Rep. Keith Ellison faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic

[leftynyc]

Source: CNN

Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, publicly renounced his association with the Nation of Islam in 2006 after it became an issue during his run for Congress, when local Republican bloggers began publishing his old law school columns and photos connecting him to the organization.
"I have long since distanced myself from and rejected the Nation of Islam due to its propagation of bigoted and anti-Semitic ideas and statements, as well as other issues," Ellison wrote at the time.
But several outlets have resurfaced Ellison's past writings as he runs for DNC chair, raising new concerns about his own views and what they would mean for the Democratic Party if he were to be its leader. A CNN KFile review of Ellison's past writings and public statements during the late 1980s through the 1990s reveal his decade-long involvement in the Nation of Islam and his repeated defense of Farrakhan and other radical black leaders against accusations of anti-Semitism in columns and statements to the press. None of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself.

Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/politics/kfile-keith-ellison-nation-of-islam/index.html

---

Democrats don't need to deal with this crap when we're looking to rebuild the party. This will be ALL anyone talks about. I've already made my feeling on this very clear. If Ellison is the pick, the DNC gets nothing from me. Howard Dean or Russ Feingold are the answer.

[Coolest Ranger]

1. I don't care about his religion

I do care about if he can do the job. He has no track record but Howard Dean yea I can get behind him.

[get the red out]

2. I agree

[leftynyc]

8. I don't care about his religion either

All I care about is that he didn't denounce a repulsive bigot until it became untenable to support him any longer. ANYONE who EVER supported screwy louis is no friend of mine.

[BeyondGeography]

3. Schumer is fine with Ellison

Last I looked. When he took heat for it, he said: “I’m not worried about the Israel stuff even though he and I disagree."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/19/why-does-chuck-schumer-support-keith-ellison-for-dnc-chairman-because-of-bernie-sanders/?client=safari

[riversedge]

5. I did not know this...

The reason Schumer picked Ellison. Missed this. (from your link)



Why does Chuck Schumer support Keith Ellison for DNC chairman? Because of Bernie Sanders.



By Ed O'Keefe November 19

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) stands behind Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) on Nov. 16 on Capitol Hill. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

Incoming Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) says he’s backing a Minnesota congressman to lead the Democratic National Committee for a simple reason: because Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) likes him.

Schumer, in an interview Friday, said he’s supporting a bid by Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.) to run the DNC because he comes with the support of Sanders, a key liberal voice in the Senate who also earned a spot this past week on Schumer’s new 10-senator leadership team.

Schumer is set to become the first New Yorker and first Jewish man to serve as a Senate leader and has been a staunch defender of Israel throughout his four decades in public service. But Ellison has been an outspoken critic of Israel and its relationship with Palestinians in the past.

Earlier in his career, Ellison apologized for or withdrew a number of controversial statements, including likening former president George W. Bush’s consolidation of power after the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks to the rise of Adolf Hitler, to defending the leader of the Nation of Islam, to labeling his own 201..............................

[Sunlei]

75. I got email from Sanders days ago, a petition to sign for Keith Ellison for DNC, 3 million sigs

He said he would work on new, stronger DNC direction and he did.

[leftynyc]

13. I've already written and called

my senator over this issue.

[awoke_in_2003]

85. "Schumer is fine with Ellison"

Now that would make me worry. Schumer, the man that brought us this great piece of intellect "“For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania, we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.” Yeah, how's that working out, Chuckles?

[BeyondGeography]

87. Seems he has already absorbed the folly of that

By endorsing Sanders' pick for the DNC.

[grantcart]

89. I deeply mistrust Schumer. He took a very high profile position against the

Iranian agreement so he could raise large donations from Conservative New Yorkers.

[still_one]

4. While his association with the Nation of Islam is distorted and misrepresented, the media unfairly

continue to harp on it, and it will be an unnecessary distraction in my view for a DNC chair. Also that he is an active representative is an issue because I believe the DNC chair should focus full time as DNC chair

[Wellstone ruled]

6. This is a take down job via the

GOP knowing full well the House of Representative will be in full blown play once the Sheeple feel the pain of Trump Economics next year. Remember,most of the Trump Voters are going to get one hell of a Income Tax smack down in as well as losing their Health coverage.

More of the Swift Boating of a Democratic Candidate. You could see this coming,read some of the comments in the Star and Trib out of Minny. Democrats please wake up to what is going on.

