I was listening to the "Face the Nation" podcast with Bob Schieffer when a closing segment and ensuing commentary on the black Harvard professor Henry Gate's recent arrest outside his home on disorderly conduct changes. (Obama at a press conference personally attacked Sgt. Crowley's arrest of Professor Gates as "stupid".) Dr. Dyson, a black Georgetown sociologist, and Kathleen Parker, a columnist, were discussing the incident, and there was no true debate. Both of them praised the President for his unusual admission that he had added fuel to the fire, although he only regretted his choice of words and the fact the situation had become a distraction from his legislative agenda. In short, he is attempting to recast this as an interpersonal issue between Crowley and Gates, when this was really a question of professionalism--Gates, whom was out of control and Crowley, whom acted firmly but patiently.
Well, let's look at the situation; he prefaced his own comments on Crowley by saying he didn't know all the facts and noted that "Skip" Gates was a personal friend. (Any reasonable President at that point would have recused himself from any substantive comment, other than reminding folks that Professor Gates is entitled to his constitutional rights and an abiding confidence in the justice system.) However, the President then went on to say (1) expressing anger at a policeman is "understandable" and (2) he explicitly raised the topic of historical racial profiling. Apologists for Obama will parse the legalistic language he used to express his comments (e.g., he did say he didn't know all the facts, he didn't specifically accuse Crowley of racist behavior, etc.), but the fact is using the term "stupidly" was judgmental, implying knowledge of all salient facts, and Obama's description of "racial profiling" was, in fact, the allegation Professor Gates made of Sgt. Crowley's behavior in checking out a suspected burglary of the Gates' home. Obama knew exactly what he was doing when he said what he said; he's a lawyer and "don't tell me words don't matter."
The impromptu late week Obama appearance at a news briefing, regretting his "poor choice of words" and letting people know he had offered both Crowley and Gates to have a beer at the White House. In fact, one needs to look at the facts that (1) Obama did not apologize to Sgt. Crowley for calling him stupid in arresting Professor Gates (ignoring the established facts that Professor Gates had voluntarily followed Sgt. Crowley out of the home, had verbally abused the cop (making comments about the cop's mother and accusing him for being a racist), and had ignored the cop's repeated warnings of arrest) and (2) Obama was setting himself as an intermediary between two parties, as if they each had legitimate grievance and he is an honest broker. Obama is basically saying that the kerfuffle is all about his using the world "stupid". Whereas Obama's language was a contributing factor to the crisis, he did not recant his general condemnation of the arrest, only the words he used to express his disagreement. His using the term "stupid" is not the issue with which I'm concerned; it's more his implicit judgment of Crowley's professionalism.
As for Professor Dyson's retelling of an incident he experienced being stopped on a Pennsylvania road at night by a white cop whom allegedly ridiculed Dyson's claim of having been a doctoral student and forced him to walk a line despite Dyson's not having had a drink that day, it is not comparable to Professor Gates' slanderous allegations against Crowley; Crowley came to the scene as the result of a 911 call by a female witness whom did not identify the race of Dr. Gates or his driver. What Dyson fails to understand is that associating Professor Gates' paranoid allegations and boorish behavior against a professional Sgt. Crowley with unjustifiable, inflammatory racial profiling charges will tend to undermine credibility of legitimate claims of racial profiling.
Kathleen Parker retold an instance when she initially testily responded to a policeman's pulling her over with a toddler in the car. She pointed about when the policeman hinted she might be arrested if she wasn't more cooperative, she immediately took the hint. But she didn't draw an explicit connection with the fact that Professor Gates failed to cease and desist after multiple warnings of an impending arrest by Sgt. Crowley.
If I was Sgt. Crowley, I would have refused being used by a President whom hasn't apologized for attacking his professionalism and is looking to score political points after putting his own foot in his mouth and trying to restore his image as the post-racial consensus builder.
Interestingly enough, I see that General Colin Powell, a prominent Republican defector supporting the election of Obama, has taken a different spin than Obama on the Gates dispute, saying on CNN:
I would say, the first teaching point is when you’re faced with an officer trying to do his job and get to the bottom of something. This is not the time to get in an argument with him. I was taught that as a child. You don’t argue with a police officer. In fact, in our schools today, in order to make sure that we don’t have things escalate out of control and lead to very unfortunate situations, we tell our kids, when you’re being asked something by a police officer, being detained by a police officer, cooperate. If you don’t like what happened, or if you think that you have been exposed to something that’s racist or prejudicial or something that’s wrong, then you make a complaint afterwards and you sue him.Exactly. These are wise words from a legitimate African-American leader, one whom I myself could have easily and enthusiastically have supported for President, from the Party of Lincoln, not some inexperienced politician whose idea of healing the racial divide is sharing a beer at the White House. (HINT: Mitt Romney, have you yet considered your running mate against Obama in 2012? Might I suggest another extraordinarily experienced, capable black leader, namely Condi Rice?)
