Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    DNC Vote Saturday: Will Democrats become party of Keith Ellison?

    DNC Vote Saturday: Will Democrats become party of Keith Ellison?

    Long history of supporting Louis Farrakhan and anti-Israel groups, while dabbling in anti-Semitic disloyalty tropes.

    On Saturday, February 25, 2017, Democrat National Committee delegates will vote in a new Chair.

    The two top contenders are Keith Ellison, congressman from Minnesota, and Tom Perez, former Obama Labor Secretary.

    Regardless of who is chosen, there is no centrist choice. Because the is no center of the Democratic Party.

    Perez is a fairly standard leftist. We haven’t spend a lot of time covering his background because there’s really nothing particularly interesting as regards the future of the Democratic Party. He’s reportedly the Obama-Biden choice.

    A New Republic writer says this isn’t a left (progressive) versus centrist battle – both candidates are leftist:

    The narrative that has developed around the race—Ellison as Sanders-style progressive, Perez as party establishment—is a bit overblown. Both have strong progressive records, both have support from various unions, and both have broadly similar ideas on how they want to reform the DNC. Perez supporters are quick to emphasize that, as “the most liberal member of Obama’s cabinet,” he is just as progressive as his opponent. When Sanders stated in early February that Perez would represent the same “failed status-quo” approach, Democrats hit back. One Hillary Clinton ally told the Hill, “Perez and Ellison are cut from the same progressive cloth. Either one would be a strong leader.” Most Democrats, including voting members of the DNC, seem to feel good about both candidates—a Hill poll found that Ellison and Perez both lead in second-choice preferences. Advocating for Perez’s credentials, David Corn of Mother Jones asserted that the race “isn’t an establishment vs. progressive clash.”

    This is all true. The differences between Perez and Ellison are minimal. Perez’s perceived qualities could easily be switched out for Ellison’s.

    There is one thing missing from that analysis.

    Ellison is not only leftist, he has a long history of supporting Louis Farrakhan, a history he has not been honest about. That involvement was far longer and more intense than he has admitted publicly.

    Ellison also has a long and very current history of associating with and supporting anti-Israel groups, such as the toxic U.S. Campaign to End The Israeli Occupation (since rebranded as the U.S. Campaign for Palestinian rights). Ellison also dabbles in anti-Semitism with his documented attempts to demonize American Jewish supporters of Israel as doing Israel’s bidding.

    For extensive details and documentation supporting our description of Ellison’s past, see our prior posts:

    Considering that Americans overwhelmingly support Israel, at near historical highs, choosing someone with Ellison’s clear record is a break with the American people. Ellison

    It’s doubtful moving left will help Democrats recover from their devastating electoral losses. Going so far as to make Keith Ellison the face of the Democratic Party would be extremely high risk.

    I guess it’s something I should want to happen from a purely electoral perspective. It’s hard to imagine Ellison, teamed with Elizabeth Warren as the twin faces of the Democratic Party, moving beyond the Bernie-base of the party.

    I just can’t wish for it, though. Promoting someone with Ellison’s past and current connections to a leadership position of one of the two major parties is just too dangerous to wish for it.


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    casualobserver | February 24, 2017 at 10:42 pm

    I’ve never been so aware of the election of someone to head up a party’s National Convention. The televised debates as if it were a presidential election really seems unusual. Is it the main stream media trying desperately to bring some relevance back to the party??

    PrincetonAl | February 25, 2017 at 6:14 am

    Ellison leaves me uneasy as a pick, beyond his anti-Semitism.

    He strikes me as someone that somehow has mastered broader appeal despite what I perceive as a radical set of positions. His district is D+20 or something, but it’s quite diverse. It’s not a majority-minority VRA district but has a good swath of liberal but mainstream “Minnesota nice” in it.

    I don’t think he is a standard leftist but quite committed and smarter than the Maxine Waters of the world.

    He seems to me more dangerous than a Perez or certainly DWS (who was only a danger to herself and the party) and not to be underestimated.

    I would hope that his radical positions would make the party more toxic and his at times quite off-putting statements would hurt party appeal.

    But he has thrived all this time in flyover country (albeit urban Minnesota) despite that, so I suspect he is a canny individual.

    He would hurt their large donor fund-raising for sure, but maybe improve the small donor raises.

    Regardless, I see him as potentially dangerous, unlike the last clowns.

    Two groups that couldn’t be more different: Muslims and progressives. And yet they are drawing closer to each other because of shared hatreds – of Jews, of Israel, of conservative evangelicals and Western culture. The cognitive gymnastics feminists, gays, Jews will have to engage in should Ellison get the nod. I mean, Islam and women’s rights or gay rights simply don’t fit into the same package…? What are these folks thinking?

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend