Ellison adds more congressional endorsements in DNC bid

[portlander23]

Ellison adds more congressional endorsements in DNC bid
DANIEL STRAUSS
Politico

Reps. John Lewis, Luis Gutierrez and Tulsi Gabbard, a former DNC vice chair, as well as Sen. Martin Heinrich, endorsed the Minnesota congressman, Ellison's office announced.

The announcement adds to the growing list of congressional endorsements Ellison has already received. Gabbard, like Ellison, was one of the few members of Congress who backed Sen. Bernie Sanders' 2016 presidential bid. Lewis, Gutierrez and Heinrich all supported Clinton in the Democratic primary.

Ellison has already been endorsed by Rep. Raul Grijalva, Sen. Chuck Schumer and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, among others. On Thursday, the AFL-CIO also announced its endorsement of Ellison.

The show of support comes as Ellison fights off skepticism from rank-and-file DNC committee members that Ellison would not be able to serve as DNC chair and also as a member of Congress. On Wednesday Ellison announced that he would step down from his congressional seat if he won the race for DNC chair.

[ZoomBubba]

1. I really hope Perez ...

... steps up. I don't see Ellison heading the DNC as being good for us. With him the party is going to have to fend off accusations of anti-semitism and try to downplay his past ties to the Nation of Islam. Plus, him being a Muslim will also be a source of contention which can be used against us, especially if he is called on to condemn every terrorist attack and every extremist message ... something that could lead to deliberate misinterpretations by the rightwing news, which will in turn result in even more energy being used to defend him.

He may have good ideas and leadership ability, but I don't see him being the right leader for us at this time. We have to put someone out there that can't be used by the right to say "Democrat," "Muslim" and "Terrorism" in the same sentence. It's not the way things should be, but it's the way things are. I want to win 2018, but I'm afraid having Ellison lead the charge will result in the exact opposite happening ... remember, we're being challenged for a lot of Senate seats in states that went heavily for Trump ... we have 23 seats up, Republicans only have eight. Ellison at the head of the DNC would make us an even easier target for fear-mongering propaganda in 2018, which could mean going from gaining two seats this year to losing at least twice that in two years.

I'm not saying this to be anti-Ellison, or anti-Muslim just to clarify. I just think that realistically, it's something we need to consider.

[portlander23]

2. Having a muslim in charge of the DNC is scary

Just like having a president named Barack Hussein Obama.

Except it turns out that Democrats aren't scared of that.

[ZoomBubba]

4. I think you miss the point ...

... it's irrelevant if the Democrats are scared or not. I don't think you comprehended my post.

The question is, will Ellison be more of a distraction than a leader? Are we going to avoid making his past statements and ties, which have already garnered a lot of negative attention, an issue in the 2018 election? Obama didn't come to the defense of Farrakhan or make statements that could be construed as anti-Israel. Ellison has and to think that we won't be hammered on it in 2018 is ridiculous. I don't want the party to spend time coming to the defense of its chair. I want it to focus on winning, and I think Ellison could be a major distraction from that.

[portlander23]

5. I got your point fine

[ZoomBubba]

6. So, where's your issue then?

Maybe tell me how none of those things should be considered potential detriments to winning in 2018 then?

[Gore1FL]

7. Do we pick a DNC chair using our values or the alt-right's? nt

[ZoomBubba]

8. It's got nothing to do with values ...

... and everything to do with winning in 2018. Would you rather do the "right thing" and lose or the pragmatic thing and win? One misstep and we can go to less than 40 members in the Senate that year. I consider Ellison a misstep because the GOP and alt-right media will be able to hammer him for his stances on Israel and his defense of the Nation of Islam ... and any other insinuation they can tie to him, especially when terrorism happens.

The focus should be on winning, no matter what the cost. In 2018 we're facing a potentially disastrous year and we don't need to hand them ammo. It's time to think strategically, not to do what makes us feel good about ourselves.

[Gore1FL]

10. Whose votes are we going for?

We've compromised already to win "no matter the cost." The Democrats have moved to the 1970s GOP and we haven't won.

"Given the choice between a Republican and someone who acts like a Republican, people will vote for the real Republican all the time." --Harry S Truman

[ZoomBubba]

11. The Democrats have done no such thing.

We're more progressive than ever.

