President Obama's learning curve.
As I observed the uproar building over the neighborhood watch murder of Trayvon Martin, the Sanford, Florida teenager fatally shot by a 911 caller who found him “suspicious,” I found myself hoping against hope that President Obama could muster the restraint—restraint that he has too often failed to exercise in the past—to stay out of a local law enforcement matter that is far from resolved. Presidents are not talk-show hosts, and their comments carry excessive power and influence. Picking and choosing among the myriad Americans who suffer misfortune, tragedy and injustice to render support and sympathy is a fool’s game, and an irresponsible act by a national leader. President Obama is no fool, but in this area his flat learning curve has been shocking. He injected himself into the Cambridge police’s altercation with a cranky law professor before he knew all the facts; he rendered a verdict on a coal mine cave-in before fault had been established; he injected himself into a local controversy over the location of a mosque, and he even entered the dispute over Rush Limbaugh’s insults to a law student. Every one of these abuses of his office and influence attracted appropriate criticism (though not nearly enough of it) and caused other problems as well. I thought that maybe…maybe…the President finally might have figured out what virtually every other President understood by the time he had been inaugurated.
Nope!
He couldn’t do it. Although on Tuesday, spokesman Jay Carney said that “obviously, we’re not going to wade into a local law-enforcement matter,” Obama had to stick his Presidential nose into this sensitive and raw issue that is already being polluted by the exploitive likes of Al Sharpton. Responding to a journalist’s question in the Rose Garden, Obama said:
“I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this. All of us have to do some soul searching to figure out how does something like this happens. Obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. When I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. You know, if I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves and we are going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.”
What does he think he’s doing? Teens, children and adults are murdered every day, many of them right where Obama lives, in Washington, D.C. Aren’t all of the violent deaths “tragedies”? Why is this one, and only this one, worthy of specific presidential attention? Is it because black leaders called for the President to overstep his proper role? Who cares what activists call on the President to do—certainly he shouldn’t. Does this now justify their calls for retribution and violence, or validate high school students who are staging walk-outs to protest law enforcement officials investigating a case before they make any arrest? (Are high school students now empowered to dictate law enforcement policy? Suspend every single one of them.)
What earthly difference does it make what Trayvon looked like, who his death makes the President think about, or whether he looked like the son Obama never had? So what? What if he looked like my son? Not good enough? When a white, Hispanic or Asian kid in a hoodie is shot by some gun-wielding hysteric, can those parents also count on a statement of concern by Obama? What if they are just run down by a drunk driver, or killed by being left in an over-heated car? Not tragic enough? Doesn’t strike the same chord of of “seriousness”? Or will these tragic deaths not be viewed as sufficiently important to the President’s “base” in an election year? Do you think these questions are unfair? Who laid the groundwork for them?
Misusing his office and prestige in such matters simultaneously diminishes the presidency and warps its function. The position has always included the role of Mourner-in-Chief, at times of genuine national tragedies, such as the Twin Tower bombings, the Challenger disaster, and Pearl Harbor. Cheapening this solemn function by intervening in local crimes and contentious race-charged controversies accomplishes nothing positive: it is divisive, intrusive, and dangerous.
Apparently, President Obama is either incapable of learning this, or doesn’t care.
Ethics Alarms 
It won’t be the first and won’t be the last that the U.S. government has said something about or entered into personal affairs. In recent memory there was the two incidents with the Terri Schiavo controversy and the Elian Gonzalez affair.
What? Bush did NOT get into the Schiavo mess (Jeb Bush did, So did Frist….and they were out of line) I followed that one very closely. As for Elian, Clinton commented on the diplomatic and legal resolution after the fact…which was appropriate, because it was an international dispute.
The fact that it’s “not the last” is irrelevant to whether Obama’s breach was right (it wasn’t) and he has done this kind of thing more than all the other presidents in my lifetime combined.
I have to disagree with you on the Shiavo mess. President Bush signed the Palm Sunday Compromise into law. The senate didn’t even vote on the bill. I remember distinctly that President Bush was involved and even flew to Washington to sign the bill. That law was wrong on so many grounds. It only pertained to one person. Where does it say in the constitution that the president is responsible for apologizing for what happens overseas but he shouldn’t say anything on a national level. This is another event that the president could save lives. The situation is a “powder keg”. The white community hasn’t come forward and said that Trayvon was in the wrong walking through a neighborhood. The GOP candidates have answered questions on the matter. Has any other president ever been asked of their opinion on national current events? Certain people in the government have gotten involved the recent controversies in major league baseball and professional football. Most of it on cheating. Nothing even close to life and death situations or vital to national security. Why the government gets involved in these situations is a waste on my money!
