I once heard from a sister whose son had just opened a birthday card I had mailed him. She said that he had then come to her with some crumbled green paper clinched in his hand, saying, "Trash!" I was astounded by his obvious keen insight into American monetary policy; he was born to be an economist!
Obama was Acting Stupidly in Speaking Before Knowing All the Facts
Is Obama now extending his apology tour to domestic locations as well? He was elected as a post-racial African American, and now he's going to lecture us on historical racial profiling? Is it really wise for Obama, as President of the United States, to weigh in on a dispute, without firsthand knowledge, between a personal friend, Harvard Professor Henry Gates, and law enforcement?
Now, I don't know, not having been there, and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in this. But, I think it's fair to say, number one, any of us would be pretty angry. Number two, that the Cambridge police acted stupidly in arresting somebody when there was already proof that they were in their own home...What I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there's a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately.Professor Gates returned late from a trip from China, only to find his front door jammed. He entered his residence from the back door via key and tried to open his front door from the inside but couldn't. He and his driver then attempted to pry the door open from the front. A neighbor saw this activity, suspecting burglary and called it in to the police. Sgt. Crowley, a white officer, appeared in response, entered the home, and confronted Professor Gates in the home. Professor Gates was generally uncooperative, refusing to step outside and initially balking at providing identification. Professor Gates verbally abused and threatened the officer (by demanding his badge number), accusing him of racially-motivated intentions in the handling of the intention. Professor Gates followed Sgt. Crowley out the door as the officer left the residence, continuing to rant at him. Finally Sgt. Crowley arrested Professor Gates on charges of disorderly conduct. "Disorderly conduct" is often defined in broad terms: "it is not unusual for police to use it as an all-purpose charge when they feel a person is being disruptive or disrespectful." Dr. Gates has no one to blame by himself to blame for the arrest when he berated the officer outside his house; Sgt. Crowley, in fact, made multiple warnings in advance to the professor that his behavior constituted disorderly conduct.
I'm not sure I would have arrested Professor Gates under the same circumstances. I think so long as the citizen is accommodating the officer's lawful requests, a police officer should let the verbal nonsense go like water off a duck's back. At the same time I do have respect for law enforcement (in fact, I have a nephew whom is a police officer), and Professor Gates' behavior towards the officer was unconscionable and unworthy of any college professor or American citizen. The policeman was there for professional reasons, as the result of a reported home invasion; the police showing up was a service for the intended benefit of Professor Gates. I could easily envision a situation where if the police hadn't shown up, Professor Gates could have also interpreted it in racial terms.
Even an extraordinary admission today by Obama of "poorly chosen words" doesn't resolve the issue. [What is it with the constant liberal excuse of "poor choice of words", including Sotomayor and Obama? After all, didn't Don Imus in the Rutger's female basketball team kerfuffle a couple of years back engage in a "poor choice of words"? How about "poor choice of battles"?] Using the bully pulpit of the Presidency to personally insult a white cop, whom, in fact, has involved in training discouraging racial profiling, is irresponsible (or to try to triangulate the matter so as to suggest that the cop and Professor Gates were both at fault or equally responsible). Surely Obama, as a lawyer, knows that the First Amendment doesn't allow you a blank check to act disrespectfully in a courtroom; the police are similarly a critical element of our justice system and just as worthy of professional respect. Professor Gates, better than anyone, should have known his method of forcing his way into the house (i.e., the jammed front door) could have been considered suspicious (in fact, I don't understand, if he could get in through his rear door why he just didn't wait until the morning and called a home repairman). It's not like the cop came in on a broken-in house filled with white men and one black guy and decided to check only the id of the black guy.
Obama's public rebuke of Sgt. Crowley was irresponsible and unworthy of an American President. A President should back up our law enforcement people, not put his cronies above the law and seek to rationalize their disrespectful attitudes and behavior towards authority. If Professor Gate had a legitimate cause for complaint, there was a better, more professional manner to pursue the matter without personalizing the issue with the officer. What I don't quite understand is that Barack Obama's personality and discussion of racial issues are far less polarizing than Professor Gates'; why would he excuse rhetoric and behavior fundamentally inconsistent with his own character? And given his normally sure-footed approach in understanding the symbolic nature of things, Obama surely had to understand his words during the press conference would add gasoline to the fire. Why in the world, with everything else going on, 9.5% unemployment, a stimulus package with anemic results to date, and his own legislative agenda (in particular, cap-and-trade and the health care reform) floundering, did he need to reopen the debate on divisive racial issues? This is not change; it's not what got him elected.
