRC won, BTW! Or look at Florida. They spent money in the primary on Murphy(who voted for Gowdy’s Benghazi fishing expedition) and then bailed on him when Rubio re-entered that race. Murphy was a GOPer as recently as 2012, too.

        • Excellent non sequitur

        • Aexia

          Much better to have backed a wife beating self-promoter, no?

    • sleepyirv

      It’s pretty straightforward: Ellison was the only Congressman to back Sanders and Perez (which the article does not mention) endorsed Clinton and also got caught up in the email hack by offering some political advice to paint Sanders as only being the candidate of young white liberals. If Perez was completely silent during the primaries, I don’t think this would be as big of a deal.

      While there is not a lot of ideological room between Ellison and Perez (not that running the DNC is an ideological job), there is a clear feeling of a proxy war between Sanders-Clinton folks on the ground. Personally, I rather get a root canal than rehash the primary, but that’s what we ended up.

      • kped

        Ah, i see! Didn’t know that.

        …still,it’s a dumb battle.

        • efgoldman

          …still,it’s a dumb battle.

          And it’s SO inside baseball.

    • JL

      It’s not just “the left” who is framing things like this. The people who encouraged Perez to run are framing things like this, except in the other direction (Ellison is the Sanders wing choice!).

    • Phil Perspective

      Do you not forget the first supposed knock against Ellison? “The DNC is a full-time job!!” Funny to drag that out since neither Kaine nor DWS quit their day jobs.

      • MaureenDowdsLudes

        Maybe they should have.

      • Sly

        The “full-time job” argument is less convincing than “you can’t serve two masters” argument. The problem of elected officials holding positions like the DNC Chair (or DCCC Chair or DSCC Chair, but those are likely inexorably bound up in holding elective office) is that they had certain obligations to their constituencies and state delegations that conflicted with their obligations to the party as a whole. Dean was able to be impartially advance the interests of the party because his obligations as DNC Chair were his only obligations.

        Personally, I don’t think anyone who has a leadership position in fundraising or organizing or party logistics should be an elected official. That’s why I was lukewarm on Ellison until he said he would vacate his seat in the House.

        • Phil Perspective

          I’m only for Ellison because the other names, besides Perez, aren’t very good at all. And Perez really should run for MD Governor.

        • Excitable Boy

          Glad you wrote that Ellison will resign his seat. I still think Perez is the better choice, but it shows Ellison is taking the job seriously. I can live with either choice. I was concerned when I thought he was going to try and do both jobs.

    • nemdam

      We really should just clear the field and all get behind one candidate.

    • djw

      One thing the last 18 months has really driven home for me is that there’s a bunch of people out there who appear to be constitutionally incapable of engaging politics in any frame other than a Manichean morality play between dread neoliberals and heroic underdog social democrats. Everything that can be crammed into that framework, however awkwardly, will be, and that which cannot (like, you know, stopping fascism) can’t hold their attention. They’ll never see anything as glorious and pure as Sanders v Clinton, and they’ll probably continue to see it everywhere they look, regardless of actual political developments.

      • jim, some guy in iowa

        it’s the same old: they think that’s the real battle- that once the voter gets a clear look at a real social democrat the fascists will just melt away like rotten snowbanks in April

  • Bruce Vail

    Agreed, Ellison is the better candidate.

    He’ll need to be replaced before 2020 by someone better able to mobilize the donor class, but I have no idea who that might be. But Ellison’s the right guy for 2017.

    • Phil Perspective

      He’ll need to be replaced before 2020 by someone better able to mobilize the donor class, ….

      That has worked out so well for Democrats these past 20 years!!

    • Gizmo

      Screw the donor class. Chasing after them got us into this mess.

      This pitch is simple: Republicans will give you a tax cut, but Democrats will give you customers.

      • efgoldman

        That has worked out so well for Democrats these past 20 years!!

        Screw the donor class. Chasing after them got us into this mess.

        Because running for office in the 21st century is a philanthropic endeavor. All those expenses pay themselves.

        • Gizmo

          Its a well-known thing here in Silicon Valley –

          1. Invent a spiffy new technology.
          2. Get lots of people to use it without paying for it

          4. Profit!

          Seriously though, I get that it takes money to run campaigns. My concern is that when the party comes to rely upon the hedge fund managers and financial privateers to pay its’ bills, that makes it way too beholden to the slice of american society that is making it harder for the rest of us to have a decent life.