[leftynyc]

10. Sorry

But I've been a liberal my entire life and that includes NOT supporting those who stood with repulsive bigots like louis farrakhan. Democrats don't need to have to keep defending the indefensible while trying to build the party.

[Wellstone ruled]

15. Agree,

I knew this was going to surface once Keith's name came up. Lived in the Twin Cities for forty plus years and was active in District 6. Heard this story from our oldest son who knows Keith quite well. Can not support anyone who supports any type of bigotry.

[Larkspur]

16. More like swift boating by the Neo-liberals within the Democratic Party

the GOP is busy figuring out how to dismantle all Democratic programs from FDR to Obama.

[leftynyc]

18. Are you denying he

stood with farrakhan? Or just trying to deflect from it? The answer is Howard Dean or Russ Feingold - not someone who we'll have to keep defending (which I refuse to do, the DNC will be done for me).

[KittyWampus]

21. how is reporting on Ellison's ACTUAL words and actions "swift boating"?

There is no misrepresentation.

[Wellstone ruled]

23. Kieth has this baggage and it is not going away.

Let's move on.

[elleng]

25. Sounds like that to me too.

[Wellstone ruled]

94. And with the help of a hand full of

Blue Dog Dems. Amazing how thinks work out,it is all about money and power and if I have to stomp on you to advance my career,so be it. And I know about getting stomped on like many others.

[sabbat hunter]

92. I wish the

House would be in full blown play in 2018, but with all the gerrymandering, it will be very hard for the democrats to take control, unless the economy completely implodes, and I do not want to see that sort of pain. Been thru one great recession, don't want to be thru a second one.

[Firebrand Gary]

7. Lets apply the same standard.

If his "past" is a problem, then we should excuse him for the running, whether or not its right or wrong. We need to move forward, elect the BEST PERSON FOR THE JOB! No, distractions! We've got enough to deal with, let's not add any more.

[ck4829]

9. So I guess that 'secret recording' didn't catch on?

Why is the right wing out in force against him? I suggest looking up the American Thinker's attempt on him, if you ever need to explain the concept of "trying too hard" to someone, that would be the thing to go to.

[leftynyc]

11. He stood with

louis farrakhan who has ALWAYS been a repulsive bigot. Perhaps you can overlook that. I cannot.

[heaven05]

12. of course

he will be one of those thrown under the bannon bus wheels. The 'cleansing' of the Democratic Party is underway. And it just won't be Ellison, it will come all the way down to the rank and file. Guaranteed. If Ellison is cleansed, the Party will get nothing else from me. It's because he's a Muslim, I suspect.

[geek tragedy]

14. He's never said anything 1/100th as bad as what Trump says every day.

Don't give in to the fauxtrage machine.

[KittyWampus]

22. Trump is a bar set so low, I refuse to acknowledge it.

[philosslayer]

17. Interesting thread

Clearly your views are in the minority. It's nice to know that Islamaphobia is not taking hold on DU

[leftynyc]

20. You can stop with the bullshit

I didn't say ANYTHING about Ellison's religion. His association with a repulsive bigot is the topic of the thread. Got anything to say about that?

[philosslayer]

24. There is no need for anger

reasonable people can disagree.

[leftynyc]

28. LOL -where is the anger?

You (once again) accused me of being a bigot when the only person mentioning his religion was YOU. I asked you a simple question. If you think an association with a repulsive bigot is just honky dory, then you can also stop demanding that don the con do something about bannon - it's the same freeking thing. I got after supporters of bigots no matter what party they belong to. That you don't is entirely your problem.

[philosslayer]

30. Sure sounds like anger to me

smile life is good

[leftynyc]

32. A post on a board "SOUNDS"

like anger to you? Whatever. Got anything to say about a past association with a repulsive bigot? Or do you reserve that outrage for right wingers only?

[philosslayer]

33. OK OK. If I get it

You're not angry. Sheesh

[leftynyc]

35. And still nothing to say

about the topic of the OP. That was predictable.

[philosslayer]

38. I like Keith Ellison

His association with the nation of Islam ended decades ago. Now let me ask you a question. Would you have a opposed to Robert Byrd being elected to leadership position when he was alive and in the Senate?

[leftynyc]

41. Yes (n/t)

[philosslayer]

45. So you don't believe in forgiveness and redemption

any supposed sins committed when we were in our 20s should stick with us for life. So noted

[leftynyc]

46. Nope

not in politicians. Let them work for their states and get redemption there. I'm not in a position to forgive them - that's for the people they maligned and hurt.