You are irritating me. I did not write about signing bills, or supporting bills, or not vetoing bills, even stupid, ideological, grand-standing over-reaching bills that Congress never should have passed. Bush didn’t veto ANY bills, but none of that has a smidgeon of relevance to THIS President making gratuitous public commentary about local matters involving private citizens, which was the topic of the post, the only topic of the post, and the only issue I care to discuss following the post.
I told you that Bush never made such a comment about Schiavo, and that is true. [UPDATE: No, it wasn’t true. Barry Deutsch found Bush’s release obliquely criticizing the Florida judge who ordered the feeding tube removed. Like Obama, Bush was over-stepping his proper role. It doens’t make what Obama did any less outrageous. I’m sorry for the error. I did search to find a Bush statement on Schiavo. Barry is obviously a better Googler, and I’m greateful.]You can’t “disagree” and then write what you did. You might as well be injecting the Tebow trade into the discussion, because neither is in the least germane. Presidents sign bills…it is in their job description. They may not do it wisely, but it is not an abuse of power and an unwarranted expansion of their legitimate influence. What Obama did IS. Finding other examples of Presidents who did foolish things is not responsive. Millard Fillmore cleaned his ears with knitting needles. Interesting, but no support for Obama.
Christ.
Jack, I understand why you are irritated…..but a president signing a bill is a statement of his beliefs. Beliefs of what he feels best for this nation. Mr. Obama made a personal statement. His statement in no way indicted Mr. Zimmerman. He said it was a tragedy. No different than the tragedy in Arizona. To treat one human being different than another (just because a congresswoman is involved) is ludicrous. He was asked a question. He answered it. He didn’t make a statement freely without being asked. I just don’t see how making this statement is an abuse of power. You used the name Christ. Christ made statements similar to Mr.Obama’s. He is the king of kings. He didn’t hold an official office, but he made statements that millions adhere to. Mr Obama is human, not God thank goodness. The mayor gave the chief in florida a vote of no confidence. To me that is a statement that he doesn’t think the chief is doing his job correctly. Obama didn’t use his presidency to get involved in the situation. This situation is “nuts” because of the media. It isn’t the President’s fault. I think a president better sign a bill using more logic than when offering a personal statement. I think it is unfair that you can use history in your arguments and I can’t. Isn’t history, facts and precedent involved in making judgements? Even in ethics? I am not trolling. I am not trying to piss you off. I am just commenting on your blog.
President’s Statement on Terri Schiavo, March 17, 2005.
Thanks, Barry. I couldn’t find this anywhere yesterday, and I didn’t remember it. This came after Judge George Greer ordered Terri’s feeding tube to be removed on March 18.
If I had been aware of it, I would have criticized it. I can see the national issue argument, but this was in the courts, and Bush had no business criticizing a state court decision.
It woould have been helpful if Michael had cited this, rather than the bill Bush signed. Of course, it still doesn’t excuse Obama
I think Obama’s statement was pitch-perfect, and totally ethical. It’s the leader’s role to give meaning to national tragedy. This killing is different because of its aftermath, if not because of it’s [suspected] motivation and because of it’s non-aftermath.
In retrospect I think he was right to comment on the gates brouhaha and wrong to back away from his first comment, that the police acted stupidly. they did.
Gotta agree with Ethics Bob here. The presence of race warlords like Al Sharpton is unfortunate, and the exploitation of this story by various interests is appalling.
But whether we like it or not, this HAS become a national story. Obama’s comments today were surprisingly even-handed and neutral. The only other time I’ve heard him speak that… well, that PRESIDENTIALLY, was his speech after Rep. Giffords was shot (though he blew it then by not telling the cheering section that their applause was inappropriate).
Mind you, I don’t trust the sumbitch half as far as I could throw a grand piano, but I’ll give credit where due. Whether sincere or brilliantly written and delivered, Obama’s comments were on point and uncharacteristically non-confrontational.
Which we had an edit function here. DISAGREE with Ethics Bob on the Gates thing. In that case, Obama acted stupidly.
1. On Gates—they did not, and whether they did or not, it was none of the President’s bees wax. So every President gets to second-guess local law-enforcement calls?