          We already have a political party that will sell us down the river (in the historical sense) to make life cushier for the nations’ billionaires. We really, really, need a counter-weight to this. Feudalism is bad economics and bad politics.

          I really don’t know how to thread this needle. I believe that you can make a good case to the ‘Donor Class’ that they should support the party that’s going to make life better for everybody, because it’ll be good for them too. The post-war economic boom is proof of this – prosperity isn’t about marginal tax rates, its about how many people get decent jobs.

          I forget the origin of the quote, but I recall some small business person who said that taxes were too high under Clinton, but at least they made enough money that they could pay them.

          • nemdam

            Considering HRC ran on arguably the most progressive platform ever and the main obstacle to implementing progressive policies is Republicans and not sellout Democrats, I don’t see how raising money from big donors is preventing the Democrats from doing anything.

            • Phil Perspective

              You forget 2009 so soon? Remember EFCA? Do you not know how politics works? Even Blanche Lincoln voted for it back in 2007. Why? Because C- Augustus obviously vetoed it! So it was a free vote for her and a few others because they knew it would never become law. What happened in 2009 when Democrats controlled all 3? It couldn’t even get a vote!!

              • nemdam

                And this is my point. EFCA didn’t pass? Obviously it’s because Democrats sold us out since they are bought by corporations. Nothing to do with the fact that unions just aren’t as popular as we all wish they were. And let’s face it, if Democrats can’t pass EFCA, then what point is there to elect them at all? Only true progressives support EFCA.

                • Brien Jackson

                  Silly neoliberal. Onviously a Senator from Arkansas would have been rabidly pro-EFCA if not for those nefarious rich Democrats.

                • Aexia

                  The Halter primary challenge really was the dumbest fucking thing in 2010. It really speaks to what a scam Glenn Greenwald’s Accountability Now PAC was that the only accomplishment he could cite was the biggest fucking waste of money to occur in a critical mid-term election. I mean, both candidates were going to be run into a buzzsaw and lose in the general. But Lincoln was still a Senator who voted so she had to be defended. I don’t know why Halter was running in such a thankless environment. And I say this as someone who did work for him.

              • manual

                As someone on the inside of this issue, let me just add: the idea that the median Arkansas voter (or CA voter, Feinstein, for example) was very troubled by sec. 9(c) of the NLRA and returning the union certification to a pre-1947 standard is silly.

                Large corporations were opposed to it.

                It’s a complicated issue, but the idea that Blanche Lincoln was somehow guided by the concerns of the average voter were not the reason she took the position she did.

                But I appreciate your armchair understanding of the issue.

  • wengler

    I’m for whichever one of them figures out that the country has 50 states and there’s value in competing in each and every one of them. I’m pretty sure that Ellison knows this, and I hope that Perez does too.

    • humanoid.panda

      That sounds great in theory, but let’s be blunt for a moment. There is a whole clump of states where 90% of African Americans votes D and 90% of Whites vote R. How do you propose to fight for them, and is that a good investment of limited resources?

      • Davis X. Machina

        Ellison would not be able to roll out a series of cross burnings — sure, very small crosses, and without media attention, in certain key counties in certain Midwestern swing states. Perez might.

        Because that’s what it will take. The way forward is race-baiting. We’ve seen it work. You just have to titrate the dose so it doesn’t drive off the base.

        • humanoid.panda

          Because that’s what it will take. The way forward is race-baiting. We’ve seen it work. You just have to titrate the dose so it doesn’t drive off the base.

          I know you are being sarcastic and all, but the notion that history begins and ends in 2016 is getting pretty annoying.

          • the notion that history begins and ends in 2016 is getting pretty annoying.

            Yeah. History begins in 2016; but it won’t end until 2017!

            • Hogan

              And about fucking time.

              • N__B

                Some guy named Paul…or maybe Ringo…told me the end was coming soon 2000 fucking years ago.

                • JMP

                  Sorry, the Earth still has another 5 or 6 billion years to go.

        • LWA

          I think we should also have faith in our message, that the Republican programs like destroying Obamacare and Medicare really will hurt the working white class, and in immediately noticeable ways.
          “They took away your Medicare and health insurance!” is right now just a hypothetical and hypotheticals never beat immetiate gratification.
          But a year from now it will be a painful reality for that 3-5% of Rust belt white folks who will tip the balance, and I don’t think that “Now we can say Merry Christmas” is going to be as comforting as it is now.