[philosslayer]

48. When you find that perfectly pure politician, you let us know

[leftynyc]

50. You want someone who

associated with a repulsive bigot for over a decade, that's your choice. My choice is to fight like hell to keep him in the house representing his district. Perfection has nothing to do with it.

[philosslayer]

52. Another question

Do you put Al Sharpton in the "repulsive bigot" camp? because I could post some quotes of his that would curl your hair. And many Democratic politicians are close to the Reverend Sharpton. Should they be eliminated from consideration also?

[leftynyc]

66. Oh yeah

I detest rev al and have said so on many occasions. I'll never forgive him for that tawana brawley mess. He's never apologized for tearing our city apart. How could you think a NYer wouldn't know rev al?

[procon]

61. They tried making similar charges against Obama,

laboring to connect him to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright as if they were all birds of a feather. Democrats condemned that denunciation then, and the same reproach applies now.

[leftynyc]

64. Bill Ayers is not a repulsive bigot

Neither was Rev Wright (I believe the charge against him was saying G-d damn America). So the situations are not the same at all.

[philosslayer]

69. So, not bigoted?

i'll let you be the judge

https://m.

[leftynyc]

70. I'm not in a position to

watch video right now. Can you summarize the part you obviously find objectionable?

[philosslayer]

72. I've already done enough work for you

Watch the video and you can decide for yourself. And we'll see how your purity test holds up

[leftynyc]

82. Not sure what "purity" test you

are speaking of. Barack Obama was NOT my candidate in 2008. I was a Hillary supporter until she suspended her campaign and because of my position on the supreme court - in my opinion the most important issue - I voted for the Democratic candidate. I'm quite consistent in my views.

[procon]

76. Needs a bit more study.

Searching for identical paradigms does not lend credence to your position, but it's worth watching Obama's eloquently famous speech on race that followed Wright. His ideas were clear and had no connection to past events, but that didn't stop Republicans from using Ayers and Wright as cudgels against him. In that, you would see a mirrored reflection of your own amplified opinions. Now Ellison has said much the same, and his views seems to be borne out by his actions in office as well as testimony from others who have worked with him. Clearly it isn't enough for you, but your motivations are equally transparent.

[leftynyc]

84. My motivations

are to stay clear of any distractions the Democratic party doesn't need right now. You wanting to see nefarious fantasy motives is not my problem.

[LanternWaste]

71. And pretend anyone who disagrees with them is an Islamaphobe

"reasonable people can disagree..."

And pretend anyone who disagrees with them is Islamophobic, regardless of an unsupported allegation of being reasonable.

[JonLP24]

79. There is no pretending

If you know anything about this poster's history.

[leftynyc]

91. There are those who

make it their life's work to prove Bill Maher right about some liberals every single day. Like I wouldn't be complaining about any white Christian who has a past association with that repulsive bigot farrakhan or anyone like him. It's obviously my fault that Ellison happens to be a Muslim.

[procon]

37. You didn't need to"say ANYTHING about Ellison's religion".

You've been flogging this topic for days now and there is only one common denominator. Scream and make angry attacks, or call it whatever you like, it doesn't cover up the enmity left behind.

[philosslayer]

39. Remember, she's not angry

[procon]

51. Ah, no doubt my dictionary description is out of date.

It's been my experience that folks with bellicose personalities are compensating and use a bombastic emotional retort as a hammer to silence any opposition. Trump is a good example of how effective that technique is. Since it often works the tactic becomes ingrained... to the misfortune of the rest of us.

[leftynyc]

47. Yawn

and have a wonderful day.

[KittyWampus]

19. Good. He wants to be on a National Stage he needs to be vetted fully.

[dhill926]

26. and THAT, is a reasonable response....

[Qutzupalotl]

27. It's not like Steve Bannon has ever been anti-Semitic or anything.

[leftynyc]

29. And look at how many of

us Democrats are HOWLING about his hiring bannon. Why is the answer to hire one of our own that also has past support for a repulsive bigot?

[Qutzupalotl]

31. I didn't say that, I was just pointing out the double standard.

We have to be perfect while the Republicans get a pass.

[leftynyc]

34. That's a reason to dump Ellison

not to keep him. How can we continue to be outraged about bannon while we want to put our own with a disgusting association as head of the DNC? We'd be nothing but hypocrites.

[Qutzupalotl]

36. I agree that his past will be a distraction

and we should go with Feingold or Dean.

