Comments (34)

Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 10:51 AM:

In other word, blacks are lazy? These guys are unbelievable!

Telus wrote on October 19, 2007 10:51 AM:

In other word, blacks are lazy? These guys are unbelievable!

driff wrote on October 19, 2007 11:09 AM:

How about the balls on these guys. Not just that he says these things, but that he does so at a Latino Voters Conference and an NAACP convention.

The Gay Black Jew wrote on October 19, 2007 11:22 AM:

Come on, guys! Everyone knows that whites vote between 9:00 and 11:00. Jews vote between 11:00 and 12:47. Gays vote between 12:47 and 2:09, blacks vote between 2:09 and 3:58, Asians vote between 3:59 and 5:30 and gay black Jews vote at the last minute.
Note: I write satire, and I'm not gay, black or Jewish. But I fight discrimination.

Billy Pilgrim wrote on October 19, 2007 11:23 AM:

In case no one's noticed, the Ku Klux Klan has taken charge of "Voting Rights."

deben wrote on October 19, 2007 11:25 AM:

Right-wingers governing on pseudo-scientific racial theories... Rings a bell.

Steve Klein wrote on October 19, 2007 11:46 AM:

I did some research and found that Tanner was actually White House counsel for Clinton, worked for Leahey, and he's gotten all kinds of awards from minority groups in the south for his work in the Voting Section over the last 30 years. Maybe he just said something stupid; maybe this was just a stupid decision. I am afraid that maybe we're villifying someone just because we're so excited about another opportunity to bash Bush. Maybe we allow our imaginations to run so that we can demonize people like Tanner and feel justified in some of the horrible things we say in these comments. Maybe it makes us feel better about how reckless we are with our words. I'm not questioning our political principals, but I'm questioning my willingness to forget about the human side of this.

ihatebeets wrote on October 19, 2007 11:49 AM:

I wonder if Mr. Tanner will attempt to use Dr. Watson's "genetic evidence" that blacks do not have the same intellegence as "us"" as his next rationale as to why black precincts had fewer voting machines.
newsday.com/news/local/longisland/ny-liwats1019,0,1054521.story?coll=ny_home_rail_headlines

anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 11:53 AM:

Funny thing, I don't recall enormous hours-long lines in the morning-to-early-afternoon outside polling places in white Ohio neighborhoods. It's like there were enough booths when all the white folks apparently showed up in the morning.

Voting is a right, not a privilege. So, if the method of recording the vote is getting in the way of a person's right to vote, you FIX IT.

It's this guy's JOB to ensure there are enough booths when people show up, not make excuses for why there aren't.

Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 11:57 AM:

Appears as thought he may have been 'detailed' (temporarily) to the Clinton legal office. He is a civil servant.

Mr. John Tanner

John Tanner is the Chief of the Voting Section of the US Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division. He began involvement in voting rights activity as a teenager in Birmingham, Alabama, in the 1960s, and assisted the Southern Christian Leadership Conference and others on voter registration drives. He began working in the Voting Section in 1976 as a research analyst, attended law school at night at American University, and upon graduation, was hired under the Attorney General’s Program for Honor Law Graduates. In 1995, he left the Voting Section to prosecute criminal violations of civil rights laws, and was a member of the National Church Arson Task Force. He also held temporary assignments with the White House Office of Counsel to the President, the Senate Judiciary Committee, and the Justice Department’s Office of Legislative Affairs. In July, 2002, he returned to the Voting Section to coordinate enforcement of the minority language provisions of the Voting Rights Act. He was named Chief of the Voting Section in June 2005. He has been honored by a number of African American community groups in Alabama and Mississippi and by the District of Columbia City Council, and was the 2004 winner of the John Doar Award, the Civil Rights Division’s highest honor.

