Comments (84)

SP Biloxi wrote on October 30, 2007 12:45 PM:

Bravo to Rep. Davis for answering the tough questions to Tanner.

James wrote on October 30, 2007 12:58 PM:

I went to law school with Artur and was friendly with him. Even at a place like Harvard, he stood out as fast on his feet and a phenomenal public speaker. In fact, he won best oralist in the coveted moot court competition. Not too shabby.

mike wrote on October 30, 2007 1:04 PM:

that was intense.

Ryan wrote on October 30, 2007 1:04 PM:

Holy shit!!! Stop all the presses!!
A Congressman found his spine!

Way to ask the tough questions there Rep Davis. Its too bad more of our politicians couldn't do the same.

phil wrote on October 30, 2007 1:06 PM:

Bravo to the sound engineer in the hearings for turning the mics on.....WTF?

badger wrote on October 30, 2007 1:06 PM:

We need more committee members who are just willing to ask the same question over and over until they get a response instead of irrelevant non sequiturs from these lackeys. If they aren't willing to answer a simple yes or no question with a direct answer, the entire session should consist of nothing but Democrats asking that question over and over again.

JimBob wrote on October 30, 2007 1:14 PM:

Sorry. Can't get on the "spine" bandwagon. Tanner happened to make a correct statement in a clumsy way that opened him up to a PC bludgeoning and that's what Davis gave him. It was pure grandstanding. The fact that it was a black congressman forcing an apparently sincere white official to trip repeatedly over words he wished he hadn't used and tried his best to rephrase according to the SCIENCE of the matter, gives guilty whities something to applaud. The black guy gets to beat on the white guy for a change, yahoo! This crap is one of racism's ugly stepchildren and like a stepchild it wears the same family name.

Mark wrote on October 30, 2007 1:23 PM:

JimBob ... reread what he admitted. There was NO 'Science'. There was NO math. He made a supposition and assumed the data would back him up, but he admitted to not checking the data. And he got called for it, and forcefully.

Bullsmith wrote on October 30, 2007 1:25 PM:

Jim Bob,

The "SCIENCE" shows that voter ID laws discriminate against white voters? Seriously?

The racism you see from the Bush admin is no stepchild. It's a favorite son.

Joe Buck wrote on October 30, 2007 1:25 PM:

And what correct statement was that, JimBob? Minorities die sooner? Look, when southern racists moved from the Democratic to the Republican party, they took their main tactic with them: win by reducing the number of blacks who vote, by any means necessary. Tanner was caught making things up. You want to focus on the one statement that he made that was correct (that minorities do die sooner), and ignore all of his incorrect or unsupported statements, as well as the inconvenient facts (like the high percentage of elderly blacks who vote, or at least used to vote before they had to show a drivers' license that they do not have).

Steve G wrote on October 30, 2007 1:27 PM:

That was awesome! Finally someone comes to one of these meeting prepared with the relative fact and can ask relative questions.

BRAVO!

kali wrote on October 30, 2007 1:29 PM:

Davis is outstanding. I particularly like listening to him and Sen. Whitehouse.

lambert strether wrote on October 30, 2007 1:30 PM:

More like this, please.

I actually called Davis's office to congratulate him: (202) 225-2665.

Textbook demonstration of controlling a witness instead of making a speech. "My time is precious." My time, too, if it comes to that.

JoeBob wrote on October 30, 2007 1:33 PM:

JimBob, are you really John Tanner or just one of his aides? Because the situation you described doesn't match the article at all.

The Confidence Man wrote on October 30, 2007 1:44 PM:

Uh, actually, folks, while debating JimBob, please *stop* making any concession to the putative "truth" of the statement that minorities die sooner.

Even if the core truth is that minorities have lower projected life expectancies, that does *not* mean that they "die sooner" -- it means that minorities (in point of fact, the *poor*, across all races) have higher infant mortality rates -- which skews average life expectancies lower.

It's actually to Davis's shame that he didn't explicate this in his questioning of Tanner.

JimBob wrote on October 30, 2007 1:53 PM:

No, JoeBob, I am not a ringer. I've been posting here for a long time. I admit I didn't watch the whole video. I stayed for the part where Davis, wearing an expression like a cat that's got a mouse cornered, was interrupting Tanner and forcing him to re-address a phrase he had already admitted was clumsy. It didn't seem to be shaping up to be a revelation of wrong-doing but a blak guy getting his innings against a white guy who misspoke. Tanner's Macaca Moment. I find that stuff boring and inconsequential.
Now, I'm aware that the Republicans have a history of disenfranchising voters and I abhor that practice in whatever form it takes. The people, Tanner included if appropriate, who participate in this illegal and unconstitutional behavior should be banished to Ellesmere Island for life, and Congressional hearings should be empaneled with full power to investigate, castigate and incriminate. But...what I saw in the first minutes of that clip was whitey-baiting; it's the flip side of what we're fighting and it's just as ugly.

