Tom Perez - Our New DNC Chair

[MineralMan]

Some people seem to be having a problem with the DNC electing Tom Perez to be the DNC chair. So far, though, none of those people have explained why they have a problem with Perez, except that he wasn't endorsed by Bernie Sanders. Frankly, Tom Perez seems to be a good choice to me. That he immediately called on Ellison to be his deputy was a good move on his part, too.

So, for all people who are decrying the election, tell us exactly what you don't like about Perez, specifically. Tell us why he is a bad choice. What does he stand for that you do not? Why is he not well-qualified for this important job?

I'm all ears (or eyes, I guess). Let's hear it. Lay out the issues you have with him, and please be specific and include links.

Thanks.

[MineralMan]

1. Crickets? Just as I thought.

[Lotusflower70]

2. Some would say

It's not the change they want or it reinforces the corruption in the DNC. I love both Perez and Ellison. Ellison is my representative. But Perez worked as a garbage man to go to an Ivy League school. Much respect. That's hard work. But Perez worked with President Obama. For some that means same old, same old. Both are friends and want to work together. Time to heal the divide.

[MineralMan]

3. Perez has also worked hard for voting rights.

I like that very much. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me why he shouldn't have been elected. So far, nobody has offered anything at all.

[Lotusflower70]

6. Yes he did

I have like Perez for a long time. He brings a lot to the table so does Ellison. I think it's just residual anger at the DNC and election being projected at him unfortunately. It is going to take time and action to unify. I do love Sanders but I have appealed to him to help us move forward.

[uponit7771]

4. Some people don't realize how much they don't like Obama and rail against anything he's for

[MineralMan]

5. That, of course, has nothing to do with Tom Perez and

what he stands for. Are people that simple-minded, really? I hope not.

[Lotusflower70]

7. Seriously?

You ask that but just take a look at this election. When you hear some of the reasons why people voted or didn't vote, simple-minded definitely comes into play.

[MineralMan]

8. Well, you do have a point there.

I've talked to a few Sanders supporters who ended up voting for Jill Stein and have asked them why they did that? Their answers made no sense at all. I was left just shaking my head. Here in Minnesota, Hillary won, but she didn't win in several other states where she should have. I've looked at the number of Stein votes in three of those states.

So have others. Now, we have Donald Trump as President. What a disastrous decision some people made!

[Lotusflower70]

10. Great example

This election brought in a new group of voters. Some of the young voters voted against Hillary out of anger and spite. This was the first time my son voted. He was very much about Sanders. Sanders resonated with a lot of young people because of his honesty and lack of condescension. Young people appreciate that. Even though he has been a politician for a long time, he is approachable.

Some Trump voters voted out of anger and spite at the establishment. So again a very emotional component to the vote. President Obama channeled hope and change, a positive emotion. While Trump fed anger and fear, negative emotions. He motivated voters just in a different way.

I am in Minnesota as well but Sanders won the caucus before we got to the general election which was interesting. It was a narrow win for her.

[mdbl]

29. "While Trump fed anger and fear, negative emotions. He motivated voters just in a different way"

Who would have thought there that many voters bent on self-destruction. Of course, i've been saying that for 35 years now.

[Lotusflower70]

34. Interesting observations

Sad but true. This speaks volumes about what motivates people. I have said to Republicans that they are voting against their own interests but they can't see it. They try to tell me I am voting against mine. Of course I include my concerns for others when I vote. Denial runs deep for some.

[mdbl]

36. Why voters surrender all the gains made for social justice is beyond me

It took 80 years to make our society more just for the average person and they just give it up by voting for morons bent on abolishing all the laws that protect them. Even if you tell them people died for those gains, they are stupidly unfazed.

[uponit7771]

11. +1

[MineralMan]

9. Still hearing those crickets...

C'mon folks. Tell us what you don't like about Tom Perez's positions on issues. We're waiting...

[Jamaal510]

12. I know for sure

45* wasn't too happy about it, calling the process "rigged". Deep down, he's probably afraid that the DNC has someone competent in charge and is coming out more united than in the recent past.

[aikoaiko]

13. Do you really want to refight all this shit?

If you haven't seen arguments preferring Ellison over Perez, I don't know where you've been reading.