Bob wrote on October 19, 2007 12:04 PM:

The ongoing and well-documented Republican subversion of the Civil Rights Division is a disgrace. And Mr. Tanner's reported reasoning on the ID issue suggests he should not be in his job. But Senator Obama's letter is a mess, especially given that it comes from a former head of the Harvard Law Review. As I read the story, Tanner seems to have said that difficulties expected to be encountered by some of the elderly in connection with ID laws does not indicate discrimination "against African Americans" because African Americans are less impacted by these difficulties than are whites. This seems like dodgy reasoning, and it is appropriate to question Tanner's competence on the basis of the statement. But it doesn't seem to me that Tanner suggested that "photo identification are [sic] not necessary for minority voters because 'they die first.'" Tanner's chop-logic can't be refuted by such sloppy argument as this. As to Tanner's character, his actions in several instances seem sufficient to call that into question. And Obama has rightly decided to call judgment and character, two of the Republican administration's weakest points (yet points on which they perversely pride themselves), into question on a regular basis. Unfortunately, in this letter, the character issue just seems like a non sequitur.

IceJustIce wrote on October 19, 2007 12:15 PM:

Tanner used to be a liberal. He was detailed to the Clinton White House and stayed over after W came into office. He appeared back in the Voting Section straight from the Bush White House at the same time as Hans von Spakovsky and was a changed man.

Many speculate as to what happened to Tanner. None know for sure. Right before he left, he was passed over for Section Chief in favor of a woman. Some think that did it. Some think it was a family crisis. Others think he sold his soul to the devil while at the Bush WH so he could become Section Chief.

Let's hope if he goes, he takes his Section 5 deputy with him.

Steve Klein wrote on October 19, 2007 12:36 PM:

So here's our logic: Tanner used to be a reliable liberal; he's not anymore; so people like us can now take the liberty of accusing him of being a klansman. We're so foolish sometimes. We're so willing to jump to conclusions to score a political point. I thought Republicans were masters at this. I'm beginning to get disillusioned with everyone, and maybe that's a good thing. What good is all this vitriol? Can't we point out that this guy said something stupid without foaming at the mouth and calling him a racist?

Anonymous wrote on October 19, 2007 12:53 PM:

Who cares what he did before or if he's personally not a member of the Klan? He's showed some poor judgment with these voting rights issues and has demonstrated that his flawed logic is (whether intentionally or not) resulting in the disenfranchisement of citizens. He needs to be removed.

moondancer wrote on October 19, 2007 1:01 PM:

Steve Klein-

It's the policy not the person. If you recognize voter ID as a cynical attempt by gooper operatives to supress blue leaning voters, then somone who is making sophmoric arguments to defend that program is the "enemy". It's politics.
Evidently one of two things happened to Tanner: either he had a personal political shift, or more likely he has whored himself to keep his job. Either way he painted a large day-glo target on himself.
Maybe calling him a racist is hyperbole, but if it walks like a duck,...

IceJustIce wrote on October 19, 2007 1:13 PM:

Steve,

You don't know the half of this guy. As far as his racism, please don't forget that he was responsible for approval of the Georgia ID law along with Hans von Spakovsky. Granted, I don't think Tanner is a member of the KKK. However, he has been known to wear a tie with pictures of cotton on it (yes, in the Voting Rights Section and once when meeting with black officials). Under his watch, the Justice Department has filed only one case under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act to protect the voting rights of African-Americans. Ten out of 13 black professional staff members have left; only two have been hired. There are multiple EEO claims pending against him. Objections on behalf of black voters under Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act have dropped to near zero.

On his watch, black staff members have not been promoted. He ran off the only black deputy chief in the Voting Rights Section.

There is ample proof that John Tanner is a racist. What you describe as a "slip of the lip" is the tip of the iceberg, and it's something he never would have said, as chief of the Voting Rights Section, which enforces the Voting Rights Act of 1965, probably the most significant piece of civil rights legislation passed for the purposes of protecting the voting rights of blacks, if he had any sensitivity at all on the subject.

