My God, The President's A Person!
President Obama gave what I think was a very reasonable answer to what happened to Professor Gates in Cambridge and a day later he very reasonably defended that answer. I think he said, in nicer words, what any of us would have said if a friend had been arrested entering his own home. I don't need to preach to the choir here about the mistake the police officer made.
I'm just puzzled by people saying the president made a mistake. As if the president shouldn't be talking about small police matters. That's pretty funny since the president has pardon powers meaning that it's the president more so than any non-judicial employee of the federal government who can, indeed, interject himself into a matter between the police and a private citizen. It's not only proper for the President to have and express opinions about such things, it's among his constitutionally granted powers. Besides, enforcement agencies, be they the FBI or the local police are agents of the executive branches of government. The Cambridge police department might be far removed from the White House but the President has every right to tell those people how he expects them to behave.
But what's really shocking here is that the president spoke like any of us would. He said, in effect, that the cop was out of line. More surprising than he said it is that he realized it. He knew it. We actually have a president who knows what it's like to have to deal with a cop who has abused his authority or who has even made an innocent error in judgment. Obama's a regular guy who knows that an error in judgment made by a police officer can have profound consequences for an innocent civilian.
Compare that to George HW Bush, so removed from real life that he didn't know what a supermarket scanner was. Or compare this to Bush's son, a man who had never held a job where he wasn't backed by family money and political connections.
Now Bill Clinton had some of this but it was big, poetic empathy of the "I feel your pain" sort. It was genuine, heartfelt and from experience, for sure, but it was big and a little more than human. Obama was totally human last night and today. No poetry about it, he just plainly said that something shouldn't have happened and in the same way that we would except that this time, because it was from the president, the words were heard and will have some ramifications.
Obama's critics want to knock him for that. I think it's funny. Going to an anti-tax teabag party isn't populism. True populism is telling the police to stop and think about how they treat their fellow citizens. Obama didn't stoop to take part in a local matter, he did his job.
I'm just puzzled by people saying the president made a mistake. As if the president shouldn't be talking about small police matters. That's pretty funny since the president has pardon powers meaning that it's the president more so than any non-judicial employee of the federal government who can, indeed, interject himself into a matter between the police and a private citizen. It's not only proper for the President to have and express opinions about such things, it's among his constitutionally granted powers. Besides, enforcement agencies, be they the FBI or the local police are agents of the executive branches of government. The Cambridge police department might be far removed from the White House but the President has every right to tell those people how he expects them to behave.
But what's really shocking here is that the president spoke like any of us would. He said, in effect, that the cop was out of line. More surprising than he said it is that he realized it. He knew it. We actually have a president who knows what it's like to have to deal with a cop who has abused his authority or who has even made an innocent error in judgment. Obama's a regular guy who knows that an error in judgment made by a police officer can have profound consequences for an innocent civilian.
Compare that to George HW Bush, so removed from real life that he didn't know what a supermarket scanner was. Or compare this to Bush's son, a man who had never held a job where he wasn't backed by family money and political connections.
Now Bill Clinton had some of this but it was big, poetic empathy of the "I feel your pain" sort. It was genuine, heartfelt and from experience, for sure, but it was big and a little more than human. Obama was totally human last night and today. No poetry about it, he just plainly said that something shouldn't have happened and in the same way that we would except that this time, because it was from the president, the words were heard and will have some ramifications.
Obama's critics want to knock him for that. I think it's funny. Going to an anti-tax teabag party isn't populism. True populism is telling the police to stop and think about how they treat their fellow citizens. Obama didn't stoop to take part in a local matter, he did his job.
Advertisement
Hey Destor, good blog.
And not only that, Our President spoke in complete sentences and without a prompter. ha!!!
Screw MSM.
Nobody is listening to them anyway!!!
July 23, 2009 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The President's sentiments were commendable, but his choice of the word "stupidly" to describe how the police acted was unfortunate - a rare blunder for someone as sure-footed as Obama. By using such a provocative term, he invited a controversy that has temporarily overshadowed his powerful and persuasive arguments for health care reform. He could have expressed the same idea in a manner that engendered less of a distraction - e.g., "I'd like to think the police could have handled the situation in a less confrontational manner and without an arrest."
