If I Was Sergeant Crowley . . .

I would have refused President Obama’s invitation to have a beer at the White House.

Why?


Because I don’t want to be a pawn in Obama’s publicity stunt. Let’s be clear: this is an opportunity for Obama to save face. Regardless whether you think Crowley acted “stupidly,” or whether Gates acted irrationally, most people in the media and general public agree that the President of the United States has no business commenting on a small, local, and largely immaterial police arrest.

Yet he did, and it backfired, and now Obama feels the need to break bread with both sides in this dispute and massage egos in order to rehabilitate his own image. I would rather let Obama make a fool of himself on his own and keep it from rubbing off on me.

Because Obama clearly has more important things to do. This country is falling deeper into a recession. Jobs are evaporating. North Korea is firing missiles. Iran is building a nuclear weapon. We still have those two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dollar continues to lose value. Deficit spending is out of control. We still don’t have a plan for finding alternative sources of energy. And Obama has the time to have a beer at the White House with two private citizens? Is he not as worried as we are about where the country is heading?

Because I don’t want to be a distraction. The President and the country have a lot on their plate. I have no problem going on my merry way and allowing Obama the opportunity to do his job. I also would rather not be part of the 24-hour news cycle for an extra couple of days. I don’t mind my 15 minutes of fame, but 10-15 days of it is a little too much.

Because I am not going to apologize to Professor Gates. The esteemed professor expects that I am going to apologize to him at the White House. I will never apologize for doing my job. Nor will I allow some insulated Harvard professor lecture me about how to perform it.

Finally, because I don’t think Obama truly likes beer. He is an elitist who has lived a charmed life and had everything spoon-fed to him. I am a blue-collar, hard-working police officer. I have worked for everything I’ve earned. If I want a beer, I’ll go buy one. Moreover, if I want to drink beer with someone, I’ll go throw a few back with my buddies in Cambridge, not some “hope and change” Messiah who thinks he can change the world simply by showing up. People like Obama and his Ivy League circle of friends drink triple mocha lattes and wine, not beer. Why should I help Obama pretend that he’s one of us when he’s not?

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. President.

Posted by Robert M. Fojo at July 30, 2009 2:14 PM
Comments
Comment #285319

Robert,
In March, Obama was critized for enjoying a beer at a public event, a basketball game. Why would you think he doesn’t like beer?

What makes you think Obama has lived a charmed life? He grew up without a father. His mother died. His grandparents raised him. He had no money. He earned what he achieved the hard way. He did this at Columbia, and then Harvard. It doesn’t get much harder. When others accepted six figure salaries, he opted to go back to Chicago and be a Community Organizer for very little money. Your criticisms are way off base. His circle of friends come from Chicago, not Ivy League schools. If he has rose to the top, it is because he earned it about as much as anyone can earn that sort of thing.

I thought the offer to have a beer with the officer and that other fellow was gracious. All three of them committed missteps. Everyone, including Obama, would agree Obama should not have opened his mouth about the arrest. Having made a mistake, he is doing the best he can to make it better.

It’s a far cry from the conservative method of dealing with these situations. Instead of pursuing a relentless character assassination, he is attempting to be conciliatory. Why on earth would anyone oppose that?

Posted by: phx8 at July 30, 2009 3:26 PM
Comment #285324

You are certainly correct when you write that there are many pressing issues that Obama needs to deal with, nationally and internationally.

What I find interesting is that no mention of the “Birthers” are mentioned in your blog.

I find the Birther faction to be far more negative as well as distracting and frankly, loony.

At least Obama is attempting to do something positive, whether you consider it a distraction or not.

JGUY

Posted by: JAGUY at July 30, 2009 3:50 PM
Comment #285328

What is the point of this post? Just to hate on Obama?No facts just opinion. not much to debate here.

Posted by: Paul at July 30, 2009 4:17 PM
Comment #285329

This kind of myopic rhetoric which rejects facts, reality, and the pertinent, in order to maintain ideological gut level views, has become typical of right wing supporters, and partly why, politically, they are now marginalized to the minority party.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2009 4:18 PM
Comment #285330

“People like Obama and his Ivy League circle of friends drink triple mocha lattes and wine, not beer. “

You are seriously underestimating the importance of beer comsumption in Chicago. I must rise to the defense of beer drinkers here. We were hoping the beer selected would be Goose Island, although I would prefer Sieben’s which would have to be a special batch, or Bakalar would be good for an import, rather than supporting the swill sold by InBev.

You are entirely wrong about the lattes, and although wine is sometimes considered one of the four food groups, nothing will ever replace the importance of BEER, even in East Chicago, D.C.

