To hear the defeatism and paranoia on some liberal blogs this afternoon, the "timeout" that Harry Reid and the Senate called on health care today -- they won't vote on the measure before the August recess -- is just about the stupidest thing since Chris Webber, pictured at left, called a phantom timeout in the 1993 finals, costing his team a technical foul and the Michigan Wolverines the national championship.
It isn't. It is, first of all, inevitable, and second of all, about as likely to do the Democrats some good as some harm, although that may depend on certain exogenous factors that are relatively outside of their control.
Ten days ago, I wrote a piece entitled, "Why Democrats Have No Time to Waste", the thesis of which was basically that Obama's approval ratings were liable to decline over the near-to-medium term and so Democrats had better get busy on health care while they could.
But a couple of things have happened since then.
Firstly, the media environment has become very treacherous. There's been all sorts of piling on, for instance, about last night's satisfactory press conference -- this is almost certainly the most sustained stretch of bad coverage for Obama since back when Jeremiah Wright became a household name after the Ohio primary.
I don't think the media has a liberal bias or a conservative bias so much as it has a bias toward overreacting to short-term trends and a tendency toward groupthink. The fact is that there have been some pretty decent signals on health care. Yes, it has stalled in some committees, but it has advanced in others; yes, the Mayo Clinic expressed their skepticism but also the AMA -- surprisingly -- endorsed it; yes, the CBO's Doug Elmendorf got walked into a somewhat deceptive and undoubtedly damaging line of questioning about the measure's capacities on cost control, but also, the CBO's actual cost estimates have generally been lower than expected and also favorable to particular Democratic priorities like the public option. This all seems pretty par for the course, even if you wouldn't know it from reading Politico or Jake Tapper, who giddily report on each new poll telling us the exact same thing as though there's some sort of actual news value there.
The media likes to talk about "momentum". It usually talks about the momentum in the present tense -- as in, "health care has no momentum". But almost always, those observations are formulated based on events of the past and sloppily extrapolated to imply events of the future, often to embarrassing effect: see also, New Hampshire, the 15-day infatuation with Sarah Palin, the Straight Talk express being left for dead somewhere in the summer of 2007, the overreaction to "Bittergate" and the whole lot, and the naive assumption that Obama's high-60's approval ratings represented a paradigm shift and not a honeymoon period that new Presidents almost always experience.
I also believe that the media can, in the short term, amplify and sometimes even create waves of momentum. But almost always only in the short term. And that is reason #1 why it's not such a bad thing that the Democrats are getting a breather on health care. They're at, what I believe, may be something of a 'trough' or 'bottom' as far as this media-induced momentum goes. By some point in August, the media will at least have tired of the present storyline and may in fact be looking for excuses to declare a shift in momentum and report that some relatively ordinary moment is in fact the "game changer" that the Democrats needed. This is not to say that the real, underlying momentum on health care has especially good -- and the Democrats' selling of the measure certianly hasn't been. But it hasn't been especially poor either . As I've said before, the health care process has played out just about how an intelligent observer might have expected it to beforehand.
The second reason why the delay might be OK for the Democrats is because of the economy. Nobody much seems to have noticed, but the Dow is now over 9,000 and at its highest point of the Obama presidency; the S&P is nearing 1,000 and the NASDAQ has gained almost 55 percent since its bottom and has moved upward on 12 consecutive trading days. There are ample reasons to be skeptical about the rally -- it isn't supported by strong volumes, and it's almost entirely the result of surprisingly solid corporate earnings numbers rather than the sorts of figures that Main Street cares about. But, there are two big dates to watch out for. On July 31, an advance estimate of second quarter GDP growth will be released, and on August 7th, we'll get the monthly report on the unemployment situation. If either of those reports reflect the optimism elicited by the corporate earnings numbers -- in this context, a job loss number under ~250,000 or a 2Q GDP number somewhere close to zero -- there will be a lot of quite optimistic chatter about the end of the recession which might not penetrate to Main Street, but which will at least have some reverberations on Capitol Hill.
A few hours ago, I asked our readers what they expected Barack Obama's Gallup approval rating to be on August 31st, when the Senate's recess will be just about over and the health care sausage-making will begin again. The average guess was 55 percent, which is exactly where it is today (a new low for Obama, we should mention). I should caution that our readers lean probably 2:1 or 3:1 liberal, and so there might be some optimism bias in this unscientific sample. But that strikes me as about the right assessment. Obama's numbers don't have much more room to fall before they hit the 53 percent threshold that actually elected him last November. And I don't think they're liable to go too much below that mark unless something actually and tangibly bad happens -- a bad unemployment report (or a sharp reversal of the market rally), the actual collapse of health care, some bona fide major gaffe, etc. Any of those things, indeed, could happen. But just as likely Obama will benefit from some good economic numbers or simply some reversion to the mean as the media firing squad picks up and plays golf for a month.
The Democrats could find themselves in a better position after the August recess or they could find themselves in a worse one -- how's that for a bold prediction! But liberals' doom-and-gloom, conservatives' glee, and the media's nearsighted reporting are all equally uncalled for.
7.23.2009
The Healthcare Timeout is Fine.
by Nate Silver @ 7:39 PM...see also approval ratings, health care, media theory, momentum, msm, obama, senate democrats
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)

122 comments
Something else I've been wondering why the White House hasn't been pointing to:
The auto bailout and government-sponsored bankrupcty for Chrysler and GM was very unpopular (though a decisive action taken by Obama.)
But don't look now-- for what is a relatively modest investment of Government funds (certainly compared to the stimulus) hundreds of thousands of jobs were saved, including auto workers, parts suppliers and dealerships.
There are dealerships in virtually every state and Obama should (if he is bold enough and has the foresight to recognize it) be able in the next month to point to the auto bailout as an unpopular action that the Government (mostly during his administration) took and which in the end will result in much better employment numbers than if we'd just followed conservatives' prescription of 'let them fail and sell the parts off.'
That would also resonate in rural districts where automobile dealerships provide some of the better jobs in town.
Speaking of polls, you should make note of the recent PEW global polls that just came out.
Specifically THIS chart.
The changes in perception globally is pretty astounding.
M.R.
Uh... maybe Nate posted it here because THIS IS NATE'S BLOG! Why shouldn't he post it here?
If you want to point conservatives over to Nate's blog so they can take his challenge then do so. Otherwise quit vomiting your crap all over a message board about health care.
The media is myopic? Nothing new here. The utter lack of understanding of health care by "health care reporters" is stunning. In addition, of course the left is going to freak out--it always happens on anything like this. And the right has nothing else to be excited about so of course they go nuts over this sort of thing.
On Electricity, Or, Can A Public Option Work?
some bona fide major gaffe...
Uh, that came yesterday. It's yet to manifest itself, but that'll happen the next couple of weeks.
For those who don't know, the early defense of "Skip" Gates at Harvard without all the "facts" and assertion that the Cambridge police force "acted stupidly" is going to haunt BO.
Watch and see.
I've been truly puzzled by the way nearly everyone has been acting as if not making the August recess deadline is some kind of indication that health care reform is doomed.
While I would prefer that it get passed sooner rather than latter, I think the recess could be a useful moment in the reform fight. A lot of congress critters are going to get out of town, away from the beltway group think, and spend some time with their constituents. Talk about your ideal opportunity for said constituents to remind their representatives just how important is reform.
Remember a few months back when Baucus was dragging his feet on the public option. Then he went home and got an earful from constituents. Almost overnight he was talking a more conciliatory tone on the issue.
He has since fallen back into the beltway group think mode. But that is because he's been spending to much time in Washington.
It's eerie how often this pattern gets repeated. Back during the campaign, activists kept on falling into the same doom & gloom trap, convinced that Obama's campaign had finally foundered. Then things turned around and he went on to trounce the opposition.
I don't know how this will play out, but I am feeling rather optimistic right now.
Maybe a timeout WILL be a good thing.
Oh come on now Nate. You're being an Obama "homer". You had it right the first time. Time isn't on the Democrats side - and to now suggest that somehow this is just as likely to be good for Dems as it is bad is disingenuous.
Yes, all of what you seem upbeat about is possible. But you didn't take into account that fact that GOP interest groups are mobilizing against this idea. Public opinion is hardening against this idea. Blue Dog Democrats from red districts are running scared. And everyone in congress is going to get quite the earful when they return to their home districts.
Spin this however you like. But the cold hard fact is that it would have been BETTER for Democrats to not have to punt on this for several weeks.
M.R. Not knowing the facts was in response to the what does this mean for race relations question. He stated he doesn't have all the facts to determine if it was a racial profiling incident.
Here is the statement for you viewing pleasure.
"I don’t know – not having been there and not seeing all the facts – what role race played in that"
He didn't say he didn't know the facts to have an opinion on the situation.
Furthermore, when he went on to speak of the history of racial profiling, he prefaced it with "what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African-Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately, and that's just a fact."
Do you conservatives have some sort of selective listening device that ignores ends of sentences or other words or phrases that just don't fit into your argument?
Sure seems like it.
Second, if Republicans really want to rally behind this one, be my guest. The all white party railing against a President that stated it was stupid to arrest someone in their own home is a reverse Sister Soulja moment for them.
But I understand, it'll give the racists a reason to make a stink and hide behind the shield of nobility of defending a policeman.
Unfortunately I think Nate has a point, the news cycle took a disastrous turn (completely opposite of the unfolding facts on the ground imo) and shutting down on their breathless talk about the downfall of health care may be beneficial. Obama needs to roll out strong support from all the groups involved and put his finger on exactly which parts of reform he is truly adamant about. We need him to be loud, out front, and (most importantly) specific. I think he definitely has the better talking points, but someone turned off the loudspeaker once the media turned on Gates-gate.
So Nate, do you think Obama knows what numbers will be coming out July 31's and August 7th and this is why he isn't concerned? Possibly this is why Obama said the other day "Give it to me" when referring to the economy.
Dow over 9000 is a good thing for people with 401k's, that is for sure, unless you've still got your money in money market accounts or bonds. If not, and if you timed things back in Oct and again in March, your 401k could be up by around 30%-40% in the last 6 months.
The turn around in the economy will be close to impossible for conservative pundits to distract from in a few more months.
I wonder what they'll try to hang around Obama's neck then.
@Emon
I think you're mostly right. Absolutely it's going to be about jobs. Unemployment, whatever it is, is going to be the biggest factor in Obama's numbers.
On this,
Speak to the public about it, in detail, with his positive style...or watch his approval ratings continue to fall.
I think Obama HAS spoken to the public. Like, ad nauseum. He talks about how many jobs he's "saved" - something impossible to measure. Ultimately results are going to be what matters. Not soaring rhetoric or claims of jobs saved. If unemployment goes above 10 percent, I suspect Obama's approval falls into the 40's - and if that happens he won't get ANYTHING done. If Mike's rosy scenario is closer to reality then Obama will fare much better.
The only thing any of us can do is watch and wait.
Uggh - that was supposed to go on the other thread. Oops.
The all white party railing against a President that stated it was stupid to arrest someone in their own home...
He was arrested for unruly, loud, and (unnecessarily) disruptive behavior when the police reponded to a call about a potential break-in and he refused to cooperate in any way, shape, or form and immediately howled "racism." That is why he was arrested. Not for just being in his "own home."
But I understand, it'll give the racists a reason to make a stink and hide behind the shield of nobility of defending a policeman.