2. Aftermath my foot. So regardless of the facts, law, and results of investigations, the President can just inject himself any time race is involved? Why? And where does POTUS get the right to shoot off his mouth based on “suspected” anything…before an arrest, before a trial, before facts??
3. WHAT “national tragedy”? It’s a local and personal tragedy.. How, exactly, is it national? Why wasn’t James Byrd and Matthew Shepard ” national”? Sharon Tate? O.J.?
I’m sorry—it’s indefensible. You don’t really need to understand the limits of Presidential power, but I expect the guy holding the office to.
Jack, I’m confused. On your third point, I’m with you all the way through the first three sentences. But those examples you gave—all of them were huge stories played out in the national media. If you are saying that they shouldn’t have been, I’m with you there, too. Huge coverage inevitably brings with it a things like hysteria, overreaction, and the pollution of justice. Or are you saying that the sitting president didn’t interject himself into any of those cases? You’ve a point, there (though there was a contretemps when Nixon declared that Manson was guilty, during his trial, something that raised the possibility of a mistrial—backing your overarching point about POTUS’es staying out of these things). Anyway, please clarify.
Obama shouldn’t have injected himself into any of those cases. The fact that they were big media circuses should have been irrelevant. They aren’t within the President’s purview or legitimate influence.
Nixon on Manson and, even worse, Bush I on Rodney King were similar outrageous examples of over-stepping. I’ll give any President one to learn with. Obama does this over and over.
Why didn’t Obama publicly sympathize with Natalie Holloway’s family? Or the dozens of black kids filled by guns wielded by African Americans? They were good kids too. Is publicity all it takes to let POTUS start giving his two sense, and coloring the issue as a result?
Most issues I write about don’t make me angry. This one does.
If nothing else, the President’s comments might calm the community in Florida. Basically what he did was reinforce what the authorities have already (belatedly) begun to do: investigate the incident, look inward and ask ourselves what we can do to prevent it from happening again. Of course he can’t comment on every child’s murder, but this is taking on national significance and the involvement of the Department of Justice. He has a responsibility to comment in a way that will calm the waters, and, like Bob, I think he accomplished that. I did not like his comments after the Gates incident, but this time I thought he was right on target.
Calm it?? How does he know? It could just as easily inflame it. It’s-none-of-his-business!! He’s not a king. He’s not Oprah.
This is a persistant abuse of power, and I resent it.
How is this under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice? No federal interests were implicated.
My opinion on this matter, is that it should be investigated by state authorities, and Zimmerman should be treated exactly as a police officer who did the exact same thing, no matter what it was, would have been. No more, no less.
“How is this under the jurisdiction of the Department of Justice? No federal interests were implicated.”
Recent news releases and comments have alleged that the shooter (assumed at this point to be Zimmerman) might have uttered a “racial slur” that was caught on the tape. This appears to be the handle that the feds are grasping: calling the event racially motivated and thus a civil rights case.
Remember that Rodney King’s problems came at the hands of the local law enforcement (LAPD) and when the state jury did not produce the verdict that was desired, a civil rights actions was constructed and the police were federally prosecuted after the acquittal by the state. The DOJ will find a way when they want one.
I hope by saying that Zimmerman should be investigated as a police officer, you mean by the same process and intensity, not as an employee or agent of the police. He may be, but I don’t recall anyone discussing, yet, the nature of the relationship of the “home alert” group and the actual department.
Having been “up close and personal” in more than one of these situations, I know what should happen: The weapon is collected and tested; the shooter is interviewed intensely, physical evidence is collected and witnesses are interviewed. The insufficient response of the police at the very beginning is going to haunt them for a long time to come.
He should be held to a no greater standard than a police officer would.
I have heard of cases (e.g. Pedro Navarro-Oregon) where cops did things (such as shooting people while looking for drugs sans warrant while dressed in blue) that would have landed you or me in death row, had we done those exact things.
I don’t see how what the president said was really wrong. President Lincoln sent troops to Minnesota to quell the Sioux Uprising. With the army hanging about 40. That looks like an unnecessary police act. Of course I wouldn’t know if imperialism is ethical. Anyway, the president didn’t abuse power. He made a personal statement.
I’m sure all the conservatives who are currently aghast that Obama has commented on a local murder, were just as aghast when President Bush commented about an Amish school shooting in 2006 on his weekly radio address. (Unlke Obama, Bush wasn’t responding to a press question in the radio address; he brought it up himself.)
