Asociated Press and ABC both cover the Judiciary Hearings with John Tanner today, leading with his tepid apology: “I want to apologize for the comments I made at the recent meeting of the National Latino Congress about the impact of voter identification laws on elderly and minority voters “¦ My explanation of the data came across in a hurtful way, which I deeply regret.”
His data were fine (they weren’t), just that his explanation was hurtful.
The head of the DoJ’s Civil Rights Division Voting Section’s apologia comes in response to comments made on a video tape that, according to both AP and ABC, apparently created itself, reported itself, and then posted itself on YouTube.
We suppose their lack of attribution of the original source for both the video and reporting thereof (by your friendly neighborhood BRAD BLOG) of comments that led to several hours of hell-raising testimony and confrontation in the U.S. House Judiciary Committee today is a step up from the DNC’s version.
In the statement they released yesterday from Howard Dean and Donna Brazile, calling for Tanner to be fired, they attributed the comments to FoxNews.com. Very thoughtful.
Luckily, we are so well off here at The BRAD BLOG, so flush with overflowing resources, as based on the world-wide MSM recognition of the credibility of our work, we don’t need the DNC to recognize us for having handed them Tanner’s head on a silver platter via our elbow grease at our own expense.
Rupert Murdoch, on the other hand, can use all the help he can get. If we’re able to raise enough for this month’s rent on our latest premium offer, we’ll be sure to send whatever is left over to him. Happy DNC?
(Can you tell I’m rolling on little more than 3 hours’ sleep today? Okay, done with my whining for tonight. Maybe.)
UPDATE: The Hill reports “CBC (Congressional Black Caucus) members pummel Department of Justice official” and NPR covers as well. They credit no one for the original reporting. Which is preferred to crediting “a Youtube video.”
Here’s NPR’s coverage, with audio of some of the best Tanner spankings today (appx 4 mins)…
UPDATE: 10/31/07: PBS News Hour covered last night as well. And includes an appropriate attribution. In case it’s not clear, the attribution is not because we need ego strokes or pats on the back. It’s so that bad guys, in the future, are less able to say “Oh, that explosive report exposing us came from a blog, and we all know that blogs aren’t credible.” When said blog has been credited as credible by folks such as AP, ABC, and yes, even the DNC, it makes it much more difficult for those bad guys to duck accountability using the “just an Internet blog” defense.
Here’s the PBS News Hour’s coverage (thanks to Alan Breslauer!) from last night:
…Though the video coverage we’ve seen, by far, comes today from the Washington Post. Check it out right here…
What doesn’t come through in these messages is that John Tanner is not a Bush Administration political appointee; he’s not even a Republican. He’s a career civil servant with a long and excellent record of defending the voting rights of minorities. He made a stupid choice of words and is now being made a scapegoat for bad administration policies.
I couldn’t care less what party Tanner is.
His decision on the Georgia ID case, apparently to please his new bosses, according to several DOJ sources, is bad enough. His comments made it worse.
His “investigation” and subsequent white-washing of what happened during the abomination that was Ohio 2004 is an enormous strike against him.
Finally, talk to any of his current or former colleagues about how his atrocious management of the CRT has destroyed the joint, and I see no reason that John Tanner should be allowed to be dog catcher, much less the Voting Chief at the DoJ Civil Rights Division.
Has that message gotten through yet?!
Maura,
His “long and excellent record of defending the voting rights of minorities” ended about the time he came back to the Voting Section as the handpicked choice of Brad Schlozman and Hans von Spakovsky. He then set about tearing up the legacy that he and legions of others had established.
It is true that Tanner is nominally a Democrat. However, he sure as hell doesn’t act like one these days. In some ways, it’s worse that Tanner is a Democrat. At least with Hans, you always knew where he was coming from. He was honest but evil. You knew that the beliefs he was implementing into policy were beliefs he truly held, as repugnant as they were to proponents of civil rights.
Tanner, on the other hand, seems to have sold out for trips to Hawaii and the possibility of retiring on a Senior Executive Service pension. And as we all know, Susana Lorenzo-Giguere appears to have sold out for a $64 per day per diem (I guess “per day per diem” is redundant, but in govspeak, a “per diem” is the payment you get each day you’re on official government travel).
Tanner may have started out as a champion of civil rights. He’s sure not one now. In a lot of ways, it’s sad. But right now, we’re so angry in the Section with what he’s done to it that we can’t stop to sympathize, at least not until he’s gone.
Oh, yeah…
Brad, HowDe and Donna may not have given you proper recognition, but you’ve got lots of fans in the Voting Section these days…
The PBS channel here, specifically the News Hour (McNeil sp?), gave Brad Blog full credit.
It was the 6:00 Central Time program.
heh-heh, not really ot
A new stereotype?
IceJustIce – Appreciate the comments, response to Maura, and knowing the folks in the Voting Section are keeping an eye on things over here. (As if Maura’s note itself didn’t already give us that indication 🙂
You’ll pardon rant last night against DNC, AP, ABC et al., but I’m rather sick and tired of bad guys out there replying to original BRAD BLOG reporting with “well, it’s just a blog, you know you can’t trust that” when they’ve got no other explanation for our ACCURATE reporting.
While I understand AP and ABC’s interests in not going out of their way to offer “credibility” to blogs, I’d suggest the DNC has no similar excuse.
Crediting to FoxNews.com, of course, is just salt in the wounds. But when they wonder “what happened to all of those independent investigative sites who just gave up eventually because they couldn’t keep the lights on?” hopefully they’ll know who to point their fingers at.
And to be even clearer about it. The call for attribution is not for a pat on the back or ego stroke, it’s so that the bad guys aren’t able to say next time “Oh, that explosive story which just outed us as bad guys shouldn’t be paid attention to, since it only came from a blog, and we all know such sites aren’t credible”.
Appropriate attributions from folks like AP, ABC, NYTimes — and yes the DNC — make that sort of dodge much harder for those bad guys in the future, and makes it that much easier to do what we do here, and ensure that folks pay attention to it when they should!