I understand too. How this gives racists on the left another rallying cry to rant and carry on about for the next decade while hiding behind the shield of the "noble black Harvard professor."
Forget the fact the man was immediately and increasingly belligerent with the police the moment he stopped by to check on the situation.
And to even discuss "racial profiling" by the police is patently absurd. You can't "profile" when you're responding to a 9-1-1 call. It's their job to respond. Plain. And. Simple.
Dr. Gates was quick to hurl the accusation that the officers had immediately made up their mind about him because he was black. I think it's more than fair to say that he had made up his mind about the initial responding officer because he was white. Racism works both ways.
Dr. Gates said he knew hew wouldn't have been treated the same way were he a white person in their own home. My only response to that is: would he have behaved as he did, throwing a tantrum like a 2-year old and howling "racism" if the responding officer(s) was/were black?
Again, it works both ways.
Nate, you're wrong to hold up 250,000 jobs as the sign of an economy turning around. May I remind you that the job loss last month was in excess of 450,000? If we only had a loss of 250,000 that would be cause enough for dancing in the streets!
I also don't agree that we should wait on health care. As the old saying goes, strike while the iron is hot. We've got momentum now, and we shouldn't lose it. Speaker Pelosi has got the right idea - keep our congressmen in town until they finish the job!
Walker, take your Walter Duranty Award and tuck it where the sun don't shine.
Or start contributing something meaningful to the conversation.
Without a doubt Obama's worst press conference.
Must agree with M.R. This will definitely come back to haunt Obama. Judgement should not have been passed (At the least) until after an investigation into the incident. He should have ducked the question.
On a completely separate note, it's time to legalize marijuana and tax the shit out of it!
Marc Ambinder thinks the delay is a mixed blessing. He also thinks Obama needs to discover his opponents' "OODA." Maybe Nate could explain that in a future post.
I want a break on health care reform. Maybe that will reduce the chance of women, people of color, rural folks, and poor people being completely screwed over by a reform that doesn't actually help provide more health CARE or even health INSURANCE.
I am tired of the lying on both the liberal side, with its false representations of other countries' healthcare pros and cons, and on the conservative side, with its scaremongering instead of actually utilising the facts about this proposed basket of health care reforms.
My life without health insurance-- about 100/yr for routine checkups and medicine when I was sick (antibiotics are v. cheap when doctors find you will be paying cash for the scrip. who knew!).
My life with health insurance-- about 900/yr in premiums, and I consume (based on billing) about 5 times that amount in care.
In both cases I am on the sickly side, but in the former case, I got a lot of free this and that from doctors because they didn't want to bankrupt me. They charged what I could afford and comped the rest, so my overall expenses were quite low.
With insurance, they just charged whatever, hoping the insurance company will fork over something resembling a reasonable amount.
That's honest and of course people like me don't get to be part of the discussion, because we weren't healthy, but mysteriously weren't bankrupted by our level of illness, and that simply can't happen in america, or something.
Yeah, a break would be nice. Maybe there will be room for other voices that don't fit the standard narratives.
Nate:
Your optimism is admirable, but you are whistling past the graveyard. You initial tuition about needing to move quickly was correct.
1) There was no majority electoral demand for Obamacare during the honeymoon period and no prospect of any gathering majority in the next months before the 2010 elections get underway.
2) There are now majorities of voters who do not want to pile another Trillion plus dollars on top of the current peacetime record for red ink. Those majorities are only likely to grow as our current $1 Trillion deficit turns into between $1.5 to $2 Trillion this fall when the bill comes up again.
3) The rising stock market will not return any political capital to Mr. Obama because the investor class knows that Obama had nothing to do with the rebound. Obama permanently lost the investor class with back in the spring by talking down the economy and destroying over a Trillion dollars in investor wealth and then shafting bond holders in the auto industry. MSNBC's Santelli's rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange to the thunderous applause and catcalls of the traders pretty much sums up their view of Obama.
4) Mr. Obama's political capital is far more tied to the unemployment rate. Rasmussen's polling of likely voters has Obama's overall approval around 51% to 48%, with his policies including health care opposed by majorities, while the GOP has been leading in the congressional generic polling for the first time in years. The unemployment rate is likely to break into the double digits by the time the health care bill comes up again, probably driving his approval down into the 40s.
5) Reagan provides an apt analogy. Like Obama, Reagan inherited a bad recession. However, unlike Obama, Reagan had a specific set of plans and drove his plans through Congress rather than relying upon Congress to generate something on its own. Reagan had his program in place before his popularity dropped as unemployment rose, while Obama's window is closing rapidly. Just as importantly, Reagan's program created economic and employment growth and enabled him to recover his popularity, while government deficit spending like the Porkulus has never created economic and employment growth. Obama is setting the economic stage for a Japanese style lost decade with higher unemployment than Japan suffered.
6) Mr. Obama has lost the trust of the American people by lying pathologically about what Obamacare involves. Contrary to what Mr. Obama claims, majorities or pluralities of polled voters believe (correctly) that, under Obamacare, the government will choose what health care services to deliver, will raise taxes and will increase the deficit. Thus, when Obama comes back in the fall under even worse economic and fiscal circumstances and asks the voters to trust him with another Trillion plus dollars of their money, he will have an even harder row to hoe because he was not honest up front.
Sorry, Nate -- Obama's news conference was not "satisfactory" and not just for Obama's appalling and unthoughtful answer to the Gates arrest question.
Obama basically confirmed what the critics of national health care have been arguing: that the advocates of it literally don't know what they're talking about ("tonsillectomies done instead of allergy treatments") and that government buraucrats will be making the calls on your health ("why not choose the red pill").
Obama helped drive a nail into passing any true national health care bill.
Everyone should be discussing Obama's suggestion of using Medpac, the Republican created idea, in a serious way and have Congress vote on their suggestions. That is where some serious savings could be found.
Medpac.gov
Anybody else notice that Walker, Missy, nova-middle-man, PeteKent and several other commenters always have the exact same grammar patterns?
-the same phrases ("Famine? What famine?")
-the same obscure analogies (Walter Duranty...again and again and again),
-they always make the same typos (healtcare) and misspell the same words (speaches)
-the same misuse of punctuation, especially commas ("Seriously, what exactly, are Americans, not just moderate/conservative Democrats being asked to support?")
-the same abbreviations (politix),
-they always use ALLCAPS on the same parts of their posts - 4rd noun in the first sentence, the final pronoun and noun in the last sentence ("Obama's popularity according to Gallup is now lower than DUBYA'S at this point in his term! Obama is getting failing grades on healtcare, the economy, deficits and HIS JEANS!")
And it doesn't have anything to do with grammar, but I notice they always post on the same day, usually within the same 1 hour timeframe.
I can't be the only one who's noticed this, right?
Hivemind? Or a seriously, seriously dedicated troll?
This post mentioned potential forecasts, albeit optimistic ones, of job loss at around 250k for July. Has anyone heard anything saying that 250k for july is realistic? That would be amazing, but given that job loss for june was at around 450, doesn't a 45% decrease from that seem a little on the optimistic side?
Thanks.
Bart DePalma,
Reagan's plan was tax cuts and deficits. Obama's plan is stimulus and deficits.
How is it that:
"However, unlike Obama, Reagan had a specific set of plans and drove his plans through Congress rather than relying upon Congress to generate something on its own."
Are you aware that Reagan ran huge deficits?
Further, one of the biggest accomplishments of Reagan's term -- taming inflation -- was largely the result of Carter's appointee (and Obama advisor) Paul Volcker's tight money policies.
Points taken, but I am skeptical.
The first point, that the momentum at this time is at its lowest, is partially true, but as we get closer to the election and conserva-Dems find out just how much money they can get from insurance and health PACs, the momentum may continue to slow, and even reverse.
On the second, some voters are more concerned about health care precisely because they are afraid of the overall economy. If they feel secure that they will keep their own health benefits, then the public pressure may drop for reform, and there will be attention turned to "paying off the debt" as happened with Clinton.
Finally, the more time that insurance companies and political opponents have to paint any reform as a government takeover (through ads and the news), the more skeptical the public may become of Obama's, or Congress' plan(s).
You may be right, Nate. I hope you are. But my gut tells me that we would be better off if Reid had delayed the vacation to get something through, even if it was the Wyden bill. Then work over the vacation to create a conference bill that incorporates elements from the House bill and enough concessions (while retaining as strong a public option as possible) to get 60 votes.
Politics isn't like basketball where when you're ahead, you can run down the clock. It's more like chess where each individual piece doesn't really matter that much, as long as you checkmate your opponent.
dorsk188 said...
The first point, that the momentum at this time is at its lowest, is partially true, but as we get closer to the election and conserva-Dems find out just how much money they can get from insurance and health PACs, the momentum may continue to slow, and even reverse."
This makes me wonder...
1) How much more money can health PACs funnel to candidates compared to liberal pro-reform organizers like ActBlue, etc.
and
2) This healthcare reform may pass or fail or crash and burn, but one way or the other the current process will, for the most part, end...eventually. I would assume that at that point, much if not most of the health PAC money will dry up.
So for a politician, would it be strategically sound to take the easy, but time-limited money from the healthcare guys - with the risk that it could jeopardize the lesser, but longer-term money from the liberal lefty guys?
I'd like to see someone game that out with some actual data.
Well, I think alot of it has to do with messaging and the republicans have had better and more consistent messaging on healthcare. The "fix health insurance" angle is a good one and if the dems can message that through the break they should be fine, but if they cannot it is a real problem.
I have no idea how they are letting the republicans message the auto bailout negatively. They need better campaign type messaging, of course the Obama folks were too slow to react to negative trends during the campaign too, so maybe this is to be expected.
Finally, the media needs to actually get into real news and stop this "celebrity" type politics. The BBC and NPR can find enough real news to cover, why can't the rest of the media?
@Bart DePalma:
Your observations about Obama losing "the investor class" may be true. I don't know, since I don't account myself a member of "the investor class" (although my 401K sure has taken a beating; I don't blame that on Obama).
Your main point in item 2 above was "The rising stock market will not return any political capital to Mr. Obama...". It is not "the investor class" who will give Obama any credit for the stock market rise. It is the great mass of voters who (rightly or not) will at least partly ascribe the stock market rise to the success of Obama's policies.
Of course, this depends upon whether the current market advance is maintained or is reversed. If the latter, I agree that there will be negative effects upon Obama's popularity generally, whatever "the investor class" thinks.
With two wars going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, I seriously question your characterization of the deficit as reaching "a peacetime record for red ink." Must we be involved in a World War to consider the situation as other than "peacetime?"
One last point: I thouhgt Santelli's rant on the floor of The Merc was about responsible homeowners paying for bailing out homeowners threatened with foreclosure, not about Obama talking down the market. This may be because I am not thoroughly acquainted with everything Santelli said; just what made the Cable News Highlight Film. Please enlighten me.
By 2012 (or 2010 for that matter) no one is going to care if "healthcare" legislation passed in August or Oct. It would be nice to win sooner rather than later but a win is a win.
While the GOP will be firing up it's base so will Team Obama and until proven otherwise you have to bet on Team Obama to leverage social networking, interest groups etc to get the needed votes. Obama also has room to manuever...he can scale back and focus on "insurance reform" protect those with pre-existing conditions allow for portability and have some sort of public plan the covers some of the uninsured while not a home run this would be a big win.
