In a USA Today column, David Person tackles a question we have often wrestled with ... and calls BS on it:
The "black enough" argument is antiquated and offensive, but it's a game high-profile African-American candidates seem doomed to play — at least in part because old-school civil rights leaders keep it alive.
Perhaps they keep it alive because it's what they know. Not content to stop there, Person brought a new voice to the conversation:
"Generally, the moment that we're in now is one where the primary need is the protection of human rights, to encode them as civil rights," Benjamin Jealous, CEO of the NAACP, told me. "What that requires is something different than when the primary objective is to enforce civil rights."
"If you're enforcing civil rights, you're going to need a good lawyer," Jealous continued. "For human rights, you need a plurality or super plurality of voters. You must speak in the most universal terms possible."
Times have changed (that's a Good Thing) and new times require a different kind of leader. It seems an obvious consequence of actual progress, but some people don't see it that way. In the end, it didn't hurt Obama. We'll see how big a problem this is for Davis.
In a previous diary, I tried to outline the real racial obstacles in the path of a Davis victory in Alabama's Gubernatorial Election and why I believe that Artur's efforts this year, though admirable, will fall short. I said some things that were difficult to hear and I wrote some things that were difficult to say.
Nothing I wrote should be construed as a personal attack on anybody on this board or as an indictment of any particular individual, race, or group. Nothing is either black or white. There is a lot of gray in the world and I write primarily to facilitate discussions that can yield a greater understanding of the world as it is. My hope is that through dialogue folks can create a path that leads to reconcilliation and community.
On my own blog, I let it all hang out. I say what I think without regard to feelings or political correctness. I intend to leave that at home when I come over here. At my spot we have "family discussions." I'll do my best when writing over here to say what I need to without being unnecessarily inflammatory because I need for y'all to hear what I'm saying.
(This should spark some good discussion about Alabama in general and the election in particular! - promoted by countrycat)
Artur Davis is a facinating politician in many respects. The power of his intellect and sharp political skills set him apart from most pol's. The sky should be the limit for Artur. In Alabama, congress is the limit for Artur. If not for the Voting Rights Act, he would not be a member of congress from Alabama.
In America, it should be a no brainer that any child born anywhere should be able to reach for the highest political rung in state government and not be deterred, discouraged or attacked on the basis of race. Unfortunately, that is not the America we live in despite the fantasies of some whites that we live in a post-racial utopia. It does not matter how many blackfolks buy into the white fantasy that Artur can win this year. It isn't true. This diary seeks to explore the reasons for this bitter reality.
The Republicans don’t want the President Obama administration to get credit for anything. They are at the core a southern and racist party. The idea of a black president causes their brains to gag. The presidency was one position that they felt would remain a white man’s position for a few generations more.
My test is two questions?
Were the protestors against the Vietnam war who carried Viet Cong flags traitors?
Were the supporters of the Confederacy traitors?
We are either Americans, act as Americans are Constitutionally supposed to act, or we are traitors.
Some Alabama Democrats still seem to think it's impossible for a black man to be elected governor, even though the University of Alabama football team finally beat Texas, an African-American is now President of the United States, and it's been 20 years sinceDouglas Wilder (also black) was elected governor of Virginia, the home state of Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, J.E.B. Stuart and a host of other Confederate leaders. It's time to wake up and smell the coffee, folks, impossible stuff is happening all around us!
“We crossed that threshold 20 years ago,” Wilder said making a reference to his own historic election as Virginia’s chief executive in 1989.
“The unfortunate thing, John,” Wilder told CNN Chief National Correspondent John King, “is that one snippet ... by Harry Reid illustrates the need for a more open discussion about race and put it where it belongs – into the closet. [President] Obama wasn’t elected because he was – or was not – of any color. He represented a change. He represented a fastening of the dreams and the aspirations of the American people to someone who could bring about change.”
Saying he would have liked to have thought his own election as Virginia’s governor would have put to rest any concerns about an African-American candidate’s race, Wilder also said Sunday that he was “saddened … to see that 20 years later there still is that degree of apprehension on behalf of some people who are in leadership positions.”
[Emphasis mine]
What a candidate says, does and stands for matters more than what he or she looks like. Talk about a lack of trust ... those who say white Alabamians will never vote for a black person have a pretty darned low opinion of their neighbors.