But since you insist: My main reason for preferring Ellison was because he knows how to win in the midwest which is where we had the most trouble in the GE. Perez knows how to be selected by Democratic executive leaders and run good liberal progressive public services. Him being a Black Muslim (two significantly marginalized groups in the US) was also an asset for bridging social justice issues.

Whatever, it's over. Perez won and I'm willing to give him a chance.

eta: I said it elsewhere so I'll say it here. I worry about Perez being beholding to OMalley.

[MineralMan]

22. Refight what "shit?"

This is about an election held only yesterday.

I asked a question. You didn't answer it. I assume from that that you don't really have anything specific about Perez to which you object.

O'Malley? Beholding to? In what way? How does O'Malley figure in the DNC Chair election at all.

[nolabels]

14. Because People in the DNC voted for him

Ah ha, got you to look

I was thinking Ellison would be a good choice but this Perez choice seems even better. You wouldn't want a carpenter to come fix you're clogged up drain when a good plumber was just as nearby. Having someone that has actually worked on the task at hand sounds so much more logical

[lunatica]

15. I like both Perez and Ellison

And I'm a Sander's supporter.

Because first and foremost I'm a Democrat. Albeit a Progressive Democratic Socialist.

[mdbl]

32. same here

[dogman]

16. I believe the question is "Why Perez?"

There was a consensus candidate early on. Then some group decided there was a problem with Ellison. What was the problem? Therein lies your answer.

[NurseJackie]

18. He was the "first" candidate ... I don't think that qualifies him as being a "consensus" candidate.

[dogman]

19. He had broad main stream support.

Senators from Bernie Sanders to Harry Reid to Chuck Schumer. When the DNC saw what was coming they had to head him off. This brings me back to the question, Why?

[NurseJackie]

20. That sounds like a conspiracy theory.

What proof do you have that Perez's candidacy was orchestrated by the DNC to "head off" Ellison? Were the other candidates part of the conspiracy?

Are you suggesting the the first candidate is the "default" candidate who should not have been challenged? It's not like it was his turn or anything, nobody was "robbing" him of something that was his birthright ... it was a contest and there were many vying for the position.

Keith wasn't selected to be the Chair because MORE people supported someone else. This kind of thing happens all the time.





You guys! I swear to god. Too much.

[dogman]

26. I'm just looking for the answer to Why Perez?

What was the reason they sought an alternative to Ellison. We are repeatedly told they are basically the same. Even they themselves say that. That is why I have a simple question. Why Perez?

[NurseJackie]

31. Who is this "they" you're referring to? You act as if Perez was drafted unwillingly...

... and that's simply not the case. What are your objections to Perez?

"... Why Perez?" "Why Perez?"

Why, why why? Whyyyyyyy? Good grief!

'm just looking for the answer to Why Perez?

I think you're "looking" for an unnecessary circular argument. It's over. Perez is the new chair. It's time to move on.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10028708433#post83

[dogman]

33. Apparently the DNC.

Since the majority of them elected him. And I will certainly move on. I believe the majority of people have if you look at the elected officials in this Country. Hopefully the Democratic Party will catch up to the people who are presently leading the fight.

[NurseJackie]

40. Yes, they elect him. You've implied that he was drafted unwillingly but you haven't given any ...

... information to support this pseudo conspiracy you're hinting at. There was no conspiracy. Perez has been a contender for this position for quite a while and of his own volition. He was not drafted. There was no "Stop Keith" movement. JUST STOP IT! This type of talk causes division and alienation. It serves only to undermine Perez's authority and it casts him as being an incompetent understudy called in at the last minute.

Hopefully the Democratic Party will catch up to the people who are presently leading the fight.

You're implying that the Democratic Party is clueless and out of touch. STOP IT!!

[dogman]

43. They do have a record.

The DNC has not been successful for quite some time. When you're losing and you vote for status quo, the outcome seems likely. I would love to see Tom Perez succeed, I will have to watch and see, in the meantime there are a number of grassroots movements that are already leading the fight, it can't wait.

[NurseJackie]

44. Actually ...

I would love to see Tom Perez succeed

... I get the impression that the opposite is true. But that's just my initial impression. I'll try to take you at your word. Time will tell if the bitterness subsides and people decide to actually get on board rather than taking every opportunity to denigrate and tear-down the party, or question Perez's legitimacy or his competence. That seems to be the popular thing for many non-Democrats to do, unfortunately. It just makes it more difficult for Democrats to succeed. Such methods are counter-intuitive and counter-productive.