As many have pointed out, mistakes were made by both parties to the confrontation - Professor Gates and Officer Crowley - and it's not helpful to the cause of health care reform for the public to be embroiled in arguing whose mistakes they wish to emphasize.
I believe the controversy will blow over. The charges were dropped, the Cambridge Police Department states that it regretss the incident, and is looking into it see how it might have been handled differently, and the President has commended Officer Crowley for his fine record as a police officer. I therefore believe this distraction will quickly fade unless partisans try to keep it alive via recriminatory exchanges, rather than moving on to discuss issues facing the nation that Obama and most of the rest of us consider more urgent.
July 23, 2009 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are we so thin-skinned as a people that "stupid" is now considered provocative speech? That is perhaps the saddest part of this whole event for democrats and republicans alike if in fact it is true and not just one Fred's opinion.
July 24, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you imagine? We've said far worse to each other and we're friends!
July 24, 2009 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously.
July 24, 2009 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
But Destor, the president was holding an official press conference. He wasn't speaking as a private person. He was on live TV in prime time talking to the American people. Whatever his personal thoughts may have been, he was actually on the job at that time.
And since he admitted that he didn't know the facts and that Gates was his friend, wouldn't it have been more appropriate for him to simply withold judgement until facts are known?
It took him a week to have an opinion on the elections in Iran. Surely, he could have learned more facts before describing anything as stupid.
July 23, 2009 8:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, that's where we differ on this -- you think it's a problem because he was "on the job" and I think this kind of thing really is his job. I don't want him saying stuff like that as a "private person." When he says them as president, he's saying the kind of thing I'd like a president to say.
July 23, 2009 9:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think words of a president should be a little bit more measured and thoughtful. Wasn't that a big big liberal issue with Bush?
When a president literally indicts a policeman on live TV in prime time, these words will have big impact - even if he said he "may be biased" standing up for a friend and didn't know all the facts.
July 23, 2009 9:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saying someone acted stupidly is an indictment? Of what? Poor genes?
Hyperbolic responses are hardly helpful in moving the conversation forward, however good they may feel to get off of your chest. They also have the unfortunate side-effect of casting immediate doubt on other arguments that may have more merit.
I often agree with some of what you write and think you bring an important perspective, but in this case I couldn't disagree more.
July 24, 2009 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
The President saying, acted stupidly, just gave them more fodder, unfortunate, but your right. I have spent the entire morning writing to all the representatives trying so hard to help republicans defeat healthcare. I might add certainly not for the first time. He needs us all.If we let them defeat this, we will have no one to blame but ourselves.
July 24, 2009 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
It won't be defeated and I see delay as a good thing.
We can't let artificial deadlines drive this process. It needs to be measured and focused and have almost immediate results out the gate. I think Obama made a mistake saying he would get health care done so quick. Same mistake he made with the stimulus debate.
First, convince the country and then convince Congress. His team did everything ass backwards, but they seem to be quick learners. Maybe we are witnessing Barack's learning curve in progress and a more measured push for such revolutionary reform will be forthcoming.
One can only hope.
July 24, 2009 3:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
PS: If perfect is the enemy of good then haste is the enemy of both and by far more deadly to real reform than either.
A process with artificial deadlines is prey to existing norms taking an inordinate amount of control over the final solution. Have to go to the "health care experts" who know the system because we have no time to look for alternate opinions.
The problem is the so-called experts were the ones who caused the crisis. We should take enough time to properly examine all the available data and contrast it against our desired outcome. That should then be compared to all comparable systems around the world in an effort to reach our desired outcomes despite the current system.
Good reform takes time.
July 24, 2009 3:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you'd have a bigger point if it weren't for the fact that arresting a person who has been identified as the lawful resident in their own home is indeed stupid. And the antithesis of everything the constitution stands for.
I am glad the president stepped up. He helped ensure this will not just be swept under the rug. The prevailing attitude in the civilian police force needs to be addressed, and it is completely appropriate for the president to lead that discussion.
Also, "indicts" is more than overstated.
July 24, 2009 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since when is it okay to abuse and pursue a police officer when he is doing his duty, especially after being warned that he risked arrest by doing so? Do you think that maybe in this case, it was Gates who was doing the bullying?
