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.

http://politics.mn/2006/09/29/mde-exclusive-picture-of-ellison-distributing-nation-of-islam-newspaper-in-1998/

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.

https://www.facebook.com/events/1053692571385369/

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.