DNC chairman aims for diversity with delegate nominations

[DonViejo]

BY JONATHAN EASLEY - 10/17/17 10:34 PM EDT

Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Tom Perez has nominated 75 people to become new at-large DNC members, including a transgender woman and a woman protected under the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, according to a list obtained by The Hill.

In an email sent to DNC members on Tuesday ahead of this week’s DNC gathering in Las Vegas, Perez unveiled his slate of new nominees with the aim of building a party that the new chairman hopes will draw a distinction between his priorities and those of President Trump.

A Democratic source told The Hill that Perez’s nominees would double the number of millennials and Native Americans currently represented at the DNC. It will also increase the DNC’s LGBT presence and representation from Puerto Ricans, at a time when Trump has been criticized for his response to the hurricane that has devastated the island territory.

Perez’s delegate slate also includes Ellie Perez, a so-called Dreamer — an immigrant brought to the U.S. without legal permission as a child — from Arizona, and Marisa Richmond, a transgender African-American woman. If Perez’s slate of delegates is approved, it would bring the total number of unions represented by at-large DNC members to 21, which the source said was the highest mark in years.

more
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/355954-dnc-chairman-aims-for-diversity-with-delegate-nominations

[SunSeeker]

1. Thank you for posting the facts.

Perez is doing a good job.

[murielm99]

2. Thank you for a nice, informative article,

rather than one suggesting false divisions.

Perez sounds like he is doing a good job.

[Wwcd]

3. I like the "everyone gets a voice" approach.

This is the Democratic Party I have always known.

The strength of all citizens is built from this point forward.
All are free to step up and help build on the basic elements of the Party of everyone.
Participate, vote & rebuild better, what years of Right Wing corruption of policy exclusivity has stripped away.

Participate. Vote. Rebuild.

The Democratic Party & its many unique voices is a mighty force that will break the GOP in 2018/2020 and beyond.
#NeverAgain

This is so exciting to read. Thanks for the encouraging post 🍃

[Me.]

57. I Quite Agree

and welcome to DU

[Wwcd]

59. Hello & thanks. I'm finding some smart, aware & friendly ppl here.

Great that Democrats have a place to gather without the oppos like some other sites & blogs.

It has always been the Democratic party who has stepped up to repair the damage & division of Republican corruption.
Always. Its truly the people's party

[Me.]

62. You Are So Right

"It has always been the Democratic party who has stepped up to repair the damage & division of Republican corruption"

And just like after 45 there is going to be a huge mess to clean up, but bigger. And yes it is the people's party, all of them which includes you so stick around.

[Mediumsizedhand]

71. Its truly the people's party

It always has been and is today. To bad some were allowed to derail the reality of the Democratic Party thru social media and Russian help.

[Hortensis]

129. Yes. :) Planned increased representation by millennials is

especially good to hear. They're not only the largest generational bloc now, but by far the most diverse and most comfortably inclusive. And they're growing out of adolescence into full adulthood by the many millions every year, a big plus to someone my age, , not least because it also means more will be voting more reliably.

[Wwcd]

136. Indeed. And THESE young people were also becoming aware, some 40+ years ago

*Where they took that awareness is also the story.

Every generation has its moment of awareness about the world & political impact on their lives & future.

1969.
There were no computers & cell phones .
Social media was word-of-mouth, and college campuses were the center of information for music concerts, political unrest that lead to change & tho there was plenty of infighting as to ideas & what direction theirvcause took, it was effective & massive.

To effect change, it was necessary to get up, get out & join together.

Tho different in its method, that mission of past generations was much the same as millennials & youth today.
The gen of the 60's/70's was moved by the messegers of music.

The gen had it right but were viewed by the capitalists as 'ripr for the taking'. They saw half a million potential buyers, to be exploited. There was more to be sold to this group besides rolling papers & albums.
They were potential buyers of everything from clothing, cars, college educations, & political slicksters promising more than they would ever deliver, but they could be easily exploited if the ads played to their young "concientiosness".

To those who carry the torch & hand it someday to the next gen, I add a cautionary, "buyer beware".

From Human Rights to Vietnam, know who has your back & who will readily exploit you for their own motive. $$
Study History. Love. Stand. Sit. Kneel, For those who went before you & especially for those who will follow you someday.


http://woodstockwitness.com

http://woodstockwitness.com/bzlevine 001.jpg



"There were surprisingly few episodes of violence, though one teenager was accidentally run over and killed by a tractor and another died from a drug overdose. A number of musicians performed songs expressing their opposition to the Vietnam War, a sentiment that was enthusiastically shared by the vast majority of the audience. Later, the term “Woodstock Nation” would be used as a general term to describe the youth counterculture of the 1960s."

http://www.bethelwoodscenter.org/the-museum/the-sixties

[Hortensis]

142. Yes, that was my generation too. I was in Nevada in high

school, everyone knew all the guys' draft numbers and who would go and who probably would not, and restlessness was in the air. Berkeley only a morning's drive but, for kids, a frustrating world away.

I married and had children young, though, so we weren't all that seduced by rampant consumerism. Too cashed out the first decade, older and wiser after. Radical acquaintances who once railed tiresomely about violent revolution and looking forward to "killing a senator" probably either self destructed or settled down. For us it was the need to provide a home for and raise our children that slotted us into comfortable conformity and caused us to lose touch with good friends who truly did want to head off grid. Miss one couple in particular to this day. Googling turns up no trace.

But I'm not at all sure that for typical counterculture liberals like us more realistic versions of ideals of that era aren't also still alive inside, even if those once enthralled have a much better idea of what a life of subsistence farming would be. Certainly the music still lives, and we keep hearing about retirees who finally take that opportunity to live the lives and, for some special people, do the meaningful work they once dreamed of.

As for those farther left.... I've often thought that today's "revolutionaries" revolutionarily demanding repeal and replace of the ACA with single-payer are a pretty pathetic shadow of those we knew in the 60s and 70s. For those who survived those days, maybe they're searching flea markets for collectible records these days. And, now that I think about it, for sure railing about Democrats. Hard to imagine that much change, even if hair is white now.

[eppur_se_muova]

4. Thanks for posting this. Was just browsing the other thread when it was locked.

Definitely a different take.

[Mediumsizedhand]

5. Amazing the difference using this as an attack against Dems and simply laying out a story factually.

[Ken Burch]

20. Criticism of something someone in the party does is not "an attack against Dems".

It can't lead to anything progressive, and it can't lead to an electoral comeback, to say "we will just unquestioningly support whatever anybody in the party leadership says we should do".

[Mediumsizedhand]

24. Criticism lacking fact equals, bad. We see too much and this is a perfect example.

[Ken Burch]

28. Look, nobody on this side of the spectrum dismisses the need for diversity.

The fear is that the party leadership sees it as diversity to y put people in from a variety of groups, but all with safe, polite, conventional middle-of-the road sensibilities. I think that's what Bernie, in his horribly badly-worded way, was trying to warn about. He failed in his communication because he sounded like he was equating diversity with tokenism and he should have run his speech by somebody else before he gave it or probably not given it at all. But there's a valid worry there.

I'll give you a hypothetical: If you have a group of people from a variety of ethnic, racial, cultural and religious backgrounds, but they all share essentially the same views about the major questions of the day, if they share the same basic notions about how life should be run, what our role should be in the world, who should have the say, how diverse IS that diversity?

What some of us would argue is that it is as important to have a fiery, challenging "outsider" sensibility in these positions, a sense of greater connection with the powerless and with the need to push for real change from below. I hope the new appointees will bring THAT kind of diversity. This is their chance.

[Mediumsizedhand]

29. Look, I disagree. I have watched and continue to watch the effort to put some aside.

The Democratic base will not go for it. We didn't in the past. We will not today. You can tell me until you are blue in the face it is not happening. I call bullshit. We know. We see. We will not allow. That simple.

[Ken Burch]

32. What do you mean when you say "the effort to put some aside"?

And I don't follow what you think I'm claiming is "not happening", and I'd like to be sure I understand what you're saying.

Nobody is against diversity. The diversity needs to have a left rather than a centrist sensibility is all I'm saying.

[Mediumsizedhand]

36. I am referring to your claim that this side is not putting diversity to the side. I argue that point

I hold the position I initially posted.

[Ken Burch]

56. We are all for diversity and we all support the fight against social oppression.

There's no dispute on that in this party.

[Mediumsizedhand]

65. I call bullshit to gaslighting.

[Ken Burch]

70. And I don't gaslight. I don't have power over you and I don't have the capacity

to mess with your or anyone else's mind.

It's enough that I said I hope it works out.

[Mediumsizedhand]

73. You are right. You do not have that ability which is the theme of my posts, repeatedly.

[Ken Burch]

80. If you accept that I wasn't even trying to gaslight you

that is a relief.

We need diversity. I've always said that.

And I said I hope this works out.

What more do you need from me?

[Mediumsizedhand]

81. I do not "need"anything from you, lol. You put out division and then step back. I do not play.

[Ken Burch]

82. I didn't put out division.

It's not division simply to question something.

And I've modified some of my opinions on this on hearing some more detailed answers.

You question things you don't like when the party does them, and rightfully so. So does everyone who ever posts here and everyone whoever works for the Democratic Party You never just shut up and do what you're told, and I respect you for that and none of the rest of us should have to.

The only way to work for progressive change is to speak up and to question. It's never progressive to just fall in line.

[NurseJackie]

93. Correct...

... and thank you.

[Eliot Rosewater]

203. Finally, someone describes it in words that make sense, I have been trying to do that, well done

[ehrnst]

179. THANK YOU! (nt)

[ehrnst]

178. Not when issues that involve POC, women and LGBTQs are dismissed as

"identity politics."

[Ken Burch]

199. It was one former candidate who said that.

His supporters and former supporters can't be held responsible for that comment.

There was never a difference between the supporters of either primary candidate on any of those issues.

[Mediumsizedhand]

201. A former candidate that is posturing himself for a future run. It matters to us, the Democratic base

[Ken Burch]

207. OK, so put it on Bernie, as an individual.

That would be legitimate.

Treating everybody who ever supported the guy as though THEY can't be trusted not to be bigots serves no purpose.

And so long as we all, as grassroots activists, support social justice(and WE DO)nobody should be treated as though simply saying the words "economic justice" means that that person is a closet segregationist or something.

Made the distinction between the supporters and the politicians here.

[Mediumsizedhand]

210. Incorrect. we hear the language today. That is what we are addressing, today.

You want us to pretend what we hear and see is not there. That is my point calling out gaslighting. That would be the definition and what we are opposing and calling out, loudly. We will continue to do this. The Democratic base is made up of those fighting for social justice. That would be your liberal self that Sanders insists he is not and his supporters are good with it. We were told to hush up in the past, and are being told to hush up now. No.

