This message was self-deleted by its author

[Ken Burch]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Ken Burch) on Thu Feb 16, 2017, 04:37 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[NCTraveler]

1. This makes no sense. nt.

[DURHAM D]

4. Thank you. nt

[ismnotwasm]

28. Oh good-I didn't want to say anything but I was very confused

[Gothmog]

62. It is a silly straw man argument

[George II]

68. Taking that line of "logic", if we reject Perez then obviously we are....

.....anti-Hispanic "whatever other reasons anyone claims for doing so", and on and on - fill in the blank "reason".

[Gothmog]

78. You are correct

[ProudProgressiveNow]

82. +1 nt

[Justice]

66. +1000 thank you.

[ehrnst]

84. Thank you (nt)

[FSogol]

109. +1. n/t

[Agschmid]

2. Yes we can claim to oppose Islamaphobia, because we do.

[BannonsLiver]

11. +1

The OP's premise is ludicrous.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

12. +1

[Skidmore]

95. +2

[BainsBane]

3. "We"

Do you have a vote for DNC chair? I don't.

Casting concerns about Ellison as Islamophobia is not honest.

[Ken Burch]

6. We as a party.

Neither of us have a vote, but it reflects on us what choice those who do have a vote make.

Let's face it...the "concerns" people have about Keith are mostly a smokescreen.

Opposition to the man is based almost entirely on the myth that, if Keith is chosen, it somehow means that Bernie will take control of the party.

Keith is not Bernie. He's his own man.

[Agschmid]

15. Say it with me... not everything is about Bernie.

[Laurian]

26. Hallelujah!

Fucking hallelujah.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

39. or at least be honest, say that you support him because Bernie

don't come up with BS excuses like this thread.

[Agschmid]

52. Correct.

[NCTraveler]

56. You, like Ellison, kick ass.

Good to see you.

[Agschmid]

57. Thank you, I'm around just a whole lot less. Good to see you too!

[bettyellen]

59. That's the last thing he would admit. Always rehashing the primary. It's ugly.

[NurseJackie]

89. Dear lord, ain't THAT the truth?

[Ken Burch]

106. I've never rehashed the primary. Never once.

Rehashing the primary is where you keep saying the primary should have ended differently. I accepted the results of the primary before the convention when I endorsed Hillary right before the convention. I endorsed her as early as I could and still remain committed to my principles. After the convention, I made a few respectful suggestions in a positive, helpful spirit but was always working for a Hillary victory. The small suggestions I made would have done nothing but gain her votes. Even though those suggestions weren't taken, I worked hard throughout the fall for a Clinton/Victory and grieved the result just as much as you did.

All I'm doing in this thread is asking us to look at the worst, possibly unintended consequences of something here. I simply called us to be our best selves.

My sole intent is for the party to unify all progressives for victory and to win the '18 and '20 elections on a program of social and economic justice. And at this point I don't have any particular candidate for '20.

[Ken Burch]

102. I don't support him because Bernie.

I support him because he's the most progressive candidate in the race and the most likely to revitalize the party.

And because we need to be just as much about supporting social and economic change as we are about contesting elections for the sake of contesting elections.

You can't anathamize everyone who ever had any connection to the Sanders campaign, y'know. It wasn't evil to be part pf thayt. Nor does it mean you were part of a personality cult.

[NurseJackie]

88. Thank you! Good to know I'm not the only one who's fed up with this bullshit!

[Ken Burch]

100. That's actually my point.

Everyone needs to admit Keith is his own man.

The question of whether Keith should get the job should be completely separated from anyone's feelings about the junior senator from Vermont.

[Agschmid]

110. It is. I like Bernie, I've voted for him.

I don't support Ellison.

They are totally separate for me.

[msanthrope]

24. Well, I have a vote. And this OP? Shit, Keith would facepalm for you. nt

[Gothmog]

63. ADL has 'serious concerns' whether Ellison can lead DNC

As a Jewish voter, I place a great deal of trust in the ADL http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/anti-defamation-league-keith-ellison-concerns-dnc-232071

The Anti-Defamation League is questioning whether Rep. Keith Ellison should be chairman of the Democratic National Committee in light of resurfaced comments the Minnesota congressman and candidate for the top DNC job said years ago.

In particular, the ADL, in a statement from CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, points to Ellison saying in a 2010 speech in reference to Israel that "The United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of 7 million people. A region of 350 million all turns on a country of 7 million. Does that make sense? Is that logic? Right? When the Americans who trace their roots back to those 350 million get involved, everything changes."