Where is it written that a President is not allowed to comment on a nationwide news story if it concerns local events? Could you please quote that part of the Constitution, because I don’t remember that being described as one of the limits on the executive.
Because this is the one that the President was asked about at the press conference.
I have no doubt that if the reporter had asked him about a different murdered child, Obama would have also called that death a tragedy and said something mournful and stoic. It would be the world’s worst politician who would respond to being asked about a dead child by saying “no comment” and nothing else, and you don’t get to be President by being the world’s worst politician.
(Unsurprisingly, Mitt Romney also commented on the case, calling it a tragedy and calling for a full investigation. For the record, I consider that a perfectly appropriate thing for him to have said.)
No, and no.
Who are these “black leaders” who have called for violence? Please name names. The only example I could find is Mikhail Muhummud, “the southern regional director for the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense located in Jacksonville, Florida,” who passed around a “wanted: dead or alive” poster of Zimmerman, an act that a local Black leader (Pastor Paul Wright) immediately criticized.
Muhummud is more accurately described as a local crank than a Black leader; I’m not aware of any Black leaders of national stature who have called for violence. Are you? Because your post sure makes it sound as if there are a bunch of Black leaders who A) Obama is aware of, and B) are calling for violent retribution. And I very much doubt you can back up that claim with any facts at all.
Assuming the shooter was not a cop, they can count on the local police to investigate the matter seriously, to test the shooter for drugs or alcohol, and to interrogate him as if a crime had been committed.
It’s because Florida police chose not to do that, that this has become a national controversy, to the point that the President is being asked about it in press conferences. If there had been a serious investigation into Martin’s death, then neither you, me or Obama would ever have heard of the case. You’re being very naive if you think the police would have been nearly as likely to treat the shooting of a unarmed white teenager in his own community with so little interest.
No one in the world expects that by commenting on a single case that’s making national headlines, when a reporter asked him about it, Obama has committed himself to a personal comment on each and every child murder that takes place in the USA. (No more than Bill Clinton, when he commented on the murder of three year old Stephanie Kuhen, was obligated to comment on every other tragic child death that happened after Kuhen’s.)
I will bet you $200, however, that if anytime in the rest of his term, Obama is asked at a press comference about another child death that makes nationwide headlines, he will express his sadness at it and call it a tragedy, regardless of the child’s race.
I have to say that seeing so many intelligent people rationalize the latest of Obama’s incursions into local affairs leaves me stunned. This could only be fairly called a national episode if
–whites and Hispanics were hunting young blacks as a routine sport
–neighborhood watch programs were revealed as a racist plot
–no other young people were being killed anywhere in the country.
–America’s police departments allow kids to be routinely murdered without redress
None of this is true, of course. Four young teens were just killed in DC in a high speed collision. That’s a tragedy. Why is the Florida shooting a greater one?
The White House initially said that the President would not be making any comment, because this was a local law enforcement issue. Then he did.
Why?
1. Because black activists were calling for it, and
2. Somebody in the campaign organization thought this was a way to pander to gun opponents and African-Americans.
Those are lousy, irresponsible, cynical, divisive, opportunistic reasons…and I do believe those are the reaqsons..that, and this President’s poor judgment.
By personalizing the victim and attaching his prestige to him, he has interfered with the decision whether to charge the shooter. If the shooter stands trial, it will be for the false crime of shooting the President’s “son.” Outrageous. How can you justify this?
In 1991, white construction worker Reginald Denny was beaten nearly to death by blacks in the Rodney King riots. It was premeditated attempted murder. If President George H.W. Bush had said that this was a tragedy, and that Denny was like a son to him, you know what that would have been called? Racist. Taking sides against African Americans. And, as with the Trayvon Martib case, the President would have been throwing his influence where it absolutely doesn’t belong.
You are supporting the President because you agree with his sentiment—well, for the most part, so do I. But it is a grossly inappropriate sentiment for the Presdent to express, and, frankly, I don’t understand why that isn’t obvious.
Look, Jack, I think most of us would agree that the Obama admin has a dismal track record on racially-tinged news items – the Gates affair and the DOJ’s refusal to do anything with voter intimidation come to mind.
I’ve seen nothing to suggest that the White House was quietly fanning the flames behind this one and setting up Obama for this statement. The story became a huge one on its own (fanned by the media and vile opportunists who always scuttle out from under the fridge when something they can exploit happens – specifically, Farrakhan, Jackson and Sharpton).