JohnnyEnnui wrote on October 30, 2007 1:55 PM:

Hey JimBob: did you also catch the point Rep. Davis made about elderly black voters in Alabama? 40% of black voters were elderly. Maybe that's not true in Georgia, but Davis got Tanner to admit that he never bothered to look at that particular number. So what if (and a big "if" since Tanner didn't really look at the stat--he was making assumptions)blacks do die earlier? The germane point is that elderly black voters may vote more than elderly whites so that their disenfranchisement could have a significant affect on an election.

Thad Beier wrote on October 30, 2007 2:06 PM:

Wow. Davis really gets it. Capsule summary for those who don't:

In Alabama, at least, the percentage of elderly minority voting was higher than the percentage of non-minority voting. So, discriminating against elderly voters discriminates preferentially against minorities.

Surprising, perhaps, but there you go.

lennyasaro wrote on October 30, 2007 2:07 PM:

This video demonstrates the correct way to ask questions at a congressional hearing and obtain an answer to the question. Congratulations to Rep. Davis. Shame on the rest of you congressman for not doing the same. The focus must be on the person answering the question and the answer.

NitPicker1 wrote on October 30, 2007 2:07 PM:

Artur Davis didn't take off on the "what you said was bad because it hurt people's feelings" tangent (as Rep. Ellison did). Instead he got to the heart of the matter - that Tanner was drawing conclusions based on assumptions and stereotypes rather than facts. And that, for a policy-maker, is simply not acceptable.

And yeah, the "My time is precious" remark was right on mark. Davis got exactly what he wanted from the witness, and did it in a respectful way. Awesome.

JimBob wrote on October 30, 2007 2:18 PM:

Okay, I watched the whole thing. Davis turned the questioning into an issue of his own making. The statement Tanner was crucified for had to do with how many elderly black people had photo ID, and Davis -- listen to him at the end -- is talking about the percentage of elderly minorities WHO VOTED. That's not what Tanner was talking about during his Macaca moment, but that's what oh so clever Davis turned it into. Come on, people.

Hmmm. wrote on October 30, 2007 2:46 PM:

I very, very much like that the tone remained even and civil throughout the interchange. No belligerence on either side. More of that, please! Anger and yelling are not signs of strength.

Larry Geater wrote on October 30, 2007 2:47 PM:

JimBob

Tanner had no evidence to back up his statements. He did not research the subject. He made assumptions based on his own perceptions that fell flat in the face of an informed questioner. How is this defensible?

mamiller wrote on October 30, 2007 2:48 PM:

JimBob you really arent listening, are you? He said black people carry photo ids and elderly black people dont exist. There was no statistical evidence for anything that Tanner asserted. And he is a policy maker.

Sean wrote on October 30, 2007 2:48 PM:

Jeez JimBob,

You always this insecure with black men not knowing their place? When it comes to addressing "whitey"

rollensteen wrote on October 30, 2007 2:49 PM:

Why waste time with JimBob? Obviously his mental capacity only enables him to evaluate facts in terms of black and white. You have to really close your mind to view things from his perspective.

Sean wrote on October 30, 2007 2:51 PM:

I'm also tired of the rightwinged deposee always retreating behind the I don't have my notes in front of me...when is that ever an excuse and they did know they were coming to Capital Hill to discuss the very subject he suspiciously didn't bring his notes for.

Rick B wrote on October 30, 2007 3:02 PM:

Hey JimBob,

When you say But...what I saw in the first minutes of that clip was whitey-baiting; it's the flip side of what we're fighting and it's just as ugly.do you mean that liberals shouldn't fight back against the conservatives in ways the public can see are aggressive?

Because that's what is wrong with today's Democratic 'leadership.' They want to substitute so-called astute policy making behind closed doors in place of bashing the conservative slime in public like they should be doing.

I've had it with the namby-pamby Democratic leadership who don't have what it takes to go for the jugular. They have stuck us with eight years of Bush and the war in Iraq, and you don't want it because "...its ugly."

Effective politics IS ugly. It is a substitute for Civil War, and not far from it. If you aren't willing to get ugly with ugly people, then you let them have the reins of power, and we all get the idiocies that Bush - Cheney have delivered to us.

If you don't like "ugly" then forget power and the politics that is used to control it. Go study math or divinity or something polite. And quit criticizing an effective politician who understands how to fight the battle he is fighting, particularly when he's on our side and getting it right.