I disagree. The bill is already severely watered down, and with the insurance corporations spending a massive $1.4 million PER DAY to water it down even further, progressive groups fighting for change cannot sustain their grassroots effort. Money is buying power in our country once again, so time is of the essence.
What happens if this doesn't get passed? The insurance giants will continue to use their GOP parrots to hammer at this. Time is of the essence.
Ryan said...
This post mentioned potential forecasts, albeit optimistic ones, of job loss at around 250k for July. Has anyone heard anything saying that 250k for july is realistic? That would be amazing, but given that job loss for june was at around 450, doesn't a 45% decrease from that seem a little on the optimistic side?"
I might have stumbled across how Nate got to that 250k job losses for this month. I am no statistician as Nate is but I do like do analysis of numbers.
The notion that the DOW hitting 9000 is going to play any factor at all in this debate is, in my opinion, ridiculous. Obama would have to have the rhetorical skills of Abraham Lincoln (he doesn't) to convince the American public that the economy has been rescued when unemployment is nearing double digits, simply because a bunch of traders are buying up stocks that have had, on average, a 30% decline in profits from last year. Double digit unemployment and a recovering economy will be two mutually exclusive realities in the minds of the vast majority of Americans, regardless of whether the economy is technically recovering or not. 10% unemployment is a number that will likely sink the remainder of his first term and will, at the very least, pare back the majorities he now enjoys. Keeping his House majority in 2010 would be a task on the order of magnitude of convincing people that lived in the 80s that New Coke was awesome.
As for the gentlemen above who asserts that, counter to what you believe, the rise in the DOW will help Obama because the American people will rightly or wrongly ascribe credit to him, I would respond by stating the same can be said of unemployment. And that metric is certainly much more damaging than the DOW returning to levels first seen a decade ago would be beneficial. What has happened with his approval ratings since March should be some sort of indicator. The DOW has climbed over 30% since then, and his approval ratings have done nothing but fall. That is because not only is unemployment the single most important number to a president's approval on the economy (just ask Bush, under whom the DOW hit 14,000)but also his numbers are slipping not because he is losing liberals, but because independents and friendly Republicans are fleeing him faster than you can say lead balloon. They are expressing dismay over his record deficit spending and his plans which most now say they don't want. The DOW surpassing 9000 isn't going to change that, and it is pure fantaasy to think otherwise, especially when you consider the all but inevitable fact that unemployment will indeed hit 10%, that is if you believe every single economist on the face of the earth. Most economists, including the Fed Chairman, have stated that the recovery will be so tepid, it will hardly be noticed. That is hardly a prescription for halting a decline in approval ratings, let alone increasing them. And unless you believe that 53% of the country calls themselves Democrats, the notion that the floor on his approval is 53% is likely erroneous as well.
And frankly, the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves for this, and I am not talking in terms of unwise policy decisions. I am talking about something you mentioned in your post: the laughable believe that the president's high approval numbers (boosted to the stratosphere because he succeeded the most unpopular president in years)were somehow a feature instead of a bug. Most people who don't think Obama is a god became sick to death of being told that he is the most-uber popular president since George Washington and that his high approval ratings meant he could ram through any piece of crap he wanted, even when those very same polls were constantly stating "president more popular than policies". Of course the media narrative was going to be brutal when his poll numbers sank by 10% in about three weeks. Not coincidentally, his numbers really nosedived when the June employment numbers were released, demonstrating that employment, not the DOW, will be the factor that makes or breaks this presidency. Given that reality, it will be a miracle if Obama can keep his approval above 50% when unemployment hits 10% which he even admits it will.
I just can’t let this pass. Sometimes God is very good to us, and all we can do is wonder why…
Mule Rider said, to Eli Blake…
“If you’re ignorant to the discussion, then please refrain from providing your 2 cents.”
That’s the best hoot of the day!
News flash to Mule Rider—if one person, and only one person, is obsessing insanely about a subject, that does not qualify as a discussion, which requires two parties to get off the ground. You are the only person this side of Neptune who gives a rat’s ass about whether Nate’s global-warming offer meets with your—or anybody else’s—approval.
Concerning the chart the individual above links to I can only respond thusly: the June numbers were a whole heck of a lot higher than the May numbers. The notion that you can just plug past unemployment figures into a chart and come out with a pat answer just does not hold water. Furthermore, if your chart had even a remote chance of being valid, I think we would have heard from more than 0 economists stating that job losses would pick up by September instead of the current 100% who now state unemployment will hit 10% or more.
And for someone who uses statistical analysis to try and determine the course of pending job losses, it is a wee bit odd that you ignore the hiring patterns of the last several recessions. Unemployment increased for a whopping 18 months after the last recession technically ended. A recession such as this where so many consumers have changed their consumption habits and so many employers have stated their intention to keep their work force "lean and mean" certainly presages even greater job losses, even after the weak recovery begins.
Furthermore Liberal Defender, I think you mischaracterize Mr. Silver's position. On your page (and I give you many kudos for its very excellent conciseness)you state the following:
"Nate Silver, in his post Healthcare Timeout is Fine posted a number of 250,000 job losses for this month that might be announced August 7th as one of the reasons not to fret about not getting health care reform out of both the Senate and House committee's by August recess."
I don't think he stated that 250,000 might be announced rather I believe he indicated a number in that ballpark would elicit optimism when combined with the "better than expected" second quarter earnings being announced. However, I may be wrong, and if so, I apologize.
The only reason the U.S. doesn't have Single-Payer Health Care is... Link
Call Congress and the White House and Demand, SINGLE-PAYER HEALTH CARE FOR ALL!
SEMPER FI!
I like how conservatives complained endlessly about alleged liberals comparing Bush to Hitler yet we have two Obama/Stalin references right here in the thread. It's hard to take anyone seriously when they take a willful stance against historical perspective. Obama could well turn out to be the worst President we've ever had and he would be orders of magnitude better than Stalin.
Nate, I'm from Michigan. Born and raised. Why do you have to bring up old wounds?
That night in 1993 was a dark day for all of Michigan.
What people need to understand is how the Media thinks. It's a pattern of preception that they can't help.
First of all the Media wants a good dramatic story, with characters and conflict. The idea of story is what the Media understands and to ask them to think outside that box is unrealistic. President Obama didn't give them a good story last night until the very end. Last night President Obama gave them facts, figures and hard to understand concepts. Sure the press will whine that a politician is not providing details with his speech but secretly they despise details. Details are boring, they don't have character or conflict. They want a politician to give them a good story with a start, middle and end. Let's face it, while President Obama's performance last night was good it was bland story-wise until the last question which gave them character, scandal and conflict - all ingrediants the Media understands. Notice how the Media jumped all over that story and regulated the Health Care Debate to a ho-hum supporting statis. If you hadn't watched the Press Conference last night and judged it solely by the comments from the Media you would come to the conclusion that the Press Conference was almost entirely about Professor Gates. This pause in the debate will give President Obama a do-over, another chance at a Press Conference in September when hopefully he will be more refreshed and more on his game.
Another thing about the Media's love of story is that they see all news through the lens of a story cycle. Like any good book, play or TV show, to the Media a news story should have an introduction, followed by conflict then a resolution. Clearly the Media thinks that the story of Health Care is in the conflict stage. I'm not saying that the Media is creating conflict but rather it is the context in which they are viewing the story. To be fair most reporters view this conflict stage as their duty to get opposite views and to point out flaws. In fact this whole dramatic cycle to news is as much demanded by the reporters as it is for us consumers of news. If you think I'm crazy about this quickly tell me about a bill that pass with almost unanimous support! They do happen occasionally but who is interested in that. Conflict has to build and any break in conflict usually brings about resolution or at the least sets the build up of conflict back to lower levels. What this pause in the debate will do is stop the conflict in the story for both the consumers and the Media - after all you can't have much conflict when the star characters are off the main stage.
One last thing not Media related on why this break in the debate is good. The August debate will bring the Congress home to their districts and states. There they are most likely to hear what real Americans are thinking about the subject, without in some cases the Media "telling" people what to think. Every poll suggests that Americans are concerned about Health Care. A month or so ago Senator Baucus had his Montana staff hold Town Hall Meetings to discuss fixing the Heath Care System. His staff was shocked at the views of a sizeable portion of the attendees - they wanted a Single Payer Universal Health Care. The Congress might end up being shocked as well.
Of course there is the risk that Americans have again decided they don't like a Health Care Reform preposal. But then the question has to be if you think the current system is in such a mess what exactly do you want? I also think that if Health Care is not resolved this time - or least a decent start at it - then it will never happen in our life times. The subject of Health Care will become a third rail to politicians and they will be extremely wary to touch it.
kjvd00 said...
The media is myopic? Nothing new here.
How correct you are. Most of the reporting discusses 'the history of health care reform' by starting with the Clinton proposal of 1994. Some go a few years prior to proposals pushed by McGovern or Carter. Even fewer go back to the proposals of Harry Truman in 1948.
Only ONE has made reference to the first MAJOR proposal to reform health care in the US, specifically the plank in the Progressive Party (Bull Moose) in the 1912 campaign. Even that proposal was 'borrowed' from earlier proposals.
So yes, there is absolutely nothing new about the media being myopic.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I kind of think two things here. One, healthcare is important to get done right, not get done quickly.
But secondly maybe this will show the US Public that it is congress that is dragging its heels and not Obama, and take some of the heat off of Obama. Which in turn will help shape a bill that is better IMO.
@masanf:
So, which is it? Have Obama's polling numbers "done nothing but fall" since March, or has most of the decline come since the release of the June unemployment figures, as you later stated?
Obama's need to sell the stimulus package led him to predict that it could hold the rise in unemployment to 8%; he would have done better to estimate how much the stimulus would increase employment numbers relative to doing nothing. Of course, this comes close to arguing that his policies would preserve or save jobs; these statements have been met with derision by those on the Right.
I can only contrast the current situation with the once Roosevelt faced on March 1933. In his case, the Depression had started more than three years before he assumed the presidency; unemployment had reached 25%. The current economic doldrums began a little over a year before Obama took office. Unemployment hit 7.6% last January and has risen almost two points since then. In retrospect, one wonders how his administration could have expected to hold unemployment to 8%.
I agree that increasing unemployment will be a problem for Obama, just as it was for Reagan. Unemployment reached 10.8% before the 1982 midterm elections, and the Republicans suffered large losses that year. People were more patient with Roosevelt in the 1930's than they were with Reagan in the 1980's, or will be with Obama if unemployment continues to increase.
Of course, this impatience emanates from the same electorate and politicians which have increasingly decoupled taxation from spending since the 1970's. I am not optimistic that anyone, Democrat or Republican, can solve these problems so long as this attitude remains entrenched in our body politic.
Marie says, "I am tired of the lying on both the liberal side, with its false representations of other countries' healthcare pros and cons..."
I'm a retired mathematician and I've looked quite a bit at the health care systems of other countries. It seems to me that the evidence is overwhelming that they get better care for less than half of what we pay, that wait times and rationing and government interference are widely exaggerated and have little affect on the bottom line.
If you have reliable data to show the contrary, i would be interested in some references.
Thank you.
lensch is correct, but then facts have a well-known liberal bias.
Great article Nate. I'm just going to stick with this blog for a week (well I already come here 3x a day, I'm just going to stay away from the rest of them).
Breaking per Drudge:
Obama Approval: 49%
Obama Disapproval: 51%
The poll will be released at 9:30pm by Rasmussen Reports.
