Oct. 8, 2007
Obama Maneuver Boosts Civil Rights Cred
Senator Blocks Controversial FEC Nominee
-
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., delivers a speech in Chicago in last weekend. Obama and Sen. Russ Feingold, D-Wis., this week put a hold on Senate confirmation proceedings for FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky, who has been accused of diluting minority voting power during his time as a Justice Department lawyer. (AP)
-
In-Depth 2008 Presidential Hopefuls Profiles and the latest news on the Democrats and Republicans running for the White House.
Barack Obama’s move to block a controversial nominee to the Federal Election Commission could help the presidential candidate burnish his civil rights bona fides and woo black voters away from Hillary Clinton.
Obama and Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.) this week put a hold on Senate confirmation proceedings for FEC nominee Hans von Spakovsky, who has been accused of diluting minority voting power during his time as a Justice Department lawyer.
Though the Senate is expected to revisit the nominations when it returns from a one-week recess, the hold was an astute political play by Obama.
It could mute questions about his leadership on civil rights issues.
And it could help cement his status as most reform-minded candidate for president, since advocates for stricter campaign finance guidelines accuse von Spakovsky of working to weaken the rules since joining the FEC as a temporary recess appointment.
The hold pleased civil rights leaders, whose support could be key to Obama’s courtship of black voters.
Though he’s the most viable African-American presidential candidate in U.S. history, polls show black voters favoring Clinton, a New York senator and the Democratic frontrunner, by 25 percentage points or more.
Obama will need to cut into that margin if he hopes to overtake Clinton, and taking on von Spakovsky may help, said David A. Bositis, a pollster at the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies who specializes in black politics and voting.
“If the von Spakovsky story stays out there, it’ll be something that will be a plus for Obama,” he said.
That’s because he said it’s a big deal among civil rights activists, yet it “is not something that’s going to hurt with white voters.”
In fact, he said, it can be cast as part of an existing narrative popular among Democrats about politicization of the Justice Department under former Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez, rather than as a “black-identified” issue.
He argued that opposing von Spakovsky is a better use of Obama’s political capital than more actively protesting the treatment of the six black teenagers arrested in Jena, La. for beating a white student amid escalating racial tensions.
“White voters will not vote for a Black candidate who they see as someone who is pursuing a Black agenda,” he said.
Jesse Jackson, the most competitive black presidential candidate until Obama, has criticizing Obama’s response to the Jena incident.
Last month he was quoted accusing Obama of “acting like he’s white.” Jackson, who months earlier endorsed Obama for president, quickly reaffirmed his support.
Though Obama had already issued statements condemning the handling of the incident (which he pointed out were crafted with input from Jackson’s son, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. of Illinois), days later he devoted a speech at Howard University to his civil rights agenda.
And he seemed to link the alleged injustices in Jena to the politicization of the Justice Department.
Without naming von Spakovsky, he said he will “rid the (Justice) Department of ideologues and political cronies … And we'll have a Voting Rights Section that actually defends the right of every American to vote without deception or intimidation.”
For four years before his temporary appointment to the FEC in 2006, von Spakovsky was a top lawyer in the Department of Justice’s voting section.
There, he led efforts to approve a congressional redistricting plan in Texas that the U.S. Supreme Court found discriminated against Latino voters, and a law in his native Georgia requiring voters to show photo identification before casting their ballots.
That discriminated against black voters, who were less likely to have such ID, according to career DOJ attorneys, who were overruled by von Spakovsky and other higher-ranking DOJ officials.
Though blocking the nomination wold please some black voters, that’s probably not behind Obama’s opposition, said Wade Henderson, president of the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights.
“I don’t think that Sen. Obama’s expressed concern about Hans von Spakovsky should be seen as pandering to the civil rights community,” said Henderson. “I think it really is a matter of principle.”
His group urged the leaders of the Senate Rules Committee to reject the von Spakovsky nomination.
It accused him of pushing “policies that systematically block access to the franchise for the poor and minority voters.”
The committee moved the nomination to the Senate floor without recommendation.
Supporters of von Spakovsky assert he adequately addressed the concerns raised by Henderson’s group and other opponents, and say the work he did at the Justice Department is not relevant to the FEC nomination.
Obama’s opposition “is nothing more than fear-mongering with potential liberal voters,” said Todd Gaziano, who follows FEC issues for the conservative Heritage Foundation. He said Obama’s hold smacks of “desperation in his political campaign.”