[dogman]

45. Which brings us back to the old answer, "Stop Digging!"

Things have gone wrong for the Democratic Party at every level of Government. We are on the brink of one-party rule. I would hope fresh ideas take hold and that the Party becomes inspired by the people who have not waited for the Party to fight Fascism before it grows any deeper roots. His legitimacy depends on whom he serves. That's why I wish for his success, I believe that means he will choose to serve the voters interests over the interest of large donors. Time is at a premium. He has an extremely hard job ahead of him, just look at the caliber of those who preceded him and saw cascading losses under their tenure. We have a Corporate Party in power now. We need an alternative, not a scaled down model.

[NurseJackie]

46. No... I think we need to stop the saboteurs and those who seek to destroy our party from within.

Our party is not corrupt. I'm sick of all these innuendos that we are beholden to Wall Street and that the Democrats do not care about the citizens. You're perpetuating a myth every time you repeat that bullshit, or whenever you express doubts or "concerns" that Perez isn't competent enough to weed out the crooks.

Nobody is "digging" anything. We're not in any "hole". Stop it!

Our party's candidate received MORE VOTES than any candidate other than Obama. Our party's message is being well received. It's the non-party-members who have created (and who perpetuate) the myth that the Democrats are incompetent.

His legitimacy depends on whom he serves.

See what I mean? This is total bullshit!! You're questioning his loyalty and motives right there! Jesusfuck, STOP IT!

I would hope fresh ideas take hold and that the Party becomes inspired by the people who have not waited for the Party to fight Fascism before it grows any deeper roots.

So, you're saying that our party is out of ideas? Or that we're a party with outdated ideas? See what I mean... more bullshit? More myth-grooming.

[dogman]

47. Sorry, I can do math.

We are in a hole electorally or Hillary would be President. The GOP controls more States than we do, that is a hole. I question any and all leadership if it does not get results. You are correct the Corporate control of the Party is bullshit, I hate that too. I challenge you to show me that the leadership ideas were solid in the last National Election. I wish the GOP control of Government were a myth. Stop denying the facts, we cannot live in an alternative world either.

[still_one]

50. So can I. Enough self-identified progressives refused to vote for Hillary by either voting

third party, or not voting, and that is why the following came about:

In Michigan Hillary lost by .3%. Jill Stein received 1.1% of the vote. Similar results in Wisconsin and the other critical swing states, and yes, that would have made a difference, but it didn't stop there.

However, what destroys your argument is that Democrats running for Senate in every swing state lost to the ESTABLISHMENT, republican, incumbent, and most of those Democrats running were progressives, including Russ Feingold.

Of course since it happened so long ago we might forget Comey and the FBI interference in the election, along with the Russian interference. Yes, all of that affected the election, not only for President, but also the Senate races.

I think Noam Chomsky said it best:

'Progressives who refused to vote for Hillary Clinton made a ‘bad mistake’"

“I think they [made] a bad mistake,” said Chomsky, who reiterated that it’s important to keep a “greater evil” from obtaining power, even if you’re not thrilled with the alternative. “I didn’t like Clinton at all, but her positions are much better than Trump’s on every issue I can think of.”

Chomsky also attacked the arguments made by philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who argued that Trump’s election would at least shake up the system and provide a real rallying point for the left.

“[Zizek makes a] terrible point,” Chomsky told Hasan. “It was the same point that people like him said about Hitler in the early ’30s… he’ll shake up the system in bad ways.”

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/11/noam-chomsky-progressives-who-refused-to-vote-for-hillary-clinton-made-a-bad-mistake/

[NastyRiffraff]

68. I think most people here can do math

so that's a weird thing to say. But, okay. Math.

How many people voted for Stein to make a stupid "statement"?
How many didn't vote at all because they wanted to stamp their tiny feet because their preferred candidate didn't win the nomination:
How many Independents, many of whom are liberal, were swayed by Comey's report on Hillary's LEGAL emails?
How many people's minds were changed because of Russian hacking, most likely with the collusion of the Trump campaign?
How many people listened to the so-called "progressive" Susan Sarandon who said that Trump might be "better for America" than Hillary?
How many were affected by the free advertising the media gave to Trump, while (as usual) villifying Hillary by slanted reports and innuendo?