I just wish Bannon's racism was a disqualifying factor, but Republicans don't care. They only care when our side is questionable.

[leftynyc]

42. Agree 100%

His bigotry and misogyny SHOULD be disqualifying but it seems to be a feature, not a bug, with the new sheriff in town.

[procon]

78. The difference is that Bannon is an active promoter

of white nationalism. He uses Breitbart to provide a public showcase to promote the racist bigotry of white supremacy. He has always been an advocate of white power, and shows no remorse, and is now currently engaged in working his views into the policies of the Trump administration on a daily basis.

Conversely, Ellison has repudiated his past views, acknowledged his mistakes and his present views do not bear any semblance of what he did in decades past. If you want everyone to be tarred forever by the errors of their past, then the only qualifying people you'll find are those living in the mythical Elysian Fields.

[leftynyc]

81. Perhaps you think the

same American public that just voted in don the con will make that distinction. I know better. Ellison is a distraction we don't need.

[shawn703]

93. So having Ellison would make Republicans howl?

Sounds like a plus for Ellison.

[leftynyc]

95. They would have every right

to call us disgusting hypocrites. No thanks.

[shawn703]

99. Oh please

They'd howl and it would be as much of a nothingburger as Obama and Reverend Wright.

[leftynyc]

100. Sorry - I don't want

a past association with a repulsive bigot like louis farrakhan hung around the neck of all Democrats.

[shawn703]

103. Just like they successfully hung a past association with Rev. Wright around the neck of all Dems?

Won't happen.

[leftynyc]

104. They certainly tried

And that talking point is STILL around. If it's Ellison, they wont see a dime from me.

[shawn703]

107. I'm sure the Democrats will do just fine without your contributions

Just like Obama did just fine without any of the contributions from people who thought his association with Rev Wright was important in making a decision not to support him.

[leftynyc]

111. LOL - I think it's adorable

you think I'm the only one.

[Warpy]

40. The far right Christians will do just about anything

to get the only Muslim Congressman out of office. Expect the smears to escalate and expect them to be based in just this much fact.

[leftynyc]

43. I'm not far right

and I'm not Christian. He's the wrong pick.

[KamaAina]

58. They'd have to get Andre Carson (D-IN) out of office, too.

Yup. Two of them! Terralert! Terralert!

[guillaumeb]

44. Trying to create controversy, Part One.

But...........in this case..........

A CNN KFile review of Ellison's past writings and public statements during the late 1980s through the 1990s reveal his decade-long involvement in the Nation of Islam and his repeated defense of Farrakhan and other radical black leaders against accusations of anti-Semitism in columns and statements to the press. None of the records reviewed found examples of Ellison making any anti-Semitic comments himself.

I bolded the relevant portion of the article.

And agreed, Democrats do not need this. This referring to your attempt here to create an issue.

And no, you did not say anything about Ellison being a Muslim. The article does that work for you.

[leftynyc]

49. Yawn

Let me get this straight. Just because steve bannon doesn't walk around with a pointy hood on his head, I can't call him a repulsive bigot for associating himself with repulsive bigots? That's using your logic.

[guillaumeb]

53. No, my "logic" is reading the actual article that you linked to,

and coming to the conclusion that you seem to be trying to use Ellison's past comments about the NOI as "proof" that he is unfit. And the article, again, the one you used as your basis for the post, does not support a charge of anti-Semitism. The article says the opposite.

[leftynyc]

55. And once again

you misrepresent me. I didn't call him an anti-semite. I said he ASSOCIATED with a repulsive bigot for over a decade and that's a headache the Democrats don't need when trying to build a party. Feel free to disagree with what I ACTUALLY said rather than what people are accusing me of unfairly.

[guillaumeb]

59. I agree that you allowed the article to talk for you.

And allowed the title to suggest something that is actually unsupported by the actual article or by any of Ellison's work in Congress.

So when talking about misrepresentation.......well we obviously disagree about who is doing what.

What the Democrats need is people who can figure out how to motivate the unmotivated voters. If it takes a Muslim Democrat, or a Jewish Democrat, or a Christian or an atheist Democrat is beside the point.

[leftynyc]

62. We are REQUIRED

to use the exact title as written in the article. Are you unaware of that DU rule? I'll take that apology any time.

[guillaumeb]

65. Yes, you used the article quite well to make your point.

So congratulations on your use of the title and article.