Some Post Updates
- Illinos GOP Congressman Mark Kirk Running for the Senate. Last Monday Congressman Mark Kirk announced his candidacy for the Senate, running against corruption in Illinois politics (i.e., he had also called for the prosecution of former Republican Governor George Ryan, currently serving a sentence resulting from the bribes-for-licenses scandal dating back to when he served as the Illinois Secretary of State, and of course the Blagojevich scandal (and all the related Democratic machinse scandals, including a key Obama fundraising ally, Tony Rezko.)) Kirk will get some opposition from GOP conservatives, unhappy with, among other things, his recent support of the House cap-and-trade bill. Mark Kirk is also arguing that the state needs to have diverse political leadership, that a one-party state is not in the best interests of Illinois voters or the Illinois economy. (No announced Democratic candidates in the aftermath of Burris' declaration of non-candidacy next year, but the current state treasurer and Chris Kennedy, a son of Bobby Kennedy, are widely rumored.)
- Farewell ex-Alaska Governor Sarah Palin; hello, Governor Parnell. Sarah Palin stepped down today, abdicating her final 18 months in office to write a book, earn some lucrative lecture fees, plus presumably lead a center-right coalition. Although she claims to have been vindicated on ethics charges, the fact is that legislative inquiry into the Troopergate scandal did conclude that she abused her power in going after ex-brother-in-law Wooten, and a recent independent investigator found problems with how she was accepting PAC money to pay for related legal expenses. Most Americans do not believe the weak rationale for Palin quitting as governor. I think it had more to do with her plunging ratings and a growing coalition of Alaskan legislators willing to stand up to Palin on things like acceptance of federal stimulus money and against her selection for state attorney general. In fact, it points out some of the difficulties of running for governor effectively as an outsider. She had alienated many in the Republican state leadership in her unconventional ascent to the governor's mansion, and many state Democrats were incensed by the red meat politics she engaged in during last fall's campaign. To a certain degree, an 80% approval rating gives a state leader an enormous mandate. A mid-50's rating, a struggling state economy, and a reelection battle over a year away didn't seal a victory in next year's election. It's very possible that a Democrat could run against GOP corruption in Alaska just as Congressman Mark Kirk is running against Democratic corruption in Illinois. As for her future political ambitions, the most recent Washington Post survey should over 50% unfavorable ratings in the aftermath of the resignation decision. Most Americans (including myself) believe that she doesn't understand complex political issues. Part of the reason Palin retains high favorable ratings by Republicans is the fact the Democrats have viciously attacked her in personal terms. But even California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, whose own ratings have been badly beaten down by the ongoing budget problems, facing far more challenging substantive problems than Palin, said that he would never think of not filling out his term in office. I have no doubt that Palin is very popular with certain elements of the base whom will accept the resignation without batting an eyelash, but barring a major scandal or catastrophe directly linked to Obama's performance, it's very difficult to see how Palin can beat Obama. And I think most of today's media conservatives, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, know it. They are going to look for someone whom can beat Obama in 2012, and given their support for Romney last year, I suspect that may happen. The last two polls showed, despite the highest favorable rating among potential contenders, Palin continues to run behind Romney and Huckabee, despite the political advantage of massive publicity. I also expect that McCain, by refusing to endorse Palin at the current time, is sending a message.
- Polling Updates. The President's approval rating continues to float down, with increasing discontent over the lack of recovery (ranging from 49% to 58% approval), and his policy objectives in cap-and-trade and health care reform are trailing his approval ratings. However, an interesting phenomenon is the fact that the Congressional Democrats are not losing as much support, while the Republicans are drawing support at far lower numbers. The Republicans need to do a lessons learned on this. From a logical perspective, it seems, if anything, the GOP should gain at the expense of clueless Democrats whom have done little more than mortgage their grandchildren's future to pay for ineffective, bloated spending. Perhaps it's the Obama Administration's attempt to paint the Republicans as not constructive dissenters is succeeding, and certainly statements by Rush Limbaugh and others saying they hope that Obama fails may have played a role in it. I think what's particularly important is for the Republicans to offer a positive-toned message and pragmatic proposals with smaller price tags--for example, a health care alternative which focuses on encouraging competition among private insurers across states, catastrophic health care insurance, improving medical cost information access, strengthening and/or establishing state assigned risk pools for preexisting conditions, employment-gap insurance subsidies, and means-based insurance vouchers.