          • Gizmo

            I really, really want to see Dem politicians and talking heads going after the R’s hammer and tongs on this stuff.

            The Republicans are on the wrong side side of every major issue when it comes to the needs of ordinary americans. The fact that the electorate doesn’t know that the Paul Ryan’s big dream is to kill social security and medicare is an embarrassment.

            Kansas is another missed opportunity – R’s have been prattling on about taxes and job creators for years, and they got their wish in Kansas. The result is an economic disaster that needs the be exhibit A anytime any R spouts off about economics.

            • efgoldman

              I really, really want to see Dem politicians and talking heads going after the R’s hammer and tongs on this stuff.

              RIGHT.
              FUCKING.
              NOW.
              EVERY.
              FUCKING.
              DAY.

              “Why does [Republiklown congressman] and {Granny Starver] want to take away YOUR Medicare and Social Security?”

              EVERY.
              FUCKING.
              DAY.

              • Gizmo

                As somebody who can see retirement over the next few hills (I’m going to be 50 before too long) and who worries about my retired parents, this stuff is getting pretty personal.

                These assholes want to steal what little retirement security I can look forward to. I’ve been paying into the system for decades, and now that I’m counting on it to be there for me they’re poised to burn it all down so that Paris Hilton can get a tax break.

                • efgoldman

                  this stuff is getting pretty personal.

                  As someone who’ll be 72 in June, and dependent on social security and medicare, AND who’s spouse gets medical insurance through the state ACA exchange, you’re fucking-a right it’s personal.

              • Michael Cain

                But Social Security and Medicare are not the issues where we lose them.

                We lose them when we (or at least some of us) say, “There’s no future in the rural economy; y’all need to go to college and move to the city.” We lose them when we say, “Spending large amounts of federal money to recover the Rust Belt cities needs to be a priority.” We lose them when we say, “The suburbs are a soul-sapping monstrosity that must be abandoned post haste.”

                • jim, some guy in iowa

                  it kind of works out that we have much the same problem FDR did: whether or not he wanted white southerners to have the power they did there was no New Deal without them

                • humanoid.panda

                  Um, when did “we” (if by we you mean Democratic office-holders) said any such thing? The notion circulating around the internet that the Clinton campaign was ran by and for 22 year old Brooklinytes is bizarre..

      • Derelict

        The reason to compete everywhere all the time is so that the Democratic message actually gets into people’s ears. There are way too many places in this country where the only things voters know about Democrats is what the local Republicans tell them. This leaves them convinced that Democrats want to confiscate all their hard-earned money and give to lazy Blacks while bringing in untold numbers of Mexicans and other Hispanics and exporting all our jobs to Mexico and China.

        Maybe if these voters heard from an actual Democrat, they’d stop believing all the stupid shit they’ve been told.

        • Gizmo

          Yes, more of this. We’re never going to win anything if voters don’t get the message. Yet another reason why you want to recruit candidates that can get noticed, and not establishment centrist types.

          Theres also the very real possibility that Republican candidates sometimes implode from crookedness, sleaze, or whatever. You need good candidates in place to take advantage of this.

        • efgoldman

          The reason to compete everywhere all the time is so that the Democratic message actually gets into people’s ears.

          Also to force RWNJ Republiklowns to expend resources – time and money – on defending themselves.

          • humanoid.panda

            To spend resources on races we will lose to force Republicans to spend resources on races they will win looks to me like a problematic proposition…

        • Phil Perspective

          The reason to compete everywhere all the time is so that the Democratic message actually gets into people’s ears. There are way too many places in this country where the only things voters know about Democrats is what the local Republicans tell them.

          Which is something the DNC, DSCC and DCCC doesn’t seem to get right now. It’s especially imperative to recruit Democrats, and not Romney voters(like the DCCC did in my district!!).

        • Aexia

          I like how it’s usually “WE HAVE TO COMPETE EVERYWHERE” but most of the post-election analysis from the alt-left has been “HILLARY SHOULD NEVER HAVE STEP FOOT OUTSIDE OF MI, PA, AND WI”

    • Brien Jackson

      And yet…Howard Dean was rejected out of hand. Weird!!!!

  • petesh

    Will no one here speak up for the beleaguered Dershowitz?

