New DNC chair

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

I don't really care who has endorsed him. Why should he have the job?

Silence.

Not silence at all. I had answered that in a post prior to your post. Why should I answer it a second time. Read the other posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Yes -- I tend to overlook anything with "cuz" in it. That's not what most criticisms of him rest on, though.

Ellison is saying he might resign from Congress to take this post. That puzzles me. He is valuable in Congress and there are many good candidates for DNC chair.

I'm the cuz poster. I agree with your assessment of Ellison being very valuable in Congress. Sorry if my typing with shorthand on a web forum means you don't care read my opinions.

Third this. It would be much better for his political future for him to stay in Congress and inf front of the camera.

Not sure why he even wants this job.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

I don't really care who has endorsed him. Why should he have the job?

Silence.

Not silence at all. I had answered that in a post prior to your post. Why should I answer it a second time. Read the other posts.

Two different posters. I did read what you posted and still don't think he's right for the job.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

Why? What in Ellison's background makes him the best person for the job? I can't imagine a more controversial pick from the perspective of the average voter.

Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

Clinton is gone so that would be true of whomever it is. The majority of the party, and country, remains to the center of guys like Ellison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I hear Harry Reid will be available, come January.

Joy!

At least Reid knows how to assemble the nuts and bolts to build a working political machine. That, more than anything is what is needed now. That said, the Democrats have to stop worshiping on the altar of constituency group politics so much.

I'm sure Reid is not interested but he built quite a machine in Nevada. That is the goal.

Reid has endorsed Ellison. Ellison has been endorsed by Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren.

Why? What in Ellison's background makes him the best person for the job? I can't imagine a more controversial pick from the perspective of the average voter.

Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

Clinton is gone so that would be true of whomever it is. The majority of the party, and country, remains to the center of guys like Ellison.

The center has moved left quite a bit. It's a Big Tent! Oh wait...

[Anonymous]

I am a centrist and, beyond the personal flaws, I agree much more with Clinton than Warren or Sanders. For example, I think protectionism is a bad idea that has been proven bad many times over in history for example (bad of Clinton to switcharoo on that for the election).

However, the country is going to go into a Leftist mood- the poor white working class will be disappointed by Trump (as soon as they realize that even if Trump wants to do what he said in terms of tarifs or forcing corporations to kerpnjobs here, the GOP won't let him) and in short order they will be ready for the appeal of Sanders-types. Millennials also rejected Clinton (thus enduring her loss) and loved all the unrealistic freebies promised by Sanders.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

Same here. Plus, his former Farrakhan association is still concerning.

Ellison's religion is fine. His race is fine.

His past association with a bigoted advocate of racial separatism is not fine. And Ellison's refusal to unequivocally condemn Farakhan's bigoted teachings is completely unacceptable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I am a centrist and, beyond the personal flaws, I agree much more with Clinton than Warren or Sanders. For example, I think protectionism is a bad idea that has been proven bad many times over in history for example (bad of Clinton to switcharoo on that for the election).

However, the country is going to go into a Leftist mood- the poor white working class will be disappointed by Trump (as soon as they realize that even if Trump wants to do what he said in terms of tarifs or forcing corporations to kerpnjobs here, the GOP won't let him) and in short order they will be ready for the appeal of Sanders-types. Millennials also rejected Clinton (thus enduring her loss) and loved all the unrealistic freebies promised by Sanders.

The people voted ina reactionary way this year, for less, not more change. Would be a mistake to read that the wrong way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

Same here. Plus, his former Farrakhan association is still concerning.

Ellison's religion is fine. His race is fine.

His past association with a bigoted advocate of racial separatism is not fine. And Ellison's refusal to unequivocally condemn Farakhan's bigoted teachings is completely unacceptable.

Yep. Liberals were jumping all over Steve Bannon but can't be bothered to condemn Keith Ellison. Yet again: hypocrites of the highest order.

[jsteele]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

Same here. Plus, his former Farrakhan association is still concerning.

Ellison's religion is fine. His race is fine.

His past association with a bigoted advocate of racial separatism is not fine. And Ellison's refusal to unequivocally condemn Farakhan's bigoted teachings is completely unacceptable.

I think Ellison's rejection of the Nation of Islam and condemnation of Farakhan is pretty unequivocal here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ds-8NoJgE1TkhUOVpKbE1lam9hbjJYdm8xb0pEcmZrSnN3/preview

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

Same here. Plus, his former Farrakhan association is still concerning.

Ellison's religion is fine. His race is fine.

His past association with a bigoted advocate of racial separatism is not fine. And Ellison's refusal to unequivocally condemn Farakhan's bigoted teachings is completely unacceptable.

Yep. Liberals were jumping all over Steve Bannon but can't be bothered to condemn Keith Ellison. Yet again: hypocrites of the highest order.

you think anyone is fooled by your crap? bannon is actively creating a platform for the racists as we speak.

[Anonymous]

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

Same here. Plus, his former Farrakhan association is still concerning.

Ellison's religion is fine. His race is fine.