Sotomayor is Approved By the Judiciary Committee
Given the lopsided composition of the Judiciary Committee (60% of the Senate is Democrat, but almost two-thirds of the committee (12-7)), the outcome was never in doubt with all 12 Democrats and one Republican) voting to approve or endorse the confirmation of Sotomayor. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) decided to vote for recommending Sotomayor's confirmation, primarily on traditional grounds that a President deserves a right to his nominations, that elections have consequences. I'm more intrigued by the upcoming decision by Senator McCain, whom reminded Sean Hannity that he voted against Sotomayor's nomination to the appellate court and the fact that Barack Obama himself doesn't deserve special consideration, given his ideologically-driven votes against Justices Roberts and Alito. I suspect that McCain will vote for the Sotomayor confirmation for reasons similar to his closest Senate colleague, Lindsey Graham. McCain will be looking to reinforce his image as a bipartisan leader consistent with his role of fronting the Gang of 14 which defused a Senate crisis over the Democrats' improper usage of filibusters to bar floor votes on judicial nominees a few years back. Some speculation is that maybe another 5 or so Republicans, whom haven't announced, will vote for Sotomayor. (Not sure who, but I suspect retiring Republicans (e.g., from Ohio and New Hampshire) might vote in the affirmative.) However, if only 10 Republicans support Sotomayor's nomination, it would defeat the Democrats' goal of surpassing Judge Roberts' confirmation totals.
If I was a Democrat, I would be very worried about the growing number of Republicans using ideological reasons (like the Democrats have been using since the Bork nomination) to justify their decision. For example, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson, who is seeking to challenge Republican Governor Rick Perry, is using profound concerns over Sotomayor's record on the Second Amendment (i.e., gun rights).
I stand by my opposition to Sotomayor's confirmation; I would be willing to grant Obama wide discretion in naming a judicial replacement, but I don't like Sonia's fusion of identity politics with a stealth activist judicial philosophy. If we are going to have a liberal judge, I prefer one whom is forthcoming, not seeking to explain away her views to win confirmation. The infamous multiple "wise Latina" comments across speeches over the years cannot be explained away, I don't like the way she tried to bury evidence of unconstitutional violations of equal protection through reverse discrimination in the Ricci case, and I think she was disingenuous in her testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, trying to emulate (improbably) the responses of Roberts and Alito at points. The Democrats are confusing quantity (tenure) with quality of judicial experience and leadership. Obama could have made a better choice, certainly one whom had the judgment not telegraph her liberal activist agenda through a series of speeches where she chose to promote trite, mundane victimization ideology over the conservative American ideal of self-actualization.
Interesting Polls for the 2010 Races
I'm still intrigued by various polls about the Congress, some that suggest that imply that Congressional Republicans are being considered more negatively than Democrats; it seems highly unlikely and unfair that the Republicans, out of control of the Congress and the Presidency, would be scapegoated by voters for the Democrats' unconscionable spending sprees with little to show for it in the general economy after 7 months. and persisting to pursue an agenda to fix what is not broken, i.e., the wholesale reformulation of a private health care system most Americans like and the unilateral passage of a cap-and-trade system, which would do little beyond raising the average American's energy bills. Both of these initiatives come at a time when the economy is struggling to find its sure footing. The reason why is political, of course; the Democrats are aware their hands will likely be weakened in the upcoming mid-term elections. Rasmussen and NPR show a narrow generic Republican Congressional preference, multiple polls showing the country under the Democrats is still running in the wrong direction, and Obama's approval numbers decreasing to his election percentage and net negative among independents; moreover, we are looking at potential GOP takeovers of the governor's mansions in New Jersey and Virginia.
I scanned the latest poll numbers at RealClearPolitics, and it looks like at least 6 Democratic/open Senate seats at serious risk: Delaware, Connecticut, California, Pennsylvania, New York and Illinois and Republicans have a fighting chance to hold vulnerable retiring Republican Senate seats in New Hampshire, Missouri, Florida, and Ohio.