There you go, lensch, using talking points rather than bothering to read anything I actually said. That is precisely the sort of lying I am talking about.
What is 'better care'? How are marginal populations treated? (Here's a hint: plenty of countries simply don't treat marginal populations, or don't break them out in their statistics, masking the ugly treatment bias.)
Other countries don't have our insane c-section rate-- take that away and american health care has some pretty different colors.
American health care is regional, and using national numbers is completely dishonest when other countries are more population-dense and urban.
No country does very well by rural populations, for example. there is not a dispute about this fact, and nothing in the current health care reform will make it better for rural people. it is another lie that they will be better served when they certainly are not in any nation.
plus, what the heck is 'health care'? the dirty secret is that most people are mostly not sick most of the time. very few people anywhere have a medical need to go to the doctor weekly or even monthly. there are numerous ways to pay for the 1-3x/year checkups an average person might need without even involving health insurance.
there's a truly radical notion-- just throw out insurance entirely. but too many people don't seem to remember that home visits and cheap health care existed pre-ww2 in america, before employer insurance was widespread and without government intervention.
Nate,
Why would you use the C Webb photo of the infamous timeout that led to a technical foul which led to the loss of the national championship for the Fab Five of Michigan? Is there a deeper meaning here? (A superstitious fan.)
Put bluntly, Nate, your analysis is out to lunch.
The early '90s recession ended in March of 1991, and job losses continued through June 1992. Four months of job gains didn't do anything to help Bush 41 get re-elected. He tried to point to the GDP and job figures, but people really were hurting even if they still had jobs, and Clinton knew it.
As for why the timeout is so bad, this means that the Democratic leadership will have to shepherd the bill through at least one committee, reconcile the changes made to do so, have floor debate (with further amendments), pass the bill, hold the conference committee, determine whether to use reconciliation, have one more floor debate, and pass the bill again.
All in less than six weeks. And all of this with a majority of the public (according to Gallup and Rasmussen) opposed to the bill, and with Obama's approval ratings lower than they are now. (Contrary to your claim, state polling already shows Obama below his Election Day vote shgare in several states, like Virginia, Ohio, New Jersey, and New Mexico.)
Off topic: L'Affaire Gates
Folks all over the MSM are talking about the arrest of Black Harvard Prof Gates by a white cop for disorderly conduct outside his own home a "teaching moment".
I agree. But it's not just about confronting the racial profiling that is endemic in all our lives and relations, and a further beat down on evil white people.
Instead, we ought better turn our attention to the hyper-sensitivity of Black folk to constantly throw the race card whenever things don't go their way.
Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe (who has gotten over 7500 hate emails) pointed out that it was Gates himself who made the incident about race when he flung at Officer Crowley the accusation that the only reason the officer was questioning Gates was because he was black. This was the first thing out of the professor's mouth.
Rich, elitist Harvard Professor who lives in million dollar home in Cambridge and is driven around in a chauffeured car still feels put upon because he is Black?
My own suspicion is that in his own personal case he was far more advantaged by his skin color than disadvantaged and he ought to STFU when a policeman comes to his door and let authority do its job.
He ain't no nicca in the hood!
Many people pf all colors are bemused and puzzled how even in this day and age, when a man of negro heritage is our president, that African Americans are so quick to scream racism whenever they perceive mistreatment. Get over it!
What’s next? Reparations? Hee! Hee!
I don't normally like to personalize my posts, but I'll do it here: some years ago in a neighborhood incident involving my young sons I was nearly hauled down to the Post by a Deputy for being as big a jerk as Gates no doubt was. The incident eventually was diffused, but I came away thinking I was the asshole and not the cop. We were both white.
This stuff happens, Prof Gates, get over it and yourself.
petekent01 (on twitter),
a proud skuller!
polls_apart said...
Your main point in item 2 above was "The rising stock market will not return any political capital to Mr. Obama...". It is not "the investor class" who will give Obama any credit for the stock market rise. It is the great mass of voters who (rightly or not) will at least partly ascribe the stock market rise to the success of Obama's policies.
Unemployment drives political popularity during an economic downturn followed by inflation and interest rates because they all have immediate impact on the pocketbook. The markets only have a direct impact on the wallets of the investor class.
It is unemployment that is driving Obama's numbers down.
With two wars going on in Afghanistan and Iraq, I seriously question your characterization of the deficit as reaching "a peacetime record for red ink." Must we be involved in a World War to consider the situation as other than "peacetime?"
Fiscally, the country has not been at war since the Wall fell and the USSR effectively surrendered. Our current low intensity wars cost less than 1% of GDP and our total defense spending is half that of the Cold War as a percentage of GDP.
The only deficit in the history of the Republic that is remotely comparable to the Obama tidal wave of red ink was our borrowing to finance a world war fought by a 20 million man army. Unfortunately, while the WWII deficit literally paid to save much of the world from fascist totalitarianism and was money well spent, the Obama deficit is simply pissing money away to finance a welfare state during a recession. In the end, all the country will be left with is debt.
One last point: I thouhgt Santelli's rant on the floor of The Merc was about responsible homeowners paying for bailing out homeowners threatened with foreclosure, not about Obama talking down the market.
That is correct. I used that particular Santelli rant because it was a well known illustration of how investors loathed Obama, not to illustrate any one reason why they felt that way. There are plenty of other rants on the business news bitching about Obama's talking down the economy.
The Obama team came in with the philosophy that an economic crisis is an opportunity to enact leftist programs that never would be enacted during prosperous times. This is straight out of Saul Alinsky's playbook for recruiting the middle class to adopt his radicalism.
Team Obama initially figured that the more crisis, the more opportunity. Thus, Obama kept comparing the economy to the Great Depression and the already panicked markets reacted accordingly. I personally bailed out of stocks when Obama started this nonsense to sell his Porkulus Bill. However, by March, Obama did a 180 and started talking up the economy. I suspect all those wealthy Dems who bankrolled his campaign got him on the phone and ripped him a new one. Unfortunately, the markets had lost over a Trillion dollars in value by then.
Mule Rider posted...
> "Remove the restrictions and allow any Average Joe to challenge you, but keep the challengers to a limited number"
Exactly what criteria, then, should Nate use to "keep the challengers to a limited number"? Once you determine to limit the challengers, you're disallowing "any Average Joe" who fails to meet your new, improved restrictions.
Cmon Silver, stop with the extreme radical leftist bias. IF Obama makes a "bona fide" gaffe he'll go below 53%?
Obama called cops stupid over an incident he said he "didnt know the facts" about. THAT IS A MAJOR GAFFE.
And, here's the first poll of people since then - and he's at 49% approval/51% disapp. Mid 40's here we come, no amount of leftist "logic" will change that.
ya see, you think its okay to demonize cops, but 80% of the country, i.e. the non radical leftists, disagree.
The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Friday shows that 30% of the nation's voters now Strongly Approve of the way that Barack Obama is performing his role as President. Thirty-eight percent (38%) Strongly Disapprove giving Obama a Presidential Approval Index rating of -8 (see trends).
Just 25% believe that the economic stimulus package has helped the economy.
The Presidential Approval Index is calculated by subtracting the number who Strongly Disapprove from the number who Strongly Approve. It is updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern (sign up for free daily e-mail update). Updates also available on Twitter.
Overall, 49% of voters say they at least somewhat approve of the President's performance. Today marks the first time his overall approval rating has ever fallen below 50% among Likely Voters nationwide. Fifty-one percent (51%) disapprove.
Eighty-three percent (83%) of Democrats continue to approve of the President’s performance while 80% of Republicans disapprove. Among those not affiliated with either major party, 37% offer a positive assessment. The President earns approval from 51% of women and 47% of men.
These updates are based upon nightly telephone interviews and reported on a three-day rolling average basis. Most of the interviews for today’s update were completed before the President’s nationally televised press conference on Wednesday night. The first update based entirely upon interviews conducted after the press conference will be released on Sunday.
It is important to remember that the Rasmussen Reports job approval ratings are based upon a sample of likely voters. Some other firms base their approval ratings on samples of all adults. President Obama’s numbers are always several points higher in a poll of adults rather than likely voters. That’s because some of the President’s most enthusiastic supporters, such as young adults, are less likely to turn out to vote.
California Senator Barbara Boxer is clinging to a four-point lead in her bid for re-election.
(More Below)
One reason the delay is perceived as dangerous is because delays in 1993/4 gave opposed interests time to mobilize. The interim momentum will come down more to mobilization than the media bias cycle, which is partly driven by the former.
Health Care: A Little Arm Twisting On The WH Menu This Morning?
According to the official WH schedule, President Obama is having Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Sen. Max Baucus over to the WH for a meeting this morning. You think health care might come up?
My favorite touch on this is that Reid and Baucus will be meeting in the Oval Office. Talk about your home court advantage.
http://christyhardinsmith.firedoglake.com/2009/07/24/health-care-a-little-arm-twisting-on-the-wh-menu-this-morning/
Obama Speaks, Dow Listens – and Zooms Upward,
I thought the President had little/no impact on the stock market? That's what we were told when it cratered to the 6,000s recently, at least.
BTW Obliterati, I too have noticed the same patterns in some of the postings here. Style and diction give people away everytime.
PeteKent said...
Mika Brzezinski on Morning Joe (who has gotten over 7500 hate emails) pointed out that it was Gates himself who made the incident about race when he flung at Officer Crowley the accusation that the only reason the officer was questioning Gates was because he was black. This was the first thing out of the professor's mouth.
Apparently, Meek-ah on Morning Blowjob got up today with the intent of doing Rev. Wright Coverage as it related to the Professor Gates situation. She seem to be fully on board in wanting to believe what ever the police wrote in his report was correct and as equally ready not to believe Professor Gates's story wasn't true; This was situation that got out of control but Meek-ah and Mike Barnicle had another goal in mind. But thanks to Carlos Watson and even Harold Ford but the person who really seemed to silent Meek-ah and Barnicle was Dylan Ratigan; who hit Meek-ah with racial profiling facts that she didn't want to take in to account or acknowledge because it would have taken away from the coverage she was trying to promote.
Oops...
By the end, Mika Brzezinski appeared unglued, defeated and deflated
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/24/757260/-By-the-end,-Mika-Brzezinski-appeared-unglued,-defeated-and-deflated
PK said
'Instead, we ought better turn our attention to the hyper-sensitivity of Black folk to constantly throw the race card whenever things don't go their way'
-------------------------
OMFG, what are you on! I am sorry, you may occasionally have a point on the race card thing, but lets go over the Gates case (Gatesgate??) for a second. The guy was breaking into his own house, having locked himself out. Having got his way into his own house, the police turn up at his door, [now this is the bit that we don't have the full details for, we don't know what kind of conversation went on between the officer and Gates] things turn heated (and I can think of many many many white folks who would get very upset with a policeman turning up at there door) and seemingly without reason an eminent black professor is arrested in his own home without much good reason.
Personally, I think Obama used an unfortunate word to describe the actions of the police in this matter, but I don't think he was far wide of the mark. Also remember that Gates and Obama are friendly, and I think if one of your friends was arrested with little reason you would be a bit upset. Why do we assume that policemen always act perfectly, whilst assuming that say politicians act badly? I would imagine there could have been more sensitive ways of acting in this case than the cop did.
PK continued
'Rich, elitist Harvard Professor who lives in million dollar home in Cambridge and is driven around in a chauffeured car still feels put upon because he is Black?'