If Barack Obama has given black politicians reason to reconsider shattering the glass ceiling, Artur Davis may be the man — aside from the president himself — who has taken up the most audacious hammer. He hopes to become Alabama’s first black governor.
...
“We didn’t get into this race on a quixotic, last-minute whim,” Davis told me. “. . .The polling says my candidacy has established a foothold. The voters are judging me on the issues that a governor is going to deal with.”
Tucker correctly points out that racism is no longer a sure ticket to election in Alabama. Davis' biggest hurdle may not be the color of his skin, but the fact that in recent years Democrats have struggled to win statewide offices. In fact, a Democrat has won the governorship only once since George Wallace surrendered that office in January, 1987.
Tucker also points out that Alabama conservatives are far from the only problem for Davis:
But it’s not just a conservative white electorate that poses a challenge for Davis. It’s also an aging black political establishment that isn’t ready to give up its outsized role in political affairs. As Obama had to co-opt or outmaneuver older black political figures who had thrown their support to Hillary Clinton, Davis is having to contend with a longtime kingmaker named Joe Reed, 72, who has never shown any enthusiasm for the ambitions of the younger Davis, 42.
...
But Reed— an egomaniac who has long enjoyed his role as the Bwana, or Big Man, in the state’s black electoral politics — is among those who still believe he has the authority to determine who is behaving in a manner which is appropriately “black.” That’s nonsense — an outdated and irrelevant standard that ought to be retired, much like Reed himself.
Artur Davis has to walk the fine line in this campaign: convince the big middle of the electorate to judge him on the issues -- he's a fairly moderate reformer with broad appeal -- without turning off voters who may have followed Joe Reed's advice in the past. He needs to convince those voters to judge him on the issues instead of listening to Reed's advice.
There's a generational power struggle going on in Alabama that has nothing to do with race. It's all about whether the current gatekeepers and power brokers in the Democratic party can maintain their hold on the party -- and whether they get to exercise veto power over candidates. Davis stands largely outside the current party structure and a win for him will signal diminished influence for the folks currently running the show.
Gatekeepers like Reed and AEA Executive Secretary Paul Hubbert (both of whom are vice-chairs of the state party) probably don't have enough power to deny Davis the nomination outright, but they might have enough power to throw the general election to a Republican. The November election will be that close and the rift between Davis and Reed appears deep enough that such extreme action is imaginable -- check the examples of John Tyson or Patricia Todd if you don't believe it. While denying Davis the governorship because he didn't come, hat in hand, to ask permissions and make deals would probably feel good for a few nanoseconds, it's squarely in the category of "cutting off your nose to spite your face." The aftermath of such a strategy would certainly bring the Old Guard down in a wave of resentment.
One way or another, the Alabama Democratic Party will probably undergo significant leadership changes as a result of the 2010 election. The powerful face a choice: embrace the tide of change and be swept along with it, or attempt to stand against it and risk complete destruction.
As chairman of the Alabama Democratic Conference, Joe L. Reed has enjoyed long tenure as perhaps the most powerful unelected political figure in Alabama.
The most powerful unelected political figure in Alabama, for the last couple of decades at least, is Dr. Paul Hubbert. Also, I think "Big Man and June Bug" refer to black voters, not white ones -- that's "Bubba and Cooter." Other than that, the Dothan Eagle's take on Joe Reed's waning influence is pretty much spot on, especially this part:
The politics of race is Reed’s stock in trade. The ADC is the black wing of the Democratic Party in Alabama, and Reed’s work has been focused on ensuring the state’s minority population is equitably represented in Montgomery.
...
Davis is clearly a modern political figure; Reed is an anachronism.
However, it’s unlikely that society would reach the point that men like Davis could lead without race as an elephant in the room had it not been for people who have shared the perspective of Reed and the civil rights old guard.
Joe Reed has helped get Alabama to the point where someone like Artur Davis can mount a serious campaign for statewide office, but if he isn't careful he'll be remembered as the black leader who tried to keep young black candidates from taking electoral success to the next level -- winning outside of minority districts.
People in power hardly ever give it up gracefully, and Dr. Joe Reed is no exception. Reed, Associate Executive Secretary of the AEA and head of the Alabama Democratic Conference, has wielded great political power in his lifetime, but in recent years he's been on the losing side more and more often.