    • Derelict

      Anything that get Dershowitz out of the party gets my vote!

      • JL

        Yeah, this one sounded like a win-win to me (and apparently also to Yglesias, who I retweeted on the subject)!

    • guthrie

      Who is this Dershowitz fellow anyway? As a Briton, I’ve never heard of him.

      • Hogan

        Harvard Law professor who’s done some high-profile criminal defense work (Claus von Bulow, O. J. Simpson). He lost his shit after 9/11 and can still command NYT op-ed space any time he wants to advocate “ticking time bomb” torture or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, ‘cuz, you know, Harvard liberal.

        • efgoldman

          he wants to advocate “ticking time bomb” torture or ethnic cleansing of Palestinians, ‘cuz, you know, Harvard liberal.

          I’m surprised the thread got this far down before anybody (rightfully) slagged him.
          As a Bostonian, I saw and heard a lot more of him over the years than I liked to. I was sort of on the fence – until he became an open advocate of torture. As far as I’m concerned, he’s no better than Yoo. IANAL, but my feeling has been, both of them should be disbarred. Instead, they have tenured professorships at leading law schools.

      • JMP

        Basically, an advocate of genocide against Muslims. He’s vile.

      • Sentient AI from the Future

        I always get him confused with David Horowitz

    • lhartmann
  • JustinVC

    I agree that they are both an upgrade but I would support Perez. Mainly, because I think the DNC chair SHOULDN’T be an elected official. He should have one master – to the DNC. Someone like Ellison may have personal ambition – Senate, Governor, doesn’t have to be President – and may try to use the DNC Chair position to fulfill that ambition. I’d rather the DNC Chair be exclusively motivated by making the DNC better.

    • econoclast

      Why wouldn’t Perez have personal ambition? If anything, it would be a more helpful stepstone to Perez, who’s never held elective office and is probably less well-connected for fund-raising.

    • Warren Terra

      I’m not sure I agree with you about the DNC chief moonlighting (for one thing, I’m not sure it’s really a full time job), but it’s moot: Ellison says he’ll leave Congress if he gets the DNC job

  • ASV

    Is Ellison actually more valuable to the party as DNC chair than as a leader in the House? I’m skeptical on this, and I think in general this whole discussion has been extremely light on what any candidate would bring to the job (except for Dean, when he was in, because he has a previous record as chair).

    • tonycpsu

      Yes. Minority House members effectively have zero input into governing. He’s way more valuable at the DNC.

      • efgoldman

        He’s way more valuable at the DNC.

        And he’s likely to be replaced by another liberal Dem, if not necessarily a black or Muslim one.

  • Breadbaker

    So Ellison’s qualification as an elected official is exactly the “qualification” that Tim Kaine and Debbie Wasserman Schultz brought to the table. I don’t see that as a point in his favor. Perez, like Dean, would have a full time job. I know Ellison has made noises about leaving the House, but is that really a good move at this point?

    • Hogan

      The qualification is “experience as an elected official,” not “concurrent tenure as an elected official.” Dean had that.

    • ASV

      AFAICT, having previously won an election yourself isn’t especially common among chairs of either major party. Looks like a little less than half of 21st century chairs have done so.

    • EliHawk

      There are two obvious points in Ellison’s favor for this particular job: his experience as an elected official

      That’s actually not really an important prerequisite? Plenty of the best DNC Chairs, from Ron Brown to Bob Strauss on back, were old party ‘wise hands’ who had most of their prior experience as staffers and party builders. Elected officials, even those who don’t have full time jobs (like Kaine after 2009) aren’t exactly great shakes. It’s a different, mostly behind the scenes skill set. The next DNC Chair is all about raising money and building organizations and stuff behind the scenes. We can’t go get, say, someone from either of the two Obama campaigns, or a Harry Reid protege, or something? Having an increasingly bitter pissing contest mostly about things completely unrelated to what would actually be done in the job is a fitting final act for Progressivism in 2016 though.

      • Brien Jackson

        This would be my preference too but, ya know….

    • ProgressiveLiberal

      Everyone wants him to get the job but boy some of you sure are looking for a reason not to give it to him.

      PS. Obama’s choices have been stellar so far. Let’s ask him.

      • TopsyJane

        PS. Obama’s choices have been stellar so far. Let’s ask him.

        Not sure if you intended this ironically or not, but reports indicate that the White House doesn’t want Ellison, denials regardless.