"New information recently has come to light that raises serious concerns about whether Rep. Ellison faithfully could represent the Democratic Party’s traditional support for a strong and secure Israel," Greenblatt said in a statement.

Greenblatt went on to say that "Rep. Ellison’s remarks are both deeply disturbing and disqualifying."

"His words imply that U.S. foreign policy is based on religiously or national origin-based special interests rather than simply on America’s best interests," Greenblatt said. "Additionally, whether intentional or not, his words raise the specter of age-old stereotypes about Jewish control of our government, a poisonous myth that may persist in parts of the world where intolerance thrives, but that has no place in open societies like the U.S. These comments sharply contrast with the Democratic National Committee platform position, which states: “A strong and secure Israel is vital to the United States because we share overarching strategic interests and the common values of democracy, equality, tolerance, and pluralism.”

So if we vote for Ellison, does mean that we are anti-Jewish? This is what happens when you use silly straw man arguments

[BainsBane]

70. Which isn't Islamophobia

You are tacitly admitting the claims in your OP are false. It's also clear that you and many others would not be supporting Ellison absent Sanders' endorsement.

[Ken Burch]

113. Not me. Keith is the most progressive and pro-party renewal candidate.

He's the one saying we need to stop taking corporate money and that we need to connect with activist culture.

Yes, I supported Bernie, but I don't take orders from him and frankly I don't think he should run for the presidency again.

It's just that I don't accept that everyone and everything connected to that campaign are evil and must be made unwelcome in this party.

We can't win any elections in the future unless we can unify Sanders people and Clinton/Obama people.

[bettyellen]

5. Wow. This is as bad as the "voting with vaginas" Bullshit....please delete this.

[NurseJackie]

73. I know... it is, isn't it? #Sad #Offensive

[Ken Burch]

107. I hated that thread and tried to get it hidden.

That argument was a despicable insult. It's got nothing in common with what I posted.

My OP insulted no one.

And I support Keith on his merits. He's the most progressive candidate in the race and he gets it that corporate money doesn't help us(if it did, we wouldn't have been skunked in November).

[bettyellen]

7. "If we (Dems) do this to Muslims this time" is WAY out of line....

I'm embarrassed to read this at DU.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

8. if we reject Tom Perez for whatever other reasons anyone claims for doing so

is it because we are participating in the massive hatred and racism shown towards Latinos currently?

are we aligning with ICE now?

(two can play at this stupid game)

[pkdu]

31. THIS... nt

[leftynyc]

55. Well done (n/t)

[bettyellen]

60. HA! So true!!

[msanthrope]

9. Didn't you just come to the realization, TODAY that Sarandon is indefensible?

Take the weekend, son, take the weekend.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. ...

[msanthrope]

22. I mean it's like the search function doesn't even exist. nt

[joshcryer]

14. Heh

[msanthrope]

20. Jesus.....leave this to the professionals, yes? nt

[joshcryer]

25. I definitely shouldn't have been on the jury.

Someone alerted "Don't bash democrats" rather than "Don't peddle right-wing talking points, smears, or sources" which made me think they were trying to say the OP was bashing Ellison. Just a confusing alert and post in any event...

[msanthrope]

27. No....I hope this shit stays. That way I get to repost it. nt

[NCTraveler]

29. Sometimes the transparency itself is where it's at. +1. nt.

[msanthrope]

32. POSOUCS lives on, yes? I'm loving the 'splaining that goes on here. nt

[NCTraveler]

54. Same people supporting that when it was said about Obama.....

Are now screaming about the Republicans dismantling the ACA. They are mentally bankrupt.

[Gothmog]

80. The fact that Sarandon just endorsed Ellison should disqualify him as DNC chair

[msanthrope]

83. He is not responsible for her. However, the OP is responsible for his prior posts. nt

[cadmium]

13. sounds coercive

That's like saying that if you prefer Tom Perez you are anti-labor and anti-Latino

If you vote for Ray Bucklley you are local organizing etc.

We have several good candidates - Ellison is probably inevitable but the brow-beating doesn't help his case.