None of this had anything to do with the DNC; certainly not with Tom Perez. Could the Democratic Party be improved? Of course. But saying or implying that there's no leadership because we lost the election is illogical given the many factors that contributed to that.

[BainsBane]

75. And DWS backed Ellison

[Warren DeMontague]

92. ....she did?

Seems odd. He's in favor of relaxing marijuana laws, and she supports incarcerating pot smokers.

[BainsBane]

94. LOL

Well, that has no bearing on the DNC chair.

[Warren DeMontague]

95. I disagree. The DNC chair is a public face of the party, nationally.

When DWS went to the times and went all "reefer madness", and insulted Millennials, etc. ... it hurt our brand.

In my humble opinion.

[Cary]

104. You have so many enemies

You must be exhausted.

[NurseJackie]

112. ...

[Goblinmonger]

51. In all of this, I don't think I saw an answer to "Why Perez?"

I'd love to see one.

[BainsBane]

66. Here

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8714705

The answer for why Ellison is simple: he endorsed Bernie. Most of his backers who aren't me,bets of the DNC cared about nothing else, just as they maligned Perez because he wasn't Bernie's choice. I have yet to see a substantive comment for Ellison or against Perez in any of these on line discussions.

[George II]

76. I answered it.

[Gothmog]

108. I am focused on voting rights and voter protection and I have a good answer

One of the DNC's key fights will be with respect to voter suppression. Tom Perez rebuilt the DOJ voting rights section and was key in getting the DOJ to sue Texas in both the voter id and redistricting cases. I have met Ellison on a couple of occasions and I like him. I just like Tom Perez a great deal more due to his his work on voting rights. Perez rebuilt the Civil Rights and the voting rights sections of the DOJ. This article was cited on another thread but his quote makes me smile http://prospect.org/article/subtle-force-tom-perez

In October of 2009, Perez was finally confirmed and set out to reform a division in disarray. Under Bush, the division was accused of ousting career prosecutors who were insufficiently conservative and punishing those who didn’t leave. In his early months, it reportedly wasn’t uncommon for staffers to break down in Perez’s office as they recalled the trauma. Within a year, Perez turned around morale and transformed the division into a formidable enforcement machine.

Perez is well suited to fight GOP voter suppression which has to a major part of any DNC efforts

[NurseJackie]

113. This hasn't been discussed very much. Thanks for the info and the link.

[Gothmog]

116. My kids tease about my focus on voting rights

[BainsBane]

73. And all that hinged on Keith Ellison?

Good god. I suppose the advantage of ahistorical, simplistic theories is they don't require evidence or substance. A few slogans and you're set.

[George II]

49. Excuse me? How do you come to that conclusion?

[BainsBane]

67. The status quo has been destroyed by Trump

Continuing to use that slogan in light of what we are facing under Trump shows a stunning disconnect from the problems currently facing this country.

No he should wait for the party to get involved. Political parties have never led people's movements. Never. They at best co-opt them.

[BainsBane]

71. How is Perez the status quo?

[George II]

96. I'll forward your sentiments to Chairman Perez. I'm sure he'll be happy to learn....

...that you would love to see him succeed.

[BainsBane]

64. Apparently only if those people

Run uncontested, since you think they shouldn't have to face anything as nefarious as a democratic election.

Seems to me the people leading the fight are the congressional black caucus, who are virtually ignored by the self-appointed guardians of progressivism.

[BainsBane]

61. His background in fighting for voting rights

Combatting disenfranchisement, and fighting for labor rights.

[Gothmog]

109. This is one of the main reasons why I supported Perez

I live in Texas where we are fighting GOP voter suppression. Perez is the best man to fight GOP voter suppression http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8717784

[BainsBane]

62. I think you know President Obama asked him to run

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2017, 08:23 PM - Edit history (1)

It's hardly a secret. And as much as you may think a two-term extremely popular president should have no say in the direction of his own party, that's not how it works.

[BainsBane]

65. Did you watch the vote yesterday?

The DNC is the collection of individuals in that room, not a cabal. 200 of them voted for Ellison and 235 for Perez. Among the 200 were DWS, Schumer, John Lewis, and many others who had been Clinton backers.