His past association with a bigoted advocate of racial separatism is not fine. And Ellison's refusal to unequivocally condemn Farakhan's bigoted teachings is completely unacceptable.

I think Ellison's rejection of the Nation of Islam and condemnation of Farakhan is pretty unequivocal here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ds-8NoJgE1TkhUOVpKbE1lam9hbjJYdm8xb0pEcmZrSnN3/preview

Perhaps, but it doesn't really matter. It took me a long time to accept the fact that perception is reality (especially in a 'post truth' world where most people get their 'news' from Facebook). It would take Trump and his supporters about a nanosecond to spread 'the truth that the mainstream press won't tell you' - Ellison is a radical Muslim supporter of Farrakahn. Why do we need that baggage? There are other qualified candidates out there who would not be a distraction. Personally, I'd love to see Howard Dean in the role, but there are certainly other people who could do the job. I just do not get why the Democratic hierarchy insists on supporting a guy who not only potentially alienates the average American voter but who alienates a lot of centrist Democratic voters (like me) as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

jsteele wrote:
Ellison has been co-chair of the Progressive Caucus. Apparently he has impressed those who have worked with him. You have to admit that Reid, Sanders, Schumer, and Warren cover a lot of ground.

I think the main signal this is sending is that there is a desire to break with the Clinton wing of the party. The Clintons -- at least in their most recent incarnation -- represented the inside game. That was good for consultants, lobbyists, and the entire political professional class. Lot's of money to be made. But, those folks just lost the election. Apparently, a few of those in leadership positions want to try something different.

I have always thought Ellison is an interesting politician with some attractive ideas, but I don't know if the optics are great for this selection. I also think his more centrist stance toward Israel could be problematic. Right or wrong, AIPAC is a huge lobby that has traditionally supported Democrats. IMHO, one of the more important things Congressional Democrats need to do is try to salvage the Iran Deal. They need AIPAC to at least not try to derail these efforts.

And there's no getting around the fact that Ellison is controversial, even just cuz of his religion. It's not right, but it's reality. I've posted before, a lot of the criticism of Clinton was not right or fair, but the bad optics her (and the party) in the end.

I don't think it is fair, or even wise, to compare an individual's religion to another's person's private email server, family foundation that takes millions in foreign donations, or highly-paid private speeches to the finance industry. Clinton's bad optics generally were a result of her own bad decisions. In the case of Ellison, the factors you site are ones that Democrats should uphold rather than consider "bad".

Not the poster you are referring to, but I have seen criticism only of Ellison's own speeches and writings, not his religion.

Same here. Plus, his former Farrakhan association is still concerning.

Ellison's religion is fine. His race is fine.

His past association with a bigoted advocate of racial separatism is not fine. And Ellison's refusal to unequivocally condemn Farakhan's bigoted teachings is completely unacceptable.

I think Ellison's rejection of the Nation of Islam and condemnation of Farakhan is pretty unequivocal here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3Ds-8NoJgE1TkhUOVpKbE1lam9hbjJYdm8xb0pEcmZrSnN3/preview

Perhaps, but it doesn't really matter. It took me a long time to accept the fact that perception is reality (especially in a 'post truth' world where most people get their 'news' from Facebook). It would take Trump and his supporters about a nanosecond to spread 'the truth that the mainstream press won't tell you' - Ellison is a radical Muslim supporter of Farrakahn. Why do we need that baggage? There are other qualified candidates out there who would not be a distraction. Personally, I'd love to see Howard Dean in the role, but there are certainly other people who could do the job. I just do not get why the Democratic hierarchy insists on supporting a guy who not only potentially alienates the average American voter but who alienates a lot of centrist Democratic voters (like me) as well.

Recall that for many Republicans, the presidency of our first Muslim, Kenyan-born president is finally winding down. So making a choice based on fears of what those in the other party will or won't do just doesn't rank high on my list of concerns.

[Anonymous]

I will be very surprised if Ellison wins. The stunt of putting only his name on the ballot pissed off a lot of the rank-and-file people who will actually vote. Harry Reid and Bernie Sanders don't pick the DNC chair, and Bernie said he's no longer a Democrat anyway so I don't know why he's trying to coronate a new DNC chair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I am a centrist and, beyond the personal flaws, I agree much more with Clinton than Warren or Sanders. For example, I think protectionism is a bad idea that has been proven bad many times over in history for example (bad of Clinton to switcharoo on that for the election).

However, the country is going to go into a Leftist mood- the poor white working class will be disappointed by Trump (as soon as they realize that even if Trump wants to do what he said in terms of tarifs or forcing corporations to kerpnjobs here, the GOP won't let him) and in short order they will be ready for the appeal of Sanders-types. Millennials also rejected Clinton (thus enduring her loss) and loved all the unrealistic freebies promised by Sanders.

The people voted ina reactionary way this year, for less, not more change. Would be a mistake to read that the wrong way.

GOP did not get more votes than in 2012- Millennial Democrats did not come out for Hillary so she lost. They had already rejected her in 2008 and then again this time around. The quickest way for Dems to win is to get those votes, not to go chasing after the reactionaries that will never vote Democratic anyway.