Jeff Stein · Friday, December 30, 2016, 8:27 am
Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison hadn’t been campaigning for chair of the Democratic National Committee for more than a week before veteran party officials began publicly saying he wouldn’t have time to both hold the position and serve as a congressman.
Ellison then announced that he’d step down from congress if he won the DNC race. But almost as soon as he did so, a new chorus of objections to his candidacy began: top Democratic sources told reporters they were growing concerned about Ellison’s alleged ties to the Nation of Islam and radical black Muslim organizers in the 1990s.
To Ellison’s supporters — largely from the Bernie Sanders wing of the party — these attacks looked like ugly smears cynically deployed to derail their candidate. But they’ve also made Ellison’s backers feel like they’re shadow-boxing an elusive foe — that his opponents were throwing up objections in bad faith rather than plainly identifying their problem with his beliefs or proposed platform for the party.
Their frustrations are well-founded. The 2016 Democratic primary between Sanders and Hillary Clinton saw major substantive divides; there were huge and obvious gaps between the candidates over taxes, foreign policy, healthcare, and a host of other critical policy issues.
The race for DNC chair, by contrast, has become largely a power struggle between factions — but one lacking a clear contrast of ideas.
Many Democrats skeptical of Sanders have rallied behind Tom Perez, one of the most progressive members of the Obama cabinet. Making Perez the alternative to Ellison may be intended as an olive branch to grassroots progressives. But it could also backfire badly, by exacerbating Sanders' allies distrust of a party that needs their support now more than ever.
Read more
http://www.vox.com/2016/12/30/14062696/dnc-ellison-sanders
No comments:
Post a Comment