[George II]

79. Your comment about the DNC "heading him off" is ludicrous. You're implying (or saying outright)....

....something without a word of evidence.

Did you watch the proceedings yesterday, or understand how they worked?

[MineralMan]

21. You have supplied no answer at all to my question.

Therefore, I must assume that you have no answer.

[dogman]

28. I have no answer.

I do believe the answer is the same as the answer to my question. My personal guess is Corporate money. It is the only difference I can determine between the candidates. I also can understand the concerns of those to whom money is a major criteria. That would be a major factor for the Party. On the other hand, the Party has suffered major failures across the board. My personal opinion is that votes are worth more than money.

[BainsBane]

69. Provide some evidence for that

You throw around a lot of accusations that result from failing to inform yourself. You have had every opportunity to learn about Perez' background. You had opportunities to listen to the candidates speak about their vision for the party. If you had informed yourself, you would know that Ellison did not run against corporate contributions to the DNC. Jehmu Green was the only candidate who did that, but you aren't weaving conspiracy theories about how she was denied her rightful place as chair because she wasn't Bernie's pick.

Your arguments do not hold up to scrutiny because they are devoid of substance or evidence.
Lack of initiative is no excuse for hurling smears.

[Gothmog]

110. My big issue is fighting GOP voter suppression

Perez has history here and is the best man of the job http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8717784

[MineralMan]

23. A consensus candidate? Not really.

I don't remember any consensus vote.

I asked a specific question, to which nobody appears to have an answer.

[George II]

52. Why Perez? A majority of DNC members voted for him. Simple.

[BainsBane]

59. Your position is that Ellison should not have faced a challenger?

Last edited Sun Feb 26, 2017, 08:27 PM - Edit history (1)

And that no one else should have been able to run? That isn't how the party or democracy works.
I happen to like Ellison a lot and think him far better than most of what surrounded his candidacy, but the idea that a certain faction can only win without competition is hardly a persuasive argument for leadership, particularly given your criticism of election results below.

I think that Ellison was treated badly by some who claimed to support hm by using him to reignite primary disputes, with the same losing tactics, thereby underminig his candidacy. He deserved better. He ran on the idea of bringing the party together, while some of his most vociferous backers undercut that at every opportunity. Rather than blaming other candidates for having the nerve to seek the office, his supporters should examine their own tactics, which have led to their losing another intra-party election.

[brer cat]

74. +1

[MineralMan]

85. +plenty

[Cha]

70. There's no problem with Ellison .. he just came in second. We have

new leaders now and we don't need any dividers trying to come in with their negativity trying to tear them down.

[BainsBane]

77. There wasn't a consensus early on

Dean announced first. On the same day Ellison announced, Jaime Harisson declared his candidacy. Others soon followed, including Perez, and still more entered the race afterward. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_National_Committee_chairmanship_election,_2017

Weren't you saying something about not ignoring facts?

[pnwmom]

83. Perez has a very strong background both as a progressive and in administration.

The DNC head needs both.

Neither of the top two candidates had a "problem." There was a close vote, and Perez won.

[Motown_Johnny]

17. I like him, but....

If you watched him on the shows today you must admit he isn't the best spokesperson.

For starters, he could stop slouching, get some cosmetic dental work done and gain enough weight to lose that gaunt sickly look he has. Then he might want to consider his choice in facial hair.

If Perez and Ellison are so much alike, as has been claimed, then why can't we have a tall dark and handsome face for our party?

[MineralMan]

24. Appearance? Really?

That's your criterion?

That's your answer? He doesn't win a beauty contest?

[NewJeffCT]

35. I've heard that Ellison is bland

but, I have not heard him speak often.

[BainsBane]

60. Ellison is not bland

At all. Do you mean Perez?

[NewJeffCT]

90. No

The times I've seen Ellison speak, he's not comfortable in front of the camera and not an engaging speaker. Maybe I've seen his worst performances, but I've not heard him described as dynamic.

[BainsBane]

93. I've seen him speak in person a number of times

and he's very engaging. TV may take some getting used to.

[MineralMan]

25. Seeing no valid responses from the floor,

I will not call the vote at this time. No answer that explains why Tom Perez should not have been elected Chair of the DNC.

I guess we'll all be in full support of him as he does the job, then. Good.