[Ken Burch]

214. I'm not telling you to hush up.

Instead, I'd simply suggest THIS course of action:

1)Don't force people to renounce Bernie to prove they are liberal(his supporters are as strong personally on social justice issues as you are-none of them are saying that racism doesn't matter). It doesn't help you to assume that his supporters share the shortcomings you see in him or are cool with those shortcomings;

2)While giving those supporters the benefit of the doubt, call on them to push him in the direction you seek(a direction I join you in seeking)

3)Start looking for a candidate who is as strong on social justice issues as you and I want, and also strong on economic justice issues. You were persuaded in '16 that there had to be a choice between those things-they are distinct justice struggles, but they are relate, they do intersect, and the path forward is to find an intersectional candidate. There was no intersectional candidate in '16. There was one candidate perceived as privileging economic justice and believing that social justice was a secondary concern-though it's not clear that that is what that candidate actually felt; there was another candidate who was perceived as centering social justice while treating economic justice as a secondary concern;

[Mediumsizedhand]

215. This Op was DNC and a faction attacking DNC. I do not need your help on how to maneuver my political

stance.

The Op clearly shows how a faction used this to attack Democrats. I was challenging the attack.

[ehrnst]

217. +1000. (nt)

[ehrnst]

218. Straw man.

No one here is "treated as though simply saying the words "economic justice" means that that person is a closet segregationist or something."

[Ken Burch]

219. That is the response I've seen every time anybody mentions the words.

Even mentioning the words "economic justice" is always taken as code for "Bernie in '20", and as code for "social justice doesn't matter-don't talk about racism, sexism, homophobia/transphobia and choice".

There's an insistent implication that we can be for economic justice, OR social justice, but for some reason we can never be truly for BOTH.

Whatever anybody thinks about any particular public figures in or near the party, what purpose is served by hanging on to those assumptions?

And by assuming that supporters(or past supporters) of any particular public figure on the progressive side of politics can't be assumed to be trustworthy THEMSELVES on that issue?

If folks are going to say "don't refight the primaries&quot which is a fair and proper and logical request, given that the primaries were settled over a year ago), they need to stop using the worst and most unnecessary talking points from those primaries. They need to accept that, wherever the candidates were, the supporters of both major candidates are UNITED in backing a passionately anti-oppression, anti-institutional bigotry position, and move past this "you're NOT on our side!" thing.

And the best way to make sure that candidates from 2016 who some find objectionable do NOT run again is to make sure that there are people in the 2020 race who represent the best of what each of those former candidates were about while avoiding what was objectionable about any former candidate-in this case, find a candidate who embraces social justice AND economic justice, and who admits that we don't need to CHOOSE between those two things.

[ehrnst]

233. No. It gets mentioned whenever there is hyperbole that was not

part of the post that is being responded to.

Ironically, your post is yet another straw man.

Description: Substituting a person’s actual position or argument with a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of the position of the argument.

Logical Form:

Person 1 makes claim Y.
Person 2 restates person 1’s claim (in a distorted way).
Person 2 attacks the distorted version of the claim.
Therefore, claim Y is false.

Is that clearer?

[Ken Burch]

234. No straw man. I'll narrow it down...it was the response I got to all the post-election OPs.

The implication was made over and over that I was campaigning for Bernie, when it was obvious that I wasn't; that I was calling for the party to put anti-oppression issues on the back burner when I've never done that and never would; that I was refighting the primaries when the very concept was obviously a moot point and when I'd proved I accepted HRC's nomination by campaigning for her in the fall.

What I was doing was putting out ideas to get us past the duality. I wasn't supporting or attacking anyone or anyone's supporters. Yet I received endless, relentless abuse for what was nothing but a positive effort, accusations of dishonesty and a hidden agenda and of party disloyalty-all to stop me saying...what? That there should be a sincere effort to find common ground? That we need people who worked for both 2016 candidates and we need the ideas both campaigns represented? That it was and is possible to support more than one justice struggle? What was it in any of that that was intolerable?

And no...the incidents you were referring to were not hyperbole. The "you're not on our side" thing was hauled out on many occasions when people said nothing but "why can't we just support BOTH kinds of justice?"

[ehrnst]

235. I think you need to re-read the posts you are referring to.

[Ken Burch]

236. I know what the posts I wrote said.

n/t.

[ehrnst]

237. Doesn't sound like it. (nt)

[Ken Burch]

239. They were nothing but positive suggestions for change.

At most, they said that some mistakes had been made in the fall campaign-but there's nothing insidious in that, and made some polite, respectful suggestions about what might be done differently in the future.

We had a campaign where things didn't go our way. What was so terrible about admitting that, while we had an exceptional candidate, the effort made in the fall on her behalf was not flawless? What I said was written as much as anything else in grief and sadness that that candidate is not our president.

I posted because I wish that she was president...NOT that I don't accept that she was nominee.

And I was posting solely as myself...NOT as a part of anything orchestrated by any group.

Why was THAT, of all things, so hard to accept?

Why couldn't people just give me the benefit of the doubt?

[ehrnst]

240. I read what you posted, and commented on it.

I saw a straw man. More than once.

[betsuni]

38. Sounds like you're going to post "The Party is Always Right" song again.

[Mediumsizedhand]

39. I am done with that. I am done with the coddling. Done. Some refuses to learn from the past.

[betsuni]

41. For some, diversity apparently means angry, impolite "street level" radicals who think Democrats

are centrist establishment conservatives.

[Mediumsizedhand]

42. What I feel, adamantly, is some people telling me what is happening, is not happening.

I refuse to allow people to gaslight me. I have had it for a lifetime. No, not allowed.

[betsuni]

43. Yes, the gas is turned up real high.

[Mediumsizedhand]

47. I am hoping we are seeing the Democratic Party taking a stand too.

[Ken Burch]

48. I'm not gaslighting you.

And at the end of the post I expressed hope that the new appointees would do well.

[Mediumsizedhand]

49. I do not really care about your end result. I do care about the effort to once again, trashing the

Democratic Party. And needlessly. With out fact or substantial perspective.

[Ken Burch]

54. There are a lot of people who had issues with the personnel thing.

It's not as though this wouldn't have been discussed here if I hadn't mentioned it. It's not trashing just to question something and I based what I said on what I read from MSN, a basically mainstream liberal source.

We can't be a strong party or a popular party if we can't have debate and discussion.

[Mediumsizedhand]

66. As we clearly see, it was presented for some to cause controversy that wasn't there. I oppose.

[Eliot Rosewater]

204. Yep, sure was.

[Demsrule86]

183. Mostly, these are people who cannot accept 16...and are bitter..those who hated the

Democratic nominee in 16. They pounce on every little thing...if nothing is available, they turn to the 'Democrats are not doing enough to Fill IN The Blank. There is always something wrong with Democrats in these folks minds. Nothing can be done about this. And the reality is they support Trump and the Republicans with their constant carping...the sad truth is they hate the Democratic Party more than Trump and the Republicans. They don't care about policy but use it as a stick to beat Democrats with and are completely useless in our efforts to win elections.

[Ken Burch]

206. I have personally proved that I accept '16.

Anyone who campaigned for the ticket in the fall proved that.

And nothing that's happening right now in the party has anything to do with what people think about Hillary.

The primaries did not mean that the debate over where we stand as a party or what tactics we use in the future is over. And so long as the discussion is carried on with respect and tact, what is the harm of open debate?

And as to Hillary...she's not going to run again, so, while she should be considered an elder statesperson(in the best sense) in this party, what exactly does that mean? Are we supposed to treat her like she's the leader of the opposition? Are we supposed to give her the final say as to what we continue to be about? She should be one voice, one important voice...but how far does that go?

And is it fair to equate ANY calls for change in what we stand for, or how we fight elections, with a call to stop opposing institutional bigotry? Even though none of us in the rank and file, no matter who we might have supported in 2016 are saying that bigotry is trivial or doesn't matter? Even though none of us are saying we shouldn't address it or address it less than we currently do?

Why can't everybody just work from the assumption that Dem and progressive activists, no matter which side they were on in the primaries, no matter what any former candidates say, are united in opposing racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and xenophobia? Why can't there just be an acceptance that everybody on the left is together on this? What purpose is served by this continual "you're not on our SIDE" thing? How, in any way at all, does that help?

[Mediumsizedhand]

211. I will repeat my point this once, for you. Sanders is posturing for a future run.

That is what we address. All the rest of your post doesn't really matter because it has nothing to do with what I and others are discussing.

We will not unsee, or unhear what is being said.

Reality.

[Ken Burch]

213. Then it's enough to put it on him as an individual.

I've repeatedly said I don't think he SHOULD run.

Here's my take as one person, someone who isn't backing any candidate at this point and doesn't plan to back anybody for a while to come:

I get it that you have issues with Bernie-I have some of my own at this point.

If you really want to stop Bernie running(my own guess is that, deep down, he'd rather not run)find a candidate who would run on social and economic justice...the best of both '16 campaigns.

Bernie would almost certainly stay out of a candidate like that appeared-or if the party just got to a consensus place in which that combination would be the basis of any possible Dem campaign.

Why not focus on that approach, rather than on making everything about one person, one POSSIBLE candidate?

[Mediumsizedhand]

216. My conversation isnt about you. It is about the divisiveness being created for the Democratic Party.

I will address it as I see fit.

[ehrnst]

238. +1000 (nt)

[Demsrule86]

220. I have no doubt he is posturing for another run...but he won't win a primary...I hope he does not

cause division and elect the GOP... but I can only control what I do...I will work for a candidate who is not Sen. Sanders and will not vote for him...unless (despite my firm belief he won't) he became the Democratic nominee. I would always vote for the Democratic candidate...I would hope the Democratic party has learned that non-Democrats should not run in our primaries.

[Mediumsizedhand]

222. I am right there with every thing you said.

[Ken Burch]

52. I am as much of a Democrat as you are.

And I said nothing about Democrats as a totality.

What is your problem with street level activists? That category includes a lot of POC, a lot of LGBTQ people, a lot of women-in fact most of the people I'm thinking of are in some or all of those groups.

I hope the new appointees are good.

[Ken Burch]

45. No. And I admitted that was a stupid thing to do, so why are you still mad about it?

n/t.

[betsuni]

51. Oh right, that was in The Apologies of Ken, Volume Two.

[Ken Burch]

53. I apologize when I make a mistake. People make mistakes.

Would you rather that nobody admitted error?

Are you a totally flawless person?

I meant it when I apologized. And there were only two or three things I ever needed to do that for.

I've never posted anything here that merits a lifetime grudge on your part-nor anything that did the party harm in any election campaign.

[stevenleser]

78. You have made another one with this issue. See Mrs. Coffee's #25 below.

Time for another apology.

[Ken Burch]

79. No I haven't. It's enough that I've said I hope it works out well.

And I initially said nothing other than what a lot of other people of good will said on the initial news.

What is supposed to happen? Are we all supposed to just unquestioningly support and defend anything our party leaders do?

It's not like pressuring people to shut up and get in line can gain us votes.