As Barry points out, Obama didn’t bring this up. He was asked about it. Yes, it would have been better if he’d stuck to his guns and said “local matter – let’s let justice play out.” I think that’s an unrealistic expecatoin of ANY politician. Given what we’ve seen of him, though, I think we can be somewhat grateful; his comments were remarkably measured – even blase under the circumstances, and he didn’t give the howling masses much to parse.
I can’t wait to see this guy leave the White House for the last time in early January, 2013. This event will not be one of the reasons why.
“I think that’s an unrealistic expectation of ANY politician” What? Arthur, the guy is president of the United States, and his words carry power and influence. If he says “I like Peter Pan Peanut Butter,” sales go through the roof. It’s unrealistic to expect the holder of immense power to use that power responsibly and fairly? Nonsense. Obama refuses to answer questions from the press all the time. Ethics Alarm: 1. “I shouldn’t talk about local matters in the hands of local officials.” 2. “I said I was going to be a president of all the people, not a president of black citizens first.” 3. “It is irresponsible to suggest that the act of one hysterical man misusing a bad and over-broad law has greater national significance that a tragic, isolated incident.” 4. Personalizing it by comparing the victim to my son can prevent a fair trial for the accused.”
The guys is supposed to be brilliant (I see little evidence of that) and he can’t figure these things out???
It’s not that he can’t figure these things out — it’s that thoughtful people, speaking in good faith, can disagree with what Jack Marshall thinks.
Obama began his statement by acknowledging the very issues you’re talking about (pointing out that there’s an ongoing investigation): but he fell on the side of “I need to be cautious in what I say” (and he was), not on the side of “the only acceptable comment is no comment.” That’s not a ridiculous idea that no responsible person could believe; it is, in fact, the effective position of the last three Presidents in a row.
That you’re so incapable of understanding that your position is not the only legitimate position is a limitation in your thinking; it is not, however, proof that your position is correct.
This case didn’t become nationwide news because George Zimmerman shot Trayvon Martin. It became nationwide news because, despite the clear and obvious reasons to believe that Trayvon’s shooting was not self-defense, the police declined to seriously investigate the death seriously. Without the police inaction, this case would never have made headlines outside of Florida.
As it is, however, many Americans (correctly, imo) recognize that this case is part of a nationwide pattern of police mistreatment of young black men, and of some police acting as if young black men are inherently dangerous criminals. That is a matter of national interest.
Even if race wasn’t part of this case, by the way, it would still have national implications. “Stand Your Ground” laws exist in many states, not just Florida, and it’s advocates have said their strategy is to get SYG laws passed nationwide. How is that not a national issue?
I admit to being unusually adamant that Obama and his defenders don’t have a leg to stand on, so your intro is fair. But I still believe that.
There was only one way to be “cautious”—not saying anything. If a president says that one death is a tragedy worthy of his comment, that suggests that other deaths are less worthy when he says nothing. The “son” and “looks” content were biasing to the matter and racially provocative. Again: tell me how what the kid looks like has to do with the tragedy?
“It became nationwide news because, despite the clear and obvious reasons to believe that Trayvon’s shooting was not self-defense”
Probable, but not settled, and therefore not something a President has any business commenting on!
“The police declined to seriously investigate the death seriously. Without the police inaction, this case would never have made headlines outside of Florida.”
Obama, and the President, does not have an open brief to second-guess local law enforcement officials.
“As it is, however, many Americans (correctly, imo) recognize that this case is part of a nationwide pattern of police mistreatment of young black men, and of some police acting as if young black men are inherently dangerous criminals. That is a matter of national interest.”
Oh, really? So is Obama impugning ALL police departments? Some? Which one? What do you mean, “a nationwide pattern”? How many? This is not settled by any means, and conformation bias runs rampant. So it’s the PRESIDENT’S proper role to cast a shadow of distrust over all law enforcement? If that’s not what he’s doing, what IS he doing?
“Stand Your Ground” laws exist in many states, not just Florida, and its advocates have said their strategy is to get SYG laws passed nationwide. How is that not a national issue?
Obama didn’t say a thing about “Stand your ground” laws, nor is it his role to take pot shots at local laws and try to influence state legislators. When it’s up for national legislation, if it ever is, then he has a legitimate role. “It’s advocates say their strategy…”…come on. All it takes is for a few law and order nuts to say they want to let everyone shoot people on the street to open the door for Obama to comment on a local crime? That’s a stretch!