TomK wrote on October 30, 2007 3:15 PM:

I don't live in Alabama but I wish I could vote for Artur Davis

Austin Cooper wrote on October 30, 2007 3:16 PM:

1) Tanner's job at DoJ is (supposedly) to protect the right of all Americans to vote.

2) Historically, minorities have been prevented from voting by persons who (at a minimum) hold ideas about non-whites that are based in rascist stereotypes.

3) The law in America states that denying non-caucasian citizens their right to vote -- simply because they're not white -- is illegal.

4) We have these laws because there is in fact a proven *need* for them... which is also a proof that racism is still an issue in America, which I'm sure surprises no one.

5) Tanner was publicly and deservedly bitch-slapped because his statements indicate he is basing *policy decisions* on stereotypical assumptions about non-white voters.

5) In this context, the question Davis was raising was proper: Is it best for the person who will make decisions affecting the rights of minority voters, *all* voters, in America be someone who, essentially, relies on his own version of racial profiling? I would agree with Congressman Davis -- the answer is, "no".

6) If Tanner truly considered the anger of minority members of Congress, and others, resulting from his remarks to be a serious matter, he would have arrived at that hearing prepared with figures to support his statements. He didn't... and that lack of preparation tells me he didn't consider this to be a serious matter at all; and that's an additional reason to fire the man.

You either get that, or you don't.

NitPicker1 wrote on October 30, 2007 3:18 PM:

The point of Davis's line of questioning wasn't to establish whether or not the GA law actually did or did not discriminate against minorities or the elderly or anyone else.

What he demonstrated is that Tanner had based his remarks - and by inference his decisions on policy - on unsubstatiated guesses (or wishes) rather than actual data.

More disturbing than whether or not a particular guess - or, let's be charitible and call it a hypothesis - was right or wrong, was that this man was guessing at all.

jonb wrote on October 30, 2007 3:20 PM:

The Confidence man: Wanted to nickpick here and clarify the "die first" thing as a public health person. Life expectancy differences can not be entirely attributed to higher infant mortality, this comes up a lot, I am not sure why people keep getting that health disparities can all be attributed to infancy and birth. Age adjusted rates also show ethnic/racial disparity, meaning in each age group, we still see differing rates. For instance, white women survive breast cancer at significantly higher rates then black women, mostly due to access to/utilization of healthcare. 18-44 year old blacks are dying of AIDS more than whites, adding to the overall death rate in that age group. The difference in life expectancy is only about 5 years or so overall between black and white, and there are plenty of elderly blacks, Tanner cannot dismiss their existance. Tanner goes way beyond "clumsy" in expressing this in the context of voter rights.

v. popvli wrote on October 30, 2007 3:38 PM:

by not coming prepared and informed, with notes and statistics to back him up, tanner continues to show his blatant racial bigotry. he couldn't be more obvious about it even if he unzipped his fly and ran around peeing on all of the racial/ethnic minority members of Congress. the american people are the constituency of the federal government, regardless of their skin color, the average age at which they die, their bank membership, or their treatment by police. and here comes this moron sweeping the concerns of hundreds of thousands of disenfranchised voters under the rug with his totally baseless generalizations about who lives, who dies, who has ID's, who votes when, and who has access to voting machines.

Hot Damn! wrote on October 30, 2007 3:45 PM:

what a joy to watch!

greg wrote on October 30, 2007 3:46 PM:

I think you're giving Tanner too much credit by even suggesting his decision was made based on factually unsupported assumptions. He wanted to keep black folks (i.e., Democrats) from voting, pure and simple. What he came up with was just an excuse (and why it was so lame). When you keep seeing efforts to suppress the Democratic vote pop up in so many different forms, you gotta think there's a connection.

jimbo92107 wrote on October 30, 2007 3:49 PM:

Rep. Artur Davis needs to run for senator, ASAP. Can he move to California first?

The Colonel wrote on October 30, 2007 3:51 PM:

Implicit in this whole discussion of Mr Tanner's remarks is the sterotypical notion that all African-Americans are a part of the same socio-economic class. This is no more true for African-Americans than it is for European-Americans. If policy makers such as Mr. Tanner and, I might add, the public in general, would eliminate race as a variable, and instead concentrate on socio-economic variables, it would become clear that when analyzed from a socio-economic perspective, African and European Americans exhibit very similar attributes and shortcomings. If one is poor in the U.S., then healthcare and early death will be a predictable outcome. The trouble in the U.S. is that we are obsessed with validating racial differences. This obsession and uninformed, sterotypical point of view caused Mr. Tanner to make his stupid statement in the first place.

Mr. Davis was excellent in exposing this tendency which has long been accepted in the U.S. popular culture.

MultiplePOV wrote on October 30, 2007 4:08 PM:

Another take...