People who work in fields like this know that they have to be very careful of their words, lest they be misinterpreted. That Tanner could even think such a thing, let alone say it in the way he did, is proof positive of his racism.

Joe wrote on October 19, 2007 1:29 PM:

The comments about blacks dying before whites is actually factually correct. Check any healthcare statistics and health disparities are clearly demonstrated between whites and blacks.

The comment about the "tendency" of blacks to vote in the afternoon and whites to vote in the morning may be correct as well. But I have not seen polling data statistics lately so I can not be certain.

However, the problem with Mr. Tanner's comments is that he attributes these two facts with race only. Meaning he probably believes blacks die sooner than whites because they are somehow inferior. Or blacks have a tendency to vote in the afternoon because they are black and lazy. When in reality these facts largely have to do with socioeconomic status. Of course, race plays a part in determining socioeconomic status due to institutionalized racism and discriminaiton designed to keep minorities down.

Fwiffo wrote on October 19, 2007 2:07 PM:

"We're so foolish sometimes. We're so willing to jump to conclusions to score a political point."

Who's "we", concern troll?

jvill wrote on October 19, 2007 3:00 PM:

Polling suggests:

- Blacks vote in the afternoon.

- Whites live longer.

- Republicans are whiny, bed-wetting, empathy-deprived narcissists whose political popularity can almost totally be credited to pandering to the most shameful characteristics of our society.

Hey, you can't argue with polling...

littleone2 wrote on October 19, 2007 3:08 PM:

Of coarse he is being bullied to preform a certain way in order to keep his job. Did we learn nothing from the Gonzalez scandal? If the judges voted in a way that displeased the leadership, they were fired. If he wants to work he needs to say the right things. We can hate him for trying to save his own *ss but he is a symptom of a larger problem that most of us won't admit to.

NH Dem wrote on October 19, 2007 3:17 PM:

If it disenfranchises any voters, why should we care that they are elderly, or whether they are more black or white?

It's an outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional law, and he should be ashamed of himself for defending it.

Fire him. Not as a racist, which is unproven and not ultimately the issue. Fire him as someone who, as "Chief of the Voting Section of the US Justice Department," has demonstrated blithe unconcern with

EH wrote on October 19, 2007 3:23 PM:

Ha ha, "KKK." Who thinks of these jokes? Frankly I'm more concerned about Spakovsky.

IceJustIce: Been drinking the Malkin Kool-Aid? Spreading rumors is no way to have a discussion.

"He showed poor judgement...He needs to be removed." This is pure genius and shows a wide-ranging knowledge of how the world works. Should we put him in jail, too?

NH Dem wrote on October 19, 2007 3:24 PM:

If it disenfranchises any voters, why should we care that they are elderly, or whether they are more black or white?

The Georgia law is outrageous and blatantly unconstitutional, and he should be ashamed of himself for defending it.

Fire him. Not as a racist, which is unclear, certainly unproven and not ultimately the issue. Fire him as someone who, as "Chief of the Voting Section of the US Justice Department," has demonstrated blithe unconcern with raising obstacles to the exercise of the franchise.

(And yes, the sentence "For Mr. Tanner to now suggest, in an effort to defend his erroneous decision, that photo identification are not necessary for minority voters because "they die first" shows just how far the Justice Department has fallen." does seem to have had one or two clauses deleted out of the middle of it. The proofreaders must have all moved over to his campaign.)

Cinderella Ferret wrote on October 19, 2007 3:24 PM:

He'll also have to explain why he took the unprecedented step of publicly assuring officials in Columbus, Ohio that there had been no discrimination against African-Americans in the allocation of voting machines for the 2004 election. The fact that African-Americans had to wait in long lines deep into the night, he said, was due to "the tendency" for "white voters to cast ballots in the morning" and "for black voters to cast ballots in the afternoon."

I had a brilliant comment written down, but I just couldn't post. No fucking wonder "Doc" Thompson shot himself. These atavistic ratbastards make Richard Nixon look like a rank amateur.