The “son” and “looks” content were biasing to the matter and racially provocative. Again: tell me how what the kid looks like has to do with the tragedy?
I didn’t see how his race had anything to do with his statement. I’m white and I might have said the same thing. It wasn’t only his physical appearance. It was that he was young, a good kid, and supposedly a good student when he made it to school on time who happened to be black. Mr. Obama was raised by a white woman who had white parents. I could see him saying the same thing if the kid was white.
You’ve got to be kidding.
If a president says that one death is a tragedy worthy of his comment, that suggests that other deaths are less worthy when he says nothing.
I don’t see it that way. He didn’t volunteer his opinion; he was specifically asked about this specific case. He was not asked about others.
The “son” and “looks” content were biasing to the matter and racially provocative. Again: tell me how what the kid looks like has to do with the tragedy?
I agree it was potentially biasing – but on the other hand, the comments were clearly off the cuff (you can usually tell when Obama is working from a script – and he likely wasn’t, though it’s likely that his preppers alerted him to the chance that the question would be asked). People don’t always answer perfectly in interview situations. Let’s also consider that It is inescapable that Obama is the first black president, and brings that perspective to the role, for better or worse. Has his admin used race divisively on occasion? Without a doubt. But I don’t see it in this case.
Would it have been preferable if he’d said something even MORE circumspect? I’d say so. But given the arrogance, narcissism and unethical conduct of his administration, I’m struck by the fact that he could easily have said something FAR more provocative, divisive and incindiary, and he didn’t.
Be grateful for small favors.
If the President answers a question, he is volunteering the opinion. Obama, in fact, rarely answers questions in settings like yesterday’s. Questions can also be planted. I find the “he was asked” argument justification very unpersuasive.
Jack, for what it’s worth, I agree with you. Presidents need to stay out of these things. It would probably be better for Florida’s system of justice if the rest of the country didn’t stick its collective nose into this matter but, for better or worse, we’re stuck with that now. We’re stuck with what the President has done, as well, but he really, really should have known better. But, alas, no. If justice turns out to have been ill-served after this case has played out. Obama will be partly to blame.
Thanks for the convergence.
People tend to look at this by concluding “the President was right in what he said.” Sure he was, more or less. Why is it so hard to see that right or wrong, when you’re President, there are some things you don’t have the liberty to opine on if you intend to be fair and responsible?
Jack:
1) You’ve claimed that black leaders have called for violence in this case. I don’t think that claim is true. Please back up that claim with facts or withdraw it. (I know it was not your main claim in your post. Falsehoods are wrong even when they’re not your main point.)
2) No one has used the phrase “national episode” on this thread other than you, as far as I can tell. I said that it’s a national news story, and it is.
3) The “principal” you’re relying on is one that does not exist. Bill Clinton commented on a child murder case when it became a national news story. George Bush commented on a child murder case when it became a national I strongly suspect earlier presidents did the same. (And in both those cases, the President just commented without prompting; they weren’t responding to a question at a press conference.) There is not now, and never has been, a generally held principal that the President must never comment on child murders that become national news.
4) Attacking someone for alleged secret hidden motives, rather than basing your arguments in facts or logic, is a sure sign of someone who is desperately trying to prop up a weak argument.
5. You wrote:
That’s just an obviously false claim. If Zimmerman stands trial, he will be charged with shooting the person he shot. No one — not a single person in the entire world — thought the President was literally saying that Trayvon Martin is his son. You literally could not find twelve jurors who believe that Trayvon is Barack Obama’s son.
The weakness of your case is jaw-dropping. You really don’t have a single fact-based, rational argument to offer.
Certainly, if Obama said “obviously George Zimmerman is guilty, and any jury member should vote for his guilt,” that would be wrong. But his statements fall far, far short of that.
1. Well, without looking very far, we have Louis Farrakhan’s tweet: “Where there is no justice, there will be no peace. Soon the law of retaliation may very well be applied.” I think that’s a threat of violence. If you want to quibble that it’s not exactly a “call”, I’ll yield the point.
2. “Episode” vs. “news story.” You’ll have to enlighten me about why you think the distinction is so significant.
3. I am articulating no child murder principle, but rather a no presidential comment at all when it places pressure on local officials, interferes with law enforcement, and otherwise focuses Presidential power and influence outside the appropriate limitations of the office. It is arrogant and presumptuous. “The nation’s hearts go out to the victims” is fine and appropriate, as in a school shooting. That just states the obvious. “This is especially troubling because the victims look like ME.” Really???