----------------------------
No he feels put upon because a policeman has arrived at his door and accused him of being a burglar in his own home. It seems unlikely that this would have occured if Gates was white.
LOL at the notion that a minor incident in Cambridge, Mass is going to have any kind of effect on Obama's administration. It's pretty hilarious to see the same straws from last summer (racially charged incidents! obama's not a natural-born citizen!) still being grasped at by desperate cons.
Last year you could understand it, b/c Obama was such a new face, there wasn't much to criticize in the record. But now that he's been doing/proposing things, don't you people have some more substantive things to criticize?
...who hit Meek-ah with racial profiling facts...
This illustrates perfectly the obfuscation that the left is doing on this story. This isn't about "racial-profiling." It was a response to a 9-1-1 call. The police were not engaged in a "proactive" framework with which they could reflect some form of bias in the form of racial profiling. They were being "reactive" to a 9-1-1 call about a potential burglarly and were meat with a bellicose and hostile Dr. Gates - who initiated the race-baiting in the discussion - when they tried to ascertain the facts.
"meat with a bellicose and hostile Dr. Gates - who initiated the race-baiting in the discussion - when they tried to ascertain the facts."
wow, didn't know you were there and knew the specifics of the incident.
Talking about unemployment rates. I thought we were bad. Take a look at Spain! 22% projected. Ouch.
Mule Rider. The recession began in what, Jan.08, 13 months before Obama took office? We were losing around 500k-600k jobs a month when he took over from the idiot Cowboy.
The work they've done to reassure the market has begun to take affect. If you're gonna parade around like a bozo flailing your hands pointing at Obama when the market takes a downturn blaming it on everyone going Galt, then don't hold back now and stop blaming him for the economy when it takes an up turn.
Why would the cops arrest an old defenseless man.
Shameless.
(and I can think of many many many white folks who would get very upset with a policeman turning up at there door)
Really? Or are you just making that up to make yourself feel better and your defense of Dr. Gates more plausible?
I had a similar experience once when I was on some abandoned property owned by my family. The local police, knowing the property was abandoned, descended upon us to ascertain why we were present there. Using and maintaining a tone of respect, I took about 5 minutes and was able to identify myself and illustrate my connection to the property via my family. Nothing but "yes sirs", "no sirs", and "thank you, sirs." Funny how politeness works sometimes.
Anyway, I don't think you're right that people simply get "very upset" at a policeman turning up at their front door. The vast majority give the benefit of the doubt - and most certainly don't throw a tantrum and start yelling at the officer right off the bat - and wait until it's obvious the officer is being a pain in the ass and is misguided in his/her efforts before getting "very upset."
Thanks for illustrating the lack of respect the left shows for law enforcement, however.
Also remember that Gates and Obama are friendly, and I think if one of your friends was arrested with little reason you would be a bit upset.
Obama is the President. He has a duty not to weigh in on personal matters involving "friends" that may reflect a personal bias.
So is that how is Presidency is going to run? Seven more years of protecting nothing but his friends instead of doing what is right and just? Seems like there was a similar accusation against Bush/Cheney. Hmmm....
wow, didn't know you were there and knew the specifics of the incident.
I wasn't. But I read the entire police report, which to be fair, I'm sure always has at least a hint of police bias; HOWEVER, witnesses who showed up after the initial conversation (which I admit, only Dr. Gates and Sgt. Crowley know exactly WHAT was said and HOW it was said) have all indicated that Dr. Gates continued to escalate his rhetoric and backtalk to the police, even as Sgt. Crowley was patiently trying to defuse the situation.
Besides, how is my "not being there" but taking an official position that lines up more with what the police report and other witnesses say any worse than people who also "weren't there" but have lined up beside Dr. Gates and his account of the story?
I'm no more or less wrong than they are, and I at least have an official account and multiple witnesses in my corner. I'll always err on the side of the facts, and the facts are against Dr. Gates.
Mule Rider,
Yes I am being serious, absolutely. A policeman turns up at your door accusing you of breaking into your own home, you are going to get upset, (maybe I didn't make that bit clear enough!) I wonder if officer Crowley was as respectful to Prof Gates as the police were to you?
I have respect for law enforcement. But I don't believe that all cops effectively carry out their duties all the time. They are human and as such are capable of overreaction and unfortunate comments, as indeed are tenured professors. I think probably that both Crowley and Gates acted in a way that was affected by their own personal prefudices. BUT the person who stepped over the line was the cop who arrested a man in his own home, who was not acting unlawfully.
"But I read the entire police report, which to be fair, I'm sure always has at least a hint of police bias"
A hint of bias? A hint? It's written by the policeman. It's just one officer's account of the event. The police report should be considered to have the same level of credibility as Prof. Gates' report.
Nate:
"I don't think the media has a liberal bias or a conservative bias so much as it has a bias toward overreacting to short-term trends and a tendency toward groupthink."
You obviously do not read NPR Check blog. The abundant and well documented examples of subservient behavior toward power and conservatism are eye-openers. Ditto for Media Matters and the excellent columns of Glenn Greenwald on the topic of media decay.
Let's not forget that the concentration of the media engineered by the Reichpublithugs in the last 15 years (Note to the historically challenged: they started controlling Congress in 1994) has resulted in corporate ownership of pretty much every media outlet, save the blogs and internet TV.
Corporations have no interest nor incentive to serve the common good, and every motivation to collaborate with those who hold their existence in their hands a.k.a. FCC licenses. The effect of these incentives is plainly visible to everyone who has watched the news for more than 10 years.
Why would the cops arrest an old defenseless man.
Do a frail, 90-year old man is driving down the road drunk? He shouldn't be arrested simply because he is "old" and "defenseless." Give me a break. Dr. Gates used hostile and belligerent rhetoric with the police, refused intially and was very reluctant to cooperate, and escalated his rhetoric the entire time. He was being "disorderly." I agree it probably shouldn't have resulted in an arrest (esp. w/handcuffs), but this is not a race issue, and Dr. Gates' antagonistic tone and race-baiting are to blame for escalating this, not some kind of racial bias or profiling on the part of Cambridge police.
"I agree it probably shouldn't have resulted in an arrest (esp. w/handcuffs)"
Agree with that too. It's certainly possible that Gates was unwisely belligerent. Personally, I've always found that being excessively polite to cops is a good strategy.
But on the other hand, I think if a white person was being similarly belligerent, it's less likely that person would be arrested. I've personally seen black men arrested for "resisting" or "disturbing the peace" when they were doing neither.
The police report should be considered to have the same level of credibility as Prof. Gates' report.
Wow, this is a new low. So why even have police if they are or will be no better than average, everyday citizens? You just throw any ridiculous canard out there you can think of to defend their actions. They're paid to protect/serve and have plenty of countervailing checks and balances should they overreach with their power. Yeah, they're not perfect, but I err on the side of caution and believing law enforcement long before I believe anything a hostile old man has to say.
Again, thanks for illustrating the lack of respect for law enforcement that the left has! You think that private citizens' accounts of lawfulness and lawlessness is just as accurate as those trained and paid to maintain that balance.
Agree with that too. It's certainly possible that Gates was unwisely belligerent. Personally, I've always found that being excessively polite to cops is a good strategy.
But on the other hand, I think if a white person was being similarly belligerent, it's less likely that person would be arrested. I've personally seen black men arrested for "resisting" or "disturbing the peace" when they were doing neither
Then I don't really know what we're disagreeing over except some of the semantics. My point is not to wholeheartedly defend the actions of Sgt. Crowley. It's to assign some culpability to Dr. Gates for the problem escalating the way it did. He could have gotten out of that situation in much better shape if he'd just been a little more cooperative and polite.
And again, this had nothing to do with race/racial-profiling. It was a response to a 9-1-1 call and he was being "reactive", not "proactive."
I'm dropping the topic for now, though.
I tend to believe the police officer's account if for no other reason that gates' purported response sounds something like what an *sshole Harvard professor would say.
But Obama's response -- in a live national press conference -- was appalling and unthoughtful.
It most certainly hurt him among 45-65 year-olds and independents, who hate the Jesse Jackson race crap -- this group of voters is massive and they're the reason Obama is President. Wrong group to irritate.
"You think that private citizens' accounts of lawfulness and lawlessness is just as accurate as those trained and paid to maintain that balance."
I have personally experienced multiple occassions where police reports contained outright falsehoods. The fact is that, without some susbstantiation, the police officer's self-report of the incident is no more credible than the report of a well known and respected citizen.
All politicians are having troubling numbers right now. Obama and the Democrats are trending down for not getting Health Care Reform done faster, but the Congressional Republicans and the Republican Party's numbers are also reaching new lows.
Obama is still the only national eader whom the people trust. He will get his health bill soon enough.
The fact is that, without some susbstantiation, the police officer's self-report of the incident is no more credible than the report of a well known and respected citizen.
Yes, but the accounts of witnessed and fellow police officers who gradually arrived at the scene after its initial moments all seem to indicate that Sgt. Crowley was maitainting a relatively calm/steady posture whereas Dr. Gates was being belligerent. Granted, we don't know 100% what may or not have sparked the exchange in the intial moments when it was just the two of them, eyewitness accounts of how it unfolded clearly corroborate the idea that Crowley had the cooler head and Gates was being an a-hole.
I can maintain a relatively calm posture after poking you in the eye. It would be understandable if you did not.
I've been a fan of Nate's for a while, but only reading his work excerpted in other sources. It's a cool experience coming to his blog and seeing this, it's a great spot.
Thanks for such a thorough, effective analysis. I agree on most of those points. But I wonder: doesn't the incredible wealth of the anti-healthcare reform interests change the equation a bit? Their ability to flood the airwaves with scaaaarrry ads about the dangerous govmint "experiment" in the interim seems like it could hammer the numbers down given any delay. There don't seem to be the resources to balance that out on the other side.
On a side note, this "Mule Rider" who floods the comments with uninteresting, poorly reasoned rants is a distraction. There are disagreeing commenters who aren't, say, uncomfortably ill-informed. Perhaps a filter that lets us view comments without commenters we find unbearably silly would be a good addition to this blog.
Let's let the adults have a discussion, uninterrupted. I know a thirteen year old who enjoys being a shrill self-important contrarian too...they both have the right to do that, but it doesn't mean I have to indulge them.
Regrettably, the threat of arrest for “disorderly conduct” is increasingly the way police deal with a situation they themselves have fucked up.
Perhaps twenty years ago I was riding home one night about 8 pm from doing my laundry. (This was in pre-Rodney King Los Angeles.) The laundry was neatly folded in a duffel bag that lay across the handlebars and gas tank of my motorcycle. (I had traveled with my laundry that way for 25 years without any problem.) However that night something seemed suspicious to a cop, so he pulled me over, and when he told me why I actually laughed. Not to make a fool of the cop, but simply because it was it was impossible for me to see how a duffel bag filled with laundry could arouse suspicion.
This instilled a less than charitable feeling in the cop, who instructed me to put my hands on the hood of his car. I put them on the fender, the hood being too hot because the engine had been running.
“I said put them there—” the cop pointed to the hood.
“I can’t. It’s too hot. Look, they’re right here on the fender, in plain view. I’m not moving.”
“If you don’t put your hands where I tell you to I am going to arrest you for disorderly conduct. He then unbuttoned the strap which held his pistol in.
