The Larger Problem With Obama’s Comment On Gates Arrest
July 24th, 2009 by 
Pat Staley
President Obama’s comment on the arrest of Professor Henry Louis Gates arrest reveals a much deeper problem with his approach to politics- cronyism.
The broader public may not have understood the political paybacks involved in jumping the UAW’s unsecured claims ahead of secured creditors in the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. There is minimal realization of the politically connected pork dished out in the So-Called-Stimulus package. But, here, the raw politics of “doing favors for my friends” is on full display.
Professor Gates is a friend of Obama’s. He was unhappy with how he was treated by police. Obama saw fit to use the power of his office to help his friend in a very local, very minor matter. And he cynically spun through the prism of race relations when it has become known that a multi-ethnic team of cops was on the scene, and the arresting officer himself has taught courses on preventing racial profiling .
Obama wrapped himself in the cloak of social justice to defend someone who could minimally be defined as “elite”, and with his connections to the POTUS also powerful.
Perhaps this is the moment when the public begins to realize that the Emperor has no clothes. It seems clear that Obama’s primary objective across his administration is to use the power of the Presidency and whatever populist sloganeering necessary to benefit his friends with no care as to whom he damages.
Email This Post
| 
Print This Post
Posted in General Commentary | 
10 Comments »
July 24th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
I agree with The Wall Street Journal on this one:
[ http://tinyurl.com/jt-gates ]
“Crowley had no business remaining on the scene once he had ascertained that Gates belonged in the house.”
“On the merits, we’d say Obama got it right.”
Mark Kleiman is brilliant on this, as usual: http://tinyurl.com/mk-gates
July 24th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
The officers were in the process of leaving the scene, when Gates continued to make a scene.
He wasn’t arrested for burglary or anything like that, that was only the reason the police were called to the scene.
Once it had been established that a home invasion had not taken place, the officers were in the process of leaving the scene. But Gates haven’t already refused to calm down then started making a public scene.
The officers got it right. Obama got it wrong (as usual), primarily from not having the facts, as he himself admits.
July 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Gates in no way prevented the officers from leaving the scene. (Again–read the Kleiman piece cited above.) On the merits, I’d say Obama got it right–to quote a noted newspaper.
July 24th, 2009 at 7:58 pm
This back and forth is missing the entire point. Why did Obama seek to make a satement when stopping at “I don’t have all the facts” would have sufficed? The answer is to use his power to help out his buddy, plain and simple. It’s just how he operates.
I can’t assess whether Gates’ actions or the cop’s actions were appropriate or inappropriate. I can say that it stinks to high heaven when the POTUS injects himself into a minor, local legal case for the benfit of his friend.
People recognize this, and that is why Obama is backpedalling as fast as he can go from the “acted stupidly” comment.
As I said in the post, a thread of “do anything for my friends” cronyism runs deeply through many of the decisions he’s made. It’s not about principal, it’s not about the “little guy”, it’s about pure Chicago-style wielding of power help your pals. This is a minor, but very obvious and egregious example.
July 24th, 2009 at 11:53 pm
Double whammy for Obama- helping out a friend and making a lame excuse to remain popular among blacks/minorities by siding with them (yeah big surprise). His comments border on the ridiculous and may even top those of Jamie Foxx when he went off like an idiot at the BET Awards (which in itself is a complete joke). Foxx should stick to acting and not running his mouth–I did watch ‘The Kingdom’ tonight and I liked him in that. But I digress.
Suck one Obama!
July 25th, 2009 at 10:37 am
True he didn’t prevent the officers from leaving the scene, but he did talk himself into an arrest.
And what a noted newspaper says is your supporting argument?? Learn to think for yourself.
July 25th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
I think we’re getting somewhere, Kevin: We now agree that police entered Gates’ home thinking an unauthorized intruder might be inside. Then they were shown Gates’ ID, so they were now aware that there was no unauthorized intruder. So our disagreement now centers on your statist view–that Gates ‘talk[ed] himself into an arrest’–and my view that police shouldn’t be allowed to use the power of arrest to punish a man for expressing a viewpoint they dislike. (There was a time when conservatives cared about individual rights, please recall.)
July 25th, 2009 at 1:22 pm
You can express a viewpoint, but when you do it in such a way you create a public disturbance, that is a crime. Whether you agree with that crime or not is a completely seperate issue.
July 25th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
How can a man ‘create a public disturbance’ when by himself, in his private home, without any invited guest? I take the ‘limited government’ viewpoint. No one is suggesting that Gates committed any crime, right? (Or would you have liked to see him prosecuted? For what?)
July 27th, 2009 at 8:50 pm
Contrary to your willful ignoring of the facts, you can very easily create a public disturbance. In this case he wasn’t in his house any longer, he was out of his front steps yelling at the neighborhood.
Personally I don’t think he should have been prosecuted. While creating a public disturbance can (and should) be a crime. I think the prosecutor used common sense that while arrestable this case wasn’t worth pursuing further. The situation was ended peacefully and no further harm was done….
….well, except to an entire profession and one man in particular since a certain President saw fit to inject his ignorant (by his own omission) opinion.