I think that seeing Tanner as making his decisions on unsubstantiated guesses is too charitable in that it assumes that Tanner's stupidity is innocent. I think that it's much more likely that the Georgia voter I.D. law had its basis in a very careful analysis of statistics intended to identify ways to shave off the minority vote. Atomizing the electorate has been a favorite Republican past time throughout the Bush Jr. years.

It was only in retrospect, when called on to defend the voter I.D. law, that shoddy, post hoc data mining took place in order to provide Tanner some talking points.

But that's just my speculation...

Kudos to Davis for avoiding such spedculation and sticking to the facts. If Tanner can't show that the recommendations from his department for changes in voting law aren't based on the analysis required by 28 C.F.R. PART 51 Subpart F, he doesn't qualify for his position. Period.

Sara J wrote on October 30, 2007 4:13 PM:

This is a great discussion and I don't have much to add, but did anybody notice that Tanner is so tone-deaf he actually made his remarks to a Latino audience?

Wow.

And James, you lucky dog - I'd have loved to be in class with Artur Davis. What a star!

anon wrote on October 30, 2007 4:23 PM:

Yes, Davis is a stand up guy, the kind of Dem we should all be supporting. And he needs support. He's clearly made himself a target by going after DoJ corruption. It's worth checking out the recent smear job on him in the Birmingham News and Scott Horton's analysis of it. I'm sure more mud is heading Davis's way after this.

Mooser wrote on October 30, 2007 4:33 PM:

If you force a white man to come face to face with his own racist misinformation and bigotry you are in fact, committing a hate crime! See, cause when you "trap" them into admitting the racist eugenics which underly their ideology that is a form of assault! You are intolerant of their intolerance, which they have a right to, cause a sense of superiority, and a wad of psuedo-scientific blather to back it up, is an essential part of the white identity and when you attack someones racial identity, why that's a hate crime!
So cut it out with the "white-baiting"!

Passing Shot wrote on October 30, 2007 4:35 PM:

Before we all start creaming over Davis, perhaps learning a little bit of his history would provide some perspective:

http://www.blackcommentator.com/138/138_cover_cbc_clones.html

Davis unseated a much more progressive representative in his bid for Congress, thanks to a massive influx of corporate donations. Davis also supported the benighted bankruptcy bill.

One brief star turn does not necessarily make for a star.

phil james wrote on October 30, 2007 4:36 PM:

Agree with you jonb. Claiming the disparity in survival is all based on infant mortality rates is wrong. There is disparity in survival of blacks vs white across all age groups. Davis rightly focused on the stereotypes Tanner had used instead of real statistics. That was enough of a point to show what Tanner was made of, which is typical of Bush appointees throughout our thoroughly politicized and abundantly incompetent Federal government. A more accurate and broader case could also have been made about a disastrous US health care system that also leaves blacks behind.

One thing that also struck me about Tanner was that he actually appeared to be contrite about his failings...something that isn't likely to sit well with the WH and their confederate hunt club sponsors.

Blue Shark wrote on October 30, 2007 4:36 PM:

...How does "Speaker of the House Artur Davis" sound to anybody?

...Its about Leadership.

driff wrote on October 30, 2007 4:42 PM:

Look, what Tanner said was blount and sloppy, which he admitted. What Davis is "grilling" him on is a completely different matter. What Tanner said, in an admittedly sloppy way, is that blacks die younger than whites. Obviously this doesn't empirically prove his point about voter ID discrimination, but statistics do back him up, at least on life expectancy.

What Davis says is that a higher percentage of the minority vote comes from seniors than the white vote. This is also true, but not related to Tanner's (again, admittedly incorrect) argument. It's due to the fact that young minorities vote in smaller percentages than young whites. More importantly, it does nothing to rebut Tanner's argument on voter ID discrimination that there are fewer seniors in the minority population than amongst whites. Had Davis made a gross number argument (there were more black senior voters than white senior voters), rather than a percentage one, he would have made a salient point. But my suspicion is that's not the case.

Look, Tanner's argument is obviously a flawed generalization, and if you want to grill Tanner over poor job performance, go for it, there's plenty of fresh meat there. But let's stop lauding Artur Davis for the same grandstanding we often see from the right that undermines and sullies every other congressional hearing and debate.

Austin Cooper wrote on October 30, 2007 5:02 PM:

Pointing out any form of racism that results in skewing public policy away from the law isn't grandstanding at all.

Davis sharpened the focus of the inquiry -- for the 'witness', if no one else.

And so long as a culture that we need the focus to be sharpened, lines of questioning such as Davis's are necessary, prudent, and sobering.

Necessary.