4. Oh, you’re right; there have been no signs of Obama calibrating every word and policy move toward the election. A complete fantasy on my part.
5. You are denying the obvious. He connected the victim to the President of the United States, specifically and intentionally. I assume you don’t take me literally that the crime on the docket will be “shooting Obama’s imaginary son.” He framed the victim in the minds of all jurors who heard his words. That connection enhances the heinousness of the perceived crime. Why do it at all, Barry?
It is utter arrogance.
I, too, agree with your statements, Jack, and for the reasons you’ve given. Interestingly, so does Newt Gingrich! I just posted his remarks on my Facebook page a little while ago.
Ugh. I saw that Newt echoed one of my objections. Didn’t make me happy at all.
Just great minds thinking alike, Jack!!
Okay. I’ve Newted you enough for one day!
I wish I could keep these personal icons straight on WordPress.
If I wrote a blog, and that happened, it would ruin my whole day.
BTW, Jack, I noticed that you put an etch-a-sketch with Romney’s picture in your border mosaic!
LOL! Nice!
It’s staying there, too, until, at very least, Romney fires that idiot. It’s nice someone notices the graphics.
Remember, I’m a trained investigator, Jack. I miss little! Too bad you have to repeat the pattern several times.
Great article, Jack. Has President Obama handed Mr. Zimmerman’s defense the gift of a mistrial?
Good question. It is certainly unfair—and pre-judging— to anyone facing arrest in an encounter like this to have the President personally identify with the person that was killed
I want to add a couple of additional points:
1) If this was the first example of President Obama playing Community Organizer in Chief, I’d let it go. As many have pointed out, most of his predecessors have strayed into unwary and unwise commentary that risked undue taint by presidential influence; the point is that only Obama has made a habit of it. He’ directly criticized the Supreme Court; he’s criticized state legislation (and characterized it; local police, private companies, talk-show hosts.(more than one), and Fox News. I said it was unseemly, using the bully pulpit to bully, and an abuse of power from the first example (the Gates Affair).
2) Now, according to some reports, there is evidence that Zimmerman was attacked. I don’t know if this is true, but the point is, neither does Obama, and yet he’s already weighed in that Martin was an unequivocal victim. What if, after all, the police had valid reasons not to arrest Zimmerman? Obama’s comments puts political pressure where none belongs.
3) If it turns out that Obama’s assumptions were wrong, that doesn’t make his comments more irresponsible—they were irresponsible because his assumptions COULD have been wrong, and because the event was still being sorted out.
3) The defenders of the President seem eager to ignore that fact that the White House’s original statement was to say that commenting was “of course” inappropriate. That was correct. What changed? “He was asked a question” is a disingenuous excuse. Obama either can’t help himself, or it was a political calculation..Neither explanation is especially encouraging.
1) – Agree with all points.
2) Agree that there are news reports indicating Zimmerman was attacked. It would not surprise me if this were the case (not that those exploiting the case will cease doing so because there may in fact be evidence that Zimmerman was indeed acting in self defense. Which said, you go on to state as follows:
I don’t know if this is true, but the point is, neither does Obama, and yet he’s already weighed in that Martin was an unequivocal victim.
Here is the full text of what Obama said:
Well, I’m the head of the executive branch, and the attorney general reports to me, so I’ve got to be careful about my statements to make sure that we’re not impairing any investigation that’s taking place right now.
But obviously, this is a tragedy. I can only imagine what these parents are going through. And when I think about this boy, I think about my own kids. And I think every parent in America should be able to understand why it is absolutely imperative that we investigate every aspect of this, and that everybody pulls together — federal, state and local — to figure out exactly how this tragedy happened.
So I’m glad that not only is the Justice Department looking into it, I understand now that the governor of the state of Florida has formed a task force to investigate what’s taking place. I think all of us have to do some soul-searching to figure out how does something like this happen. And that means that examine the laws and the context for what happened, as well as the specifics of the incident.
But my main message is to the parents of Trayvon Martin. If I had a son, he’d look like Trayvon. And I think they are right to expect that all of us as Americans are going to take this with the seriousness it deserves, and that we’re going to get to the bottom of exactly what happened.
Where, in any of that, does it say that Travyon was an unequivocal victim? If you see any such language, please point it out.