And why would I apologize for stating my opinion, and mentioning that the article refutes its own title?

[leftynyc]

67. You ACCUSED me

of INTENTIONALLY using a title when it's a requirement on LBN. Your not apologizing was predictable.

[guillaumeb]

73. Apologizing? Again, I reiterate,

I said you used the title and the article well to convey your point.

And I disagreed with what I see as your point, as did the article.

Not at all the same.


Nowhere did I state that you should not have properly titled your post. Please feel free to reread my posts in this thread if you wish to contradict me on this point, because I just did.

Predictable is the word I would have used also in describing this post. But in quite a different context.

[leftynyc]

83. My POINT is that

Democrats don't need this kind of distraction when trying to build a party. That you want to shove other fantasy motives to me is entirely your problem.

[guillaumeb]

86. Fantasy?

Your many posts here are evidence, or at least indications, of how you think on certain issues. So when I see a post with certain, call them trigger words, I make certain conclusions. And one of those trigger words is in this current post.

And judging by some other comments here, I am not the only one to reach this conclusion.

[leftynyc]

90. You figured me out

I SCOURED the internet 24/7 for articles I could post in LBN whose titles had certain words that would trigger.....I'm not sure what. Yes, when I say fantasy motivations, that's exactly what I mean. Do I really need to point out there are posters whose opinion means less than dirt to me? It would be those who seem to spend their lives looking for things to be outraged at.

[Retrograde]

54. A "Youthful Indiscretion"

It's that what the GOP calls it when their people do something similar? Only in that case "youthful" extends into one's forties and beyond.

As for what he wrote in college 20+ years ago - we all were young and not exactly mature once. If he still espouses those beliefs, by all means question him. If his current practices show discrimination against any particular group, that's a reason not to give him a leadership position.

[bravenak]

56. This could have been EASILY predicted.

He should have done outreach long before he considered running, explained himself and gauged the reaction. I wonder what types of comments and statements he defended? Anybody know?

[TuslaUltra]

57. good read! the ADL is actually starting to step up, LeftyNYC

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/anti-defamation-league-keith-ellison-concerns-dnc-232071

makes this all the more interesting!

[SunSeeker]

60. Separate and apart from the baggage, we need a full time DNC Chair. nt

[Sunlei]

63. If Republicans attack like this, he must be good.

[leftynyc]

68. The Anti-Defamation League

is not a republican organization.

[Sunlei]

74. I read this "local Republican bloggers began publishing his old law school columns and photos connec

"local Republican bloggers began publishing his old law school columns and photos connecting him to the organization"

I don't give a crap about his religion or anything he clearly gave up, in public many years ago! Fuck Republicans always going after Ds.

[TonyPDX]

77. Sounds like more Blue Dog bullshit to me. I'm for Ellison.

[hollowdweller]

80. too much baggage. I like him but need somebody else

[Snotcicles]

109. What baggage? he is interested in leading the party machinery. nt

[humbled_opinion]

88. Yep too much distraction, not what

the party needs right now.

[killbotfactory]

96. Nice smear campaign

let's just keep the old guard in. It's only cost us all three fucking branches of federal government.

[leftynyc]

97. How about you stop

pretending there is only one choice for head of DNC here. Stating the truth about Ellison's past associations and using his own words is not a smear campaign. In fact, it's just the opposite. You know what cost us all the branches, assholes staying home or voting third party.

[killbotfactory]

101. It's the parties job to get people to come out and vote

Why stick with people who have proven they don't know how to do that?

[leftynyc]

105. WTF are you talking about?

Howard Dean did an awesome job as head of the DNC. He will do so again.

[Snotcicles]

102. People stay home or vote third party because they don't like the choice being offered. nt

[leftynyc]

106. So they have a hissy fit

Very productive.

[Snotcicles]

108. Some do. The point is to make sure they believe you are offering them the best choice. nt

[leftynyc]

112. Nobody is under any obligation

to make sure every single voter gets every single thing they're looking for in a candidate. Be a fucking adult and realize your sitting on your ass is hurting yourself and your country.

[hollowdweller]

98. I don't know if he's interested, but I think Thomas Perez would be a great choice

I'm not sure about his organizing skills, but his ability to communicate a populist message and his command of the facts are excellent.

I would love to see him in some sort of a leadership position.

[Scruffy1]

110. I'll stand with Keith.

But I don't want to losr a good congressman, . By the way he gets over 80% of the Christian vote in my precinct.