Mooser wrote on October 30, 2007 5:11 PM:

You are really without a shred of compassion, aren't you? Gosh darn it, superiority, whether itellectual or physical, or rather, a conception of ones own superiority is essential to the white identity! Without it we are nothing! Would you take our most prised concept away from us. It is the very center of our "culture", you know "white culture". Don't you like diversity.
To argue for racial equality, is of necessity anti-white! It discriminates against white people!

thepeoplechoose wrote on October 30, 2007 5:20 PM:

This is really about one thing. And if you don't know what that is then you must be living in a cave. Just look at the leading republican contenders and review their record when it comes to addressing minority audiences. These gentlemen have no interest or desire to engage with any minority group be they black, Latino, gay, poor working class or any other. If you aren't a white christian then you just aren't on their agenda and your voice in any government they lead will not be heard. It will, in fact, be actively repressed. The tremendous diversity that is this nation stands in naked contrast to the narrow mindedness of George Bush and these would be presidents. Tanner and his ilk are right wing conservative shock troops presently running this country to serve their own ends.

phil james wrote on October 30, 2007 5:21 PM:

Agree with Driff on the different point that Davis was actually making that did not directly counter what Tanner claimed. The larger point though, which Davis did make and which was not grandstanding, was that Davis actually used statistics on voting to frame his examples and arguments but that Tanner used none. Had Tanner or anyone on his staff done any homework and been prepared to discuss any of these related statistics and their implications, you'd think they'd have had them there at the hearing. But they didn't. So Davis did illuminate the fundamental point, that Tanner was basing policy on stereotypes rather than data.

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 5:29 PM:

@thepeoplechoose

Not true. The engagements with minorites do occur, just behind closed stall doors in bathrooms, mostly.

If Amtrak goes on strike, the bathroom hunting at Union Station will become a lot more obvious.

jrcjr wrote on October 30, 2007 5:40 PM:

"blacks die younger than whites...statistics do back him up, at least on life expectancy."

People keep saying this is true as some sort of defense of Tanner (he said one thing that's technically true, so he must not be a TOTAL crook?), but it isn't really true -- once you make it to voting age there isn't that much difference in life expectancies. the greater difference comes in higher rates of infant mortality among poorer segments of the population.

army193 wrote on October 30, 2007 6:00 PM:

Rep. Artur Davis (D-AL) also dragged out from Monica Goodling that she had a political test for job positions.

driff wrote on October 30, 2007 6:14 PM:

I agree with Phil James, there's something to be said for backing up your claims with empirical evidence, even if it didn't directly rebut Tanner's assertions. I just felt like he was beating a dead horse after a while.
I also agree on the broader point. Technically true or not, what he said demonstrates the lack of professionalism and fundamental understanding of what it means to be the person charged with the task of defending the rights of voting minorities.

Henk wrote on October 30, 2007 6:24 PM:

Folks, JimBob really doesn't give a shit one way or another. He just wants to stir things up. There is no need to engage him or confuse him with facts. His mind is made up.

JimBob wrote on October 30, 2007 7:01 PM:

Well, Henk, you're wrong about that. I really was trying to say something and it didn't go over. What I did was use terms that inflamed passions and obscured my point. Driff made my point, that is the one I set out to make, without bringing race into it and had a much better reception. I should have followed his example in advance.
I stick by what I said: Davis got Tanner in a corner and harassed him for the cameras, and he didn't stick to the context in which Tanner's original verbal sin was committed. Tanner was obviously unprofessional, didn't even bother to be prepared, which is a lesson he probably thought he'd learned from Gonzales, only Gonzo was better at it. And Tanner used stereotypes instead of data in enforcing laws. I don't see him as a policymaker any more than a cop is a policymaker, but I don't really know the full scope of his duties. If he was not enforcing laws against voter discrimination/suppression/whatever or was bending the laws to create an outcome for one party or the other, then he should not be merely fired, he should go to jail.

Frank wrote on October 30, 2007 7:06 PM:

I agree with jimbob and driff. It was grandstanding. Rep. Davis was making apples to oranges comparisons, and continually badgering the witness to categorically state yes or no to questions about ALABAMA that Mr Tanner had no reason to expect or to have planned for. Not having the data in front of you, on call, at the moment, is not the same as having looked at no data and having built your career on assumptions. How quick WE are to make assumptions about Mr. Tanner's racism.

Go ahead and flame against jimbob all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Lori wrote on October 30, 2007 7:19 PM:

Tanner spoke the truth, and said it was a sad truth, that blacks in the US on average have a lower life expectancy. It is a truth that has major implications, when you think not only of loss of life, and inequities in healthcare, but also policies like social security entitlement age: totally unfair to the average black person's life expectancy. Tanner should ensure all races get to vote, however he should not be attacked for stating the truth and saying that it is a sad fact that black people die younger on average.