“Jeez,” I said. “Put your hands there and you’ll see what I mean. Nobody could keep his hands on metal that hot.”
Of course this was to no avail. The whole purpose of this little exercise was to set up the “disorderly conduct” scenario. The cop radioed for backup, put me in manacles and shoved me in the back of his patrol car. Only after a sergeant arrived was the cop instructed that he had nothing to hold me on, and after an hour in the patrol car I was released. Meanwhile, with fifteen cops swarming the area, my suspicious laundry bag fell to the ground, with no one paying any attention to it.
Do cops have a tough job? They sure do. Are they all bad? By no means. Am I glad they are out there protecting me and putting bad guys away? Yep.
Years and years ago, the charge of “vagrancy” was used by the police to threaten and coerce people, e.g: “If you don’t do such-and-such I’ll run you in for vagrancy.” The Supreme Court finally put a stop to that, but “disorderly conduct” still performs much the same intimidating function. In most instances in which this threat is employed by police, it is probably justified. But I know from personal experience that this is not always the case.
I don’t know what happened in the Gates case. There was probably unnecessary provocation on both sides. Did Gates play the “race card”? Maybe. If so—bad move. Did the cop then pull the “disorderly conduct” card? All sides agree he did. This was an even worse move, because while Gates may have certain rights as a citizen, the cop has extraordinary rights as a peace officer, and is in a position to cause all kinds of unfair mayhem just because he thinks it might be useful.
IMO there will eventually be restrictions placed on the indiscriminate use of “arrest for disorderly conduct” as a threat in circumstances that obviously don’t call for it. Two wrongs don’t make a right.
About Gates -
While it may be *unwise* to be rude to a police officer, it is NOT, nor should it be, a criminal offense. I certainly don't press charges every time someone is rude to me, and I don't think we should put police officers on such pedestals either. The point is - did Gates do anything illegal? Complaining about an arrest and accusing someone of racism are forms of political speech protected by the 1st Amendment. Plus, I think the cop probably was racist. What white person gets hassled by a cop for breaking into his own house? It NEVER happens! The charges were dropped against Gates, and I think that was the right decision.
There is apparently an audio tape of the incident according to the police union. It is embarrassing to Prof Gates and Prez Obama.
As far as BHO goes, this maybe IS his Waterloo.
The so-called man of the people defends arrogant elitist Harvard Professor and insults the police without knowing the facts.
Blue collar folk and law abiding citizens are paying attention - -Obama is a fraud.
Perhaps it was a cop who kicked him in the haid!
Oh, and Pragmatus, thanks for your bearing witness. I was hoping to read the cop went all "Abner Louema" on you, but then, I suspect, you might have enjoyed it too much!
petekent01 (on twitter),
a proud skuller!
PK said
'There is apparently an audio tape of the incident according to the police union. It is embarrassing to Prof Gates and Prez Obama.'
---------------------------
Is the tape going to be released before or after the 'killer' video we were promised last year?
Personally if there were a tape that would make me more skeptical about hte incident rather than less, unless of course thats standard practice in Cambridge, MA, taping arrests??
Mule Rider said...
Wow, this is a new low.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No Mule, that was last year when dubya's job approval reached a low of 22% in some polls.
btw, this thread is re: The Healthcare Timeout is Fine. not Professor Gates.
ie the Reps meme: change the subject, deflection, red herrings, straw men arguments ...
Notwithstanding trolls like you and PK, etc. who are only here because Obama is president and many wing nuts like yourself refuse to grasp reality and are totally discombobulated!, much like limbo, billo, hannity, drudge et al ie obsessed w/losing the election!
btw, rep troll posts are occasionally entertaining, being disingenuously smug in all their hyperbole and nonsensical utterances as your party of sanford, ensign, palin, voinovich, gregg, martinez, craig, vitter, bachmann, blackburn, boehner, cantor slowly implodes/disappears ...
All your passive aggressive tension/bigotry needs an outlet, eh
and posting on a keyboard is sooo detached everyone can create their own false persona's, 'nuf said!
carry on
p.s. am I still on topic? ;)
It may not be illegal to be rude to an officer, but it most certainly is the officer's responsibility to get and maintain control over all parties in a situation for everyone's safety and to minimize the possibility of further escalation. He should not be expected to accept any amount of lip in the execution of his duties. He doesn't have very many clubs in his bag to use in such a situation, so a disorderly conduct threat is wholly appropriate, and if such behavior persists, he must follow through, if for no other reason than to stop further escalation potential in its tracks.
What is shameful is the race-baiting done by an supposedly esteemed member of the Harvard community and the president's knee-jerk racist response. They should be the ones apologizing, and the fact that they won't are eye-opening to many americans. Further, for the president to do a non-apology apology and to send out the White House flak to accuse police of partisanship in the situation compounds the poor judgment.
This isn't going away until both miscreants apologize for their continued poor judgment.
Rudy said...
This isn't going away until both miscreants apologize for their continued poor judgment.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
No, this isn't going away because limbo, billo, hannity, drudge, dobbs et al and far right web sites have to grasp on to anything and everything to deflect away from the fact their Rep party is imploding and becoming totally insignificant after the American voters have thoroughly rejected them in the '06 and '08 elections.
btw, good luck w/that game plan party of No!!!
ciao
ok Mule Rider here is the quote from the article then
'A black police officer who was at Gates' home during the arrest said he fully supports how his white fellow officer handled the situation.
Sgt. Leon Lashley said Gates was probably tired and surprised when Sgt. James Crowley demanded identification from him as officers investigated a report of a burglary. Lashley said Gates' reaction to Crowley was "a little bit stranger than it should have been."
Asked if Gates should have been arrested, Lashley said he supported Crowley "100 percent." '
Now I would be astonished if an officer did not support his fellow policeman. That would be disturbing and shocking. But you characterize Lashley as saying that Gates was out of hand. Lashley says he acted "a little bit stranger than he should have." Thats quite a big difference.
Bottom line, given that he is offering his fellow officer 100% support, as you would expect him to, his tone is somewhat odd I find. Lashley at least, is showing a degree of sympathy with Gates.
Now here is what I find a little strange about all of this. I don't really remember the President injecting race into all of this at all. I can't find a record of what it was that he said in the Presser, but it seems to me that its the right, and the media in general that have pushed the race angle.
At the risk of derailing this comment thread from the "Mule Rider pissing people off and everyone on both sides engaging in a flame-fest over a he-said, he-said event" theme.....
Nate, I don't think enough has happened since a few days ago to warrant changing the argument. Seems like you're trying to see the bright side, here. I'm a fan of Obama and of Obamacare, but I gotta say it looks like he's dropped the ball so far on getting health care done. ("dropping the ball" here meaning "passing it to his rather incompetent teammates Reid and Pelosi", whom I generally think are not good at tactics)
OK just found a transcript of the presser. Here is what President Obama said concerning race
'Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that, 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; and number three, what I think we know separate and apart from this incident is that there is a long history in this country of African Americans and Latinos being stopped by law enforcement disproportionately. That's just a fact.
As you know, Lynn, when I was in the state legislature in Illinois, we worked on a racial profiling bill because there was indisputable evidence that blacks and Hispanics were being stopped disproportionately. And that is a sign, an example of how, you know, race remains a factor in this society. That doesn't lessen the incredible progress that has been made. I am standing here as testimony to the progress that's been made.
And yet the fact of the matter is, is that this still haunts us. And even when there are honest misunderstandings, the fact that blacks and Hispanics are picked up more frequently and oftentime for no cause casts suspicion even when there is good cause. And that's why I think the more that we're working with local law enforcement to improve policing techniques so that we're eliminating potential bias, the safer everybody is going to be. '
Now whats wrong with that? He didn't directly reference the Gates incident, he is simply pointing out that race is still an issue in the US.
Now I would suggest that, as I said in an earlier post, there was probably a level of preconceptions at work on both sides in the Gates case. Race is still an issue in the US. Perhaps all sides need to consider there actions in these sorts of incident. But remember that part of this incident is an innocent man being arrested. Thats never a good thing.
It appears that Sgt. Crowley was initially simply doing his job, i.e. responding to a potential break in, and was not engaged in any sort of racial profiling.
It also appears that professor Gates was surprised by the the intruding officer, uncomfortable about being put on the spot in his own home, and suspicious of the officers motivations (as many minorities are right to be).
While it sounds as though Gates was somewhat verbally combative, it sounds like he provided the officer with the necessary proof of identification. That should have ended it. The officer should have merely apologized for the inconvenience and walked away, even if Gates went off the deep end. If the officer hung around engaging in the verbal back and forth than he was participating in and amplifying the conflict instead of defusing it. If he went to the trouble of calling for back up, and then luring the man out of his house to the porch in order to arrest the old man and teach him a lesson in respect, then I find his actions reprehensible.
Race may have played a distinct role in the animosity and lack of respect exhibited by both men.
However, speaking as a white man, if an officer came into my house under the mistaken assumption that I was engaged in criminal activity, I would likely be less than jovial. If I showed him my I.D. and he did not leave my house and instead continued with some sort of power trip, I would request his badge number (as Gates did) and tell him to get the fuck out of my house before I considered him a home invader. Regardless of the language I used, the officer would have no right whatsoever to arrest me, instead he should be obligated to get off my private property.
Any chance of ever moderating some of the shit out of the comments sections in this joint? I mean, I'm all for giving idiots a chance to shout their shout, but on the other hand, we're all guests here, and I don't just let any random drunk show up at my house, drink my beer to the point of inebriation, help himself to the leftovers, fart me out from in front of my own television and piss down my coat rack, all the while giving voice to whatever happens to be on his mind; sooner or later, it's kind of on me to sock him an uppercut to the jaw and kick his boorish dumb ass to the curb --ya know? Just sayin'.
Right, then: cute little turn at meme-shopping on the "Obamacare" bit, and very nearly clever. Anybody else remember when the Current Occupant, on his way to the nomination, got beat decisively in the primaries in PA and OH --states where he went on to win in November?
Remember who beat him? Fightin' lady by the name of Clinton, who won owing in part to the fact that she had Democratic primary voters in those and other places persuaded that if elected, she'd be in there fighting for them --fighting for shit that matters to people who work their asses off everyday to put food on the table, clothes on their kids' backs and heat in their bedrooms; shit like, uh, affordable healthcare to a reasonable minimum standard.
So any of the resident RNC-paid scribes (nice gig if you can get it and your conscience allows) who would try to deceive you, with the unarticulated premise that the same folks who were baying for healthcare fifteen months ago are now secure in kickass new jobs with great benefits and therefore are balking at their previous notions of what's needed around here, really ought to find a dinnertable in Anywhere, USA to sit down at and do a bit of learning...but then, the truth really isn't supposed to have a place in this argument --now is it.
And P.S.: Webber so totally walked at the other end, but the zebras were so utterly stunned at the sight of it that that none of 'em could manage to blow their whistles. If you don't believe me, then catch it on ESPNClassic during the annual "March Madness" rebroadcast next spring and then try to tell me otherwise --I'm sure I'll be looking for a good laugh right around then.
Rising healthcare costs are on a trajectory that is threatening to bankrupt families, businesses and state and federal governments. The status quo is a path to certain and absolute financial and fiscal ruin in this country.
Yet conservatives have no interest whatsoever in participating in the effort to right the the ship. They scream about deficits, even though most of our current deficits are the result of their polices (i.e. handing out wads of free cash to their pet special interests). When faced with the massive unfunded liabilities in our near future, they would rather sit on their hands, and bellyache in order to gain some perceived political advantage.