[betsuni]

92. Oh wait, suddenly now it's okay to be flawed and make mistakes?

"lifetime grudge"

[Ken Burch]

150. I've never demanded flawlessness.

I have some standards in what I expect from people, but I've spent most of my life campaigning for people who were far from perfect.

If this is about Hillary, I campaigned for her in the fall and nothing I said about her or anyone else was ever a demand for the impossible.

What do you want from me?

It's not my fault that we had the result in November.

[Me.]

58. Support Is Always More Progressive

than naysaying when people are trying to come together to effect change. Balance must be struck so that we do not go backward instead of forward.

[Ken Burch]

63. There's nothing that's being done that people need to be hardballed into accepting.

Nobody needs to be "put in their place" for us to win.

[Me.]

64. No One Is

Where on earth do you get that

[Mediumsizedhand]

69. I am so done with being told I really do not see what is in front of my face. I agree with you.

[Me.]

72. Too Much Of That Lately From All KInds Of People

[Mediumsizedhand]

74. Yes.

[Mediumsizedhand]

68. Exactly.

[Ken Burch]

208. The support comes in the form of working to elect the candidates.

We're all going to do that.

[Demsrule86]

182. Yes...if we say we will unquestioningly vote for the Democrat...it will lead to an electoral

comeback...if we nitpick and complain about every little thing....it means we discourage voters and then continue losing while folks with views like yours wring your hands and talk about tweaking the ' message' while waiting for a savior...we are our own saviors. Put aside the differences and let's start winning. This sort of stupid fight about the DNC has already had a negative effect on the electorate. Putting the Democratic down...as a 'bad' or an 'unworthy' party sure as hell didn't help in 16, and it won't help moving forward.

[Mediumsizedhand]

190. I agree.

[Wounded Bear]

6. Sounds good to me...

[sheshe2]

7. Diversity is something Democrats have always stood for.

Thank you so much for this, Don.

[markpkessinger]

8. "Diversity" achieved entirely at the expense of the Sanders/Ellison wing of the party

Diversity in every respect except thought, apparently. From Vanity Fair:

D.N.C. Chair Purges Dissenters in Surprise Shake-Up
Sanders loyalists and Ellison supporters were among the officials ousted amid an ongoing intra-party feud.

by Abigail Tracy

The Republican Party isn’t the only political establishment in shambles following the shock election of Donald Trump last fall. In a move that exacerbated the vast intra-party rift exposed during last year’s presidential primary between Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, Democratic National Committee Chairman Tom Perez has stripped a number of longtime party officials of their “at-large” delegate status or leadership positions, while appointing a slate of 75 new members that include Clinton campaign veterans, lobbyists, and neophytes.

Perez revealed his picks this week, ahead of the D.N.C.’s first meeting since he was elected chairman. Upon perusing it, progressive party members were incensed to find that he had demoted a number of veteran delegates who’d backed either Minnesota Congressman Keith Ellison in his bid for party chairman against Perez, or Sanders in 2016. (Ellison, who now serves as Perez’s deputy, was widely viewed as a proxy candidate for the more liberal, Sanders wing of the party.) Those ousted include Ray Buckley, James Zogby, Alice Germond, and Barbara Casbar Siperstein, NBC News reports. “I’m concerned about the optics, and I’m concerned about the impact,” Zogby said of the D.N.C. shake-up. “I want to heal the wound of 2016.”

Germond, too, noted that the move does not bode well for the party’s quest to unify its progressive and establishment wings. “It is quite unusual for a former party officer who has been serving on the D.N.C. for forever to just be left out in the cold without even a call from the chairman," she told NBC News. “So I assumed it had something to do with [my] support for Keith. . . . I understand that I fought very hard for Keith Ellison. And I understand that to the winners go the spoils.” In a statement to NBC News, Karthik Ganapathy, a spokesperson for Ellison, said, “Keith suggested names for D.N.C. at-large membership and committees. Some were selected and some were not. In the end, the selections are the prerogative of the chair.”

To add insult to injury, Perez also tapped several individuals who have lobbying or corporate-interest backgrounds—a move that has sparked criticism in the past. The pack of new delegates includes Joanne Dowdell, a registered lobbyist for Fox News parent company News Corp; Harold Ickes, a veteran of the Clinton White House; and Manuel Ortiz, a lobbyist for CITGO Petroleum Corp and Puerto Rican interests. At least 10 additional Perez-tapped superdelegates have previously been registered as lobbyists, Bloomberg reports.

< . . . . >

[DonViejo]

9. Just as you did not bother to read the article in the OP, I cannot be bothered to read your comment.

[Atticus]

10. Neither can I. nt

[markpkessinger]

11. . . .

/revision/latest?cb=20140110032442

[Ken Burch]

22. There is nothing in what that post said that contradicts the article

There are two factual statements here:

1) There's more "diversity" in terms of who from which groups was appointed.
2) Essentially the only people removed before the hirings were associated with Sanders and Keith Ellison.

And there can never be any justification to bring in anyone else from the corporate world. We need clear blue water between the 1% and us.

[DonViejo]

27. I look forward to reading your letter to Tom Steyer, telling him he and his money are no longer

welcome in the Democratic Party. Please post your letter as an OP so we might all share in the frivolity.

Pledge to Impeach Trump, a Key Donor Demands of Democrats

One of the Democratic Party’s most prominent financial backers is demanding that lawmakers and candidates on the left support removing President Trump from office, putting pressure on Democrats to make Mr. Trump’s ouster a defining issue in the 2018 midterm elections.

Tom Steyer, a billionaire California investor who spent more than $91 million supporting Democrats in the 2016 elections, issued the demand to his party in a letter on Wednesday. In his message, Mr. Steyer called Mr. Trump a “clear and present danger to the republic” and urged Democrats to pledge that they would seek to remove him from office if they take control of Congress next year.

Mr. Steyer — who is considering a run for Senate, perhaps against Senator Dianne Feinstein, a fellow Democrat — cited a range of acts by Mr. Trump to justify impeachment, including the president’s “relationship with Vladimir Putin and Russia,” allegations that Mr. Trump has used the presidency to “promote his own business interests” and his “seeming determination to go to war.”

And he pointed to mounting expressions of concern on the right, including the warning by Senator Bob Corker, Republican of Tennessee, that Mr. Trump was at risk of fomenting a world war, and reports that Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson described Mr. Trump as a “moron.” Democrats, Mr. Steyer said, should be no less confrontational.

more
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/11/us/tom-steyer-trump-impeachment.html?_r=0

[GulfCoast66]

60. Well shit...

And here I was about to get more involved with my local party. But damn it, I am in the corporate world. Guess I will let others do the heavy lifting.

And BTW...FDR was the 1%.

[Ken Burch]

67. I wasn't saying anything about you, for God's sakes.

The issue is with people from the top of that world getting big jobs in the party.

FDR was rich, but thankfully was a class traitor.

[CentralMass]

133. I read your op and the Vanity Fair article and a number of other articles this morning..

Like this one https://theintercept.com/2017/10/20/democratic-party-drama-puts-deputy-chair-keith-ellison-in-a-tough-spot/


My opnion after reading these articles is that this is a purge of the pro Sanders progressive members of the DNC.
I think that it is a big mistake. Sanders had major support in this last election and recieved many votes and raised a lot of money.

This is not trivial issue. Frankly I plan to ignore the DNC at this point and they wont get a dime out me.

I just unsubscribed from their mailing list. I don't need the spam.

[Eko]

12. Out of the 75

how many were in the Sanders/Ellison wing?

[lapucelle]

40. ,,,

Several supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are on Perez’s list, including former Sanders spokeswoman Symone Sanders.

Two people who challenged Perez for DNC chair have been nominated— Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and former South Carolina Democratic chairman Jaime Harrison.

Labor leader Randi Weingarten, who backed Ellison in the DNC chair race over Perez, is also nominated.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/355954-dnc-chairman-aims-for-diversity-with-delegate-nominations.

A list of Perez’s choices, leaked to Vox, shows plenty progressives are sure to celebrate. The new committee includes more union representatives that at any point in the body’s recent history. The number of Native Americans and millennials has doubled, and the DNC added its first DREAMer — Ellie Perez of Arizona. Rep. Keith Ellison (D-MN), the Sanders ally who lost the DNC chair race to Perez, also joins the DNC’s most-powerful body, the executive committee. So does Royce West, a Texas state senator who supported Ellison’s bid for the chair.

It does appear clear that Perez made efforts to include the Sanders faction’s wishes with his new raft of appointments. There’s little clear evidence that the new rules members are “loyal” or tied to Clinton in a meaningful way. Moreover, Perez appointed Larry Cohen, a union leader who chairs the Bernie-linked Our Revolution PAC, to an at-large position, as well as former Sanders campaign aide Symone Sanders. And Sanders’s supporters will surely thrill to the high number of union leaders — the SEIU's Hector Figueroa; the UAW's Cindy Estrada; the AFL-CIO's Tefere Gebre — who were appointed to at-large positions.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/18/16489504/democrats-perez-dnc-unity

[Eko]

46. Huh, look at that.

Facts.

[mcar]

106. This is a great list!

How can people be complaining about this and saying it's a slam on Ellison? He's been nominated.

[Blue_true]

15. Stop posting divisive stuff, please. No reason for that. nt

[markpkessinger]

16. Seems to me the divisiveness is coming from Perez n/t

[Blue_true]

17. Getting underrepresented Democrats

On as DNC delegates is divisive. Funny. Maybe the far left should get it's own party and leave Democrats alone.

[mcar]

23. Yes, how divisive of Perez to include LGBTQ, AA

and other marginalized people as delegates!!!111

[lapucelle]

44. No wonder Perez named Ellison to the Executive Committee.

What better way to promote divisiveness than to nominate one's rival for membership on the DNC's most powerful committee.

[stevenleser]

77. Nope, see Mrs. Coffee's #25 below. The facts are against what you are saying. nt

[MrsCoffee]

25. Baloney.

If Ellison had won, he would have done the same thing. It's the job.

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/355954-dnc-chairman-aims-for-diversity-with-delegate-nominations

Several supporters of Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) are also on Perez’s list, including former Sanders spokeswoman Symone Sanders.

Two people who challenged Perez for DNC chair have been nominated — Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) and former South Carolina Democratic chairman Jaime Harrison. After a hard-fought and sometimes bitter campaign, Perez tapped Ellison, a Sanders supporter, to be his deputy chairman.

Labor leader Randi Weingarten, who backed Ellison in the DNC chair race over Perez, is also nominated.

Perez’s full slate of nominations is below:


Jan Bauer .......................................... Iowa

Artie Blanco ...................................... Nev.

Donna Brazile...................................D.C.

Roxanne Brown ............................... Md.

Calla Brown ..................................... Md.

Laphonza Butler ................................ Calif.

Maria Cardona ..................................D.C.

Leah Daughtry .................................. N.Y.

Joanne Dowdell ................................N.H.

Maria Eschaveste ............................. Calif.

Lily Eskeleson Garcia ........................ Utah

Cindy Estrada .................................... Mich.