Dr. Reed backed incumbent Earl Hilliard against Artur Davis in the AL-07 Democratic primary back in 2002. Davis won convincingly in a runoff. Reed tried to get Rep. Patricia Todd's 2006 primary win overturned, largely because she was a white Democrat in a majority black district. Reed also famously backed Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama in 2008 and it's almost certain he will support Ron Sparks over Artur Davis in the Democratic gubernatorial primary next spring. He also expressed surprise that James Fields (also black) could win in overwhelmingly white Cullman County. I'm beginning to wonder if Reed subconsciously believes black politicians can't or shouldn't win outside minority districts.
Dr. Reed certainly won't be going quietly into the twilight years of his political relevancy either. Jesse Jackson had his turn at Davis over the HR 3962 vote a couple of weeks ago, saying "You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man." He quickly backed off that statement, but Jackson's retreat hasn't deterred Reed who takes a considerably less coherent swing at Davis in a column entitled Alabama congressman attacks the poor in the Alabama School Journal.
Jennifer Foster's piece was the first one I saw on Dr. Reed's "Bubba and Cooter, Big Man and June Bug" remarks. She's putting forth some right wing arguments about health reform, but it's worth a read in spite of that. I have no idea what Reed was trying to say with that particular characterization -- whether it was a thinly disguised appeal to class, race, or both -- but the use of those stereotypes calls to mind an Alabama that existed years ago, one that doesn't necessarily exist today.
Artur Davis' response to Dr. Reed's remarks appears below the fold, side by side with an excerpt from Reed's ASJ column. Emphasis is mine, in both cases. You tell me which shows more class.
When we interviewed gubernatorial candidate Ron Sparks a couple of weeks ago, he had this to say about the 2010 election:
But you know, we've got to be careful in this race. And I've had a number of radio stations, they try to get me on the race issue, they try to get me to ask the race question -- I'm not going there. ... Well, I'm just not going to go there. You know I just think we all need to examine, we need to look at numbers, we need to look at reality and what, you know ...
I endorsed Hillary. But after she didn't win I came out very strong for Barack Obama. I'm a Democrat. I came to Cullman County ... I did robocalls for James Fields. That was a remarkable election but, at the same time, when James Fields won like he won, President Obama got 17%.
Yes, Barack Obama got 16.6% in Cullman County last November, but what does that have to do with the governor's race next year? Let's look at the numbers, shall we?
Cullman County is over 95% white. James Fields (who is black) won a 2008 special election in Cullman County that sent him to Montgomery as a State Representative. He got about 59% of the vote in that election, about the same percentage that Commissioner Ron Sparks got on his way to re-election in 2006. I can't think of a better indication that race -- while perhaps not totally irrelevant -- doesn't matter nearly as much as some people would like us to believe. Not even in Cullman County.
The fallacy of the "no black person can win statewide election in Alabama, yet" crowd -- they throw that "yet" in as a sop to the inevitability of progress, I guess -- lies in the fact that all candidates are individuals and all campaigns are different. Those differences are regularly reflected in election results which, rather than being pre-ordained as a result of external characteristics which cannot be changed, show considerable variation. Female candidates don't all poll the same. Even Republicans and Democrats of similar appearance get different vote shares. White men don't always win in Cullman County -- meaning black men don't always lose their, either. James Fields is living proof of that.
Bill Clinton said: "All national elections are determined by three things: the underlying political culture, the conditions of the time and the quality of the candidates," and I believe those same factors matter in state elections as well. I'm out of patience with the hints and innuendo that "how Alabama is" today is how Alabama was fifty or a hundred years ago. Artur Davis is not and will not be treated like Barack Hussein Obama, even in Cullman County. There is no possible controversy over what country Davis was born in and there's no easy way to conflate Davis with bin Laden. And Davis is running a vigorous campaign to acquaint voters with himself and his vision, something Obama never did in Alabama.
Getting back to Cullman County, among Democratic statewide candidates in 2006 there were 9 women and 10 men on the ballot. 14 were white, 3 were black and 2 are of unknown skin color -- I can't find photos. Below are the percentages statewide Democratic candidates received in Cullman County, from least to most successful. Can you predict where the black and female candidates fall on that scale? Correct answers below the fold.