Posted by: ohrealy at July 30, 2009 4:51 PM
Comment #285332

Republican and conservative supporters would fare so much better, I think, in sticking to their common sensical roots, fiscal responsibility, family values, law and order, and national defense and security. These are the topics which the American people have in common with the conservatives and GOP generally.

But, I guess all this other clap trap is what comes of creating a big tent party which includes the likes of entertainers such as Rush and Beck, Palin and Malkin (inside entertainers). The Left has their share as well like Kucinich (insider) and Bill Maher, but, they don’t seem to promote and rely on their fringes like the conservative outlets do these days.

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #285333

I love when people refer to “beer” as a low class beverage. Sorry, the crap you see on commercials is swill, but good beer rivals any wine, any day of the week.

I love how Republicans aligned themselves with “beer” as if that makes them “one of the boys”. How shallow can a group of people be to think that what you drink defines who you ware? Oh wait…

Posted by: Mike Falino at July 30, 2009 5:04 PM
Comment #285334

Nor here in Texas, ohrealy. Yes, really! :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 30, 2009 5:05 PM
Comment #285335

“….he is attempting to be conciliatory. Why on earth would anyone oppose that?”

Good question.

Posted by: Rich at July 30, 2009 5:31 PM
Comment #285337

Portland Oregon is also known as ‘beervana.’ More microbreweries per capita than any other city in the nation.
“… Good beer rivals any wine, any day of the week.” Amen!

Posted by: phx8 at July 30, 2009 5:33 PM
Comment #285340

If I were Crowley?

I would be very careful. This isn’t a race issue. It’s not about racial profiling. Racial profiling of course is a part of our world, but this wasn’t a case in racial profiling.

I probably wouldn’t say much. Anything he says has the danger of being in Prof Gate’s book on profiling. There is no way he can know his words will not be twisted. Gates simply has too big of an agenda. The last thing I would want to be is Gate’s prop for his agenda.

So I would be open to talk about anything exept race. If Professor Gates invited me to a lecture, I would invite him to the Police academy to hear one of mine.

I would be kind and composed. I might explain procedures and training if asked. Pretty limited input really.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at July 30, 2009 5:46 PM
Comment #285342

I would LOVE to have a beer with the president at the White House!

Posted by: Doug Langworthy at July 30, 2009 6:20 PM
Comment #285347

Doug
Me to, but I prefer the NON ALCOHOL type.

Posted by: KAP at July 30, 2009 7:17 PM
Comment #285352

David, I assume you are talking about Shiner!

Although, I must confess to having the occasional yen for Corona with a Lime, which I learned to drink in Dallas. I do feel a bit yuppie-ish in Houston, though, so I drink that concoction quietly.

Posted by: gergle at July 30, 2009 8:37 PM
Comment #285360

Robert,

I’m one of those ivy-league guys that you talk about, and I can assure you that beer was the beverage of choice on campus. I do have to admit that I like wine a bit more now, but still love a beer on a hot summer’s day.

As to the main premise, I believe that like most American’s, the officer regardless of political leanings, would still think it an honor to receive such a request. I know that despite my conservative leanings, I would still relish such a request even if such an unforunate malestrom was what caused it to be given.

Posted by: Rob at July 30, 2009 10:01 PM
Comment #285366

Robert,
Are you saying that you would not comment about an event that onvolved your friend? Or if asked about it would you deny that you even knew the man?

No, President Obama did not jump into the Creek of Stupidly with the two genetlemen by commenting on the event without all the facts; however, as he admitted there was a better chioce of words that he could have used.

And why David Remer and other Lawyers will have to explain to you why Officer Crawley fell into the Creek of Stupidly since it is a legal matter. Having a beer instead of wine in America noadays is almost as common as having a shot of wiskey was in the days of our ancestors.

Now, if the President asked the two men to the Whitehouse to have a spot of tea and cake than I would agree that any Red Blooded American should refuse on Principle!!!

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at July 31, 2009 1:11 AM
Comment #285374

I assume that the President has a busy schedule, but an adjustable one. Having a beer with two folks involved in a national controversy is not a bad way of dealing with things.

It does save face, but there are many ways of saving face, and this allows everybody to save face. It shows everybody, Obama, Crowley, and Gates to be mature adults who can sit down together and talk things out. It doesn’t depend on divisive slander or efforts on the part of one group or another, nor does anybody have to win to see the benefit of their chosen position.

It’s the people who tried to exploit a divisive issue like this who ultimately come out looking a little silly.

Crowley made the right move. So did Gates. So did Obama.

