Why do right-wingers favor Keith Ellison in the DNC race? Various reasons, and they're not pretty

[DonViejo]

THURSDAY, FEB 23, 2017 07:58 AM EST

Many on the right openly long for a Bernie-allied black progressive to become leader of the "anti-white" Democrats

MATTHEW SHEFFIELD

As the contest over who will head the Democratic National Committee comes to a close, party leaders appear divided. Head counts by Democratic activists and news organizations indicate that none of the candidates for the office will likely win on the first ballot on Saturday. On the other side of the political aisle, however, there appears to be unity about who the Republicans would like to see leading the DNC: Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison.

The strong preference for Ellison won’t directly affect the chair contest. But it’s a bit unusual for people who profess to despise a political party to have such a strong preference about who should lead it. For the most part, the right-wing support for Ellison (if you can even call it that) isn’t derived from agreeing with his progressive positions on issues. It reflects a perception that electing Ellison would present Democrats with political optics that would make winning over disaffected white voters in the heartland more difficult.

According to Chuck Ross, a reporter at the conservative news website The Daily Caller: “Republicans appear to be leaning in favor of an Ellison win because he is seen as a more polarizing choice to lead the DNC, which is still reeling from the forced resignation of Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz.”

In December, Republican consultant Karl Rove effectively endorsed Ellison in a Wall Street Journal column.

To their Advent prayer list, Republicans should ask that Rep. Keith Ellison (D., Minn.) is elected the Democratic National Committee’s chairman early next year,

Mr. Ellison’s selection would mean the Democratic Party would be led by a left-winger’s left-winger, handing an early assist to the GOP and the Trump administration for the 2018 midterms.

more
http://www.salon.com/2017/02/23/right-wing-favor-keith-ellison-in-the-dnc-race/

[babylonsister]

1. Do we really give a damn what they think? Really? Rove???

I kind of like left-wingers myself, and the rwnjs aren't too popular nowadays.

[DonViejo]

3. We don't have to give a damn, just be aware of their planned strategy against our

party and leadership. I take it you didn't read the entire article, just the copied and pasted paragraphs in the OP

[dragonlady]

2. Since when do Republican operatives tell the truth?

It's all so manipulative these days.

[A Round Tuit]

4. Why beat around the bush?

We know why the right wants him.

He's Muslim.

In their mind, he will be roundly rejected not only by the right wing itself (which matters little), but also by a great many on the left.

Like it or not, there is still resentment among some left-leaning folks who associate any attack with every Muslim out there, much like the rabid RW'ers do.

Every thing he says or does, any person he advocates for, Muslim or not, will be scrutinized to the nth degree.

And if another attack occurs while he is being the least bit vocal...he will be excoriated...as will a large part of the Democratic Party for electing him to the position.

Personally, I don't care who the chairperson is. Since the debacle with DWS, I think anyone there will be ineffective for at least a couple of cycles...and they'll get the blame for anything that occurs or does not occur...as the case may be.

We may be peaceful advocates of non-violence and against the use of deadly weapons, but we sure do tend to shoot ourselves in the foot a lot.

I know that's not a popular observation, but we have the WHOLE of the Party to think about, not just the sensibilities of those that may be hurt because the first person of color that just happens to be Muslim is rejected for the Chair of the Party.

He is a polarizing figure. I will support him if he is chosen by others...but I will be privately saying to myself..."I told you so."

Just my opinion. Your mileage may vary.

[Phoenix61]

5. That!

He is a polarizing figure. Any other time? Fine. But not now. We really need to get that optics matter a lot, not a little, a lot.

[WhiteTara]

6. I fear Ellison will fail in the South.

He's a double whammy and that won't go over among the Democratic racists among us.

[rogue emissary]

7. Let Em' keep thinking that about Ellison.

We did the same thing with Donny and were blindsided. Hell, I'm not even supporting him as chair Ellison, but they're underestimating him and the DNC.

[geek tragedy]

8. We were rooting for Trump because he'd be the easiest to beat. nt

[MosheFeingold]

9. It's about money

Rep. Ellison is accused of saying some rather intolerant things about Jewish people and holding some positions that can be spun as antisemitic. Looks to me that he popped off unwisely as a wet-behind-the-ears law student:

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

Being a former law student, I remember when I thought I knew everything as a mighty law student, too. I said all kinds of stupid things. And got in a stupid lawsuit with my landlord. You know, because I KNEW THE LAW. We lawyers are, as a group, complete idiots until reality hits us in the face a few times.

And note it is not at all clear he said this stuff. Many others disagree that the allegations are true, at all:

https://www.thenation.com/article/keith-ellison-is-no-anti-semite/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/keith-ellison-anti-semitic_us_584f2222e4b04c8e2bb15c5e

Still, many of the big financial backers of the DNC are Jewish and aren't thrilled about a person with such (alleged) baggage being at the head of their chosen party, regardless if the allegations are true or not. He's guilty until proven innocent.

So they will sit on their pocketbooks. Or at least think before opening them.

Similarly, Jewish Republicans will open theirs.

This is not an overwhelming mystery.

He's a great guy, good rep, but a poor political choice. Remember, his main role will be to raise money, not set policy.

No reason to pick someone who has to walk up hill both ways.