It’s tough being Artur Davis. In the span of just over a week, Davis has taken hits for being black – and then, not black enough.
Here's the timeline of events:
Nov. 12: Sparks 2010 campaign manager Justin Saia emails supporters an excerpt from a New York Observer article, saying it "reminds the rest of the country what we have known for a long time here in Alabama: if we want a Democratic Governor, we can't nominate Artur Davis."
Nov. 13: Artur Davis 2010 campaign manager Jessica Vanden Berg asserted that the people of Alabama are ready to look forward, not back and said the innuendo about whether Davis can win is nothing new for the Sparks campaign:
In his own words, Ron Sparks told a forum of the Over the Mountain Democrats that he was the better candidate because of "how Alabama is."
Nov. 18: Sparks 2010 campaign manager Saia was quick to call attention to a "developing story" in The Hill reporting that Rev. Jesse Jackson said "You can't vote against health care and call yourself a black man." And I do mean quick -- his email hit my inbox a mere 42 minutes after the story went up at The Hill.
Nov.19: Rev. Jackson walks back his criticism of Davis in a written statement. The same author at The Hill writes about Jackson's latest statement. The Sparks campaign is not so quick to notify supporters that Rev. Jackson has tempered his remarks. In fact, they were and still are totally silent on the subject.
Boom! Davis went from being too black to have any chance of winning to being a pretend black person in a single week.
The Sparks campaign has overreached again on the race/electability question. They obviously jumped the gun on the New York Observer article -- if you read the whole article it's actually favorable toward Davis and Saia's remark unfortunately dredged up the old "what Alabama is" embarrassment -- and they were also far too eager to jump on Rev. Jackson's racial remark last week. Apparently cooler heads have prevailed for the moment and Sparks has just dropped the subject. Of course, they've dropped this hot potato before, but keep picking it back up again.
Foster is less charitable, emphasis mine:
Sparks has won multiple terms as the state’s agriculture commissioner based on his affable nature and his no-nonsense approach to problem-solving.
Unfortunately, that Sparks has gone AWOL. In a frantic attempt to turn voters in his favor, Candidate Sparks has become aggressive, bitter and unpleasant. You almost feel sorry for the guy.
Running as an underdog isn't as easy as it looks, especially when you're used to being the lead dog. A successful underdog has to strike a delicate balance to elicit sympathy from voters without inspiring either pity or disgust -- "aggressive, bitter and unpleasant" is nowhere in that game plan. Ron Sparks is finding it very hard to maintain that balance. As for the "Davis can't be elected, wink, wink" meme that continues to bubble up in this campaign ... that pot of slime is sure to keep bubbling for a while; I just hate to see other Democrats stirring it.
The Wall Street Journal offers some food for thought on racial bloc voting in the South. The Atlanta mayoral race is the core of Corey Dade's piece, but if voters of all races are looking beyond skin color, it obviously has implications far beyond the Atlanta area. Mary Norwood is a conservative white candidate polling at 39% to 46% in a three way race with two African-American candidates.
"Mary kind of reminds me of Maynard [Jackson] when he first ran, always in the community, not just during elections," said Rosel Fann, a 76-year-old black activist in southeast Atlanta. She voted for all four of Atlanta's black mayors, but said she has no obligation to black candidates this year. "I don't vote for color," she said.
To be fair, the other two candidates have apparently dropped the ball in a big way, but that's kind of the point, isn't it? I mean, if all things were equal, most of us would vote for the person who seems most like us, and there is definite a cultural component to race as well as the obvious physical one. The real test of racial voting is if you would vote for a less attractive candidate just because of skin color.
As someone who is a product of the south and it's rich southern heritage I know racism when I see, hear and/or feel it. I'm aware of the code words and subtleties racist and bigots hide behind. Racism today is covert and institutional. Sure blacks/browns/reds can use public facilities and have the right to vote etc. but they are still the victims of defacto segregation and institutional racism.
I guess it's hard for those who wrote the laws, and have always had their rights and freedoms protected by the rule of law to understand the point of view those who have had their rights and freedoms taken away under the color (pun intended) of the law. I am sensitive to fact some of my opinions and point of veiw cause my fellow LiAers to "whince", and lately there is a trend cautioning me to watch what I say and the criticism that I make those that disagree with me seem like "bad people" or " a racist".