Question is, are conservatives (or Liberals) who try and exploit this issue to raise up anger and resentment now going to come out looking like anything more than overzealous demagogues?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2009 9:53 AM
Comment #285375

Elitist?

Robert said: “I don’t think Obama truly likes beer” and “I am a blue-collar” and “if I want to drink beer with someone, I’ll go throw a few back with my buddies” and “People like Obama and his Ivy League circle of friends drink triple mocha lattes and wine, not beer” and “Why should I help Obama pretend that he’s one of us”

Kettle meet pot.

Posted by: RMD at July 31, 2009 10:06 AM
Comment #285379

gergle, had a Shiner Bock just the other night. Yum! Guess that would make me a racist in some circles, eh? Selecting a dark instead of a light beer :-)

Posted by: David R. Remer at July 31, 2009 11:20 AM
Comment #285384
Because I don’t want to be a pawn in Obama’s publicity stunt.

What does that have to do with what Mr. Crowley wants? Maybe he does see the same opportunity that Obama sees: to mend fences.

Yet he did, and it backfired, and now Obama feels the need to break bread with both sides in this dispute and massage egos in order to rehabilitate his own image. I would rather let Obama make a fool of himself on his own and keep it from rubbing off on me.

So, what should Obama have done, slime the police officer, make a bigger controversy out of Gates’s arrest. Yet, instead, he offers to bring all sides to the table, literally.

In effect, what you’re saying is that Crowley shouldn’t help Obama make peace between the parties in this situation, because somehow, it’s for the best that tensions remain high, so that the President ends up with egg on his face.

But if he did allow that to happen, I’ll tell you what would end up happening in turn: more controversy of the Department, and not in its favor. I know the GOP has made a sacrament out of controversy, out of picking fights and reopening old wounds for political benefit, but most people tend to want to reduce the trouble they’re confronted with. An Crowley is a cop, and keeping the peace and keeping situations from going out of control are things cops should be doing. Escalating problems that don’t have to be escalated doesn’t contribute well to that.

Because Obama clearly has more important things to do. This country is falling deeper into a recession. Jobs are evaporating. North Korea is firing missiles. Iran is building a nuclear weapon. We still have those two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. The dollar continues to lose value. Deficit spending is out of control…

Yes, yes, we’ve heard this all before… from people in your party saying he’s doing too much. So, somehow when he does take a break, he’s not doing enough! It must be very convenient to get somebody coming and going on an argument, and not have to settle for a position.

Because I don’t want to be a distraction.

No, it would not be a distraction for somebody to refuse the invitation of the president.

It would be news.

Way to go, not drawing attention to yourself.

Because I am not going to apologize to Professor Gates. The esteemed professor expects that I am going to apologize to him at the White House. I will never apologize for doing my job. Nor will I allow some insulated Harvard professor lecture me about how to perform it.

You have absolutely no idea what Crowley and Gates have said to each other. But here’s what Gates had to say:

We hit it off right from the beginning. When he’s not arresting you, Sergeant Crowley is a really likable guy.

And if you think that’s just part of the publicity stunt, the word is, The three of them are having lunch later.

Finally, because I don’t think Obama truly likes beer. He is an elitist who has lived a charmed life and had everything spoon-fed to him. I am a blue-collar, hard-working police officer. I have worked for everything I’ve earned. If I want a beer, I’ll go buy one. Moreover, if I want to drink beer with someone, I’ll go throw a few back with my buddies in Cambridge, not some “hope and change” Messiah who thinks he can change the world simply by showing up. People like Obama and his Ivy League circle of friends drink triple mocha lattes and wine, not beer. Why should I help Obama pretend that he’s one of us when he’s not?

Thanks, but no thanks, Mr. President.

Obama doesn’t like Beer? How the hell do you know? I know one of my own friend drinks coffee, AND drinks beers. And I don’t think he’s opposed to wine, either!

For the record, Obama has not live a charmed life. He’s the product of a broken home, who barely knew his real father. He was mixed race, and suffered racial discrimination. He’s overcome drug abuse, and overcome significant resistance to the idea he could ever be president, simply because of the color of his skin.

He has also excelled, graduating close to the top of his class at law schools that don’t give out degrees on the back of cereal boxes.

As for being an elitist? That’s not a charge most people buy. 65% of Americans believe he shares their priorities, according to a New York Times Poll, carried out nationwide.

Lastly, I got a question for you, and I’ll understand if you don’t answer it: what do you really do for a living? I know that you’ve taken on the role of a Blue Collar cop for the sake of argument, but what role do you play in real life?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at July 31, 2009 12:46 PM
Comment #285391

So your comments about our “spiralling” economy are a bit late at this point aren’t they? Every major news group, website, corner store, and watercooler conversation is geared towards the fact that we are obviously pulling up from this recession. Honestly many companies are posting quarterly profits right now rather than losses, including the iconic Ford Motors (which didn’t even ask for any monetary help).