Isabell Framer .................................. Ohio

Lorna Johnson .................................. Calif.

Paulette Jordan .................................. Idaho

Elaine Kamarck ................................ Mass.

Claire Lucas ...................................... D.C.

Juanita Luiz...................................... Wash.

Jen McClellan ................................... Va.

Lorraine Miller ................................... Texas

Minyon Moore ................................... D.C.

Margarita Nolasco ............................. Puerto Rico

Carol Pensky ................................... Md.

Ellie Perez ........................................ Ariz.

Ai-Jen Poo ........................................ N.Y.

Carrie Pugh....................................... D.C.

Marisa Richmond .............................. Tenn.

Emmy Ruiz ....................................... Texas

Symone Sanders .............................. D.C.

Lottie Shackelford ............................. Ariz.

Becky Strezchowski ............................ Ill.

Jere Talley ........................................ Texas

Amy Wakeland .................................. Calif.

Jeion Ward ....................................... Va.

Randi Weingarten ............................. N.Y.

Alexis Wiley ....................................... Mich.

Roz Wyman ...................................... Calif.

Males

Yohannes Abraham .......................... Va.

Cristobal Alex .................................... Texas

Jeff Berman ...................................... D.C.

James Boland ................................... D.C.

Tony Coelho ..................................... Del.

Larry Cohen ...................................... D.C.

David Cox ..................................... N.C.
Fransico Domenech .......................... Puerto Rico

Keith Ellison ..................................... Minn.

Hector Figueroa ................................ N.Y.

Don Fowler ....................................... S.C.

Earl Fowlkes ..................................... D.C.

Tefere Gebre .................................... Calif.

Daniel Halpern .................................. Ga.

Keith Harper......................................D.C.

Jaime Harrison .................................. S.C.

Harold Ickes ...................................... D.C.

Jay Jacobs ........................................ N.Y.

Charlie King ...................................... N.Y.

Andres Lopez .................................... Puerto Rico

Chris Lowe ........................................ N.Y.

Chris Lu ............................................ Va.

Kerman Maddox................................ Calif.

Leopoldo Martinez ............................ Va.

Robert Martinez ............................... Md.

Mahlon Mitchell ................................. Wis.

Michael Nutter ................................... Pa.

Manuel Ortiz ..................................... Puerto Rico

Marc Perrone ................................... Md.

Hasmit Popat .................................... Texas

Rion Ramirez .................................... Calif.

Ken Rigmaiden ................................ Md.

James Roosevelt, Jr. ........................ Mass.

Lee Saunders ................................... D.C.

Craig Smith ....................................... Fla.

Rick Wade ........................................ D.C.

Brian Wahby .................................... Mo.

James Zogby .................................... D.C.

[stevenleser]

75. And there you have it. All of this nonsense from people trying to manufacture outrage against the

DNC and the facts show that they are being ridiculous.

[Jim Lane]

88. Not at all baloney. The DNC's official line is classic misdirection.

You post the list of Perez's 75 at-large appointments to the DNC. The main issue that's sparking criticism, however, is his apparent purge in the composition of important committees, especially the Executive Committee and the Rules Committee.

In a couple other posts, I've linked to relevant articles and explained the real issue. I don't feel like retyping or even cutting and pasting. You can consider whether what I've written here and here seems reasonable to you.

[MrsCoffee]

90. Petty squabbles and attacks on Democrats or the party do not seem reasonable. Period.

I’ve seen the results of that strategy, seen who has exploited it and I refuse to just sit by and watch the infighting when we have important elections and the fate of our country at stake.

Let me repeat. The same thing would have happened if Ellison won. In fact he and his backers promised to make it happen. Given those promises, I would expect a much bigger “purge” as you want to call it would have occurred. Only then it wouldn’t have been called a purge, it would have been embraced by those outraged now.

I’ve seen right wing rags like freebeacon and observer posted here fueling this outrage. Just think about that for a minute.

Let’s not eat our own again this election season. There is no there there for crying out loud.

[Jim Lane]

116. At least you're impliedly admitting that there was retaliation involved.

If Ellison had become Chair, no, I don't think he would have restructured the Rules Committee to dump Hillary people and stack it with Bernie people. My guess is that he would have been more oriented toward unity -- unity achieved substantively, by treating everyone fairly, not superficially, by carrying out a purge and then telling everyone who disagrees with you to shut up.

That's just my guess about what Ellison would have done. What I feel much more confident about is that, if he had won, and if he had then conducted himself as Perez is now doing, DU would have been positively aflame with denunciations of his decisions (and justifiably so).

You write:

I’ve seen right wing rags like freebeacon and observer posted here fueling this outrage. Just think about that for a minute.

I've been thinking about that for decades, because that's how long I've been hearing this kind of crap. "What you're now saying is also being said by _____ [fill in the blank with designated villain], therefore you're wrong." Depending on the context, the designated villain has been the U.S. government, the Russians, Wall Street spokespersons, the Communist Party of the United States, the Pope, right-wing commentators, left-wing commentators, al-Qaeda ... my apologies to the many I've omitted. Hitler and the Nazis (the original ones) fill this role often enough to have spawned Godwin's Law.

The argument (if it even deserves that title) is crap because none of these villains possess reverse infallibility. Let's take Wall Street. During the primary (which I'm not refighting, just describing), Bernie and Hillary disagreed about reinstating Glass-Steagall. Hillary took the position advocated by Wall Street. Does that prove she was wrong? Absolutely not. There are legitimate arguments on both sides of the question of whether the partial repeal of Glass-Steagall contributed to the financial crisis. Saying that it was favored by Wall Street, or that it was opposed by a bunch of DFH's in Occupy who were illegally squatting in a public park, doesn't advance the conversation one millimeter.

Ron Paul was an extremist who wouldn't merely weaken the social safety net; he'd remove it entirely. He makes a good designated villain. He also voted against the Iraq War Resolution. Just think about that for a minute.

[MrsCoffee]

124. No, I implied that it is the job to make the nominations.

Nothing more.

I implied that if the other candidate had won, he would have also done his job.

End of.

Everything else is hyperbole and divisive distraction.

[stevenleser]

99. No, it completely blows up the arguments people are using to complain.

You and other folks are saying the effect was to remove Sanders people, the facts are that while some Sanders people are being removed, others are being added.

So you have no argument left and the entire bruhaha is shown to be nonsense.

[Eliot Rosewater]

205. And I thought DU was a place to SUPPORT the party, but attacking the party is welcome

here but if I attacked someone who I thought is not helping, god help ME

Ridiculous.

Thanks for pointing out that long post of FACTS about what is ACTUALLY happening.

I wish the people who are here to solely attack the party would be removed.

[Demsrule86]

184. And there it is...this is always and continues to be about Sen. Sanders...who cannot have a "wing"

of the Democratic Party...as he is not a Democrat. Sen. Sanders ran for president...He will never be president..not in 2020 not ever. We should not try to balance the DNC based on 16. The primary is over and so is the election. Time to move on.

[angrychair]

13. How is it an attack

If certain things are facts.

Some of these people are were lobbyist for a private prison, the keystone pipeline and News Corp.

Those are true statements, regardless of who they used to work for or against.

Jeff Berman had worked to elect Obama but then spent years lobbying against president Obama’s effort to destroy the Keystone pipeline project.

Joanne Dowdell is a senior VP at News Corp, the parent of Faux News

Sorry, I’m all for unity but I don’t think we get there with lobbyists that undermine Obama to advocate for the Keystone pipeline and a News Corp executive.

Not trying to pick a fight, I think my point is completely valid as anyone else.

[Eko]

14. Wow.

This guy is such a jerk. "Jeff Berman had worked to elect Obama but then spent years lobbying against president Obama’s effort to destroy the Keystone pipeline project. "
That's low,,, what a horrible person. Oh, wait, "Hillary Clinton's newest campaign consultant is Jeffrey Berman, the strategist credited with her 2008 primary defeat and who, in the time since, has worked as a lobbyist for TransCanada, the company behind the Keystone XL pipeline."
He didn't lobby against it, the company he worked for did. So that was incorrect.

"Joanne Dowdell is a senior VP at News Corp, the parent of Faux News" Horrible faux noise. What can we find about her? "Federal Election Commission reports show Dowdell has contributed directly to multiple Democrats as well as to the News Corp PAC, a company committee that splits its donations between lawmakers of both parties. The News Corp government affairs division works to lobby public officials and regulators." There are "liberals" who work for News Corp. Sounds like she is one.

Once again, Berman did not lobby for the Keystone pipeline.
Thanks,
Eko.

[angrychair]

18. Yes he did

You can parse words all you want, you may be ok with keystone pipeline lobbyist and a News Corp VP but I’m not.
My opinion is as valid as your own. There are a lot of good Democrats out there that deserve an opportunity like this more than this lot.

[Eko]

21. How is it parsing words?

You said he lobbied for the Keystone pipeline, can you show where he did? The company I work for buys from China, Korea, Taiwan, Indonesia and Mexico a whole bunch, I don't. Does that mean all my effort to buy American is negated because of the company I work for? I am now responsible for what they do? Your opinion is just as valid as mine, I never said it wasn't, but facts beat opinion. So far I have seen no facts the he lobbied for the keystone pipeline, only that he worked for the company that did.

[Demsrule86]

31. Pres. Obama supported the Keystone at one time...there are differing opinions...and it is no longer

and issue since by electing the GOP the voters made it happen-including protest voters from so call progressives...seems to me electing the GOP was a worse move than any DNC with ties to a company that lobbied for Keystone or another shitty GOP idea having a role at the DNC...Time to move...all this clinging to the past is a waste of energy. So many cry about who the DNC people are but then watch as the GOP waltz in and do the very thing they are so against...the environment will be shit by the time we get Trumpie out of office... We have a way better shot with Dems...but all this complaining will help elect the Republicans. Why do some never criticize Republicans but save all the anger for Democrats. I will never understand...the worst Democrat is worth 1000000000 Republicans...poor people will get socked with taxes this years...our 401K's will take a hit so millionaires can have tax cuts...Dems don't do these things...only the GOP so how so how about we show Dems a little love and stop complaining. Vote Democratic and save the US and the world.

[angrychair]

85. To be clear

I campaigned and voted for Hillary.

I also think we should ask and expect more from our politicians. Yes, at the end of the day I will always vote for a Democrat before a republican but that DOES NOT mean we should not expect better.

I have had to debate Democrats, even here, on why a women’s access to reproductive healthcare is sacrosanct and nonnegotiable.

I have had to debate institutional racism.

Taxes.

Education.

These are things we should not be debating.

It’s great to get Democrats elected but let’s not forget what it means to be a Democrat along the way.