July 24, 2009 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Not sure I see how the officer was "abused."
July 24, 2009 1:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shouting at and calling a police officer names and insulting his mother is rather abusive, isn't it? If the cop had shouted and called Gates names and insulted his mother would that be considered abusive?
July 24, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. I thought this was America. Gates was hauled away from his own home after producing identification which proved that he belonged there. If he was verbally "abusive" to the cops, it was because. . . .
. . . .he was in his own home producing identification and the cops were giving him a hard time.
How do I know they were giving him a hard time? Because if they had accepted his pieces of ID and understood that the man belonged. . .
. . .in his own home, they would have apologized for the inconvenience and left.
They didn't.
July 24, 2009 2:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's a false equivalence. There are higher standards for police - they put on a badge and a gun and are empowered to remove a citizen's right to liberty. They are subject to a code of conduct that defines how they are to behave when interacting with the public - it's called abuse of AUTHORITY.
The public does not have any such power and therefore are not limited by the same professional constraints as the police. The lack of authority means that simple words are not under the same color.
The officer was subjected to rudeness, not abuse.
July 24, 2009 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
And seriously ... "yo mama" insults? That's playground shit. Most kids learn not to take that bait by 5th grade. I like to think our officers are more mature than the average Jr. Highshooler.
July 24, 2009 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think yelling at a cop is "abusive" particularly if you have a good argument that the cop is doing the wrong thing.
Such events are surely emotionally charged, to say the least. But I don't like the implication that you can be hauled off for mouthing off to a cop.
July 24, 2009 4:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
By commenting provocatively on the Gates affair, he effectively buried a 55-minute pep talk on healthcare reform in under 5 minutes. Not smart.
July 23, 2009 11:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
That health care talk he may have buried was all going to be conjecture and bullshit anyway. He got his point across to the American people who will need to prod their representatives if anything is going to be done.
If anything, he helped provide a distraction to the fact that one of the democratic party's idiotic artificial deadlines had passed with no movement. Maybe that will give the American people - his true audience for that speech - a chance to grease the wheels at the grassroots.
Sorry for the mixed metaphor. Water the seeds?
July 24, 2009 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see it as "commenting provocatively". I saw it as a two-minute answer during a 55-minute press conference.
Since there was so much more to the press conference I didn't see the need to dwell on that very inconsequential part of the hour.
But I'm not surprised that there are so many others who leaped on the chance to once again skewer the president. It goes with the territory. And as my sainted Mother used to say, "Consider the source".
July 24, 2009 2:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Destor, altho as you say W became President of the Texas Rangers because of family connections, my impression is that he actually performed well.
Certainly the team was a success both on the field and as a business venture while he was at least the titular head .It's possible he was just a figure head altho I've heard at least one former player say that when the team decided to let him go it was W himself who gave him the bad news.
I'd defer to anyone with real knowledge which I certainly don't claim. But if W really was the success that he appears to have been then you undermine your other criticism of him by not giving the devil his due.
July 24, 2009 2:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't know anything about baseball. Didn't he trade Meg Ryan or something?
I was thinking more back to Harkin.
July 24, 2009 9:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right about Harken.
And W's record as Managing Partner of the Rangers
is equivocal. Under him,they obtained tax concessions and other municipal benefits which could at least be considered tainted . One way or the other they contributed to the economic success of the Rangers - bot for $86Million in 89 and sold for $250M in the mid 90s.
What is unequivocal is their (relative) success as a baseball team. After a dismal record pre W they went to the playoffs for the first time
in 94 or 95.
He put in something like $100K of his "own" money-probably from his family, borrowed $500K from a bank probably also based on his family , and ultimately sold his share for $15 million. In business terms a success altho there are questions about the morality of some of the things that happened along the way.
The course of least resistance is just to acknowledge that after a series of business setback he was successful with the Rangers.
Of course the stark comparison of the media's treatment of his career and Kerry's sticks in my craw. A couple of weeks ago I ran into a guy a who taught Kerry flight "Instrument Landing" who volunteered that Kerry was the "best prepared" student he ever taught. Who knew? And the treatment of his wind surfing was 180 degrees off base. It was portrayed as rich man's sport but if you drive up the road to the point from which, unfortunately, Kerry went in to the water it's crowded with the aged trucks of the carpenters, plumbers, cops and grocery clerks there for the wind surfing.