Joe Monster wrote on October 30, 2007 8:06 PM:

JimBob's right, but Davis was the first to get one of these slimeballs (broad brush for Bush appointees, etc.) on the ropes and work the body.

One point for JimBob, three for Davis.

Voicesraised wrote on October 30, 2007 8:19 PM:

Here's part of what former Representative Hilliard, who lost to Davis, had to say about him:

"[T]here were people who were sent to Alabama that were on the payroll of corporations who were doing all the necessary ground work and preparations and…when they put the money in, the money came like, WOW!"

(snip)

“But there is no way you can calculate the services that he got. I estimate that he got $2,000,000 worth of press, or more, from the Jewish press as well as the Republican press."

The Jewish press, eh? Oy, how verklempt the Schwarzes are...

Yvette & the Toaster wrote on October 30, 2007 8:25 PM:

Just a tale from the Voting Section to highlight the character, or lack thereof, of Acting Deputy Chief of Section 5, YVETTE RIVERA. A black staffer noticed that her toaster was missing. She sent around an email to the Section, asking if anyone had seen it. Some staffers consequently learned that an intern took the toaster, after being told by RIVERA that he could, even though it was not hers to give. Now when the email went around asking for the toaster, and when a note was placed on the bulletin board, a normal, moral person would send an email to the staffer saying "oh, I'm so sorry I did not realize that belonged to you, and I gave an intern permission to take it. Let me know how much it cost, and I will be happy to replace it." That is what I would do, and what I assume you all reading would do as well. But no, not RIVERA. She clearly read the email, has seen the bulletin board, yet weeks continue to pass, and she remains silent...Yvette, we know you read these, and we want you to know that WE KNOW you are behind this! And you want us to respect you when you lie and hide little mistakes like this? Now how can we respect you when you tell lie after lie, ask staff to spy on each other, and treat black staff SO differently than non-black staff?

Rep. Scott Correction wrote on October 30, 2007 8:38 PM:

just a correction. rep scott asked tanner if it was true that when the civil rights division awards came out, everyone in the division got an award except two staffers. very close, but the situation is that all of the section 5 analysts in the voting section (tanner's section) received awards except the only two black analysts. Yvette Rivera, who was in charge of nominating the section 5 staffers, is at it again...but folks, she claims she cannot be racist since she is a woman of color. great defense...hope she uses that one in the EEOs filed against her.

Bobby Seals wrote on October 30, 2007 9:12 PM:

Special thanks go out to Reps. Davis and Ellison for asking the tough questions and not soft-peddling with the duplicitous Mr. Tanner. You need gruff, no-nonsense interrogators in order to deal with verbal trickers who love to fib their way out of definative answers....

IceJustIce wrote on October 30, 2007 9:41 PM:

Frank,

Tanner is FROM Alabama. He is in charge of the Voting Section, which has special responsibility for protecting black voting rights in the old South. The Voting Section deals with numbers every day. Tanner should have these numbers on the tip of his tongue.

So should Yvette Rivera, but I heard her ask another Section staffer how to calculate percentages once. We have to figure percentages every day to know, for instance, what the percentage of minority voters in a jurisdiction is. And the Acting Deputy Chief of Section 5 doesn't even know how to compute them!!!

IceJustIce wrote on October 30, 2007 9:44 PM:

Lori,

You just don't get it, do you? The point wasn't about the life expectancies of African-Americans or other minorities. The point is that Tanner was trying to use these figures (which Artur Davis convincingly demonstrated Tanner didn't know) to prove the bizarre argument that photo ID laws _discriminate against white voters_. Anybody who knows anything about voting rights knows that this argument is a crock.

RE: Yvette & the Toaster wrote on October 30, 2007 10:22 PM:

That is absurd, too bad the toaster's owner shouldn't have left the toaster there for four years, too bad government time should be spent actually working instead of making stupid flyers, too bad you have no evidence.

oh poor toaster owner, try worrying about the millions of children in the US and around the world without food, without medical treatment, try worrying about people being tortured in iraq!!

I feel no pity for someone that is so bitter about a toaster and doesn't worry about all of the other problems in society, get over yourself!

IceJustIce wrote on October 30, 2007 10:33 PM:

Dear RE:

You don't get it, do you? This isn't about a toaster. It's about basic respect, or the lack thereof, being shown by a supervisor to her employees, more specifically her black employees, whom she has passed over for promotions, denied awards to, denied reasonable accommodations for disabilities to, harassed in more ways than I can count on the fingers of both hands, and some of whom have filed Equal Opportunity Employment claims against her.

And this in a Section that is charged with protecting the voting rights of minorities...that was founded in 1965 after blacks trying to register to vote got whacked with billy clubs and tear-gassed on the Edmund Pettus Bridge in Selma.