[Demsrule86]

134. The Dems have always been a big tent. But I too was unhappy with the endorsement of Mello.

[Demsrule86]

177. The Democratic Party is a big tent party...and what you consider important...may not be

#1 on someone else's list...for example what is institutional racism? What does it mean to you... I consider that to be a meaningless term without context. There are plenty of Democrats who don't want taxes raised. And I am against Charter schools...but had a Woman of color tell me ...easy for you to have this principle...but the schools in my area are horrific...so I need a charter school. Education is being destroyed because Trump was elected and so are many other things...like the environment for example...As for choice, I am very pro-choice but voted for Tim Ryan in Ohio who was pro-life as he was the only Democrat running.

One of our most liberal associates of the Democratic Party, Sen. Sanders has suggested that we need to step back from identity politics...which includes women's rights and choice...I fervently disagree with this... and was in a state of rage when Mello was endorsed. But that being said, Sen. Sanders is still an ally and while I disagree with him on this ...he is part of the Dem big tent.My belief is we stop with the circular firing squad, unite and beat the shit out of the Republicans...otherwise what you believe is just meaningless in terms of policy...will you get everything you want? Hell no, but you will get some things...and certainly with the GOP in power you get nothing.

[angrychair]

196. With all due respect

I’m not willing to compromise on human rights. Democrats already have to fight republicans for every square inch of ground on human rights, we should not be fighting or worrying about Democrats too. We obviously don’t have the willingness or inclination to fight for basic human rights on two fronts.

Its anti-choice not “pro-life”. We should not have to worry about a Democrat that coud or would vote with other anti-choice Democrats and republicans to limit or take choices (like birth control or other healthcare decisions) from a women and her care providers.

Why do we feel it necessary to nominate or endorse an anti-choice candidate? The “they’re the only one” argument is weak. We as a Party should be talking, recruiting and advocating, that is how we get better candidates.
The “it’s the only candidate that will get elected in the general because of the makeup of the district” is weak as well. The problem is not that they can’t get elected, it’s that we can’t or won’t make the case for it and/or are not willing to stand up for what we believe.
The worse of them all, the “it’s only on this one subject, otherwise they are liberal” sorry, the willingness or inclination to rip basic rights away from human beings means, by definition, they are not liberal Democrats. Basic human rights are nonnegotiable.

I’m dwelling on the women’s rights issues but I feel just as unequivocally about LGBTQ rights and the rights of PoC as well as education.

I don’t give a shit what Sanders opinions are, my politics are not tied to him or any other specific politician. I hate the term “identity politics”. These are not “identity politics” but human rights.

Let’s also be clear that wanting or inclination to take rights away from women or the LGBTQ or PoC is based on ignorance.
Either a belief in Bronze and Iron Age fairytales or an inability or unwillingness to understand basic scientific concepts (as an example: a zygote is not a baby). Which, in and of is not wrong, people can believe whatever they want but when you decide to turn your religious beliefs or scientific ignorance into law in order to force others to comply with them, that is unacceptable.

[Jim Lane]

212. What would you do about the "anti-choice" Democrats?

A prime example: Next year, Senator Robert Casey, Jr. (D-PA) will be up for re-election. He's expected to defend his seat. He's generally anti-choice (has called for overturning Roe v. Wade) but with some exceptions.

He's generally in tune with the mainstream of the Democratic Party (i.e., the issue areas where all five candidates for the 2016 nomination agreed). Because of his stance on reproductive rights, though, I wouldn't be surprised if he draws a primary challenger from the left. He's popular, though. He's won statewide elections for positions in state government and has won two Senate elections. My guess is that he'll win the primary easily and become the Democratic nominee.

You ask, "Why do we feel it necessary to nominate or endorse an anti-choice candidate?" In the scenario I envision, that's an argument that will be presented to the Democrats of Pennsylvania, but that most of them will reject. Some, of course, agree with Casey on this issue. (Not all Democrats are pro-choice.) Others will agree with one or both of the arguments you dismiss -- that he's good on most issues, and that, with his personal popularity and the advantage of incumbency, he's by far the strongest Democratic candidate for the general election. If he wins the primary, he'll be the Democratic nominee.

My point isn't to cheerlead for Bob Casey. I don't live in Pennsylvania and I don't have to decide how to vote. I certainly won't send him any campaign contributions. My point is that, as long as we choose our nominees through primaries instead of back-room designation by party bosses, we have to put up with this "big tent" situation. The same is true of Joe Manchin (D-Big Coal) about the environment.

[lapucelle]

50. Perhaps Keith Ellison should turn down his nomination by Perez

to the DNC's most important body, the Executive Committee over this outrage.

[angrychair]

86. Yet again, to be clear

I am not beholden to anyone specific, be it Mr. Ellison or Sanders or any label.

I’m for what is right and staying true to or Democratic values.

I am not a “win at any cost” person.

I’m not sacrificing women’s rights, especially their access to reproductive healthcare (even if it ”wins” us some swing votes in the Midwest)

I am not going to back down on free occupational and 2 year college and free or reduced cost 4 year college

I’m not going to back down on clean environment and more cost effective and efficient green energy.

Compromise is great as long as you are not the one being compromised.

[lapucelle]

91. Anyone who is not happy with the "compromises"

should do whatever it takes to make their disappointment known to DNC leadership, including lobbying Rep. Ellison who has an excellent opportunity to put teeth in any protest over putative compromise by publicly turning down his nomination to become a new member of the powerful Executive Committee of the DNC.

Similarly, those who were not reappointed to committees, but who were 2016 superdelegates and will retain that status for the 2020 election (like James Zogby who was deeply troubled by the deeply troubling "optics" ) might consider resigning their positions of privilege so that those in favor of all that is good will know exactly how deeply troubling Perez's troubling reshuffle truly is.

All of us who are in favor of "what is right and staying true to our Democratic values" should revisit the Democratic 2016 platform to remind ourselves of what might have been, the dangers of being truculently doctrinaire, what we truly stand for, and finally, to encourage those who have never bothered to read the document to educate themselves on the values that Democrats across the spectrum really espouse.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/papers_pdf/117717.pdf

[angrychair]

131. Again

Again, I do not care about what person got what position on what committee I’m bigger picture than that, I’m looking at a trend line, I’m looking at the climate, not the weather.

We have a very vocal group, I’ll call “scalded dog” that is set on “a ‘Democrat’ at any cost” even if they are for limiting women’s rights or access to reproductive healthcare. Even if they are for limiting the marriage rights or adoption rights of LGBTQ. Even if they don’t believe in man made climate change. Even if they do believe that their should be a law requiring people to stand for the National Anthem or salute the flag or go to jail.

The argument is “it’s only one” but to many of those “only ones” and votes on these subjects can be decided on one or two votes or three or ten.

Sorry the “otherwise their 100% Democrat” when they are voting with republicans to limit adoption rights of the LGBTQ isn’t good enough for me.

Sorry, the “otherwise their 100% Democrat” when they are voting with republicans to limit a women’s ability to get healthcare isn’t good enough for me.

I’m not looking for purity but I will not compromise on human rights (which includes healthcare), education and climate change.

That, we as Democrats, are willing to vote for someone that would make a law or keep a law, that makes other human beings second class citizens, that is what makes me worried we are going in the wrong direction. We should be better than that.

[lapucelle]

145. The post I responded to was your defense of criticism

of Chairman Perez for his nominees for DNC at-large delegates. I simply recommended specific actions that those who are equally perturbed might wish to take.

It is nice to know, however, that the reproductive rights and bodily autonomy of women is no longer being decried as mere "identity politics".

[Demsrule86]

30. We don't need to kick people out of the party because they have jobs you don't like...too bad.

[Eko]

33. Maybe you replied to the wrong person?

Im not advocating for that, quite the opposite.

[Demsrule86]

34. I did sorry...we are in agreement...Mea Culpa...I should be more careful.

[Eko]

37. No problem,

Ive done it myself. It happens. Keep on keeponing!

[Demsrule86]

135. During my misreading episode...sorry again mea culpa mea maxima culpa.

[Demsrule86]

35. People have jobs and we have never based party membership or activism on jobs.

[stevenleser]

76. See Mrs. Coffee's #25 above. It's an attack and it ignored the facts. nt

[mcar]

19. These are the "lobbyists and corporatists"?

Kick for reality! Well done, DNC chair Perez.

[MrsCoffee]

26. +1

[betsuni]

55. +2

[JHan]

113. +3

Lol I can't keep up with the insults.

[oasis]

61. Democrats should be in good shape from here if we all pull together.

[spanone]

83. K&R...

[betsuni]

84. K&R

[philly_bob]

87. On some matters, DU is less credible than progressive boards like JackPineRadicals.

Not on all matters. But on this particular matter -- Perez' partitioning of party power -- a prudent observer should read both. On JPR, there is no doubt that Perez pushed out progressives in favor of folks that may be more diverse by identity politic standards, but are loyal to the mainstream DNC philosophy that lost so tragically to Trump in 2016.

Not seeking to argue. Just my opinion.

[NurseJackie]

95. ###

...progressive boards like JackPineRadicals.

[SunSeeker]

96. LOL

My thoughts exactly.

[JHan]

110. Lol

[betsuni]

161. I don't see how anyone could look at that sentence without bursting into peals of hearty laughter.

Or type that sentence.

[ehrnst]

176. My thoughts exactly. (nt)

[yardwork]

97. Is JPR still photoshopping feces onto pictures of Hillary Clinton?

Is there still a forum on JPR dedicated to the pizza child slavery ring fantasy? According to JPR is Hillary still running that?

Asking for a friend.

[stevenleser]

102. Incorrect, see MrsCoffee's #25 above. JPR is never credible on anything.

JPR is a 24x7 DNC fanatical hate and Hillary fanatical hate site.

Like most fanatics, they jump the shark on just about everything. Nothing there should be trusted.

[mcar]

103. Wasn't JPR founded so people

kicked off this site could call HRC a c#&t? Soooo progressive!

[Demsrule86]

185. Pretty much...although some left willingly and some are back.

I read their posts during the election at JPR (lurker)...let's just say good thing they deleted them or changed their names.

[greatauntoftriplets]

104. Oy.

[Mediumsizedhand]

105. That would be the site that calls women harpies, at the very least? No identity politics.

I get it. As does the Democratic base.

[JHan]

109. Cool story bro

[brer cat]

148. Especially if Russian propaganda is what you consider "credible."

Or if you think it is "progressive" to call the nominee of the Party a c%.

[lapucelle]

151. They're on Prop Or Not's list

of compromised propaganda sites.

Last week they were promoting Hannity's Uranium 1 story on their home page.

http://www.propornot.com/p/the-list.html

[revmclaren]

164. Which means they and their posters

are definitely on Mueller's radar.

More to come in the future...

[Jim Lane]

166. That's true, but there's one respect in which they're almost exactly the same.

The monumental silliness of most posts on DU about JPR is pretty much equal to the monumental silliness of most posts on JPR about DU.

IMO, neither board has any credibility when discussing the other.

[R B Garr]

167. I dont see you attacking JPR posters the same way, tho.

I haven’t seen all your posts there, of course. But what I saw seemed right in line with the conspiracy theories they generate, which you don’t seem to find “monumentally silly,” although their conspiracy theories are pretty ridiculously stupid.