        Obama has gone out of his way to praise Perez recently and Obama and Ellison have something of a history. You could argue that the WH, having done little to aid the DNC in the past decade, should just get out of the way.

  • paulgottlieb

    The loss of Alan Dershowitz, an outspoken torture fan, and a man who loudly celebrated the strafing of unarmed Lebanese women and children, is one the Democrats can surely celebrate. I fully expect to see Dershowitz and Giuiani sharing a platform in the near future where they try to out-scream each other in support of the final solution to the Muslim problem.

  • Sly

    But leaving aside the idiocy of defining a public official’s politics based on One True Issue — a process by which you can conclude that anyone is a heretic

    Or by which you can conclude that anyone is a saint as well. This is how a relatively milquetoast moderate governor from Vermont became the Last Scion of the Left – while his signature domestic policy issue was deficit reduction – just because he was the first candidate to say that Iraq War II wasn’t the best idea ever in a year when saying such things wasn’t what Very Serious People were saying.

    • Gizmo

      You have to go into an election with the chair you have, not the one that you wish you had.

      Give Dean some credit – he knew that Iraq II electric boogaloo was a disaster and said so publicly at a time when not many people in positions of power would do so. Furthermore, he also understood that the DNC was important, and did yeoman work with his 50 state strategy.

    • IM

      old tradition. In this way Gene McCarthy and Geroge McGovern and – very late on the antivietnam train – RFK turned themselves into icons of the left.

      George Romney tried too, but bungled it. (Not icon on the left, but first anti-vietnam republican.)

  • CrunchyFrog

    “I’m going to tell you right here on this show, and this is news – if they appoint Keith Ellison to be chairman of the Democratic Party, I will resign my membership to the Democratic Party after 50 years of being a loyal Democrat,” Dershowitz told the Fox Business Network.

    Dersh is as evil as the day is long – on June 21. His “membership” in the Dem party has allowed him to earn beaucoup bucks as an “eventheliberal” guest on Fox – just like his soulmate Lanny Davis. His opposition to Bush v. Gore counts only as a broken-clock-right-twice-a-day exception. He’s the guy who advocated for torture protocols after 9/11 (of course, only to be used against Muslims and anyone else who the Chosen Race considers inferior). He fully demonstrated his commitment to personal ethics in 1995.

    Get the fuck out Dersh. Go join your philosophical ex-Democratic brethren like Jessie Helms.

    • Scott Lemieux

      And, of course, this is why he’s never going to carry out his threat. A month after he stops calling himself a Democrat is when nobody has any reason to pretend to give a fuck what he thinks.

    • ThresherK (KadeKo)

      One of my questions re any “self-professed loyal Dem” who goes on FBN: Does a mainline liberal anywhere ever get to interview Dershowitz?

      I have a feeling the answer is “no”.

      PS Scott: Don’t we call that the Lieberman Attention Event Horizon?

  • AMK

    Perez ran a large organization with lots of moving parts in pursuit of core Dem priorities very effectively, and he’s not an elected official. He’s absolutely more qualified.

    • bernard

      Gee. Let’s pick the guy who is going to be better at what the job is about, instead of just palying political games.

      What a novel idea!

  • ProgressiveLiberal

    The clinton deadenders are against Ellison because they are still butthurt that they lost the general, and want to blame sanders instead of themselves, and ellison is seen as an extension of sanders.

    See? There is just as much evidence for this position as there is for the “sanders supporters can never be satisfied so why try” position. Anyone can make shit up.

    There is no reason not to give the job to Ellison but boy some people sure are trying to find one…

    • Brien Jackson

      Where are all these cites of people who are “against Ellison?”

      • ProgressiveLiberal

        http://www.politico.com/story/2016/11/keith-ellison-dnc-resistance-231575

        Oh, and who raised the “full time job” shit when DWS or Kaine was being picked? Anyone?

        • Brien Jackson

          That article is from weeks before Perez announced a candidacy. That’s the best you have?

          • ProgressiveLiberal

            No, it was the first google result. Is that the best you have?

            • humanoid.panda

              Oh, and who raised the “full time job” shit when DWS or Kaine was being picked? Anyone?

              1. The job of the DNC chair is very different under a Democratic president than under a Republican one.
              2. Even with this caveat, both Kaine and DWS were famously not focused enough on their jobs- which pissed of even the most NEOLIBERAL members of the GOP-LITE PARTY ELITE. Which is why the party elite demanded that candidates be full-time next time. Because MOER POSTAL BANKING is not the only lesson one can derive from defeats.