It is unfair to ask me to watch what I say so others can say what they want to say, and I don't have the power to make anyone "feel" anything or anyway. Just because you disagree with me doesn't make you racist or a bad person, unless you are racist or a bad person and vice versa.
It might make you feel better if I just shut up and not say how I feel but it won't make me feel better. So for as long as I'm allowed to post on LiA I will continue to speak my mind and and as TI says, "not stutter one time."
Now that we have that out of way, blog stroll below the fold.
Businesswoman's bid of $63,500 will benefit wounded vets' program
Cathy Maples likes Sarah Palin - so much so that she is paying $63,500 to have dinner with the former Alaska governor and vice presidential candidate.
Maples, 53, of Huntsville, outbid the other contenders in an eBay auction that ended Friday to share a meal with Palin. The dinner brought in the highest bid of the 10 items offered in the auction that raised $95,000 for the Ride 2 Recovery program, which supports wounded veterans through bicycling programs. A dinner with Karl Rove went for $16,000.
The efficacy of these attacks remain to be seen -- John McCain attempted unsuccessfully to link President Obama to ACORN during the 2008 campaign -- but it's clear from the reaction of the White House that leading Democrats understand that being seen as defenders of the community group is political suicide.
White House says ACCORN must be held accountable! Damn, you would think ACCORN sent our troops to war for nothing. Or raided the surplus to give the rich a tax cut. Or tortured people. Or spied on the American people without a warrant. Or leaked the name of an under CIA agent, or gave no bid contracts to their buddies, or politicized the justice department. Or let people suffer and die in the aftermath of Katrina or something. Oh wait, I fogot, no one should be held accountable for silly stuff like that.
James O’Keefe, one of the two filmmakers, said he went after ACORN because it registers minorities likely to vote against Republicans: "Politicians are getting elected single-handedly due to this organization," O’Keefe told The Washington Post. "No one was holding this organization accountable."
*This organization must be held accountable for registering them there minorities I say!
POTUS boycotted Faux News and they are squealing like pigs (no offense ph)!
And Fox milked it. When he was not talking about Acorn, Mr. Wallace bemoaned the presidential slight, asking, “Whatever happened to reaching out to all Americans?” He told Bill O’Reilly that the White House aides were “a bunch of crybabies.”
Apparently, the feeling is mutual. “We figured Fox would rather show ‘So You Think You Can Dance’ than broadcast an honest discussion about health insurance reform,” a White House deputy press secretary told ABC News on Saturday. “Fox is an ideological outlet where the president has been interviewed before and will likely be interviewed again; not that the whining particularly strengthens their case for participation any time soon.”
"Obama Says Race is not an Issue" says the media. Obama says America needs health care reform too. Actually Obama didn't say "race is not an issue", this is what he actually said, not what the media said he said.
In his conversation with ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos, Mr. Obama said that “race is such a volatile issue in this society” that it was difficult for people to tell whether it was simply part of the backdrop of the current political discussion or “a predominant factor.”
“Are there some people who don’t like me because of my race? I’m sure there are,” Mr. Obama said. “Are there some people who voted for me only because of my race? There are probably some of those too.”
Ron Sparks, with his signature campaign issues of the education lottery and casino gambling, has really owned the debate about gambling during the campaign so far. But his opponent, Congressman Artur Davis, is also a "gambling man." He's betting his campaign on the belief that Alabama is ready to move past racial politics and choose a governor based on policy, issues, temperament.
Opinions vary on his strategy, with some Alabama Democrats worried that Davis could be a drag on the ticket overall and others enthusiastic about Davis' candidacy itself and/or the powerful symbolism of Davis as governor of Alabama.
If Davis wins the primary, we'll find out which side is proved right. Most likely,the answer is somewhere in between. Race is a factor that has to be considered in any election - particularly (unfortunately) in Alabama.
But I think it does a disservice to both Congressman Davis and his supporters to assume that his candidacy is all about race. It's also insulting to those supporting Sparks or another candidate to assume that they're opposed to Davis because he's a black candidate who graduated from Harvard and not because they disagree with him on issues.
During the past year, Mooncat and I have had several, lengthy sit-down interviews with Congressman Davis. (Note: we've tried to arrange similar discussions with Commissioner Sparks, but with no luck.) We've also attended candidate forums and meetings where Davis spoke.