Anyway, why are you asking a question that is irrelevant? It's less important "who" than "how many." We can figure out "who" later ... but I'd say those people that voted for Obama that switched to Trump or hated both candidates and voted for neither. But why does "who" even matter in regards to Ellison? Like it or not, even the most liberal Americans will be reluctant to support someone who has been supportive of Farrakhan and said the word "zionism" in a negative light in regards to Israel.

Tell me how Ellison won't be a distraction. Do you really think it will be good for the party going into 2018 with his past comments being plastered across TV and every website? It's something we don't need to deal with going into the next election. If you're fine with losing, then go ahead and support him.

[Gore1FL]

14. We just nominated a DLC president and DLC vice president who lost the electoral vote

We shifted to the right after Reagan, and we seem to edge more and more that way every election. When a fight comes up, we slink into a corner and hope no one hurts us. I see not having someone as DNC chair because of religion, we are amplifying and exacerbating ever mistake of the last 30 years.

[Ken Burch]

13. No voters anywhere will reward us for rejecting Keith Ellison.

Voters who are paranoid about Muslims don't agree with us about anything.

[ZoomBubba]

15. Remove that ...

... and you still have a DNC chair who has been linked to an anti-semitic group and has criticized Israel in a way to make a large group of even Democrats, very queasy. There's no getting around that his past will be a distraction and that's the last thing we need right now.

[Ken Burch]

16. If we don't pick Keith, we'll just end up with someone who will preserve the status quo

Who will keep the Wall Street donors and the unwillingness to challenge corporate power. That's what you're really looking for.

And it's been proven that Keith isn't an antisemite.

As to Israel, he accepts and supports its existence...what more do you need?

[ZoomBubba]

17. Corporations and Wall Street are facts of life ...

... they are a necessary part of the coalition. I'd rather bring more of them in than drive them away. It's very pragmatic considering how things work.

It's pretty irrelevant whether Ellison has been proven not to be an anti-semite or not. Trying to argue the truth is a distraction as are his defenses of Louis Farrakhan. We're talking about the real world here, not the way things ought to be.

[Ken Burch]

18. They gave us huge donations, but the donations didn't translate into votes

If donations don't get you elected, what good are they?

Those donations have also pushed us towards priorities that are intrinsically at odds with what we're supposed to be about as a party-a fixation with "the deficit", a continued push for "entitlement reform&quot i.e., dismantling the last vestiges of the New Deal and leaving nothing in their place), an indifference to the need to grow the labor movement in this country in order to help working people defend their rights.

And they've pushed us towards a weirdly bifurcated form of liberalism-a liberalism where we defend rights, but are totally indifferent to living standard questions(we are fine now as a party with continuing massive cuts in social services, continued perpetual increases in the costs of higher education, continued wage cuts and outsourcing, and the abandonment of any serious effort to eradicate poverty-a thing that simply shouldn't exist in a land of great wealth).

Our attitude towards business should be "It's a part of life-but it's not more important than everyone and everything else IN life. And it doesn't need or deserve special deference from us"

[ZoomBubba]

20. It's not just about donations ...

... businesses and corporations are key to the American economy. If we adopt policies that make them leave or break them, then we're worse off.

[Ken Burch]

12. People who distrust Muslims aren't going to vote Democratic anyway.

Everyone who is like that is down-the-line right wing on all issues.

[spanone]

3. good for keith

[Jake Stern]

9. Need proof Trump and the right have taken the narrative?

Just look at how many D's are too scared to give a Muslim a leadership position because of some past statements.

Ted Kennedy was involved in the death of someone and he was hammered HARD for it and yet Dems still stuck by him.

Bill Clinton may well have forced himself on at least one woman and was a serial philanderer and was mercilessly hounded for it yet Dems still stuck by him.

John Kerry made what could be construed as anti-military and possibly seditious statements during his time protesting the Vietnam War and they were looped 24/7 during his campaign yet Dems still stuck by him.

Barack Obama's pastor made incendiary remarks that can be see as very un-American, Obama didn't repudiate them until the press basically forced him to and he was flogged day and night with them during his campaign yet Dems still stuck by him.

With all these example of the Dems "standing by their man" why are they all of a sudden queasy over Rep. Ellison's past?

[Willie Pep]

19. I wanted Howard Dean back but he dropped out.

Ellison seems good too. Whoever gets the DNC chair needs to go back to the 50-state strategy. We are becoming a regional party and that is not good.