July 24, 2009 10:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/aug2002/bush-a01.shtml
I am not willing to assert that this is an example of anything like legitimate good business. Besides, Bush didn't have much to do with it anyhow.
Kind of sounds like Rose was Dick Cheney to young Bush's ... Bush.
Let's just face it Bush was a screwup who had the fortune to be born into an amazingly powerful family.
July 24, 2009 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
You may be right. As I said in my comment,all I know about W in the Rangers is what I can goggle.
But accepting the assertions you quote I'd like to know more about the credibility of the source.
Until then I'll continue to rely on the absolute facts: he put in a small amount of money , was given a disproportionately large share of the equity by his partners, carried the managing partner title while for the first time in its history the team went to the playoffs and while the organization negotiated favorable terms for constructing a new stadium and ultimately realized $15 million on an investment of around $100K.
W was a disasterous president whose values I found unappealing and with many personal limitations.Stupidity was not one of them. If so he wouldn't have had better grades at Yale than Kerry , graduated from the Harvard Business School (connections can get you admitted, they can't help you pass the tests) and ,somehow, earned that $15 million.
July 24, 2009 1:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
If a cop arrests a leading light of the community, some rich white guy that normally contributes to the Policeman's Fund and supports the Commissioner, his boss will call him stupid.
If a cop can't keep his cool while being insulted he needs a different job. It's a job that attracts not only the selfless service type but also the bullies.
July 24, 2009 10:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
I've heard Gates speaking to a small group where he came across as low key and at ease with whites-like the friend at whose home he was staying..
Cops come in all shapes and sizes, I know some admirable ones. I also lost my driver's license because I deliberately drove at precisely the speed limit when passing an obvious speed trap, refused to admit guilt and , as the officer told a mutual acquaintance, was not "respectful"-translation refused to admit guilt since my end of the conversation consisted entirely of the one word "No".
I can imagine something like that was Gates' offence.
July 24, 2009 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think readytoblowagasket's assertion that Obama blew an entire 55-minute discussion on healthcare reform with a careless remark on the Gates controversy is a bit exaggerated, but the basic point is valid. Healthcare reform is now reaching a crucial stage in Congress and requires the kind of focused attention from the public that a debate about Gates/Crowley tends to undermine. The opponents of healthcare reform understand this, and are doing what they can to keep the Gates controversy raging so as to distract from the issues that Obama deems far more important, and the rest of us should as well. The deliberations of the Senate Finance Committee may play a crucial role in determining the fate of the public insurance option, and deserve more media attention than they have received recently.
July 24, 2009 11:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't claim to be a second by second follower of the MSM, but it looks to me like only people obsessing over this are Fox and the wingnut radio and blogs, who were never with us and never gettable, and us in the left of center blogosphere and commentariat, who never needed to be pursuaded.
It's looked to me like MSM has actually been covering the health care part, albeit in their usual shallow, horserace and "some people say" kind of way.
It's rather puzzling, really. I'm not sure what to make of it. It's almost like they think the whole topic is so toxic, so likely to piss off somebody no matter what they say, that they're just keeping their hands off of it as a no-win scenario from a ratings standpoint.
July 24, 2009 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
It was a dumb thing to say, and it was the sort of dumb thing to say that someone who is President ought to instinctively know better than. You don't refer to the cops as "stupid" if you're the President, period. Ever. Even if what they did was stupid.
It isn't a big deal. But I think less of Obama having heard it.
July 24, 2009 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
The knowledge within the ranks of the police force that they can rely on a wall of silence from elected leaders - no matter how over the top they go - is precisely why Crowley didn't think twice about putting Gates in his place with a questionable arrest.
July 24, 2009 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
...and I would have no problem with the President saying, for instance, that it appeared a mistake was made. Or that the officers may have made an arrest that wasn't necessary. Or even, in a proper case, that something illegal happened.
