Obama 'Stupidly' Reinforces Dems' Softness on Law and Order

When our own Lynn Sweet asked President Obama about Harvard Professor Henry Louis Gates the other night, he took the bait. He should not have. Or, at least, he shouldn't have said that Cambridge police handled the matter "stupidly." In fact, I would say the president's commenting on that issue was, well, stupid.

Politically speaking, Obama should be aware that he was reinforcing a long-held negative political narrative about Democrats -- that they don't back up the authorities. Whether Nancy Pelosi is accusing the CIA of lying, Sonia Sotomayor is siding against firefighters, or the president is making his remark, it all reinforces the notion that Democrats aren't the party of law and order.

And keep in mind that, for millions of blue-collar Americans -- many of whom voted for Obama -- Sgt. James Crowley was the victim here. He was the victim of Obama's public scorn, just as firefighter Frank Ricci was the victim of Sotomayor's ruling. Crowley and Ricci, keep in mind, are not rich WASPs. They are two guys in what some consider blue-collar jobs who have become, in the eyes of many Americans, victims of Democrats.

(This is Frank the Firefighter and Crowley the Cop we're talking about here. Will they be on the campaign trail for the Republican nominee in 2012?)


Crowley is one of those guys who everyone says are the "real heroes" of society. Everyone says that -- when it's convenient. But Gates is a nationally known academic, who had just returned from China -- a country that, I'm guessing, Crowley cannot imagine visiting. This story was immediately framed in such a way as to make race the issue, and to portray Gates as the victim. Maybe that's the case, and maybe it's not. Either way, the fact that he likely had powerful reporters and politicians on speed-dial no doubt made that an easier sell. I'm guessing Crowley doesn't have a lot of reporters over to his house for cocktail parties. I'm just saying.

Regardless, Obama should have avoided weighing in on this local issue. Here's why: One would hope that our commander in chief would give public servants -- such as police officers, who put their lives on the line every day -- the benefit of a doubt. At least he could reserve his comments until all the facts are known. He's not a blogger, after all, but the president of the United States.

For those who would question the steps Crowley took, it's important to note that every time a police officer pulls someone over, they have no idea what awaits them inside the car. And every time they approach a house, they have no idea who is on the other side of the door. It's hard for those of us who live under the umbrella of their safety to fully appreciate that. Nobody knows precisely what went down that day (it is unfortunate the confrontation wasn't videotaped), but one would hope that Crowley's superiors would not adopt a default position that the officer is in the wrong.

According to the police report, things got heated when Crowley asked Gates to step outside. Crowley even claims that Gates referred to his mother. I think a lot of folks find it odd that -- even after Crowley determined Gates was, in fact, the owner of the home -- he would ask him to step outside.

It's hard to say why he did that, but I have a theory. Remember, Crowley was responding to a 911 call, which said two men were breaking into the house. Suppose Crowley and his family were in their home when two people broke in. Is it at least possible that the intruders would tell Crowley to send the police away, or risk harm to family members? My guess is police officers are trained to remove people from situations like this so that they will be free to talk. Gates, however, may have taken it as an offense. It's unclear.