And you would refuse an offer from the White House? The man is trying to make amends for mis-spoken words.

I personally feel that if the police ask me for ID I immediately hand it over, because well, they’re the cops. So yes, Gate made a big mistake in that regard, but thats off topic.

This write-up is typical of what I’ve seen on the Republican third of the page, we’re spewing nothing but mindless, uncorroborated tripe… and I’m a registered Republican and it embarasses me. Maybe we could, just for once not be argumentative just for arguments sake?

Re-read your entire diatribe Robert, and tell me it doesn’t sound needlessly agressive….

Posted by: Edward Brancato at July 31, 2009 3:16 PM
Comment #285392
Honestly many companies are posting quarterly profits right now rather than losses, including the iconic Ford Motors (which didn’t even ask for any monetary help).

Not that I’ve seen… So we won’t need that second stimulus then that the Democrats in congress are pushing for?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 31, 2009 3:31 PM
Comment #285416

Rhinehold,
You might want to put on hold the idea of a second stimulus; however, with the cash for clunkers program getting off to such a fast start I do believe Congress may have to push up the dates on many of their projects. For just imagine if they were smart enough to do the same thing with personal wind mills?

And yes, I do believe the consumer who only buys a car that increases their mpg by 10 should be taken around the corner and EDUCATED. Nevertheless, the idea of paying $11,880 a year for gas verses paying over $29,000.00 for the same miles driven (12,000) while putting Americans back to work for only $4,500.00 investment has to go down on the books as being on of the smartest things Congress has done in my lifetime.

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at July 31, 2009 8:48 PM
Comment #285429

Do we have any numbers on how much of that taxpayer money went to non-US automobiles? How much of it went out of the country?

Posted by: Rhinehold at July 31, 2009 10:59 PM
Comment #285443

Rhinehold,
Beside the Detoirt Bad Boys getting a share of the money. What about the other Auto Makers here in America who don’t provide their employees health insurance getting their fair share?

Now, lets see the Right Wing Nuts try to say defend sending money to their Head Quarters oversea while costing the American Taxpayer more money. Since I wonder how many Auto Workers other than the Detroit Bad Boys are going to get their Health Insurance paid for out of the profits from the sales.

Buy American? Absolutly; however, be a Smart Consumer and purchase a new car that cannot only save you money in fuel savings, but insist that the profits from such sales goes to providing health insurance for the Americans building them.

Otherwise, all you are doing is lining the pockets of the CEO’s and top management. Are you not? For how much does a Stockholder get out of this deal?

Posted by: Henry Schlatman at August 1, 2009 7:41 AM
Comment #285476

Why should tax dollars be going to buy cars?

Wonder what our forefathers would have thought of tax dollars being used to buy cars?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: banned at August 1, 2009 6:11 PM
Comment #285479
Stephen Daugherty wrote: Lastly, I got a question for you, and I’ll understand if you don’t answer it: what do you really do for a living? I know that you’ve taken on the role of a Blue Collar cop for the sake of argument, but what role do you play in real life?
All that was necessary was to see Fojo’s link. Part of it states:
    Robert intends (1) to lend his own voice to this extensive reconstruction and (2) when conservatism regains its preferred status, help sustain it. Robert’s ideal platform for rebuilding the conservative movement rests on the following ideas: 1) Reduce taxes and/or establish a 17% flat tax. 2) Close the border. 3) Open the continental shelf and Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. 4) Privatize social security. 5) Move towards a more privatized health care system with health savings accounts. 6) Give parents school vouchers. 7) Abandon any and all government programs related to global warming. 8) Emphasize the appointment of originalist and textualist judges to the federal courts. 9) Strengthen the dollar. 10) Preserve American sovereignty. Robert thinks conservatives and Republicans need to emphasize that conservative ideas (not liberal ones) are universal and effective. Conservatism works every time it’s tried, and the majority of American voters support it. Robert believes we have to go back to those roots and build upon Ronald Reagan’s legacy.
That 17% flat income tax makes a lot of sense.

But, what’s the point?
Haven’t ya’ll heard?
The recession is over?

At any rate, the voters have the government that the voters elect (and re-elect, and re-elect, and re-elect , … , at least until that finally becomes too painful).

Posted by: banned at August 1, 2009 6:30 PM
Comment #285488

Rhinehold-
What, would you want to restrict customers from making free market choices?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at August 1, 2009 10:10 PM
Post a comment