I wholeheartedly agree with your comments about the millions of children without food. It is indeed a far worse tragedy. But voting rights here at home are important, and Rivera and her enabler, John Tanner, just don't care about African-Americans, either as voters or as employees.

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 10:43 PM:

RE: clealy you work in the section since you know the toaster was there for 4 years, that is not in any of these postings. can you seriously defend a woman who gives away things which dont belong to her and then lies by ommission. when the email was snet asking what happened to her toaster, all rivera had to do was apologize and offer to replace it. but no, she sits by like she is innocent. its not the toaster, its the point. it goes to character. wake up to what is going on around you.

RE: IceJustIce wrote on October 30, 2007 10:47 PM:

Dear Ice,

A) I don't know about what she does to her employees since, unlike the obvious voting section employees who blog here, I just am not in the war zone (so-to-speak).
B) I remember reading over congressional testimony and someone by the name of Juan Cartagena testified that Section 5 was founded not just because of discriminatory events against blacks which culminated in Selma but also because those practices were being done against Native Americans and Puerto Ricans. If you deny their inclusion you just open yourself up to having your arguments labeled as exclusive.
C) I went to the Voting Section website and looked over objections for the past couple of years, haven't they all been on behalf of black voters? If they didn't "care about African-Americans" (and I point out that your term "African-American" offensively implies that blacks chose to become American when they were forced here by slave traders), why would all of the objections for the past few years have been on behalf of blacks?

If they hated black voters, as you allege, wouldn't they just start objecting on behalf of whites?

RE wrote on October 30, 2007 10:52 PM:

"clealy" you haven't heard of the fifth amendment to our constitution. You can't just assume someone is guilty just because they haven't responded to an email that you say has been sent out.

No one is defending her giving away a toaster, the point was that rather than focus so much energy on something as meaningless as a toaster, perhaps you could focus your energy on some sort of positive change.

For goodness sake, give the intern a break, they probably don't even get paid any money!

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 10:57 PM:

we know she did it because the INTERN told that RIVERA let him take the toaster when he asked for it. no need to plead the 5th. the intern initially asked his trainer, who said she could not say yes because she did not know who it belonged to. then the intern went and asked rivera, and she told him to take it. its not a debate, its not a fantasy, unless you are calling the intern a liar. positive change? rivera's letter of resignation!

RE wrote on October 30, 2007 10:58 PM:

again, the focus is NOT the toaster, it is RIVERA'S shady character. if she cannot be honest about a freaking toaster, what can she be honest about?

Civil Rights LOL wrote on October 30, 2007 11:06 PM:

Back 2 the toaster oven, RIVERA knew the owner of said oven, she always commented on the aroma of the cookies that were baked in said oven. Since she was NEVER offered these cookies, she felt it was her DUTY to eliminate said oven to CONTROL as she feels ENTITLED to CONTROL all aspects of the office & ELIMINATE all those who question her INABILITY to MANAGE. MS. RIVERA is an INSECURE, INCOMPETENT, IGNORANT (who believes she's white & superior) SO-CALLED manager who feels she has the right to treat non-white & non-hispanic employees as if they are the SCUM of the earth. Her FOREVER COMMENT: "I can't be a racist, I'm a minority" RIGHT, a minority who married a ANGLO in order to make herself feel as though she has arrived! Her ANGLO spouse probably keeps her in CHECK at home, so WATCH OUT all those on the JOB!

RE wrote on October 30, 2007 11:09 PM:

it is JUST a toaster. Your argument is illogical. Take this into consideration:
Say you have communal kitchen facilities as most people in offices do as I would assume that most people don't have their own kitchen. I would guess that most people in an office would probably, at some point or another, use the communal space. How many of those people clean the communal space? Hmm, probably not many, right? Do we then assume because these people don't do their part that they are lazy and don't also do their jobs? I mean if they can't even clean up the space that they use they must not even be doing an effective job.

Withheld wrote on October 30, 2007 11:20 PM:

I know firsthand how much Yvette Rivera lies. Lots of people criticize her for being stupid, but her real problems is her dishonesty.