[Thinkingabout]

27. One thing I can see as positive is Ellison will remain in Congress, he will continue to fight

For Democratic principles, we know how he works there and the next one may not work as hard.

[MineralMan]

30. That's true. Since he represents the district to the

immediate west of mine, I've followed him in Congress. He's doing an excellent job there. I'm certain he will continue to do so, much as Bernie Sanders continues to do an excellent job in the Senate after Democratic voters chose Hillary Clinton as their nominee for President.

We have elections here to decide. I like that. I support that. I support those who those elections select for our Democratic Party.

[Ken Burch]

38. I like Tom, as a person, just fine.

He's fine as a person, and I'm glad that he's working for a partnership with Keith.

It's that a fair amount of the argument for him was that he needed to be elected to stop Keith(and for some reason to STILL do battle with Bernie, which makes no sense to me because we're done with the election and the Sanders/Clinton split should be done as well).

Your question would be comparable to asking what people had against Hubert Humphrey as an individual, if DU had existed in late August of 1968. In both cases, it wasn't the person, it's what the candidacy of the person was used for and who, to some degree it was used against.

And the reactions you've been seeing are less than a day after the result was announced. People are always in a somewhat bummed mood when any sort of electoral contest didn't go the way they wanted it to go. Give it a few days and people will get past that.

Tom will be fine...if he works from the understanding that our path to the future lies in merging the best of the Clinton AND Sanders messages, ending the hostility between the constituencies and resolving the distrust between both the groups involved, and working to unite everyone for the future.

That's what matters, MM...not whether people think Tom has corporate cooties or something.

[George II]

81. Where did you come up with this...........

"It's that a fair amount of the argument for him was that he needed to be elected to stop Keith (and for some reason to STILL do battle with Bernie, which makes no sense to me because we're done with the election and the Sanders/Clinton split should be done as well)."

I didn't see ANY indication of that.

[Denzil_DC]

41. I don't have a dog in this fight. But Charles Pierce does ...

Link to tweet

Charles P. Pierce ✔ @CharlesPPierce

The interesting part is that, if you have to make Tom Perez into the neolib banker sellout, progressivism in the D party is doing damn well.

[Nevernose]

42. He has no experience

He hasn't managed a large campaign, and the only one he was really a part of was a losing campaign (excepting his city council run). He also has no organizing experience, although he has managed large organizations, obviously. While slightly more popular with the DNC, he's less popular with our activists, and the DNC continuously forgets that in end, it's activism and enthusiasm at the street level that gets people elected. That's not his "flaw" exactly, but I do see it as a fact.

There was a contingent of wealthy donors that were extremely, vocally, opposed to a Muslim holding the position. Again, not Perez's flaw, but it does leave him as the bargaining chip in a multimillion dollar extortion scheme. Leaves a sour taste.

I'm good with Perez and I hope he'll do a good job, but some people can't differentiate between preferring one candidate with being opposed to the other (e.g., see "primary elections, every single one of them&quot .

[Bettie]

48. I'm happy with Perez

but perhaps it was the level of hate thrown at Ellison by several people here that make some unhappy that he was not selected.

I like them both, but prefer that Ellison stay in congress.

Several people around here appear to hate him, because he was endorsed by Sanders. That is the flip side of this post; I've seen posts where people say they would never accept Ellison because he was endorsed by Sanders.

Both sides (the I love Sanders and the I hate Sanders) need to realize that we need to work together. Personal hatred of this one or that one will not serve us well.

[Goblinmonger]

53. Have you given a reason why he's a good choice?

What election experience does he have? What does he have to offer that Ellison doesn't.

And certainly, people not responding to your OP doesn't mean they don't have legitimate reasons to not be happy about Perez.

[pnwmom]

87. Perez's a very strong administrator and a strong progressive.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2017/01/why-tom-perez-strong-competitor-against-keith-ellison-democratic-party

After taking charge of the Labor Department in 2013, Perez fired up that agency. As Politico noted,

It was one of the federal government's sleepier outposts for most of the dozen years that preceded Perez's arrival just over one year ago. But Labor has been newly energized under Perez.

"Enforcement activity is up," Alfred Robinson Jr., who was an acting wage and hour administrator for the Labor Department during the George W. Bush administration, noted earlier this month in a blog post. The department has also raised its public profile on issues like minimum wage and paid medical leave and lavished favorable attention on companies that give employees what Perez calls "voice."

