Rep. Keith Ellison faces renewed scrutiny over past ties to Nation of Islam, defense of anti-Semitic
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
(2,034 posts)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
(13,461 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(39,369 posts)Last I looked. When he took heat for it, he said: Im 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
(70,187 posts)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 hes 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 hes 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 Schumers 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. Bushs 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
(22,651 posts)He said he would work on new, stronger DNC direction and he did.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)my senator over this issue.
awoke_in_2003
(34,582 posts)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
(39,369 posts)By endorsing Sanders' pick for the DNC.
grantcart
(53,061 posts)Iranian agreement so he could raise large donations from Conservative New Yorkers.
still_one
(92,136 posts)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
(34,661 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(34,661 posts)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
(12,804 posts)the GOP is busy figuring out how to dismantle all Democratic programs from FDR to Obama.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(55,894 posts)There is no misrepresentation.
Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)Let's move on.
elleng
(130,865 posts)Wellstone ruled
(34,661 posts)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
(6,828 posts)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
(5,044 posts)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
(35,045 posts)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
(26,060 posts)louis farrakhan who has ALWAYS been a repulsive bigot. Perhaps you can overlook that. I cannot.
heaven05
(18,124 posts)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
(68,868 posts)Don't give in to the fauxtrage machine.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Clearly your views are in the minority. It's nice to know that Islamaphobia is not taking hold on DU
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(3,076 posts)reasonable people can disagree.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(3,076 posts)smile life is good
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(3,076 posts)You're not angry. Sheesh
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)about the topic of the OP. That was predictable.
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)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
(26,060 posts)philosslayer
(3,076 posts)any supposed sins committed when we were in our 20s should stick with us for life. So noted
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(3,076 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(3,076 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(15,805 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(3,076 posts)i'll let you be the judge
https://m.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)watch video right now. Can you summarize the part you obviously find objectionable?
philosslayer
(3,076 posts)Watch the video and you can decide for yourself. And we'll see how your purity test holds up
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(15,805 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(37,748 posts)"reasonable people can disagree..."
And pretend anyone who disagrees with them is Islamophobic, regardless of an unsupported allegation of being reasonable.
JonLP24
(29,322 posts)If you know anything about this poster's history.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(15,805 posts)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
(3,076 posts)procon
(15,805 posts)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.
and have a wonderful day.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)dhill926
(16,337 posts)Qutzupalotl
(14,302 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(14,302 posts)We have to be perfect while the Republicans get a pass.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(14,302 posts)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
(26,060 posts)His bigotry and misogyny SHOULD be disqualifying but it seems to be a feature, not a bug, with the new sheriff in town.
procon
(15,805 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(2,702 posts)Sounds like a plus for Ellison.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to call us disgusting hypocrites. No thanks.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)They'd howl and it would be as much of a nothingburger as Obama and Reverend Wright.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)a past association with a repulsive bigot like louis farrakhan hung around the neck of all Democrats.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)Won't happen.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)And that talking point is STILL around. If it's Ellison, they wont see a dime from me.
shawn703
(2,702 posts)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
(26,060 posts)you think I'm the only one.
Warpy
(111,245 posts)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
(26,060 posts)and I'm not Christian. He's the wrong pick.
KamaAina
(78,249 posts)Yup. Two of them! Terralert! Terralert!
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)But...........in this case..........
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.
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
(42,641 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(42,641 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(42,641 posts)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
(26,060 posts)of INTENTIONALLY using a title when it's a requirement on LBN. Your not apologizing was predictable.
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(42,641 posts)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
(26,060 posts)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
(10,133 posts)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
(34,648 posts)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
(75 posts)makes this all the more interesting!
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Sunlei
(22,651 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)is not a republican organization.
Sunlei
(22,651 posts)"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
(962 posts)hollowdweller
(4,229 posts)Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)humbled_opinion
(4,423 posts)the party needs right now.
killbotfactory
(13,566 posts)let's just keep the old guard in. It's only cost us all three fucking branches of federal government.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(13,566 posts)Why stick with people who have proven they don't know how to do that?
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Howard Dean did an awesome job as head of the DNC. He will do so again.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)Very productive.
Snotcicles
(9,089 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)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
(4,229 posts)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
(3,255 posts)But I don't want to losr a good congressman, . By the way he gets over 80% of the Christian vote in my precinct.