Steve Klein wrote on October 19, 2007 3:25 PM:

There are some anti-Latino racial undertones in these postings with which I'm uncomfortable. After looking into this, I noticed that the new Section 5 deputy is Latino; the Voting Section has brought over twenty VRA actions under Tanner on behalf of Latino voters; and a number of Asians and Latinos are being hired in the Voting Section. I believe in full and fair enforcement on behalf of black voters and I believe we need black professional staff at the DOJ, but is there some reason, IceJustIce, that you're willing to marginalize Latinos for the sake of your point? I'm a bit uncomfortable with that.

IceJustIce wrote on October 19, 2007 5:22 PM:

No need to marginalize Latino voters. Yes, the Section 5 Deputy Chief is Latino; that doesn't make her competent. In fact, the person she replaced was a white Jewish guy. But he did a better job of protecting minority voting rights than she has, mostly because he had 28 years in civil rights enforcement and she has close to zero. Her problem isn't that she's Latino; it's that she's incompetent. And she has her own issues with race.

This shouldn't be about Latinos versus African-Americans. It should be about protecting everybody's voting rights. What has happened is that Tanner's Voting Rights Section has paid attention to language issues to the exclusion of everything else. There's nothing wrong with paying attention to language issues. Language minorities should have bilingual election materials. No question about it.

But there shouldn't have to be a tradeoff. The staff that was there when Tanner took over was fully competent to take care of Latino voting rights AND African-American voting rights and Asian-American voting rights and everybody else's voting rights. Of course, Tanner has run the vast majority of all of these people off. If they can't do it now, it's because of 1) Tanner's (and the front office's) interference; 2) because they're all brand new and have such steep learning curves in figuring out how to do their jobs that they're intellectually incapable of it at this early stage in their careers as civil rights lawyers; and 3) a bunch of them are members of the Federalist Society and the Republican National Lawyers Association and are more interested in bringing lawsuits to purge voters off of rolls than in filing lawsuits to protect voting rights.

Let's not forget that it is Tanner who is at the forefront of these purge suits. He sent letters to a bunch of states threatening them with lawsuits unless they agreed to purge their voter rolls more aggressively. He's the administration's chief apologist for voter ID laws. Who do purges and voter IDs hurt? Minorities, of course, Latinos included.

>IceJustIce: Been drinking the Malkin
>Kool-Aid? Spreading rumors is no way to
>have a discussion.
EH: not rumors. This information is all either from publicly available sources on the Web or from inside information from former employees who still talk to current employees. Many are friends of mine. Can't tell you how without outing them, as I'm sure folks from DOJ are over here reading this as we speak.

And, yes, EH, no question that compared with Tanner, von Spakovsky is the scarier of the two. That doesn't mean either one of them should be allowed anywhere near the electoral process (except, of course, to cast their own votes).

SPENCER wrote on October 19, 2007 5:29 PM:

My God, where is the outrage? The MSM didn't cover this story at all, but if it had happened during the Clinton era, it would have been front page news in the NYT,LAT,ETC.
Only the WP has a couple of stories today.

It takes emails, letters to the editors of the MSM about this story to wake them up.

Good for Obama!

Jane wrote on October 19, 2007 7:09 PM:

Good for Obama. There need to be more letters like this.

Obama has a tendency to argue in short hand. Here Obama has taken the argument that Tanner offered -- Voter ID discriminates against the elderly and if anything against whites because they live longer -- and ridiculed it by taking it to the logical extreme: you mean blacks can't be affected by this Voter ID law because they won't need a card because they die early? Obama doesn't spell out all the steps.

Back in the real world the actual (and intended) effect is to reduce the proportion of blacks who vote. It is actually an issue of poverty and education: the elderly whites have access to transportation, time and knowledge to enable them to get Voter IDs. Poor elderly blacks without good transportation and with the poor education offered to them do not have these advantages. The net effect is a suppression of the black vote.