[Jim Lane]

168. I'm not going to fight with shadows.

If you see something that I post, here or there, quote it and disagree with it, here or there.

Hint: If someone other than me posts something on JPR (or, for that matter, on DU), and I don't post in disagreement, that doesn't mean that I agree. If I took it upon myself to correct every error on both these boards, it would take up way too much of my time. That's why, if you want to disagree with me, you should quote something that I say and then express your contrary opinion.

[R B Garr]

169. Okay. Its just obvious that JPR engages in conspiracy

theories, and you’ve called it McCarythism when people call them out on their bizarre conspiracies about Democrats. The fact that you are sympatico with their conspiracies suggests that you agree with them.

[Jim Lane]

172. It's truly amazing how often you "respond" to something I haven't said

You write that I've "called it McCarythism when people call them out on their bizarre conspiracies about Democrats." That's a lie. What I've called McCarthyism is the kind of guilt by association that's appeared far too often here -- something is said by someone on JPR or by Glenn Greenwald that the poster disagrees with, hence any other proposition can be disproved by showing that it's said by someone (including someone else) on JPR or by Glenn Greenwald.

Then you write, "The fact that you are sympatico with their conspiracies suggests that you agree with them." Classic! Given the history here, I tried to explain in advance why this kind of attack is wrong. In the post you're purportedly responding to, I wrote:

That's why, if you want to disagree with me, you should quote something that I say and then express your contrary opinion.

I emphasized that key word "quote" because of how often you respond to me by attacking a straw man. If you think I've supported an incorrect theory, be it a conspiracy theory or otherwise, posted on JPR or elsewhere, then quote the statement of mine with which you disagree and then state your disagreement.

The italics didn't work so I'll try boldfacing, though admittedly without much hope.

[R B Garr]

195. Sorry, not buying it. This is just your version of "both sides do it" as an attempt to

legitimize what is posted there when in reality there is no equivalence on any level. That site demonizes Democrats with the most inane and frankly idiotic conspiracy theories, yet you made no mention of that in your latest submission here -- I notice you left out any mention of the "monumentally silly" conspiracy theories that plague that site and was also Russian propaganda used against our nominee and Democrats. Greenwald is a laughable propagandist, but you are trying to elevate him to a legitimate status by saying that people should waste time refuting him when his writings are just asinine and should be treated as such. It certainly isn't "McCarthyism" to call out internet idiots who lie about Democrats.

You seem to understand the JPR shorthand for demonizing Democrats, but hold actual Democrats to a much higher but laughable standard that we have to be respectful of conspiracies promoted by idiots. People can read the posts on JPR, yours included.

[Mediumsizedhand]

198. Both sides do it, both sides are the same, what about the men, blue lives matter too.

I am so done with that argument.

[R B Garr]

227. Me too. Im tired of the browbeating that we have

to politely entertain ignorant trolls or we are the same. Both sides are not the same, and their lies and conspiracies need to called out.

[Mediumsizedhand]

228. Totally, and absolutely agree.

[Jim Lane]

209. There's only one sentence in this post of yours that makes sense.

Most of it is your usual schtick of imputing to me things I didn't actually say, then triumphantly refuting them.

But you concluded: "People can read the posts on JPR, yours included." Absolutely correct! That's why I urged you (unsuccessfully, as I'd predicted) to quote a specific post of mine, here or there, if you wanted to express disagreement.

I extend my offer to the entire DU community (assuming that anyone besides the two of us is still reading this tangent). Find one of my reprehensible statements on JPR, quote it here for all to see, and expose my villainy.

[R B Garr]

226. Sorry, but your posts here attempted to ridicule

people by saying it was “McCarthyism” to call idiot trolls what they are. That’s just an attempt to equalize anti-Democrat trolls, which is truly an absurd attempt on your part. I don’t spend a lot of time at that site because I can’t abide the ignorant conspiracy theories. Half the people there are Trump supporters.

Quit telling good Democrats they have to suck up to people who continue to trash Democrats. Trashing Democrats is why we have Trump. Enough.

You can link your posts here to where you tell the JPR folks that their conspiracies are “magnificently silly”. I see you pushing their latest conspiracy about Perez, so your wall of words don’t really match up.

[Mediumsizedhand]

229. I went into one link, calling women, Democratic women, harpies. That said everything.

It cannot be taken back. I understand there is much worse. I do not need to hear it. That alone is enough for me.

[Squinch]

232. Great post!

[MrsCoffee]

173. There isnt a real progressive in the lot at JPR. Its a cesspool of posers.

There is a vile racist and misogynistic undertone to that whole site. Just like most Russian troll farms, their sole purpose is to divide. Your post just highlights that fact.

[betsuni]

175. +1

[MineralMan]

202. Uh...LOL...Bwahaha...etc.

I've read that site. It has nothing to do with anything having to do with the Democratic Party.

[Squinch]

231. Did you really write that?

[Jim Lane]

89. The official spin about "diversity" is not completely congruent with the facts.

Here's a trenchant summary:

One paragraph in an NBC News story on the dustup was almost a parody of the tactic of cloaking ideological or political moves in liberal rhetoric about identity:

The DNC denied any retaliation, saying that the changes were an effort to diversify and freshen the party’s leadership and that all the party’s officers had a chance to offer input. They touted new additions like Marisa Richmond, a millennial black transgender activist, and the first Dreamer member, Ellie Perez, to point to the DNC’s efforts at diversity.

In fact, the DNC went overboard in its box-checking: It’s a stretch to call Richmond a millennial; she’s 58 years old and has been an activist longer than many millennials have been alive.

. . . .

Yet the three Ellison backers removed from the key committees are themselves a diverse bunch. Ellison, of course, is African-American, Muslim, and represents a working-class district, while Barbra Casbar Siperstein is transgender, Zogby is Lebanese-American (and Catholic), and Buckley is gay.

That's from "Democratic Party Drama Puts Deputy Chair Keith Ellison in a Tough Spot". The article points out what a tough spot it is for Ellison. When he accepted the position of Vice Chair, after losing the race for the top job, there were already some people who felt he was selling out. He countered that the party was genuinely moving toward reform and that progressives should continue to be Democrats. It's now easier for his critics to make the case that his appointment was tokenism and that the party will not be fair to anyone to the left of Hillary Clinton.

What makes it worse, in my eyes, is that I believe Perez to be an intelligent man. He cannot have been unaware that, regardless of what his motives might actually have been, the pattern of his appointments to key committees would give the appearance of a purge. He went ahead with it anyway.

[George II]

98. Isn't the Intercept Greenwald's site?

[stevenleser]

101. Correct. Russian propaganda 24x7. nt

[Jim Lane]

108. I don't know. Is the statement I quoted true? or do you not care about that? (n/t)

[stevenleser]

112. JPR, Breitbart, Greenwald/Intercept, FR, and various others aren't worth the effort to check

they are almost always wrong.

Besides, we have the truth in MrsCoffee's #25 above. The Intercept and Greenwald are wrong, AGAIN.

[Mediumsizedhand]

114. Isn't Greenwald connected to Assange? I know that doesn't work for me.

I have never heard a positive word from Greenwald about the Democratic Party or Leadership.

[stevenleser]

115. Exactly. And they are lying again now, MrsCoffee's #25 above has all the facts.

Greenwald and the Intercept are 100% in line with the Kremlin's intended agitprop all the time.

I'm not saying Greenwald is taking money from Russian intelligence and Putin, but he does seem to be carrying water for them 24x7.

[Mediumsizedhand]

118. I stopped listening to Greenwald at least a couple years ago. He has proved his agenda counters

true progressives and our Democratic Party.

[Jim Lane]

120. Your subject line is false. Demonstrably false.

You write, "MrsCoffee's #25 above has all the facts."

You keep citing that post over and over without even giving the appearance of having read the responses.

I responded to #25 in #88. Here's part of what I wrote:

You post the list of Perez's 75 at-large appointments to the DNC. The main issue that's sparking criticism, however, is his apparent purge in the composition of important committees, especially the Executive Committee and the Rules Committee.

So, does MrsCoffee's #25 have all the facts -- including all the facts about committee memberships? No, it does not. It's just the at-large appointments. The word "committee" does not even occur in post #25. In the Hill article that she relies on, the word "committee" occurs only in the first sentence, in identifying Perez, a sentence that makes clear the limited scope of the article: "Democratic National Committee (DNC) chairman Tom Perez has nominated 75 people to become new at-large DNC members...." Neither the post nor the article contains one iota of information about the committee appointments.

As for all this McCarthyism about Greenwald and Putin and whatnot, I have no time for any of that. I can't imagine any facts that anyone could present about the Kremlin that would shed light on DNC committee appointments. That stuff is being used in the classic Joe McCarthy manner: an attempt to discredit people who disagree with you by linking them with designated villains. There was a time when progressives disdained such sophistry.

[Mediumsizedhand]

122. People are done, and hopefully the DNC and Democratic Party is done with the petty fighting.

Progressives are doing just fine. Another issue I have is others defining us and our party. We are a party of liberal progressives. I have always defined myself as progressive and somewhere along the way, others have tried to redefine me. If you want to talk about a small faction, then label them as populists so I know who you are talking about.

[Jim Lane]

126. There are two ways to be done with the fighting.

One is the disastrous path of purging any dissidents from the party. I don't care if you call them progressives or populists or Berniecrats or just "people who opposed Perez's candidacy for DNC Chair". The real issue is the general conduct of the people in power in the Democratic Party -- including filling at-large DNC seats, the composition of important committees, the superdelegate rule, exclusivity rule for debates, and much else. If the overall effect is to make "those people" (however defined) unwelcome, then some of them will leave the party. If you join in DU's popular pastime of disparaging Jill Stein, then it's logical to go beyond online criticisms and think about what concrete steps will lead people to vote for Democrats rather than Greens.

That brings us to the other way to be done with the fighting. That's to remove the unfairness and even the perception of unfairness, so that even people whose candidate wasn't nominated last year feel that they have a home in the Democratic Party. That path is admittedly more difficult. Its advantage is that it's more likely to lead to electoral success.

There is a third course that's being attempted but that won't stop the fighting. That's for one side to tell the other side that it should just shut up. That course won't work because people who are inclined to become active, to seek party posts, or even to post on message boards aren't the types to just shut up.

[Mediumsizedhand]

127. I have watched childish, false, irresponsible attacks on the Democratic Party. Done.

[Jim Lane]

130. And I have watched childish, false, irresponsible attacks on progressives.

Maybe I should follow your course and say "Done." In the multiple DU threads about this subject, I've put a lot of effort into presenting facts and trying to explain why the attacks are misguided. There's a good chance that I haven't changed one single person's mind. As some consolation, neither has anyone else. After more than a hundred posts in this thread alone, plus multiple other threads, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone on each side still holds the same opinion with which he or she began.