Country first? My ass!
Republicans are not hoping for Obama to fail. They are hoping the country will.
Mule Rider said...
Obama Speaks, Dow Listens – and Zooms Upward,
I thought the President had little/no impact on the stock market? That's what we were told when it cratered to the 6,000s recently, at least.
check this video out...
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/7/24/757290/-The-kitchen-sink-brigade
markymark:
The thing that strikes me is what a dumb comment it was politically. From a politician who is supposed to be so brilliant, saying the officers, who have impeccable records, were being stupid while admitting he didn’t have all the facts came across as dumb and unpresidential.
He created a situation where people are taking sides and giving the right something to rally behind. The smart thing to do would have to say, “I don’t have all the facts at this time and I’m not going to comment until I do have the facts.” That would have been the prudent and presidential thing to do.
GROG, I would agree that Obama made a misstep using the word stupid. My point is more that a lot has been made about the race part of the incident, whereas I don't believe that Obama meant to suggest the Gates incident specifically was racism. The right wing part of the media, but the media as a whole, has somewhat overplayed the whole thing I think. I think it was a bit of a political gaffe, in as much as Obama strayed off topic, and called specific policemen 'stupid' or at least said that they acted in a stupid way. But I don't think Obama introduced the race aspect in the way the media is portraying it.
MarkyMark
Reread his comments. Obama brought up race.
This is the qutoe that he should have never said.
"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."
Then why bring up race at all
I hesitate to bring up this next point because the liberal loons will use it.
As a white man I personally have done nothing to African Americans. I don't appreciate the race issue being brought up. This had nothing to do with race. Nobody really know what happened. One important fact the officer was in charge of diversity training for cryin gout loud
Hopefully with the press conference this will blow over and everyone can move on
Pragmatus said...
Regrettably, the threat of arrest for “disorderly conduct” is increasingly the way police deal with a situation they themselves have fucked up.
It's been increasing since the mid-80s and before.
I lived in a ground floor apartment back then. The second floor apartment was occupied by people who didn't know how to walk, but rather they stomped through the place. When we saw them, we would politely ask that they walk a bit quieter, not stomping, as their stomping disturbed us.
One day, after asking them to walk a bit quieter, one of the members of the household started STOMPING from one end of the apartment to the other, back and forth, back and forth. We knocked on their door and asked that the stomping stop. Finally, after enduring the STOMPING for about a half hour, we called the police.
And then we waited. And we waited. Eventually, the STOMPING stopped, and a couple minutes later, we saw the police officer getting back into his car - he had taken a report from the people causing the problem, not the complainant - ME.
I went to the officer's car, asked him if he was here in response to the complaint about noisy neighbors, and he replied that he had spoken to the complainant. I informed him that I was the complainant, and that he had not spoken to me. Just then, one of the upstairs neighbors came to the door and shouted to the officer that I was the one who was making all the noise.
I asked the officer if the report he received from the dispatcher at Central District had the name of the complainant (I was ready to show ID), at which point, instead of responding to the question, he threatened to arrest me if I didn't "back off." When I asked for what reason, he stated "for disorderly conduct" and "interfering with a police officer".
At that time, I started to walk back into the apartment building to hopefully defuse the situation, the officer shouted at me that he had not given me permission to leave, and he could arrest me for that, also. I ignored him, continuing into the building. He drove off at that point.
So yes, the threat of arrest for “disorderly conduct” is increasingly the way police deal with a situation they themselves have fucked up.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Post Script: Within a month, the upstairs neighbors were evicted by the landlord for not paying their rent, so the problem was solved - not in the most satisfactory manner, but solved. And I'm fairly certain that if I had been arrested, the charges would have been dropped (counter suit, anyone?), and/or if it had gone to trial, the officer would not have been able to defend his actions.
Obama's decision to call and praise the officer in the Gates case was his smartest political move in months. Very nice recovery from a needlessly self inflicted wound.
nova,
My point is that Obama didn't speak about the Gates incident in terms of race, specifically at least, although I will concede its implied in some of his comments.
I do agree though that this is an incident that has been talked about plenty now.
"nova_middle_man said...
MarkyMark
Reread his comments. Obama brought up race.
This is the qutoe that he should have never said.
"Now, I don't know, not having been there and not seeing all the facts, what role race played in that."
Then why bring up race at all "
Go look at the question. The questions asked about race. So, he stated he didn't know enough about it to know what role race played in it.
These day in-day out, tit-for-tat, "Gotcha!" battles are getting pretty old.
I know both sides - and the middle - are sometimes guilty of being a homer for their particular corner of the ideological spectrum, but dammit sometimes it seems like the Left - the "open-minded" and liberal thinkers among us, remember - are all too willing to dig their heels in and not concede an inch even when the facts are against them, while it's conservatives/libertarians - especially on something like the Gates-Crowley case - that are more willing to meet on middle ground.
I full well am willing to admit Crowley probably did a couple of things above and beyond what is necessary to assert police control of the situation. But I have not seen anything to convince me in the least that 1) race was a factor in Sgt. Crowley's actions and 2)Gates didn't behave in a deplorable and disrpesctful fashion and his retaliation through verbal abuse was totally uncalled for.
I love how liberals like to skip over key facts to just paint this as a black man accosted in his home by police officers and was unwittingly provoked into anger by the zealous intrusiveness. Mularkey! They skip right over the fact that this was originated by a 9-1-1 call from someone who saw something resembling a break-in, Dr. Gates was very quick to fly into a rage when questioned, Dr. Gates was very unforthcoming with his identification, and he escalated the rhetoric when all other parties (many who had arrived later as the scene was unfolding), including Sgt. Crowley were calm, cool, and collected.
Whatever.
WV: ballsi - I think I'll leave that one alone.
i dont think healthcare is going to pass. i think the public doesnt want it that bad, and the democrats in congress will be wimps.
"andrew worthington said...
i dont think healthcare is going to pass. i think the public doesnt want it that bad, and the democrats in congress will be wimps."
Funny you say that since this gem just came out of leaked internal RNC polling:
"Meanwhile, 58 percent of respondents said that they favored "creating a government run health insurance agency that will compete with private insurance companies," while only 35 percent were opposed."
...just wanted to say that this is one of Nate's best posts since the election. Great interpretation of the situation and food for thought.
As one who has had several first hand experiences with the Cambridge police, I can say with confidence that if a policeman were responding to such a 911 call at my home in Cambridge and I opened the door, the sight of a middle-aged white man would inspire Cambridge's finest to say, "Excuse me sir, we've received a report of some suspicious activities in this area, is everything alright here? Oh, that's good to hear. I'm required to ask you a few questions, and see some identification, I hope you wouldn't mind stepping outside for a moment."
They really ARE that nice here ... to ME. If it is true that Sgt. Crowley began his interaction with Prof. Gates by ordering him (or even asking him) out onto the porch, I'm stunned, and I'm sure the hypersensitive Prof. Gates was outraged. Sgt. Crowley surely doesn't see himself as a racist, but the difference in the way he approached Prof. Gates from the way he would have approached me is subtle but distinct.
My take is that had the policeman approached Prof. Gates with a presumption of innocence rather than by treating him as a suspect, there would have been no confrontation. Had Prof. Gates not been such a hothead, it would have been over in a minute.
But the bottom line is hauling off a slight, 5'7", 58 year old man with a limp in handcuffs for being angry with a police officer really is acting stupidly, although a good politician doesn't put it that way.
Andrew, this is a classic case of lobbying power rather than what people want. I still wonder if those dissaproving of the Presidents handling are concerned that it won't be radical enough! I think a lot of politicians have a lot of health insurance money in their back pocket whilt facing reelection next year against a weak economy.
Mule Rider said...
These day in-day out, tit-for-tat, "Gotcha!" battles are getting pretty old.
Then stop.
Reading the whole of Obama's statements, rather than reading into them, it's pretty clear he isn't just taking a shit on the police department. He's pointing out pretty much what you said in your post.
The use of the word "stupid" is really the only poor choice there IMO. Not because it represents an inaccuracy. It doesn't. But because it leads to even more people shutting off their brains when they see it rather than taking an honest look at what is going on. The assumptions that were made and the chain of reactions that followed from it. The textbook grove this event followed, pushed by hundreds of years of momentum. Yes it's going to take everyone involved to jump out of it. It's going to take everyone calming the fuck down.
That includes you BTW. :P
I'm not really wanting to comment on the Gates thing anymore. But in response to this from Mule Rider
'But I have not seen anything to convince me in the least that 1) race was a factor in Sgt. Crowley's actions and 2)Gates didn't behave in a deplorable and disrpesctful fashion and his retaliation through verbal abuse was totally uncalled for.'
---------------------
And he says that straight after suggesting that maybe liberals are less open minded than conservatives.
I think we have seen plenty of anecdotal evidence in this thread that if a white cop had approached a house in a well off part of town, and found a white man answering the door, there would not have been the same level of animosity (from both sides). Race clearly is a factor therefore. (In fact I wonder if Gates was a white man seen jimmying his door open, the neighbour would have even reported the incident to the police and I wonder if we don't need to have that conversation at some point as well, and whether we need to have a conversation about how America has got to a point where people don't know who lives in there street??)
I think the point that has been gnawing away at my brain, and in someways I think what feeds all of this from a liberal point of view, is that the state (in the form of a police officer) has been overly heavy handed in dealing with an individual (Gates). In other considerations of that issue, the right would be up in arms. But its the kind of heavy handed state opperation that many many Americans face in their everyday lives. Its the real meaning of an over powerful state. And yet many conservatives knee jerkily sided with the cop. I don't know if thats a race thing or if its more complicated than that, BUT its a conversation that is worth having.
A lot of Americans seem to assume that electing Obama has meant that all race issues are cleared up and finished with for good. I think the reality of normal peoples lives is that race is still an important factor in life. Jackie Robinson making it to the MLB didn't change that, the music careers of Louis Armstrong, Stevie Wonder, Michael Jackson didn't change that, Thurgood Marshall or Clarence Thomas ending up on SCOTUS didn't change that, the careers of Colin Powell, Martin Luther King or Henry Louis Gates haven't changed that.
markymark,
It's obvious to me that conservatives see the police as the front-line "troops" to enforce some kind of unwritten social code. Whether it is "uppity Negoes", hippies, mohawk-bearing punks, homeless people, or just people who are doing something out of the ordinary, the police are supposed to 'do something' and hustle these people out of sight; if they happen to beat them in the process, all the better. The police will be strenuously defended for "doing their job".
In the conservative Minneapolis suburb in which I live, people do not stroll about after dark - not from fear of crime, but because it is considered an odd thing to do. When I volunteered to do a survey of the local bat population, I had no idea that being a nocturnal pedestrian was considered a violation of some unwritten social code. Most of the time, however, I am stopped by the local police when I am doing my survey work. My "crime" is that I am "making people nervous" simply by walking down the street after dark. My polite explanations, my bat detector, recorder, and notes mean nothing to the officer, because I am doing something that 'normal' people don't do.
In every case, I am patted down and put in the squad car while "good citizens" gape out of their picture windows at the brave officer eliminating the threat of the obviously dangerous pedestrian. I am then driven home and released, much like a lost pet.