One thing that's always intrigued me is how white questioners tiptoe around the issue of race, twisting and turning, pretending not to notice it, but drawing even more attention to the issue because their timid dance is so fascinating to watch. Even Ron Sparks isn't immune, with his comment at the Over the Mountain Democrats' forum about "the way Alabama is."
Most often the issue is framed in a "is Alabama ready for your candidacy," type format where any mention of skin color, race, or ethnicity is never overtly mentioned, but heavily implied.
It seems to amuse Congressman Davis, because he often includes a riff about "is Alabama ready" when he takes questions. It invariably gets laughter, but it's a nervous sort, as if even Davis shouldn't be mentioning the issue.
Newsflash: He's a smart guy who, I'm sure, has noticed at some point that he's black. If he didn't know, he has King Cockfight to remind him on a regular basis. And, during our interview with Congressman Davis last June, Mooncat and I talked with him about race, affirmative action, civil rights, GBLT issues, and President Obama. Mooncat refers to this interview as "the one where Countrycat told Artur Davis that he's black."
The video and excerpts from the interview are on the flip.
Mississippi Burning, perhaps? The Klan murdering "interlopers," beatings, lynchings, castration ... is that really Bradley Byrne's vision for Alabama in the 21st century?
Maybe not, but author Quin Hillyer certainly didn't want anyone to miss the fact that the likely Democratic nominee for governor in Alabama is (gasp!) black. This is paragraph two:
Bradley Byrne, at age 54 already a veteran of 15 years in the front lines of battling the bad-old-boys of state politics, is polished and savvy. By most accounts he is the early frontrunner in next year's six-person field for the Republican nomination to replace the term-limited Riley as governor. (The likely Democratic opponent is U.S. Rep. Artur Davis, a Harvard-educated, otherwise relatively moderate black Democrat who may be hampered in Obama-unfriendly Alabama by his status as having been the very first congressman outside of Obama's home-state Illinois to have endorsed Obama for president well over two years ago.) With the mien of a perfect southern gentleman but with the energy of a distance runner combined with a native toughness, Byrne has particularly bedeviled the Alabama Education Association -- one of the most powerful and regressive school-worker unions in the country.
A few observations:
Where are the "most accounts" that have Byrne as GOP front-runner next year? Got data?
Surely Hillyer could have worked in one more mention of "Obama" in the same sentence with "Artur Davis" and "black" -- bonus point for mentioning "Harvard" though.
Extra credit to Hillyer for reframing "teachers" or "educators" as "school-workers" -- thereby ditching all the positive connotations of those traditional terms.
Hillyer will need that extra credit if an English teacher ever gets hold of this sentence: "With the mien of a perfect southern gentleman but with the energy of a distance runner combined with a native toughness ..."
Unfortunately, the rest of the article is just as bad as this paragraph.
Alabama has experienced positive political changes since Reconstruction, but race continues to be an overriding issue in many parts of the state, especially the Black Belt region, historian Samuel Webb said Thursday.
...
He said racial separation was "an old trick" in Southern politics because "if you could separate them, you could control the labor system.
"If you could control cheap labor, you could continue to control state government," Webb said.
Go read the whole piece, because Webb nails the drivers in Alabama politics, the levers they have used and are using to maintain power and why that makes progress so difficult here. If Samuel Webb has written a book, I want to read it.
Yeah, give me a public option. If you try to force me to buy insurance from people that want me dead, I'm not going to do it even if you subsidize it. But why are we forced to even discuss this?
Candidate Obama said he would help overturn the ban on needle exchange. President Obama reversed himself and banned federal funding for needle exchanges in his budget this year.
California is a mess, and it's not the "mushy liberals" fault. Alabama soon to follow?
We all know that California is in a severe fiscal crisis, which, in turn, has the potential to spawn numerous other calamities here in the Golden State.
While there are myriad reasons behind this, most of them are manifestations of one or both of these two: 1) the requirement for two-thirds majorities in the Legislature to pass a budget and to raise taxes, and 2) the popular initiative process.
If Americans are serious about creating real racial healing, the truth is that a meaningful and respectful dialogue must occur. We must be every bit as deliberate and progressive in removing the inequality as we were in creating the inequality in the first place. Killing the messenger on a regular basis is not going to solve the problem.