[Mediumsizedhand]

132. I am a progressive. You mean populist, right?

[Jim Lane]

138. Getting into an argument about who deserves the title "progressive" is generally unhelpful.

You like "populist" for the faction in the party that backed Ellison over Perez? Well, the problem there is that a lot of people use "populist" to refer to Trump.

What I mean is what I wrote in #126:

I don't care if you call them progressives or populists or Berniecrats or just "people who opposed Perez's candidacy for DNC Chair".

What matters is that, among people who broadly agree with opposing the right wing, there are genuine areas of disagreement. The people who have power in the Democratic Party should ignore semantic questions and instead consider how to keep as many people as possible within the big tent.

Here's a hint: If those people (call them what you will) get sufficiently pissed off, and there's a Sanders-Ellison third-party ticket in 2020, then the Republican nominee will be guaranteed to win.

[Mediumsizedhand]

139. Using it to bash the majority of the Democratic base is harmful and untrue.

[R B Garr]

140. Sick of these empty threats. You have to live in the same

crappy world the Republicans make for you. Anyone who can accept that is not “progressive”. It almost sounds like you’re advocating for a third party — something JPR phonies are dedicated to. A quick look at that website shows that.

[Jim Lane]

146. You post yet another straw-man argument, again based on huge distortion

You write:

It almost sounds like you’re advocating for a third party — something JPR phonies are dedicated to. A quick look at that website shows that.

As I thought would be evident to anyone with a modicum of reading comprehension, the point of my post was precisely the opposite. It was about what the Democratic Party should do to counter the danger of a third party. Further invective on DU is unlikely to accomplish much in that regard.

You think a third party, dividing the opposition, is an empty threat? Ask President Gore if he agrees. Or ask any of the numerous DUers who've posted that Jill Stein, by dividing the opposition, is responsible for Trump. Anyway, whether or not Stein runs again, it's a dead-level certainty that the Green Party will nominate someone in 2020. That's one of the strategic challenges that the Democratic Party should be thinking about handling.

I see you ring in JPR. You forgot Glenn Greenwald. There seems to be this emerging school of "thought" on DU that all you have to do is mention JPR or Greenwald and you've won the argument. I've elsewhere pointed out the absurdity of this McCarthyism of the left, so I won't repeat myself. I'll just add that, if you gave that website more than a quick look, you could discover that, during the general election campaign, I was one of those urging a vote for Clinton-Kaine. I don't know if I persuaded anyone but at least I was trying, instead of just preaching to the choir.

[R B Garr]

147. No, your wall of words is where the straw man arguments

are. It’s evident you are browbeating people who didn’t worship One Man. It’s all very transparent, never grounded in reality. I’m glad the DNC is getting back to promoting Democrats and with a good representation of the diversity in our party. It’s certainly not “McCarthyism” to call out the JPR idiots. You are just desperately trying to prolong worn out talking points that lost long ago. I notice with every submission, your text changes to denigrate Democrats in favor of people who do nothing but trash us. Enough.

[lapucelle]

153. What right wing?

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029738256#post65

What would lead anyone to think that Democratic Congressman Keith Ellison, vice chair of the DNC, would run as a third party candidate?

He's a Democrat and an honorable man. I wonder what Rep. Ellison would say if he heard speculation that he would allow himself to be used in order to hurt the Democratic Party and re-elect a Republican.

[Jim Lane]

165. The right wing that holds power in the federal government

I wrote, "What matters is that, among people who broadly agree with opposing the right wing, there are genuine areas of disagreement." Judging from your link, you apparently misinterpreted me as saying that some of the various Democrats you named are "the right wing". What I meant was that all those people you named ("E. Warren, N. Pelosi, B. Sanders, C. Schumer, and HRC" ) broadly agree with opposing the Trump-McConnell-Ryan crowd (i.e., the right wing).

I then added that, among those people, there are, nevertheless, genuine areas of disagreement. For example, Warren and Sanders want to reinstate some version of Glass-Steagall. During the campaign, Clinton opposed that. I don't happen to know where Pelosi and Schumer stand.

It's not as if there's a football game with one side wearing light jerseys and one side dark jerseys. For example, Cory Booker is usually considered to be farther to the right than Senators like Warren, while still being to the left of Senators like Joe Manchin. Nevertheless, there was Booker standing alongside Warren and Sanders in support of Bernie's Medicare-for-All bill. (See "Bernie Sanders unveils 'Medicare for all' plan with 16 co-sponsors".) There were the Democratic leaders in the Senate, Schumer and Durbin, not standing there and not cosponsoring. In the House, the Conyers bill for single payer has cosponsorship from a majority of the Democratic caucus but definitely not all. And, of course, Clinton famously said that Bernie's plan would "never, ever" come to pass.

So Glass-Steagall and single payer are just two examples of issues where there are disagreements among people who broadly agree with opposing the right wing.

How should the Democratic Party respond to such disagreements? There seems to be a tenor in some DU posts along the lines of: Opposing Trump is very important (I agree); the opposition to Trump will be more effective if we are united (again, I agree); the way to achieve unity is for everyone to the left of Hillary Clinton to STFU, to stop fighting for their beliefs, and to stop putting up any kind of opposition in intra-party matters (I could not disagree more).

Finally, my reference to a Sanders-Ellison third-party ticket was a bit of hyperbole. I don't expect Ellison to do that, and Bernie himself, in 2015, decided to run for the Democratic nomination; in 2016, rejected the Green Party's overtures and instead campaigned for the Democratic ticket; and, in 2017, disappointed the DraftBernie people by not even showing up to receive their petitions urging him to start a third party. What the hyperbole represents is that there will be at least one left-wing minor party in 2020. Unfortunately, it will attract some progressives. There are people who are "swing voters" in the sense that, as of right now, they aren't totally committed to the Democratic Party but also haven't completely given up on it. What the party leadership does, in internal party matters, will help determine whether those people feel welcome in the Democratic Party.

[lapucelle]

170. There is already one minor party

that represents itself as left wing. The doomsday scenario of third party candidates and voters helping to elect a Republican in the name of "progressivism" has already happened. Twice.

What you now call "hyperbole", you earlier called "a hint". The scenario you laid out was not an abstraction. It mentioned the specific name of a specific Democrat who is the vice chair and newly-nominated member of the executive committee of the DNC. He's a proud member of and leader within our party. The speculation that he could be compromised or co-opted is cynical and insulting.

[betsuni]

171. +1

[R B Garr]

137. People can read the posts and agendas on JPR.

They are anti-Democrats, so they are hardly “progressives”. The wall of words never amounts to anything but petty and unbelievable, childish and irresponsible attacks on Democrats. Anyone who can tolerate Republicans because of irresponsible attacks on Democrats is not credible. This nonsense needs to stop.

[Mediumsizedhand]

141. I agree.

[stevenleser]

128. Your post is a good example of a distinction without a difference and manufactured outrage

The point stands. Perez appointed plenty of Sanders supporters to posts in the DNC. FACT.

Your quibbling over exactly to which posts they were appointed shows how desperate you are to push a point that isn't there. And that is exactly what Greenwald/Intercept, and JPR are known for and why they have no credibility here.

[NurseJackie]

117. Their well-known reputations precede them. I must say, it reveals much about anyone who would...

... trust them, or defend them, or rely on them, or quote them, or cite them (and it doesn't paint a very flattering picture of those who may so do.)

Besides, we have the truth in MrsCoffee's #25 above.

Indeed. Thanks for highlighting that.

[Mediumsizedhand]

119. I agree. And I have to read MrsCoffee #25 that you all are pointing out.

[Jim Lane]

123. I respectfully request that you also read my # 88 in response. Get both sides. Thanks. (n/t)

[Mediumsizedhand]

125. It is not "both sides". I am done with agitators that caused our problem 2016.

This issue started with "your side". We had plenty of work up from your side. Then facts came out, clearly showing us what this was about. Not a sincere issue, but just another moment in time to trash the DNC.

[George II]

121. Lots of attention is being paid to those who were removed, little attention to....

.....those who the new members are.

[Jim Lane]

191. Then pray enlighten me about the new members OF THE COMMITTEES

Trust me, I have seen MrsCoffee's #25, which seems to be the go-to answer for any criticism of Perez. It lists the at-large appointments to the DNC.

The article in The Intercept, explaining why some activists are objecting, quotes one of them, Becky Bond:

Ellison supporters are also frustrated by the repeated switching of the conversation from the executive and rules committees, which have power and matter, to the at-large members, who have very little. “The DNC is spinning it as being about diversity and focusing on at-large, but we know the real power is with the committees, and the rules committee in particular, [which] determines rules for primaries and caucuses,” said Bond.

“The rules committee is where recommendations from the unity committee go. That’s where the grassroots of the party, the people that Keith Ellison represents, are being retaliated against, and that’s where you need to look if you want to see if Perez is really trying to unify the party, or consolidate power for the Clinton wing of the party.”

If you believe (on evidence not yet presented in this thread) that the Intercept is lying about the reaction of many Democrats, perhaps you'll consider an article from HuffPo, "Progressives’ Anger Over Key Committee Appointments Roils Democratic Party Meeting". After noting that the DNC touted the diversity of the at-large appointments, HuffPo reported:

The DNC’s response obfuscates the more critical question of who sits on key committees and the need to represent reform-minded people of all races and backgrounds in positions of influence, according to progressive critics.

“It’s not only misdirecttion, but it’s also divisive,” Jane Kleeb, an Ellison supporter and chair of the Nebraska Democratic Party, said of the diversity retort. “It continues to paint the Bernie people as not caring about our native and Latino and black brothers and sisters, which is complete nonsense.”

HuffPo also quotes Ms. Bond in a statement amplifying what The Intercept wrote:

“I don’t know what the Rules Committee is going to do,” Bond said of their forthcoming assessment of the Unity Commission’s recommendations. “But I know that there are five Clinton-appointed Unity Commission members on the Rules Committee and no Bernie-appointed ones now that Perez has shaken it up.”

Hence my subject line. It should be quite easy for you to prove that Becky Bond (presumably a BernieSis) is wrong. Just list the new members of the Rules Committee who were Sanders appointees to the Unity Commission, or, more broadly, the new members of the Rules Committee whose appointments counter the allegation of a purge. That'll show Greenwald and his Kremlin masters.

[George II]

193. I don't know much about them yet, but I sure as heck didn't jump on the bandwagon...

...criticizing them before the ink on the announcement had even dried.

However, I see nothing wrong with your quote that "there are five Clinton-appointed Unity Commission members on the Rules Committee and no Bernie-appointed ones." After all, Clinton is a Democrat and has been for decades. Sanders has not.

Would it be appropriate for the owner of the Green Bay Packers to appoint members of the MLB rules committee?

[Jim Lane]

194. Your response epitomizes one view of how to oppose Trump

The fact is that 13 million people voted for Bernie in the Democratic primaries. Some context: In 2008, Obama beat McCain by about 9.6 million votes, and that was the biggest margin for a Democratic nominee since the LBJ landslide of 1964.

