You might think law school professors might know when it is best to bite the lip and shut up. In many cases that would be true.
Super important news item, "Pot calls kettle black?" You decide.
While on the topic of Keith Ellison and apart from law school nattering nabobs of negativism, the man is bright, and experienced enough to not be wrongly used; Strib reporting in its own locally authored post:
In an interview Sunday, Perez said he had big plans for Ellison as his deputy, including letting him run point on the party's grass-roots organizing efforts.
Perez also noted he wanted to make Ellison the "face of the Democratic Party."
While serving as DNC deputy, Ellison will keep his Fifth Congressional District seat. This forces Ellison into a potentially awkward position in his home district of Minneapolis, where he will have to rebuild a local platform and repledge to serve his loyal constituents, who have re-elected him to Congress six times.
"If anything, he's helped himself," said state Sen. Scott Dibble, who lives in Ellison's district and was mulling a run for his seat if Ellison had resigned. "His work has always been about energizing folks and energizing people at the grass roots. That's why people support him so strongly in this district."
He noted that there was a welcome home party for Ellison at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on Sunday.
I doubt Ellison will go out all the time hither and yon doing Perez's job for him. Sitting in a beltway chair collecting a paycheck and schmoozing beltway denizens does not seem to be the mandate a majority of the 447 voting savants had in mind in picking Perez over Ellison. (Or was it?)
Ellison has to set priorities that best serve Ellison's career and policy aims, starting with continuing to serve his district with distinction; continuing to be a major voice in the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Ellison has to do that independent of any Perez intent to use Ellison.
Marley and Clapton each sang the same song of who is sheriff and who is deputy. Perez should listen.
Hopefully Minnesota's Congressional Democrats from rural districts, Walz and Nolan, will be helpful toward efforts to energize a nation's rural segments to progressive thought, to being answerable to the people and not big money influence/access buyers, despite or in addition to their own potential gubernatorial ambitions.
Exposure nation-wide within party ranks might help advance Ellison to a spot on a 2020 national ticket, and there would always be able people to take over the Congressional seat if Ellison has any such opportunity. So there would be pluses and minuses to Ellison working the hustings. He appears to have the energy to handle that and legislative duty; while Perez does come across as low energy by comparison.
On reflection, the Perez - Ellison split of duties might make very good sense. Ellison has fire in the belly and can motivate canvassing and phone bank scut workers. He can rely on Dayton's history, a successful Senate run with disatisfaction over DC being "a cesspool" and then with Mark and the two dogs going county to county in Minnesota to see who the local key people were in getting positive results, and seeing what issues troubled each county Democratic Party leadership the most. He did the work, Collin Peterson is close to Cargill and agricultural issues and needs, with Walz and Nolan successful in diverse out-state jurisdicitons. In effect Ellison has a brain-trust he can exploit, for the benefit of the people and the party, because he is a people first person.
Perez is connected with funding, which is a DNC historical strong point, but Perez clearly has acknowledged that DNC must be more hustings centric, and the DC consultants have to adapt. It should prove interesting if Perez makes them adapt. He cuts the checks, and there is the golden rule.
Perez could get funds without putting his soul in hock, or his Party's soul, simply by a suggestion that being on the winning team bests being otherwise. Any recaltritant Democrat would be convinced to see the big picture, a/k/a the spoils. Populists/progressives would see the basic advantage, the hangers-on would see a shot again at the spoils. They would have to take a back seat, but Perez would be at DNC signing or not signing checks. It could work. Pence and Paul Ryan would be easy strawmen to kick over, they are so egregious that Ellision would only need to say the word. Shoe fitting, that pair would have to wear them. And the VP spot on a ticket is usually the pitbull with top spot above the fray, but on the Trump-Pence side, Pence is REALLY low energy, back room. Trump would have to take the offensive, offend, and be drawn beyond dumb tweets.
It could be win-win. It could be disaster too, which is what the status quo is, and all but fools in the Democratic Party, in private, admit it.
A national ticket with Ellison in second spot would have diversity, and Ellison would be a refreshing voice if Warren is top ticket and Trump pulls his Pocahontas bullshit. Ellison would be able to drive him into the ground, given the fraud called Trump Universint, the fleecing of the inexperienced, vulnerable and unprotected in all that. Ellison could not shut Trump up, but as a practical man with good instincts, he could make Trump sorry for over extending his mouth.
We might have an interesting people first national ticket, and Lord, that would be a refreshing alteration of a sordid and sick status quo.
And the Clintons could be convinced working their Foundation has merit. Quietly so, better.
A Warren-Ellison ticket would be geo-balanced; coastal atop, flyover second. Exactly as the Trump-Pence ticket balanced, geographically. To any complaint of "too progressive" the answer would be the opposite sure fell with a thundering thud; so, why not try - of all things - a new way and one the for which the people, the Bernie crowds, yearn? It would hang together, and if it means having to pull some recalcitrant superdelegate teeth, is there a dentist in the house?
If needed, Schumer and Saban could put Dershowitz on a short leash. Shove a rag in his mouth, whatever's needed. And they would. Trust me, they would. It is about winning with minimal compromise, something the Clintons too willingly gave up at the start of the unfortunate Hillary experiment.