Obama declined an interview request for this story, but he issued a statement saying “the FEC needs strong, impartial leadership that will promote integrity in our election system. Hans von Spakovsky is not the right person for this job.”
Copyright 2007 POLITICO
| We cover politics with enterprise, style, and impact. |
More From Politico
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 22 CommentsMost likely, these same people are too lazy to get off their butts and do an honest day''s work as well.
The Welfare line is full of them; white, black, asian, hispanic, you name it..... They come from all corners... Republican AND Democrat, Liberal and Conservative....
Get off your lazy back sides and DO something.
What''s wrong with the system now of showing 3 forms of id and a home address? The answer is nothing.
Something tells me that there will be a shortage of ids in democratic districts like there was a shortage of vting machines in democratic districts and an overabundance in repub districts like in 2004 in Ohio.
The republicans are the ones who are defeatest, they have to steal votes because they can''t win them outright.
When you lose the right to vote after being a citizen all your life you''ll be defeatest too. But then you never had to fight for the right to vote to begin with like African-Americans did.
Posted by realpatriot1 at 04:26 PM : Oct 08, 2007"
Does that mean I get to be favored now? lol
Sorry, but favoritism is for defeatists. I prefer to join the American society even if I don''t conform to the mindset of the abominable liberals. I''ll not be favored, I prefer equality.
If one is unwilling to procure a photo ID, then one doesn''t diserve to vote.
**********************
"Boy Obama" is right on this one. Abraham Lincoln was a racist, he just didn''t like slavery.
non-African-American non-whites who you think
have a mentality of victimization.
I now realize that you were talking about Eskimos and other native Americans.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by realpatriot1 at 04:26 PM : Oct 08, 2007
**************************************************
Now THAT is funny!! LOL
You''re so right. I immediately assumed that your original remark about non-whites and Al Sharpton
in the context of an article about Barak Obama was
aimed at African-Americans.
How could I have been so presumptive? I should have realized that the Al Sharpton attack was aimed at
non-African-American non-whites who you think
have a mentality of victimization.
I now realize that you were talking about Eskimos and other native Americans.
+ report abuse
*************
HUmm that is presumptious, you failed my test and you assumed that I was talking about the african american race. after speaking of "victims and in the bottom of the social ladder" you immediatly assumed I am talking about african americans. I see them as a race with heavy potential wasted BECAUSE OF PEOPLE like you.
It''s hard for some of us to see the democrats as being the bully''s over the past 7 years when the R''s controlled the House, Senate, and White House often pushing bills through with no discussion of debate.
It''s better to drink the kool aid than the whiskey.
I''m not crying, I simply responded to your whining.
The rights I was talking about is the right to vote; that''s the right that this buffoon wanted to take away from voters who don''t agree with him. That''s not the American way, learn it understand it and live it.
This has nothing to do with African-Americans not "rising above it" in your opinion. Considering that blacks came to this country as slaves and now run major Corporations, the State Department, Desert
Storm, and other critical operations in society, maybe it''s you who needs to rise above it and stop blaming others for what ails you.
And exactly HOW does this discriminate against anybody?
I thought everybody had to present photo id when casting ballots. At least that''s the rule in Texas.
We really need a new frontline party; or NONparty. The Independants don''t seem to be doing the trick.
If you want to find someone who is practicing bias and bullying the coountry around you''''ll be hard-pressed to find a better example than Bush Justice Department officials who use their law enforcement credentials to attempt to deny citizens the right to vote like People''''s Liberation Army goons.
xzavierbrown,
In this day and age all you need to be a civil-rights critic is to be white and be willing to blame every injustice in society upon the victim.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by realpatriot1 at 01:29 PM : Oct 08, 2007
+ report abuse
**************
if that is the case, then there is no reason for campaigning for the 2008 election..you cry about loosing rights..name one right you lost.
*****
there are victims and there are "DISGUISING AS VICTIMS"..learn it..understand it and live it.
they themselves victimize thier own selves by FAILING TO GO BEYOND the "supressed stage"..several races, creeds and colors had went through this injustice and rose above it...encouraging certain races to remain to function under this mentality is in itself a form of racism and degregation.
If you want to find someone who is practicing bias and bullying the coountry around you''ll be hard-pressed to find a better example than Bush Justice Department officials who use their law enforcement credentials to attempt to deny citizens the right to vote like People''s Liberation Army goons.
xzavierbrown,
In this day and age all you need to be a civil-rights critic is to be white and be willing to blame every injustice in society upon the victim.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cy-fD78zyvI
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 22 Comments