Conservative racists have a tendency to believe that if they use plausible but nonsensical numbers no one will notice that they are racist.

Columbus, Ohio is another example. Tanner claims that whites tend to vote in the morning and blacks at night and this explains why there are lines at the polling places where blacks predominate. Assuming that Tanner's claim about the tendencies of the two groups is so, he has confused cause and effect. If you had a job that you needed to keep and you knew that your polling place had lines, would you vote on your way to work or would you wait for evening? Again, intended effect: shortage of voting machines in black areas, long lines, reduced likelihood of voting, voting suppression by race.

Tanner is acting as though he is a convert to Rethug racism despite his past record. If the actions you are taking produce racist results and it is clear in advance that they will produce racist results there is every reason to to believe that you have become a racist. This is particularly true when you offer lame and ridiculous explanations.

Whatever you call it he needs to be removed and fast.

chabuka wrote on October 19, 2007 7:26 PM:

I think its great that Senator Obama is going after Tanner, obviously Tanner has race issues..but what does Obama intend to do about poor white folks?...Pass on that fight? After all we are "blessed just by being Caucasian", what more could we possibly need? Maybe it is mostly about "class and money" and not so much about color? I see Black Republicans and they seem even more hateful than most, with a gigantic chip on their shoulder.......

anita preer wrote on October 20, 2007 2:08 AM:

One of the major problems in the next election will be voter fraud and disenfranchisement. It happened in the last two elections. Obama is right to be on top of this issue. Many blacks don't want to vote at all because they are sure their votes won't be counted ( This comes from the Gore election.) Obama is absolutely correct to root out any people or systems which will impede full voting rights for all.

kjoe wrote on October 20, 2007 1:23 PM:

I agree with anita.

Obama's pre-emptive strikes to raise awareness are the kind of things which re-inforce the idea that voting rights are precious---an idea which goes far beyond the initial focus on the racial aspects.

kjoe wrote on October 20, 2007 1:24 PM:

I agree with anita.

Obama's pre-emptive strikes to raise awareness are the kind of things which re-inforce the idea that voting rights are precious---an idea which goes far beyond the initial focus on the racial aspects.

Alex J. wrote on November 26, 2007 9:54 AM:

i'm not going to go so far as to call him a racist, but he did make a biaest commenta and he obviosly ment it, so black definetly aren't his favorite people in the world.

Ski wrote on December 20, 2007 10:20 PM:

Retired Chief Elijah Chemweno, 96, with his wife Zipporah Kobilo Chemweno and their son Erick Cheruiyot, 54, at their home in Kapserere Village, Chepkorio in Keiyo District.
Born in 1911 in Kerio Valley, Mzee Chemweno’s star began shining in 1935 when he was enrolled by missionaries at Kapsowar mission primary school where he remained until Standard Six.

He was later enrolled by the colonialists as a village elder in 1941. Ten years later, he become a councillor, representing the entire Kerio Valley in Keiyo District.

Mzee Chemweno’s star kept on rising and in 1953 he was made assistant chief in Kerio Valley before he was elevated to a full chief in 1957 in the then Elgeyo-Marakwet District.

“Nothing comes easy in life. I started with a salary of Sh5 per month in 1952, which rose to Sh120 in 1957,’’ says Mzee Chemweno as he displays some of his appointment letters, assisted by his wife Zipporah Chemweno Kobilo.

Among his key responsibilities, he says, was to collect taxes for the colonial government, which was Sh12 per house.

“It required discipline and dedication to work under colonialists. Tax collection was difficult and sometimes we had to impound people’s property and animals to achieve set targets,” Mzee Chemweno recalls as he appeals to all Kenyans to pay their taxes.

When he retired from the civil service in 1973, Mzee Chemweno’s pension was calculated at Sh2,300, US $30 pm. which he continues to receive through Post Bank, Eldoret branch, Kenya.