[George II]

36. And anti-Muslim and anti-just-about-anything-else that Ellison is "for"! Worse than merely coercive.

Reminds me of the first few years of the bush administration, "if you're not with us you're against us", if you didn't support bush's disastrous policies you were asked "why do you hate America", etc., etc.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

16. This has got to be one of the stupidest things I've read on DU...

And I was here for bombing the moon.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

17. but were you there for the olive garden controversy?

also, i agree

[Dr Hobbitstein]

19. I was (albeit, as a lurker). nt

[George II]

38. Indeed. Thank you for expressing that.

[Wounded Bear]

18. OFFS!!!

[NCTraveler]

30. I find this to be interesting.

You are one of the two rec's yet don't agree with it. I think that happens often. Rec doesn't always mean support.

[Wounded Bear]

35. Reflex, I guess...

fixed it.

[NCTraveler]

41. I like that it is reflexive.

Sounds kind of optimistic in a way.

[Kimchijeon]

21. wat.

[MineralMan]

23. To which "we" do you refer?

The party leadership will choose a new DNC chair. Several names have been put forward. If they select someone other than Ellison, it won't be "islamophobia." It will be selecting a different person for the position.

I like Keith Ellison very much. He's the House representative from my neighboring district. Would he make a good DNC chair? No doubt he would, but so would several other Democrats.

Nobody's doing anything to Muslims with this choice. I don't know who will end up with the position. I'm too low on the Democratic Party totem pole to have any say in the matter. Whoever it is will have a big job ahead.

I hope the choice is made on the basis of who can do that job the best. Nothing else really matters.

[George II]

33. Taking your viewpoint, it appears that one of the redeeming factors in Ellison's candidacy is that..

....he's a Muslim.

Is that one of the bases of your support for Ellison?

[Blue_true]

34. I don't reject him because he is Muslim, but I won't accept him purely based upon his

Religion either - isn't doing that also a religious test? Both of the two main alternative choices also have compelling arguments for being the next DNC Chair.

[George II]

64. Exactly. It isn't a case of voting for Perez (or whomever) because of what Ellison might be, but...

....perhaps because Perez (or whomever) has better positions and might be more effective overall.

[Adrahil]

37. Wait... what?

You're arguing that we have to pick him, 'cause if we don't, we can't claim to oppose Islamophobia?

Couldn't we also claim that if we don't elect Tom Perez then we can't claim to oppose anti-Hispanic policies?

This is a terrible, terrible argument.

[Gothmog]

40. I have met and like Keith Ellison but I do not support his bid for DNC chair

It is not because of his religion but due to not wanting Sanders to take over the party

[grantcart]

42. I have lived in Islamic countries, I meet people at Mosques and I have Muslim

relatives and I like Ellison as a Rep but not as a national spokesman. I just haven't found him impressive and frankly see him simply as a surrogate for Bernie.

I know a lot of Muslims and not one of them would equate rejecting one Muslim for one position as anything close to Islamophobia.

Because we are not Islamophobic we can look at a person and make a decision on the merits. Frankly I think that if he wasn't Muslim we wouldn't ever have heard much about him, but that is just me.

Its very very very unfortunate that both Ellison and Perez are being forwarded as surrogates for others.

We need a DNC chair that is his or her own person and a strong leader that will be listened to in Memphis, Austin, Salt Lake City as well as New York and Los Angeles. I don't find Ellison to be that person.

[Gothmog]

48. Being a surrogate for Bernie is sufficient reason to reject Ellison

[NCTraveler]

43. Be honest. You took a drink every time Trump said Hillary or fake. nt.

[Gothmog]

44. Ellison being under the control of Sanders is sufficient reason to reject ellison

Religion has nothing to do with this

[Me.]

76. By Endorsing Him Last Night

Sarandon made the case against him being elected

[Gothmog]

79. I agree-Sarandon may have killed Ellison's chances

[Me.]

81. That's Exactly What I Thought For The 2 Seconds I Watched

I thought he better hope the voters didn't see the interview

[tammywammy]

45. Give me a fucking break.

How are you not embarrassed for posting such drivel?

[Gothmog]

49. This is a classic straw man argument that is really very silly

Staw man arguments are really very weak and the OP made me laugh. This is a silly straw man argument that is so weak that it is funny

[starshine00]

46. I feel moved to share my favorite 'islamophobia' quote

care of Andrew Cummins: 'islamophobia, a word invented by fascists, and used by cowards, to manipulate morons', because this post feels very manipulative to me. Just as someone shouldn't be turned away from a job because they are muslim, they shouldn't get it because they are. The religion shouldn't factor in, and this is the wrong group of people (democrats) to accuse of that.