There have been times when I objected because I hadn't made a recording yet. After all, I am not doing anything illegal or even remotely wrong. In those cases, the officer's hand drifts to his stick and it is suggested that I do not "turn this into an arrest situation". It does not require a great deal of imagination to picture the fictional narrative the officer would employ to justify beating me and placing me in a cell until morning. Instead, a sham "arrest" is carried out for show purposes, the officer reports they are "Code Four with The Batman", and 'normalcy' returns.
Of course the Reptards who supported little shrub, and especially those who supported (and still support) Cheney, will defend heavy-handed state intervention.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/25/us/25detain.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=Cheney&st=cse
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
@Todd Dugdale:
I was angered by your story about the cops interfering with your bat population research. The police are being totally dim-witted about your activities.
Then, two ideas struck me. (1) What group did you volunteer to with to perform these bat studies? If that group contacted the police and explained your activities, would it make any difference? (2) What if, before you set out on your bat observing jaunts, you contacted the police department and gave them a heads-up about where you would be that evening and what your are doing? From your description, unfortunately, it seems that the police have already made up their mind about you, so the second point might not be effective at this late date.
I know that, ideally, these sorts of actions shouldn't be necessary. But you have bat studies to conduct, so you need to find the most effective strategy to carry them out.
Good luck!
The Dow is around 9,000 for the moment, but I don't expect it to stay there. I would not be at all surprised to see the Dow crash again in September, to a point well below where it went last year, but for pretty much the same reasons, as the ARM and CRE mortgage markets tank bank capitalization again.
In that case, this delay on health insurance reform will look even more stupid.
Does Penn have an open primary? I would hope that most Republicans flood the Democratic primary and vote for the weaker candidate, Spector. I have more confidence Toomey could take Spector, who no one really likes. What do you say, Keystone State Republicans??
Meaningful health care, er I mean health 'insurance' reform will fail this year. Why? A vast majority of Americans are 'content' with their existing coverage and will not vote for a baffling, possibly more expensive, unknown alternative. Period. All this conjecture is meaningless.
Democrats, back in late 2007/early 2008 should have been smart and elected a moderate liberal candidate, i.e., Bayh or Warner. That would have sealed the deal for the Democrats for multiple decades. Instead, foolishlessly, they went for a callow one-term hyper-liberal. Americans are revolting against his policies now. Not a big suprise. One termer, no doubt.
John Thune will take him.
polls_apart wrote:
"(1) What group did you volunteer to with to perform these bat studies? If that group contacted the police and explained your activities, would it make any difference?
My findings go to the local university and state naturalists. Basically, they take my work and claim credit for it.
The police are often as frustrated with the situation as I am. Several times they have brought in a two-man squad when 'good citizens' reported me as armed, a 'gang member', or even multiple persons, only to find it's "The Batman".
Every officer on the force knows that I am doing nothing wrong, but they also know what the 'good citizens' expect: that I be taken away. It would be nice if they would inform the complainants that I have a legitimate reason to be out, but they also have an interest in having 'suspicious activity' reported.
And that is the crucial point here. People (stupid people) see the police as the enforcers of an unwritten social code, and the police have a script that must be followed. While it is humiliating to be repeatedly "arrested", the worst part is knowing that the idiots who reported me congratulate themselves for a "job well done".
Walker said...
Does Penn have an open primary?
From the June 16, 2009 edition of the Pocono Record:
Proposed law would end Pennsylvania's closed primaries.
All it took for me to find that headline was less than one minute on Google, using the search criteria 'Pennsylvania election primaries open'. The headline above was the 5th entry on the page.
You might try expending a little bit of such effort on your own in the future.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
Well now just a couple days past this post even the aggregate polls like pollster.com have BHO below 53. In fact, the slope of the disapprove has been pretty remarkable. Add that the Rasmussen "passion" index is now at -11, perhaps this changes some of the assumptions? Pretty much everyone I know voted for BHO and most are expressing outright or guarded buyers remorse. It's early, but folks are concerned.
iwantmypartyback.org
Iwantmypartyback.org said...
Well now just a couple days past this post even the aggregate polls like pollster.com have BHO below 53.
I just checked pollster.com. When you knock out the IVR-Automated Phone data and the Internet data (the subsets that SHOULD reflect higher support for Obama), the Pollster.com aggregate shows that President Obama's approval is at 55.4% and his disapproval is at 38.3%. Knocking out the non-human telephone interview polling takes 7 organization's polling out of the mix, but leaves 28 polls.
What is that old saying? Oh yeah, FACTS have a liberal bias.
And something else I've noticed is that TROLLs have a habit of making claims, but not backing them up with any credible citations and/or evidence.
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
From the conservative side stalling the HC debate to the fall is crucial. Not to give away tactics, but to get HC put off until fall is a tactical victory for the right. First, opposition to HC has been vocal, nonpartisan, and heated in town hall meetings. I can tell you votes in the house among blue dogs are changing to no. As far as we can see we have almost universal opposition from the GOP following the debacle encountered after climate change support and the Senators that voted for the stimulus (spendulus) package. Just a few centrist Democrats and the measure will be defeated. The longer we can stall the vote, the more opposition will be mounted.
Even a yes vote in the house however is not the end of the world for the right. Passage in the Senate is not likely since the vote probably will not come until late in the fall or more likely next spring. The election will be too close and many senators will see how the governors races in Va. and NJ come out. The GOP is leading in the polls at this point.
Looking forward to 2010 with HC looming, we see a repeat of 1994 or even worse for the left. Bring on the leftest agenda in a center-right country and see the results at the polls. It is a mistake for the Democrats to think (as the Republicans did in 1994) that the country wants radical change. The country wanted relief from George Bush who could not determine if he was a conservative or a Progressive. The country did not vote for a radical left agenda, they wanted relief from a fence straddler. The president successfully concealed his true left leaning agenda during the campaign. Now that the bloom is off the rose, the country does not like what is being revealed.
Lmack49 said...
I can tell you votes in the house among blue dogs are changing to no.
You can tell us, but can you back up that statement?
A little thing called PROOF?
Credible citations also would help your cause.
Lack of evidence from you means that you concede that you made a false statement.
Oh, and Lmack49, I see that you just created your Blogger ID. Whose sockpuppet are you? PK? NMM? The rider of a horse/donkey cross?
Mike in Maryland
My Blogger ID is http://www.blogger.com/profile/02848893412251095965
I Received $400,000 to my LR account in 24 hours from Libertyreserveinvesting.com for my $10,000 deposit
Security-Investment is a High Yield Investment Program run by a group of investment professionals, We are backed up by Forex market trading, Financial market betting, Sports arbitrage wagers and various other investments in online and
offline funds. We are well diversified to provide our members with very safe return of 1000%-9000% after 24 hours You can think of this as a longterm secure investment pool.
As you know, many programs out there promise extremely high daily returns which are virtually impossible to live up to. We don't make any ridiculous claims, we simply provide program with a lucrative returns. Interest will be paid daily
at up to 5%-10% flat rate until payout period is reached. We realize that there are no guarantees in this market, however, we feel that our strategy of diversification and risk management will allow us to provide you consistent returns
well into the foreseeable future. In the future, we will design another plan for your long term investment as your diversification option in one place, in here.
Our program is a fully automated; meaning referral payouts, deposits, withdraws made automatic. Interest payouts are scheduled to be done one time during day, and will be made directly to your Liberty Reserve account.. Payments will be
made 7 days per week.
Invested amount 24 hours profit
$300 - $1000 1000% of your spend after 24 hours
$1100 - $5000 2000% of your spend after 24 hours
$5100 - $10000 4000% of your spend after 24 hours
$10100 - $30000 6000% of your spend after 24 hours
$30100 or more 9000% of your spend after 24 hours
If you are looking for secure offshore investing with guaranteed returns, join Security-Investment and you will see that we are the investment company for you. If you are looking for secure offshore investing with guaranteed returns,
join Security-Investment and you will see that we are the investment company for you.
Payment proof
Date: 2009-08-07 17:18
Batch: 182352XX
From Account: U6526268
Amount: $400000.00
Memo: libertyreserveinvesting.com
Do You want to earn $400,000 serious profit instant? Just deposit $10,000 in following site
http://www.libertyreserveinvesting.com/?8522105
http://www.libertyreserveinvesting.com/?8522105
Mail to me if you made a deposit use my referral link.I will return 15% of your spend instant.100% guaranteed money back.
MY email:cypkucjiox@gmail.com
HYIP monitor hyip programs monitoring high yield income program paying paid, HYIP hyip programs monitor, hyip monitoring, best hyip, paying hyip
http://www.makecurrencyonline.com
Make millions liberty reserve and perfectmoney in paying hyips fastest Real Investment
http://www.payinghyiponline.com
Make $50k libertyreserve money daily on forex trading
http://www.libertyreserveforex.net
Read news about hyips.make money fast and easy
http://libertyreserve-investment-hyip.blogspot.com/
More news about paying hyips
http://groups.google.com/group/make1milliondaily
Post Your AD on 1000+ Forums
The Best HYIP Rating. The Fairest High Yield Investment Programs Monitoring Service
http://www.yahoomsngroup.com/
Make money from hyips with no risk,only paying hyips recommended
HYIP(High Yield Investment Program) is a investment program that anyone can join online and deposit fund, in return the member will earn high interest in short period of time. There are tons of HYIPs on the Internet and most of them are closely monitored by HYIP rating sites and HYIP forums.
You can find HYIPs from those HYIP rating and monitor sites. makecurrencyonline.com
and hyipfunding.com are the best hyip rating and monitor sites. They provide a long list of HYIPs with latest comments, rating and payment status on each HYIP. If you plan to join HYIPs, invest only the amount you afford to lose because your principle and profit aren’t guaranteed. Also you will need an Liberty reserve a/c to deposit fund and receive interest & return. What is the Liberty Reserve?
http://libertyreserve-investment-hyip.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-is-liberty-reserve.html
Below are steps that can help you get started to invest in HYIP:
Step 1
Open an Liberty reserve a/c at http://www.libertyreserve.com You will find detailed
instructions on how to fund your Liberty reserve a/c from libertyreserve.com
Step 2
Visit makecurrencyonline.com and hyipfunding.com and find the HYIPs that interest you. Read the comments and ratings of each HYIP to make sure they are paying to members before you deposit fund to the HYIPs programs you selected. To lower your risk you must diversify your investments into several HYIPs (you may start off with HYIPs).
Step 3
Just waiting your payment from your deposited hyips. If a HYIP's website down, there could be 2 possiblility:
1) They are experiencing technical, IT problems or security issues which wil be back online later usually.
2) They have closed down and you lose money or you still earn some money overall.
Again high return means high risk. So only invest the amount you afford to lose.
Buy/sell liberty reserve,we recommed the following exchange sites
http://ebuygold.com/
If you are interested in make money on hyips,We Recommed some good sites for you
Read news about hyips.make money fast and easy
http://libertyreserve-investment-hyip.blogspot.com/
Make millions liberty reserve and perfectmoney in paying hyips fastest Real Investment
http://www.payinghyiponline.com
Make $50k libertyreserve money daily on forex trading
http://www.libertyreserveforex.net
Our HYIP rating list has the most reliable and trusted HYIPs.
http://www.makecurrencyonline.com
HYIP Monitoring & HYIP Rating. Best HYIP Monitor Help your Investment Grow!
http://www.hyipfunding.com
Post Your AD on 1000+ Forums
http://www.yahoomsngroup.com/
Post a Comment