Now personally, I’ve grown a little tired of the confederate flag stuff. And part of me has actually come to like it when the good ole Confederate loving racists let me know who and what they are from a distance. It saves me sooo much time and energy!
But I have little patience for these next generation Negro leaders who use all kinds of ridiculous messages and gestures to let White folks know that they have nothing to fear. It’s bad enough when these gestures are simply symbolic, as with the flag issue, but it’s far more troubling when theses gestures are actually on issues that matter.
Case in point: Artur Davis’ recent vote AGAINST the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act. The purpose of the bill is to provide Federal assistance to States and local jurisdictions to prosecute hate crimes. Considering that Davis represents Alabama’s blackbelt, the ancestral home of hate crimes, you would think he would support such a bill. Well, actually, he did support it two years ago when he voted FOR hate crimes legislation. But I guess that was before he was trying to run for Governor and before he realized he could use some of those KKK votes.
In a recent statement released after his vote against the current bill, Davis “explains” what influenced his decision. He says:
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.
I’m not sure which is more frightening—the thought that his constituents are asking such questions or the thought that Davis is utterly unprepared, or unwilling, to answer them. But in the spirit of cooperation, I’m offering to help Artur the next time he gets such questions from his constituents. Just send them my way, and I’ll gladly provide the answers that you’re too afraid to give.
For starters, I’ll explain that the law has always taken the intent of perpetrator into account—thus, the difference between manslaughter and murder, or negligence and fraud. There is nothing inconsistent about saying that some motives need to be dealt with more aggressively than others. And when those motives are driven by intentional and vile feelings of hatred, towards not just one person but an entire group, then we need make no apologies for treating those crimes more harshly than an individual and random act of violence.
Of course, this is not the first time that Davis has voted against the Democratic House leadership. In fact, during Davis’ first four years in Congress, prior to the Democratic takeover in 2006, he would routinely vote with the Republicans, going against the interests of his constituents in the process. Perhaps the most notable example of this was his 2004 vote for the infamous bankruptcy bill that made it harder for folks to get debts wiped away. The Republican sponsored bill was seen as a huge victory for credit card and finance companies.
Again, considering that Davis represents one of the poorest districts in the country—a district plagued by pay day loans and predatory lending—you would think he would have fought against such a bill. But when your convictions change according to the political winds, and your ambitions have you looking beyond your current constituents, “the least of these” usually suffer.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if this type of representation is the price we have to pay for getting Blacks elected to statewide and national office, we might as well stick with the White folks.
A little after 12:00 Noon today at the Harbert Center in downtown Birmingham Congressman Artur Davis announced his intention to seek the nomination of the Democratic Party to run for Governor of the State of Alabama in 2010. There will be a gijillion articles about this in the print media, in the blogosphere and on television, both state-wide and national.
File photo: August 28, 2008. Denver .
Here are a few, short Flip Camera vids from the announcement, shot about 3 1/2 hours ago, which I invite you to look at closely: .
.
.
.
One thing that interested me was the racial make-up of the 100+ supporters on hand to support and cheer-on Congressman Davis. Alabama is around 72% White, 27% African-American, and 2% (and growing) "Other". And, yet, by my rough estimate (look again at the vids and judge for yourself), about 3 out of 4 of those who came out for Congressman Davis in Birmingham were White.
While race may very well have played a (discouraging) hand in Alabama going Red against now-President Barack Obama in last November's General Election, that up to 75% of today's well-wishers for Congressman Davis were White, says something. I'm not sure what. But, all in all, it seems positive to me and says something good about Alabama.
If anything I feel a bit sad for him. There he was, giving the benediction for the country’s first black president. A black man elected not soleley by other blacks, but also by a very large number of whites. The very fact that Lowery was standing there proved that white people didn’t hold Obama’s race against him as Rev. Lowery was accustomed to many decades ago. By his definition they had already embraced what is right (actually left in this case, but you know what I mean). Poor Lowery just can’t seem to overcome his training that the white man is evil enough to recognize that a black man has been made the most powerful man in the world thanks in large part to white people. It must suck to not be able to fully realize and accept what you’ve helped accomplish.
Can Artur Davis become Alabama's first black governor?
Opinions vary on his strategy, with some Alabama Democrats worried that Davis could be a drag on the ticket overall and others 