At the Labor Department, Perez was in charge of an organization with 17,000 employees, a multibillion-dollar budget, and offices throughout the nation. And he pocketed a number of policy wins. He expanded the overtime rule for millions of workers. He helped resolve the Verizon strike and achieved protections for Verizon's retail workers. On his watch in 2016, the department collected $266 million in back pay owed to workers. He pushed for expanded paid sick leave. The department issued a new rule to protect workers in construction and manufacturing from exposure to dangerous levels of silica dust, which can cause disease and cancer. It raised the minimum wage and and provided extended overtime protections for 2 million home health care workers. The department issued an important conflict-of-interest rule forcing retirement advisers to place clients' interests ahead of their own, an Elizabeth Warren-like measure that could save Americans billions of dollars per year.

Perez has had an impressive run at Labor, overseeing a big bureaucracy and achieving results. He has put his values into practice. Ellison has done similar as a member of Congress, mounting grassroots campaigns, raising money for Democrats across the country, and pushing pro-consumer financial reform legislation as a member of the House financial services committee. If DNCers want to send a welcoming signal to aggrieved (rightly or wrongly) Bernie-ites when they vote on February 24—and avoid possible further acrimony between Party HQ and progressive activists—Ellison is the obvious choice. But if there is more to the vote than that—and this race is removed from the never-ending conflict between the party and its progressive base—Perez is a strong contender. He is a solid progressive with a record of getting stuff done. His prospects will be shaped by whether party officials (they are the only ones who have a vote) consider this contest an act of atonement and reconciliation or a hiring decision.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/who-is-tom-perez-dnc-chairman/

Perez, 55, left the Obama administration last month after serving as labor secretary since July 2013. In that job, he helped push for new overtime rules to ensure workers get overtime pay, extended overtime protections for home care workers and extended minimum wage protections.

He also helped establish worker safety rules, and under his leadership the department provided paid sick leave and ensured employment protections for federal contractor employees, according to his biography on the department’s website.

[Rex]

54. So...nobody then?

He should rock, he has direct experience as former sect. of labor and has pushed policies to help the working class at every step of his career.

[MineralMan]

56. Yes. So it seems to me.

A champion of the workers who got the Dept. of Labor b back on track. What's not to like if you support labor?

[Rex]

97. Im excited to see what he does!

He and Ellison. Should make a hell of a team for labor rights. I was saying win-win in my book.

[doc03]

55. I am not impressed he looks like more of the same old bunch that have

made us nearly extinct. We needed someone like in their thirties not the same old same old.
The damn party put all their eggs in one basket with Hillary and we have no bench.

[MineralMan]

57. Not an answer. Try again.

[doc03]

63. How about a Trumpisum "low energy". nt

[Cha]

72. too bad.. shows how little you know about him.

[otohara]

78. WoW Ageism & Looks

Tom is only 55.
It's as if ya'll are all just waiting for us to die vs working with the old folks.

[doc03]

99. I am 68 myself but I think for the future of the party

we need some new ideas. You can't keep doing the same things and expect different results.
The Democratic party hasn't been in this bad a shape for over 100 years.

[Cha]

100. Yes, that's why we're glad we have Tom Perez as the new Leader

of the DNC and Keith Ellison as his deputy chair.

[Cha]

101. Tom is the same age as Barack.. and Keith is two years younger..

They'll be great, otohara.

I just looked up their ages and saw Keith is the same day as President Obama.. August 4, 1963.. whereas Tom is October 7, 1961.. the same year as Obama.

[NewJeffCT]

82. Perez is 55, Ellison is 53

Buttigieg is 35, but withdrew

[roamer65]

58. He's calling for an independent special prosecutor already.

Even mentioned we want to make sure the election wasn't rigged by Dump and Pootie.

[Fast Walker 52]

80. Michael Moore is making a fuss about Perez and that he's the status quo

bunch of the usual lefty purists are upset about Perez, I'm seeing it on Facebook.

I will not put up with that nonsense.

[NewJeffCT]

86. I know

a civil right attorney and a guy who worked as a garbage man to put himself through Brown & Harvard?

If Perez had been Clinton's VP nominee, he would have been criticized as being too liberal for Clinton and wouldn't have appealed to moderates like Kaine.