3) “He was asked the question” is a direct response to questions of why he didn’t comment on other tragedies.
P.S. – I can’t believe I find myself in a position where I’m actually defending the @$$hole.
The only assumptions in which the President would or could justify commenting at all, as well as calling it a tragedy, is that Martin, a boy that could be the President’s son, was the victim. He mentions the law, and how a thing “like this”—that is, a young, good boy intending no wrong can be dead because of gunfire—could happen. “Soul searching” means that we have to confront racism and the irresponsibility of allowing people to own guns that lets tragedies like this happen.
I think most accusations of “code” from politicians are unfair, but this was code. “There was an injustice here and a good boy is dead, he’s an African_American, and we all know what that means; his parents are afraid this will all be covered up by bigoted police, and I understand, but we’re going to see that justice is done—that the guy who killed Martin is arrested and brought to justice.”
Answer me this: IF Trayvon attacked Zimmerman and was shot in self-defense, would President Obama be calling it a tragedy in public? It would still be one, but we generally don’t beat our chests when a mugger is shot, no matter how young he is. The fact of the President’s statement and that he would make it slants the facts.
I’ll be shocked, from what I know, if Obama’s assumptions aren’t correct, by the way. As president, however, he should not be speaking based on assumptions, or about a local matter at all. I can—nobody gives a damn what I say.
Jack, Obama’s statement leaves wide open the possibility that the kid was at fault. He merely says that it’s a tragedy, that he feels for the parents – one CAN, you know, feel sorry for the parents of people who do terrible things.
And as to He mentions the law, and how a thing “like this”—that is, a young, good boy intending no wrong can be dead because of gunfire—could happen. “Soul searching” means that we have to confront racism and the irresponsibility of allowing people to own guns that lets tragedies like this happen – you’re reading something into his words that they don’t show on their face.
Arthur, when the New Black Panthers are putting out wanted posters on Zimmerman, and Spike Lee is tweeting his address, anything short of saying—“I want to urge everyone to avoid a rush to judgement in this event, and to withhold any conclusions, anger or action until all the facts are known” is going with the flow, and the flow—you know this—was “white bigot with gun kills innocent black kid.” Obama, as he always does, rode the wave.
That, Jack, is the first good argument you’ve made in this thread.
I do think he was sincere. But I’ve never thought he was particularly well informed.
“First good argument”??? You “agreed on all points” on #1 above, which was just a summary of THE argument behind the original post. “SHOULDN’T DO THIS! SHOULD HAVE LEARNED THIS AFTER 3 YEARS!”
Why are you agreeing with bad arguments?
Because NONE of your points in point 1 were relevant to this case.
I agree it would have been nice if Obama had thrown a flag on the exploitation, but in fairness some of the more egregious examples appear to have occurred AFTER his statement.
Huh? I quote:
“1) If this was the first example of President Obama playing Community Organizer in Chief, I’d let it go. As many have pointed out, most of his predecessors have strayed into unwary and unwise commentary that risked undue taint by presidential influence; the point is that only Obama has made a habit of it. He directly criticized the Supreme Court; he’s criticized state legislation (and characterized it; local police, private companies, talk-show hosts.(more than one), and Fox News. I said it was unseemly, using the bully pulpit to bully, and an abuse of power from the first example (the Gates Affair).”
What’s not relevant? It’s the same irresponsible, presumptuous over-reach, every time. All that changes is the subject matter. It’s NOT a national issue, his opinion is NOT necessary, but disrupting; it interferes with other officials trying to do their jobs; unfairly slants public opinion, and either misrepresents the facts (as in Citizens United and the Arizona illegal immigration law—“buying my kids ice cream…”) or makes judgments before he knows them all.
” Presidents are not talk-show hosts, and their comments carry excessive power and influence.”
Obama may very well be our first ‘talk show host’ President. I frequently find myself puzzled by the issues he picks to stick his nose into, like the phone call he made to Sandra Fluke to ‘offer support’ after she was insulted by Limbaugh. The leader of the free world calling an activist because she was insulted by a talk show host? Really? Maybe it’s the fact that he sticks his nose in at all is what I find troubling.
I have come to believe, with sadness and disappointment, that he really thinks that’s being President. It’s something he feels he can do comfortably, while so much of the rest of his job continues to be beyond him. The irony is that opining on how other people do their jobs and responsibilities is not part of being President, and does tangible harm.
And, as always, thanks for the dose of sanity.