So, how do we prepare for 2018 and 2020? Two views have been seen on DU:

* Tom Perez and other party leaders make their decisions, and everyone else should just shut up. Any public disagreement is bad, regardless of whether it's justified, because it undermines party unity. Besides, Bernie's not a Democrat, so anything he says, and anything said by people who supported him (even supporters who are Democrats), doesn't count.

* Sanders came in second in the primaries, but that doesn't mean that the Democratic Party can afford to write off 13 million voters. It's important to recognize that, among people who are united in opposition to Trump and the right wing, there are nevertheless some disagreements. The party must conduct itself so that it's seen as the natural home for progressives of all the different factions, not just the people who backed Clinton for the nomination and Perez for DNC Chair.

To me, it's quite clear that the second approach, besides being morally right (for those who care about stuff like fairness), is, in practical terms, the course more likely to lead to Democratic victories.

[Demsrule86]

186. No it is not true...it is about helping the Russian loving Republicans.

[Jim Lane]

192. "It helps the Republicans" doesn't prove it's false. Try again. (n/t)

[Demsrule86]

223. Anything that helps the GOP is wrong...period.

Jim the house is on fire, and if we don't set aside our differences and elect Democrats soon, the progressive movement is over. They alone can stop this.

[Jim Lane]

224. If you want to say that something is wrong, fine, but don't say it isn't true.

There are situations in which people are well advised to refrain from saying something, even though it's true, but noting that prudential consideration is different from proving that the statement is not true.

As for setting aside our differences, my view is that Perez, as DNC Chair, has a particular responsibility to work for party unity. He must act in ways that are fair. In addition, what can often be more difficult, he must act in ways that are generally perceived to be fair. In this instance, there's a good argument that he failed in the first responsibility. I think it's absolutely clear that he failed in the second.

There are divisions within the Democratic Party. Perez won a narrow victory to become Chair. I don't accept an implication that "set aside our differences" means that everyone who was part of a substantial minority faction must unquestioningly accept everything that Perez now does. That's morally wrong; in addition, given that so many of the people involved on both sides are activists who aren't used to rolling over and playing dead, no such suggestion would be likely to succeed as a practical matter even if it deserved to.

If Ellison had been elected he'd be in the same position -- dealing with a substantial minority that has to be kept on board.

Yes, this makes the Chair's job more difficult. I'm sure that being DNC Chair sometimes feels like being the only fire hydrant on a block with 50 dogs. Too bad. Perez knew what he signed up for, as the saying goes. If he can't handle the situation, then he's not the right person to help elect more Democrats.

[Demsrule86]

225. I categorically deny that the assertions you made are true.

I don't see Perez as doing anything that you and others have accused him of doing. I don't believe in 'sides' period...the primary is over and so is the election(2016)...we can't keep catering to this nonsense. Move on. We will have new candidates in 20...and as always primary voters will decide who will be the Democratic nominee. And we need to get behind that person.

[Mediumsizedhand]

230. +1.

[stevenleser]

100. Nothing the Intercept writes should be trusted. It's Greenwald's site. nt

[NurseJackie]

107. Well... THAT certainly explains a lot. (And I'll just leave it at that...

... for obvious reasons.) But, I thank you for pointing that out.

[R B Garr]

111. +1000, thanks Steve, that sure explains everything.

That JPR site is full of crap like this. It doesn’t belong here.

[JCanete]

144. so if they make a claim, somebody could correct the record. Sure, take it with a pile of salt. Are

the facts stated disprovable?

[stevenleser]

149. Nope, just like we dont bother with other reichwing sites

Post from a legit source or no one will take it seriously

[Demsrule86]

187. They are now like Breitbart...so none of their statements need be addressed...they

are rightwing.

[jalan48]

94. It looks like the Party is hurting for money also. Maybe this diversity will help fill the coffers.

[CentralMass]

152. Sanders grassroots organization was a prolific fund raiser during the primary. Do think that ..

this purge is going to make his supporters want to cough up some of their hard earned money when they are clearly not being listened to. ?

[R B Garr]

154. We have no idea who contributed to Sanders. It could

have been Pootie’s trolls sending millions in small increments. The only thing confirmed is that the Russians liked Bernie because of the divisiveness. (see Mueller investigation into election hacking.)

[CentralMass]

155. We have some pretty good data on who contributed to him

https://www.opensecrets.org/pres16/candidate?id=n00000528
We know that he raised nearly $232 million from small individual contributions.

Fundraising Details

Campaign Committee Outside Groups Combined
Total Raised $228,164,501 $0 $228,164,501
Total Spent $222,709,340 $0 $222,709,340
Cash on Hand $5,473,008 $0 $5,473,008
Debts $449,409 - -
Date of Report 12/31/16

Individual Contributions Total $231,815,008 101.60%
Small Individual Contributions $134,669,942 59.02%
Large Individual Contributions $97,145,068 42.58%
PAC Contributions $5,621 0.00%
Candidate self-financing $0 0.00%
Federal Funds $0 0.00%
Other $1,576,978 0.69%

..and this.

http://www.latimes.com/projects/la-na-pol-sanders-donors/
"Now, a Times analysis of nearly 7 million individual contributions has provided unprecedented detail about the army of people behind the $27 donations Sanders mentions at virtually every campaign stop."
"
Many resemble Emily Condit, 40 of Sylmar, who has contributed three times — $5 each — to the Vermont senator’s campaign.

Condit, who has several physical disabilities, is among the largest single group of Sanders’ donors — those who don’t have a job. Of the $209 million given to the Vermont senator’s campaign, about one out of every four dollars came from those not in the workforce, who include the unemployed or retired.

“
Bernie Sanders is running on a platform to lift up the have-nots and to improve the system of government we have, so that no one will ever be left behind.
”
"For the last 15 years, since Condit left a job at NASA, her ailments have kept her from working. She depends on Social Security and lives on a tight budget but has found money for Sanders because she was drawn to his populist message.

“I know very well now what it's like to be a have-not, both financially and physically, and to fall through the cracks of society,” she said. “Bernie Sanders is running on a platform to lift up the have-nots and to improve the system of government we have, so that no one will ever be left behind.”


Small-dollar donors such as Condit have allowed Sanders to out-raise his rival, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in the Democratic primary. Clinton had received $190 million through the end of April. (A separate super PAC backing her bid raised an additional $76 million.)

Californians contributed more than $36 million to Sanders’ campaign, the most money from any state in the nation, according to financial disclosure reports that cover fundraising through the end of April, the most recent available. Sanders has raised the majority of his money here in wealthy, coastal areas that are predominately white. Nine of the top 10 ZIP Codes with the highest rate of giving are north of San Jose, with concentrations in the Berkeley Hills and in scenic enclaves north of the Golden Gate Bridge."

There is much more at the link

[R B Garr]

156. There were pages of discrepancies promoting a

formal investigative letter from the FEC. There is no reliable or verifiable data on the small donors. We need to quit relying on distortions to explain away what others can plainly surmise. The Russians went to all kinds of lengths to keep up the attacks on Our nominee. See Mueller investigation on Russian meddling.

[CentralMass]

157. When you have millions of contributions being takien by a newly

formed grass ro6its organization processing that many contributions is a logistically tough issue. It was chaotic and I'm sure processing mistakes may have neen made.

You can throw as much water as you want on this but I'm not buying it.

Sanders was a prolific fundraiser. Many people incuding myself donated small amounts to his campaign.

[R B Garr]

158. Just because you are a Believer doesnt change the

fact that there are FEC questions in the form of official letters that don’t appear to be reconciled. If the FEC saw discrepancies, then touting that episode as a sure thing doesn’t hold water. Who knows how many komrades might have contributed millions of $27s.

It remains a fact that we don’t really know who the small contributors were (see Mueller investigation into Russian meddling).

[CentralMass]

159. What I believe is that the DNC just made a mistake with this recent purge.

I

[Mediumsizedhand]

160. Lol.

[R B Garr]

162. Bernie purged himself a while ago. If he makes

it that obvious, I guess people are believing him.

[MrsCoffee]

174. Now that is an excellent point.

[NurseJackie]

181. You took the words right out of my mouth!

[jalan48]

163. No-but at least we have Wall Street and the billionaires to fall back on.

[Demsrule86]

188. I dispute that they are not being listened too...and why should anyone follow a Senator

from Vermont now that the election is over? He is not a Democrat and has no reason to influence the party...Tom Hartmann said he should join the Democratic Party last week by the way...almost fell out of my chair. There can be no 'Bernie or Hillary' wings of the Democratic Party...the primary is over and the election is over...Perez is correct to move and you should too.

[JCanete]

143. Cool...sounds like a puff piece though. If you are going to talk about who got nominated as if

all that is being done is unity, you have to take it in the context of who lost their positions as well. This does not bother to touch that side of the story at all, so I have no way of knowing, beyond the statement of doubling native american representation, adding to union reps and doubling millennial representation whether there were net positives, to say Sanders or Ellison supporters, or net negatives. For that matter, I have no way of knowing from this article whether the uptick in millennials actually represented the breakdown of millennial voter behavior.

Diversity is absolutely important. So is diversity of ideas. This doesn't really help me to get a picture of that story.

[Demsrule86]

189. Why...would that be useful? You can infer anything by such choices... and it is just more endless

bashing of the Democratic Party...unite and move on...there can be no Sanders wing (not a Democrat) or Hillary wing...it is over. I am ready to kick some GOP fascist butt...I don't give a damn about 'reforming' the party at this point. It is a good party with good people in it, and we need to elect the Democratic candidates period. If there is a 'D' next to their name, vote for them.

[JCanete]

197. You don't give a damn about it. Other people do. But of course it would be useful. If some people

like a certain look of the party and they find a certain element in it a problem, maybe because they think THAT is the cause of disunity, maybe they marginalize it. Maybe they purge it because that element undermines what they think they are trying to do. Whether that calculation is a good one, and whether or not it itself causes more of a rift than a galvanization is another matter.

No. Never vote for the D period. Vote for them because they are better. When they stop being better, stop giving them your support. I really really hate those platitudes that just assume that the party will always be better based upon some magic sauce.

Again, what is bashing the democratic party? I"m sorry. It is not acceptable to be a part of this party and to not behave as its custodian. That is our job. Same as citizens of this nation. We can't simply assume it is doing the right thing. We can't simply say "greatest nation in the world" and have it mean anything. There will never be a right time to not question the decisions of our leadership, both on apart level and on a national one.

[Demsrule86]

221. "Stop giving them your support" and elect Republicans...not a great plan but one that works out

great for Republicans...we are on the verge of loosing progressive policy that dates back to Roosevelt, I would consider the ramifications of a court packed for a generation with Republicans...won't matter who wins at that point.

[Baconator]

180. 'draw a distinction between his priorities and those of President Trump.'

This is a bad sign and part of what happened in 2016...

It's not about our ideas or motivating people... It's about why we're not Trump.

People don't learn. I swear...