[George II]

94. Good job, thanks.

[bigbrother05]

47. Only if they reselect DWS

Any highly qualified candidate that actively sought the position should be okay as long as there isn't an overt smear campaign. The fact that Keith is such a highly regarded option speaks well for the party as a whole.

[synergie]

50. If you accept Keith Ellison as DNC chair ONLY due to his religion, then

can you claim to pretend that you actually think that Muslims, like anyone else, should be judged on merits alone and not the color of one's skin or the religion they practice?

People who are choosing NOT to support Ellison aren't doing so due to his faith, but due to his policies, and they're not supporting Perez to send the message that they think it's better to blindly support a hispanic candidate.

If you wish to claim that you're not doing what the racists do, judging people solely on skin color and religious identification, then you must never again post utter BS like this. Far too many times, too many keep choosing betrayal of basic decency when they choose this path of attacking Democrats for not choosing THEIR way. What you advocate is insulting to Democrats, Rep. Ellison, and basic decency. Stop betraying Muslims and everyone else with this pathetically paternalistic nonsense. Peoples lack of support of Ellision isn't due to his faith, but it's clear that you only support him for that reason, too bad policies and actual personal accomplishments don't mean anything to you, else you might understand what the collective decency of the people you smear really is all about. Stop betraying that decency by advocating that we, like the CONS judge people ONLY on religion. What you're doing is no different than what Trump is doing.

[Chevy]

51. Comical. We nominated a man called Barrack Obama a black Christian

however many oppose helicopter parent raised whiners who can't see fascism right in front of them and are still moaning about Goldman Sachs while Uncle Bernard bashes Dems and wishes to coddle Trumps poor misunderstood supporters in his rehashed campaign speeches.

[Dustlawyer]

53. We need a populist like Keith to grow our Party and allow Democrats to take back much of the lost

States, Congress and the WH!

Corporate Democrats will squander any chance of gaining control, we will all suffer for it!

[La Lioness Priyanka]

61. i love that Tom Perez who was a great labor secretary, is uber progressive

is labelled corporatist.

why don't you guys just be honest, and say you want someone who supported Bernie. Instead of coming with this BS.

Keith and Tom are both equally progressive. There is only one major difference, and that has to do with who supported whom during the fucking primaries.

[JHan]

67. Like I said yesterday...

If I never hear that tired word again, it won't be a second too soon.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

69. +1 million!

[mcar]

99. +1000!

[Dustlawyer]

103. I wish you Hillary supporters would stop being so disrespectful!

Just because someone has a different viewpoint than you is no excuse. Your personal attacks are BS!

I do support Bernie's policies and his populist agenda and I am not afraid to say so. Our Party has quite a few corporate sell outs because they need the money, they get referred to as "Spineless Democrats" here at DU. They are just as ambitious as Republicans.

Before you get your underwear in a knot, there are many good Democrats who have not sold us out, but they do not wish to change a system that protects incumbents . Our system is bad and it needs real change like a fight to end campaign contributions. Only one candidate for President was calling for Publicly Funded Elections. That has been my main issue here from day 1.

The legalized bribery is the root cause of most of our problems and it must be eliminated before we can address things like Climate Change.

Democrats need to take advantage of the Trump disaster and to do so they must appeal to a broader base. They will not in my opinion with Tom Perez. I don't have anything against him other than he is Establishment when Americans are looking outside of the Establishment.

Please try to be more respectful in the future and I will do the same.

[NCTraveler]

105. .

[JI7]

111. How is Perez establishment while ellison is not ?

[JHan]

65. Both Keith and Tom have high opinions of each other.. so ...

I don't get this. They're very chummy and are friends.

I love Keith and I respect Tom Perez, and I'm sure the screeching of "CORPORATE" will no doubt haunt Tom in his efforts if he's elected.

[HockeyMom]

58. Perfect Pairing for the Democratic Party

A Black Muslim to head the DNC and a Jew as the Senate Minority Leader. In your face Repukes.

[NurseJackie]

71. This is so silly.

[hollowdweller]

72. I just don't think Ellison would be as good as Perez.

First I just think on the economy, where we lost last time Perez is way more in control of the facts.

Also when I have heard Ellison speak I just do not think he gets his point across as well. Perez is a way better speaker.

Perez carried water for free trade, which which hurt us in the Rust Belt, but Ellison is black, very liberal and a muslim which might not go over great either. I'm not sure how much either matters though. I mean it matters as the face of the party but not on the organizing part really.

