Rep. Artur Davis (C-7th District)

No, that's not a typo. I used the "C" in reference to the "centrist" identity the Democratic Congressman is fighting hard to maintain and/or adopt. Davis is running for Governor as a Democrat. He's in the news at least twice this week: a TIME Magazine profile and because of the controversy over his vote against the Matthew Shepard Act, which would add sexual orientation to the existing Federal hate crimes law. Davis wasn't alone. The entire Alabama House Delegation voted against it (it was approved 249-175), including the only other Democrat, Parker Griffith (as well as newly proclaimed Independent Bobby Bright.) Davis was the only member of the Congressional Black Caucus to vote nay. Davis' office issued a statement explaining his negative vote (I had to get the statement from another blogger, since his office didn't respond to my email requests): ==================================================================== “Two years ago, I voted for federal hate crimes legislation. Since casting that vote, a number of my constituents have made it very clear to me that they disagreed with this vote, and I have tried to weigh their arguments carefully. Some of the objections have been based on distortions of what this bill actually does. Other objections have reflected nothing more than animosity toward some of the groups who would be covered. Candidly, I have not given a lot of weight to arguments based on groundless claims or fears. But as I have thought more deeply about this issue, there is an argument from my constituents that I have not been able to answer. Some of my constituents ask why our federal laws should pick out some Americans for more protections than others. Some wonder why, in a culture that rejects violence against any human being, we should say that an attack on a black, or a woman, or a gay individual should be punished more severely than an attack on someone who happens to be a senior citizen, or a soldier, or a teacher. Others ask why some motives based on certain ideas should be punished by our criminal laws more aggressively than others. The people raising these issues are in my opinion not bigoted people. They are Americans who are advancing fundamental questions about just what equal protection under the law should mean. After a lot of reflection, I have decided that I do not have good answers as to why our laws should not protect all of our people with the same force, and for that reason, I have changed my vote to a “no” on the federal hate crimes bill.” ==================================================================== You won't find the above statement on the Congressman's campaign web site---or even a single word about the bill, for that matter. I showed the above statement to a gay African-American friend and asked for his reaction to this statement from a Congressman who voted against the Shepard Act. I did not name the Congressman. After reading it, he shrugged, saying he wasn't surprised an Alabama Congressman would use that logic. Then I told him it was Congressman Davis. Shock is too mild a word. Is it unfair to be critical of Rep. Davis for this vote while giving Reps. Bright and Parker Griffith a pass? Bright's already established himself as the bluest of the Blue-Dog Democrats, and Griffith isn't far behind. Is Davis' just following the crowd? Do you buy his explanation? Remember, the Federal Government already provides special protection for lots of classes of people. Last year Congressman Davis even co-sponsored a bill offering federal assistance to prosecute people who abuse or neglect the elderly. And then there's this: Federal law specifically protects one specific class of Americans by allowing the execution of anyone who murders them. The class? Members of Congress. [UPDATE: The Davis Campaign sent me a copy of the statement Saturday evening.]