My problem is that the President said he didn't have all the facts but that the officers acted "stupidly". He very much appears to have said that on the basis of his friendship with Gates. Presumably a lot of Americans (not me) presume it had something to do with racial solidarity, too, although I'm willing to assume Obama is above that.
Even in Cambridge, Mass., cops have a difficult and dangerous job. The President of the United States shouldn't call them "stupid" for arresting a belligerent guy, even if he's a friend.
July 24, 2009 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
What exactly did the p.o. do wrong?
He responds to a break-in by two suspects in progress.
He sees a forced open front door.
He enters the premises and sees one person.
That person upon being requested refuses to provide identification.
The officer does not know who the person is, he refuses to identify himself, the officer knows there may be another person in the house, it may be a hostage situation, the person in the house may not be aware that someone or some persons are in the house and until the person who is there with the police officer identifies himself and the police officer verifies that identification, he cannot assess the situation. There is no possible way for that officer to know who should or should not be in that house and no good officer trained and operating procedurally would leave that situation without ascertaining who should or should not be in that house.
Gates was being an obnoxious, conceited asshole who thought that his word and station in life should have been enough for the police officer. Well, that's not how it works in the real world, where safety and injury to others is the paramount concern by the officer.
July 24, 2009 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where is the proof that Gates refused to offer identification?
July 24, 2009 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
He did identify himself. He provided a Harvard identity card.
The position of the police was that that was insufficient since it didn't also carry Gates' home address. My position is that once Gates provided that, altho it might have been insufficient for Crowley to drop the matter it was sufficient
for him to revise Gates' status from probable crook to probable innocent and adjust his tactics accordingly.
My guess is that at that point Crowley's own role had ceased being an officer in a possibly dangerous position and had become a blue collar townie furious at having a black member of the hated Harvard faculty diss him. He didn't treat Gates' Harvard identity card as sufficient for changed tactics because he didn't want it to be sufficient (altho he may not have wanted to admit that to himself,then or now).Instead,what he wanted was an excuse to humiliate Gates.
July 24, 2009 5:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
If anyone has a problem with President Obama and his comment about the Gate's affair, please explain why the repuglican brouhaha over Joe the Plumber in the past election was okay.
July 24, 2009 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
It wasn't? And neither is this brouhaha?
August 4, 2009 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When asked if he had heard the President's comments, the officer responded, "I didn't vote for him anyway". Now how are Obama's comments inappropriate, but this is acceptable coming from a law enforcement officer, referring to the President of the United States?
July 24, 2009 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe somebody's said this, but what keeps bothering me is.... Would the question been posed if that was a Bush, or even Clinton, presser?
No. Solely because the president is black, he gets the question about the professor being arrested. In fact, I'll go a step beyond and say that if Barack Obama is not president, the original story gets a couple of inches of ink in Boston. And that's it.
And I had one more question, or rather... a series of "I wonder"... I wonder who called in the complaint on Professor Gates? I wonder how long Prof Gates had been residing in that house. I was thinking... well, he had identification. And identification doesn't appear overnight. Last time I got a drivers license the one with the picture that can be used for an ID -- that took about a week or so. And then I wondered again.... did these neighbors never see him before that day? If he'd been living in that house for at least a week, I wonder why they didn't notice him. I know, I know... we hardly notice our neighbors these days. BUT... anyone savvy (or should I say "busybody"?) enough to watch a house and call the police surely watches his or her neighbors/neighborhood in general. I just wonder what the heck this person was thinking...
It's a puzzle. But what is not a puzzle is the fact that racial profiling happens -- day in and day out. Just because we have a black president doesn't mean "whoopee, all our racial issues have disappeared." OH CONTRAIRE (yeah, I know it's "au"... I'm going for irony).... OH contraire -- every bigot in the USA seems to be tumbling out of the closet these days -- emails, cartoons, jokes, comments, snide asides.... and that's just the Fox Morning Show.
Big sigh. I am glad the President didn't bypass the question and I'm glad he didn't bypass the extra comments today. Unlike Mr. Bush who never made a mistake -- our current president is living in the real world and has brought his real world life experiences to bear on the job. And we are all the better for his open approach to the work for which he was elected.
July 24, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, it's a good question.
July 24, 2009 6:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Way, well said!
July 24, 2009 8:09 PM | Reply | Permalink