[Fast Walker 52]

105. Seriously-- Perez stood out in the Obama cabinet for being super progressive

and now he's a corporate sellout? Give me a fucking break.

Michael Moore can go fuck himself.

[kentuck]

84. Ideas are more important than money?

The "media" would have us believe otherwise because they make a fortune off the Citizens United decision and campaign spending.

[MineralMan]

88. What does that have to do with my question or with

Perez?

[pnwmom]

89. Perez worked himself through college by working as a trash collector,

among other things. He is the son of immigrants from the Dominican Republic.

Not sure what money you're talking about.

[Warren DeMontague]

91. Perez spared no words criticizing how disasterously the DNC was run under Debbie Wasserman Schultz

Similar to Harry Reid, who called the DNC "Worthless" under her leadership:

http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/311506-reid-dnc-was-worthless-under-wasserman-schultz



So, I have faith that Perez is going to take us in a new direction. Hopefully one of the first things he will do is make it clear our party unequivocally agrees with the majority of Americans, that the Feds have no business interfering in the decision by individual states to legalize cannabis.

[Rex]

98. +1

[brewens]

102. No issues so far but a couple of questions. Has he ever worked for or been paid by Goldman Sachs?

A yes there would have me likely opposing him or any candidate he supports.

[MineralMan]

106. Not to my knowledge. Go check it out and get back to us.

Speculation isn't the best way to do that, I think.

[MineralMan]

107. See. I looked it up and no, he hasn't. Here's his career history from Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Perez

Born in Buffalo, New York, Perez is a graduate of Brown University, Harvard Law School and the John F. Kennedy School of Government. He worked as a law clerk for the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado before serving in the Department of Justice from 1989 to 1995, where he worked as a federal prosecutor, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno. He worked as a Special Counselor for Senator Ted Kennedy until 1998 when he served as the Director of the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services in the final years of the Clinton administration.

Perez was then elected to the Montgomery County (Maryland) Council in 2002, serving as the council's president from 2005, until the end of his tenure in 2006. He attempted to run for the Democratic nomination for Attorney General of Maryland, but was disqualified for not having 10 years of legal experience in Maryland (he was admitted to the Maryland bar in 2001).[1] Perez was appointed by Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley to serve as Secretary of the Maryland Department of Labor, Licensing and Regulation in January 2007, until his October 2009 confirmation by the United States Senate as Assistant Attorney General.

In March 2013, Perez was nominated by President Barack Obama to be the United States Secretary of Labor, replacing outgoing Secretary Hilda Solis. He was confirmed by the Senate on July 18 and sworn in on July 23, 2013.

That was really easy to find, so I didn't have to speculate. Looks like he's been in public service all along. I hope that satisfies your curiosity.

[Gothmog]

111. Perez was in public service or in the academia

Goldman does not subsidize professors at the Univ. of Maryland

[MineralMan]

114. Exactly. It's amazing that people make such assumptions, when

it is so easy to check these days.

[JHan]

103. It's wearying,

Who needs the GOP as an enemy when there are those claiming to be Democrats needlessly bashing Democrats who've worked hard and dedicated their talents to the party.

[MineralMan]

115. I think some are not Democrats at all. Others

are some sort of people on the left who are going to be dissatisfied with anyone who is capable of being elected in this country. Either way, they often make claims that are not true about candidates who are capable of being elected. It's truly unfortunate, because if enough people fight against Democrats, the Republicans win. That has never been a good option.

While I sympathize with people who want a much different government that this country will elect, I cannot help but be a pragmatist when it comes to things like a presidential election. We are seeing the results of idealists fighting with pragmatists right now in the White House. More's the pity. It needn't have been so.

[JHan]

117. we need huge doses of pragmatism..

and more citizen pragmatists.

Just to give an example: I read conversations here about "third way" and a bunch of other terms I cannot relate to which have zero significance to me. I'm a millennial and DLC thirdway critiques sound like a 90's throw back. Why are these things even relevant? For what purpose?

While people are fussing about people and things no longer really relevant to the democratic party, Gerrymandering and voter suppression is slowly and surely killing democracy. Surely that is the point.

The GOP is fine with college students around my age not voting, with people my color being permanently disenfranchised.

The Only Party that respects my enfranchisement are the Dems, the only party that had on its platform issues that impact me were the dems.