Doesn't get it.

Congress passed a new Hate Crimes bill. Rep. Carter voted against it, of course.

I'll admit -- I don't have strong feelings one way or another on this sort of legislation. I'm somewhat ambivalent. On the one hand, I think prejudice is wrong, and violence that is motivated by prejudice is particularly distasteful, and deserves special attention. On the other hand, I think it's a bit tricky to try to determine what a person's motivations were when they acted out -- and it might be hard to prove that prejudice was behind the action -- and that just seems like a can of worms we might think twice about opening.

But what really amazes me is that Rep. Carter can still manage to miss the boat entirely, even on an issue where I might be quite open to, or at least respectful of, his opposition. Had Carter taken the position (as is often taken by conservatives) that a "hate crimes" bill is akin to policing our thoughts -- well, that would've been a bit overstated, but I could've been respectful of the underlying principle.

Instead, Carter had this to say:

"The sentence for any crime committed against an individual should be identical regardless of any group with which the victim may be identified."

Now, here's the thing: I agree with what Carter is saying here. Sentencing should definitely be consistent and without regard for the identity of the victim. (I only wish Carter saw it this way when it comes to the death penalty!)

But Carter is missing the point completely on this legislation. The Hate Crimes bill is not about the identity of the victim -- it's about the motivations of the criminal! The bill reclassifies a crime as a "hate crime" (which comes with a stiffer punishment) when that crime is motivated by prejudices based on race, religion, sexual orientation, etc. The identity of the victim might play a role in helping to prove that the crime was indeed motivated by prejudice -- but the punishment is all about the prejudice-as-motivation. That's why it's called a hate crime.

So Carter's characterization of the legislation misses the mark. He doesn't get it. Even when there might be a reason to accept or even support his vote, it turns out his position is still all messed up!