The part that concerns me though, is this article I read. I don't like the part about his temper and almost his entire career has been about minority activism. I feel like we ran a campaign this year all about gun control, and Trump is a racist, and I felt like we regained congress in 06 and won in 08 and 12 by focusing on economic issues.

I think Perez would be better on economic issues.

Read??

Keith Ellison Is Everything Republicans Thought Obama Was. Maybe He's Just What Democrats Need

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/02/keith-ellison-democratic-national-committee-chair

[Goblinmonger]

74. I agree it should be Ellison, but your reasons have nothing to do with it.

The party needs to tap into the progressive wing. That which we did this last run didn't work.

[Blue Idaho]

75. Bullshit. Do us a favor and delete this post. Nt.

[NurseJackie]

87. Not a chance. It'll never happen. (For obvious reasons.)

But, I'm glad you asked. At least you gave it a shot.

[Blue Idaho]

91. Worth a shot... nt.

[blm]

77. Not for me, and I resent the implication. I prefer Tom Perez for his qualities

which I see as valuable assets for the position.

Someone could write your exact same post and switch key words to Hispanic.

I don't think you thought this one through, Ken.

I think you should delete it. But, that's just my opinion.

[Blue_Tires]

85. FFS I don't care who gets it at this point

just flip a coin or something...

I'll never understand how something nobody used to pay any attention to like the DNC chair became such a drag-out fight...

[PatsFan87]

86. I support Ellison but I don't think most people oppose him because he is Muslim.

I would say the majority of people who oppose him do so because he has Bernie's backing. It doesn't matter to them that he has the most electoral experience, GOTV/turnout experience, fundraising experience, inside/outside organizing experience, etc. It doesn't matter to them that he has the backing of prominent Bernie AND Hillary supporters (Dolores Huerta, John Lewis, Gloria Steinem) while Mr. Perez doesn't seem to have any previous prominent Bernie supporters backing him- which makes the whole unity thing a tougher sell. Perez was a solid labor secretary but the DNC chair job is more of a structural/organizational job, not as much a policy sort of job. His strengths would be better utilized in another position ie. governor, representative, senator.

[JI7]

93. Perez has Obama people supporting him which is huge

Eric holder vp Biden .

[PatsFan87]

98. ie. people in the administration who Perez worked with.

Outside of those bonds though, I don't see anyone from the Bernie side and less and less people from the Hillary side supporting him. I think many are coming around to the idea that change is necessary.

[Hamlette]

90. OFFS, or it could mean he was not the better candidate nt

[JI7]

92. certain supporters of Ellison are hurting him with people who like Obama and Hillary

[Ken Burch]

101. It has nothing to do with personalities anymore.

n/t.

[NastyRiffraff]

96. I hope this is as stupid as it gets on DU

Good lord. That's wrong on so many levels it will take too long to list them. But just a few:

We don't do religious tests.
"tactical betrayal of the temporarily unpopular"? What does that even mean?
Ellison shouldn't be rejected because he is a Muslim; he shouldn't be supported just because he is one.
The right wing will claim that Muslims can't be trusted no matter what "we" do or say.

[NurseJackie]

97. One would hope ... it would be hard to find something worse.

Especially since "something worse" is likely to be "something hidden". This is just so over the top that I have to wonder if the OP was serious, or if it was just a gag thread to get a reaction. Are we witnessing Poe's Law? Will there be a "ha-ha-gotcha" somewhere along the line?

[Cha]

104. That's ridiculous.

[NurseJackie]

114. Embarrassing, actually. (Or ought to be.)

Kicking for exposure.

[FSogol]

108. If we reject Tom Perez as DNC chair...whatever other reasons anyone claims for doing so...

...could any of those reasons possibly be worth sending the message, intentional or not, that we as a party accept, or worse, are simply too scared to challenge, the right wing claim that Latinos can't be trusted, can't be seen as fully, legitimately American?

Can we ever again claim to oppose Latinophobia if we do this?

There's been far too many times in the past when we as a party have chosen the path of tactical betrayal of the temporarily unpopular...can we retain any collective decency if we ever do this again? Can we ever stand against any form of injustice if we do this again? And if we do it to Latinos this time, after all the other groups we've done it to in the past, who will we betray next?

[Cary]

112. Ridiculous

Again.

Good grief, Ken.