    • nemdam

      If the “Sanders supporters can never be satisfied” is a myth, why did his delegates try to boo Clinton during her DNC speech even after the party made tons of platform concessions and canned DWS?

      • Brien Jackson

        Hell, why do they get pissy when you point out how many concessions they got in drafting the platform?

        • ProgressiveLiberal

          Are you still this butthurt that you’re attacking the minority of a minority of sanders supporters?

          Get over it.

          • Brien Jackson

            See above statements about fucks given

            • ProgressiveLiberal

              lol passive aggressive much…THEY CAN NEVER BE SATISFIED BUT I DON’T CARE WHY AM I YELLING

          • JMP

            A: “Some Sanders dead-enders are still being super obnoxious”
            B: “NotAllSandersSupporters!”
            A: “I wasn’t talking about all Sanders supporters.”
            B: “How dare you attack all Sanders supporters!”
            A: “I wasn’t”
            B: “Are you still this butthurt that you’re attacking the minority of a minority of sanders supporters?”

            Grow the fuck up.

      • ProgressiveLiberal

        When I asked my wife why she doesn’t really like Clinton, she told me that it was because of how she treated Obama back in 2008.

        2008.

        You’re talking a out a convention at the end of a primary. Obama and Clinton treated each other worse, and there was no shortage of clinton supporters who swore they’d never vote for Obama.

        Everyone can find a few yahoos who are unsatisfiable. The gross majority of sanders supporters are not those people.

        • SNF

          My mother actually voted McCain in 2008 after supporting Hillary strongly in the primary, because she was angry about Obama winning the primary (she came around and voted for Obama in 2012 though).

          • ProgressiveLiberal

            BERNIEBRO!

        • nemdam

          This isn’t “a few yahoos who are unsatisfiable”. These are Bernie’s delegates at the national convention, the event where the party comes together and puts on a unified front to broadcast to the nation their vision for the country. It’s a very important event, and they booed Clinton during the most important speech of the convention. They also put up their no TPP signs even though Clinton had already come out against TPP like 9 months before and walked around with their mouths literally taped shut to supposedly show how the DNC was silencing them. This was after the Democrats gave Bernie a prime time speaking spot, gave him almost everything he wanted on the party platform, mostly adopted his free college tuition plan, and sacked DWS. If these aren’t enough concessions to get his diehard supporters to be a part of the team, nothing will satisfy them.

          In contrast to 2008, Clinton conceded and endorsed 4 days after the last primary without demanding any concessions and turned the PUMAs into a fringe so the convention wasn’t disrupted. Her supporters then all came around to supporting Obama. This is the difference between one candidate who has control of her supporters and one who lets his worst ones run amok.

          And honestly, why is it so important that Ellison become the chair anyway? Why are Berners so adamant that Democrats should, ironically, clear the field for him? Is it because of his policies, his organizing skills, his vision for taking on Trump? The only reason I see is that he was loyal to Bernie.

    • JMP

      Good job, you totally knocked over that man of straw!

  • anonymous

    Most people don’t care about DNC Chair. However many “Israel-first Jews” (meaning Israeli policy is a top issue) care that it shouldn’t go to Keith Ellison due to his pro Palestinian sentiments and things he said in the past on this issue.

    They may not be as outspoken or as well known as Dershowitz but they exist on large numbers. They are very progressive on domestic issues but very hawkish on Israel. I read the Forward from time to time and if you read the comments they exist.

    If Ellison is DNC Chair, it won’t be just Dershowitz that leaves. While they aren’t a majority, the numbers of progressive (on domestic policy) American Jews that are hawkish on complete support of Likudnik Israel, oppose the Iran deal, pro more West Bank settlements, anti two State solution is large.

    • SNF

      Is Ellison really the breaking point for them?

      I mean, if being ultra-hawkish on Israel is such a deal-breaking important issue for them, haven’t we already lost them because of the Iran deal and not vetoing that recent UN resolution?

      • humanoid.panda

        Yeah, I know that crowd and a)they are largely not all that progressive and b) left the party over Barack HUSSEIN Obama long time ago. Would there be a larger exit if Ellison reverts to the language he used in the 1990s? Yes. But he won’t ,because politicians change.