Once you no longer have the trust and respect of your subordinates, you are no longer fit to lead, regardless of anyone's political stripes. I don't have a political view on most of these things, I just do my job and ignore most of it. But I have no respect for Yvette Rivera because of her dishonesty. The sad thing is that most of the small details of what goes on in that office will never be widely known. The section had serious problems before Tanner came. The whole mid-90s mess involving congressional redistricting comes to mind. But I've never been in any professional environment with as much unprofessional and dishonest behavior as the section has now. And you can almost trace it's beginings to the time that Tanner was currying favor with higher ups before he was named Chief. It is astonishing that the front office doesn't do something about it. There is no part of the entire Justice Department more in the news for bad behavior and bad managment than the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division. I don't believe this business about them covering things up in front office. I just think they are wildly inept or simply entirely fooled - as those are the only two possibilities. They probably read these webpages and think it is just a dozen or so disgruntled employees. But it isn't. I didn't much care for Toby Moore. He was awfully full of himself. But he sure gets it right when he testified:

"John Tanner is both the cause and the effect of the politicizing of the Civil Rights Division, and should not be allowed to hide behind a career status which he has abjured by his actions. Until someone in the department, in this administration or the next, admits to the mistakes of the past several years and restores credible leadership, the voting section of the Civil Rights Division will remain a wounded institution. How long will the Department of Justice tolerate chronic mismanagement simply to save face?"

Part of the problem is that our front office is invested in Tanner. He is their rouge. I somehow hope, however, that other parts of Justice see through that cozy relationship and remedy this situation quickly. It is getting out of control. I hear it on the phone with citizens when I speak with them. It is impairing my efforts to do my job.

Civil Rights LOL wrote on October 30, 2007 11:24 PM:

amazing! "Civil Rights LOL" is right! You just made probably the most racist comment I have heard in a really long time. So in your effort to attack someone you are saying that a minority person in an inter racial marriage is only doing that in order to "feel white?"

How can you make such remarks? That is like telling someone he or she is "not black enough" or in her case, "not latino enough"

How about feeling compassion for someone who you perceive has the need to "be white"?

Anonymous wrote on October 30, 2007 11:54 PM:

I want to point out that Davis is pretty conservative for a Congressional Black Caucus Member. Only Sanford Bishop is more conservative.

TEL wrote on October 31, 2007 12:17 AM:

Using the logic that some of the posters on this site use (as well as Tanner), one could make the arguement that all policies that lead to stricter policing of the polls disproportionately affect white people (or black people). Why? You can use (or misuse, depending on how you look at it) statistics to make any arguement you want. Here's the (very) basic statistical hypothesis:

H0: Voter ID laws disproportionately affect whites.
H1: Voter ID laws do not disproportionately affect whites.

It all depends on how you define the parameters of the hypothesis. Did Tanner mean relative percent of older vs. younger voters for both races? Did he mean relative survival rates of blacks vs. whites (as he claims)? Because Tanner did not define the problem, outline the parameters of his hypothesis, or use any actual numbers to back up his claim, his arguement isn't just sloppy, it's an embarassment.

I have to use statistical analyses all the time, and I can honestly say that he shouldn't just be apologizing now, he should have known better than to open his trap in the first place. After working for 30+ years on this type of stuff, he should know better than 99.9% of the rest of the population how this type of analysis is done.

CR LOL wrote on October 31, 2007 12:33 AM:

Visit any Justice Civil Rights Office and you will see the invisible ROPE that racially divides. So sad that an office which should enforce civil rights can't even cross the racial divide within the walls of justice.

anny wrote on October 31, 2007 12:48 AM:

Rivera looks at Tanner just as Rice sees Bush with GLOWING eyes.

JimBob wrote on October 31, 2007 2:23 AM:

Tel, you're obviously better versed in statistics. Great. But what Tanner was talking about was life expectancy without allowing for infant mortality or other things that might skew the AVERAGE or the MEAN, but which exist where the rubber meets the road: the relative number of SURVIVORS at what we agree is "old age" or the state of being "elderly."

TEL wrote on October 31, 2007 12:09 PM:

JimBob,

My point was simple. Tanner didn't do a statistical analysis at all. He embarassed himself.

What he actually said was "our society is such that minorities don't become elderly the way white people do. They die first." It's an inflammatory, meaningless statement ("our society is such that" or "don't become elderly the way white people do" what does that mean?), which he then tried to link into a justification of voter ID laws. As Davis said, if Tanner had actually talked about relative mortality rates, he wouldn't be under fire.

What's really crazy about this is that it doesn't matter whether voter ID laws disproportionately affect anyone. What does matter is if they disenfranchise voters regardless of skin color, something Tanner seemed to admit by saying they affect elderly voters.

Idon'tworkthereanymore! wrote on October 31, 2007 10:31 PM:

Hahahha. amazing to see the hilarity continues.... "times are a changin" right lovies?

static wrote on November 1, 2007 2:41 AM:

In the video I viewed Davis acted in courteous business like manner. Only interrupting Tanner, when was clear that Tanner, wasn't going to answer a question directly. All Davis was seeking was if Tanner's "clumsy" statement was based on fact or not, I see nothing PC in that.

TC wrote on November 28, 2007 3:38 PM:

pwned.