    • ProgressiveLiberal

      tl;dr:

      We have lost the south for a generation.

    • Phil Perspective

      However many “Israel-first Jews” (meaning Israeli policy is a top issue) care that it shouldn’t go to Keith Ellison due to his pro Palestinian sentiments and things he said in the past on this issue.

      Can you give me proof that Ellison is pro-Palestine? Or is it just that he’s not gung-ho like say Chuck Schumer. Face it, Israel-first clowns are racist. Just look at Haim Saban(who hated Obama long before this past week, funny enough).

    • JL

      They may not be as outspoken or as well known as Dershowitz but they exist on large numbers.

      Not that large. According to Election Day polling, only 9% of US Jews (across party, so not just among Jewish Dems) consider Israel a top-2 issue, and the majority want a two-state solution and want the US to push both sides to compromise. And only 27% wanted the US to veto that UN resolution that has people in such a tizzy right now.

      • JMP

        And the vast majority of Americans who are against a two-state solution and support the settlements built on land stolen from Palestinians are fundamentalist Christians, whose support of Likud policy in Israel is based on a belief that a mystical revenge fantasy against the Roman Empire literally predicts the future end of the world, that they want to happen.

    • AMK

      Chuck Schumer is the definition of the people you’re describing in the Democratic Party, and he backs Ellison. Most Israel hawks who are actually Democrats–as opposed to Deshowitz types who play them on TV–can be brought around if Ellison makes the right noises, which he has. Those who can’t have already left the Party.

    • JMP

      “While they aren’t a majority, the numbers of progressive (on domestic policy) American Jews that are hawkish on complete support of Likudnik Israel, oppose the Iran deal, pro more West Bank settlements, anti two State solution is large.”

      Really? Citation needed. Basically every liberal Jewish person I know opposes the apartheid in Israel. And quite frankly, the Democratic shouldn’t want to appease anyone who supports the completely vile oppression of the Palestinians by the Likud Party government.

      • humanoid.panda

        It’s complicated. Pretty much every Jewish liberal opposes the occupation. But a pretty small minority would accept that Zionism is a colonialist project, for example. Since Ellison holds the mainstream position, it shouldn’t be a problem for him.

  • SNF

    What I care about is who would be best at the job, although I have a slight preference for Ellison. Their skills at the job and their plans for how to run the party are most important, but people want to turn this into Hillary v. Bernie round 2 or a debate over the TPP.

    It seems silly that Ellison supporters are trying to make this ideological. If this is Hillary v. Bernie round 2, Perez will win easily, given the fact that party officials are the ones who vote in this (plus the fact that Hillary won in the actual primary anyway). The way for Ellison to win is to make it not a re-litigation of the primary.

    • Phil Perspective

      It seems silly that Ellison supporters are trying to make this ideological. If this is Hillary v. Bernie round 2, Perez will win easily, given the fact that party officials are the ones who vote in this (plus the fact that Hillary won in the actual primary anyway).

      Then they want to continue losing and holding meaningless titles. It’s worked for them the past 6 years though.

      • humanoid.panda

        The year 2012 didn’t happen. It is known.

    • Aexia

      I’ve long said that Sanders people going in hard for Ellison was the worst thing that could happen to his chair campaign. And I say this as someone who supports him for chair.

  • Woodrowfan

    Can we pick someone who never used email?

    • TopsyJane

      Bill Clinton e-mailed some during his White House years, but not since, I understand. Problem solved!

    • After this election, I’m legitimately considering making a New Year’s resolution never to send another email for the rest of my life.

      • CrunchyFrog

        10 years ago I was given advice by a smart, albeit evil, top executive: never send any email that you would not want forwarded to the world.

        This is hard advice to follow, and I haven’t always, but I have followed it more closely with time. It is really best if you can find a way to do that.

        Texts and IMs too.

        • Downpuppy

          At this point, it’s just common sense to assume that the person you’d least like to read something, will.

      • Mr. Rogers

        Would that be a “New York Times Years Resolution”, just to make it clear whose attentions you’d be avoiding?

    • humanoid.panda

      Seriously though “how will you make the DNC systems and anything associated with them the gold standard of cyber-security” is a more important aspect of the DNC Chair job than anything discussed in the public sphere.

      • econoclast

        Every class on cybersecurity should make “hacking the DNC” a homework problem.

It is main inner container footer text