Your analysis includes two assumptions that have everything to do with ideology and nothing to do with the facts of the case. The first is that Gates must have been in the wrong, if not because he is black and "unconservative," then at least because Obama came out in support of him. Whatever Obama says must be opposed, so it is important to establish that Obama was wrong and made an embarassment of himself for commenting on the issue. Your second assumption is that anybody in a position of authority is always right and must be shown deference. Thus, you either cannot understand the significance of the fact that the 911 caller has publicly contradicted Crowley's police report, or the contradiction must immediately be marginalized.

Now we know there was no mention in the 911 call that the alleged intruders were black. If there was also no mention of that fact during Crowley's short conversation with the caller on the scene (now this is where it gets tough, because you have to conceive that Crowley was mistaken or EVEN deceitful in his report), then there is no reason for Crowley to assume that Gates was an intruder apart from the initial call (and it must be mentioned that the caller was clear that she was not sure a crime was even being committed), since Gates was apparently visible inside the house when Crowley arrived, and did not resemble a burglar in appearance or behavior. As a reasonable, non-racist dude, at this point Crowley might have considered treating Gates as a resident and not an intruder, even if the caller had said the intruders were black. In any event, there are only a few reasons for Crowley to treat Gates like a criminal. One possibility is that Crowley, like many cops, treats every civilian he runs across like a criminal. Alternatively, Crowley may have had previous run-ins with slight, bespectacled, middle-aged polo shirt-wearing dangerous hardened criminals. Another possibility is that Crowley treated Gates like a criminal because he was a black man in a nice house in a nice part of Cambridge. That is apparently how Gates perceived the situation. Now, I am willing to concede that Gates might have been wrong about that, and that his response to the perceived persecution might have been impolite and stupid. But that does not mean that Crowley was justified to arrest Gates on his porch. Pretty much every person who has commented on the case agrees on that. The fact that Crowley purposefully put Gates in a position where he could arrest him ("If you want to speak about this further you have to come out to the porch," or some such nonsense) makes his behavior even worse.

So Crowley's behavior is not worthy of defending, unless you think we must be extra-deferential to everyone with a badge and a gun (not including DEA agenst coming to take away your guns, of course) because they are the only ones who can keep us safe from the bad guys, just like Bush and Cheney did for eight glorious years (starting 09/12/2001).

And the fact that other cops would rally to Crowley's defense means nothing. Anybody with any knowledge of the criminal justice system knows that cops close ranks with the best of them.

Well, that's my presumption. Here's why.

Suppose Crowley knocked on the door and said:

"Excuse me, sir, I am responding to a report of a break-in at this address. The 911 caller said she wasn't sure there was a crime, but she saw two people struggling with the door. I just need to make sure you live here."

Or something to that effect. If that's how it happened, then nobody could possibly have taken offense. But anybody who has been questioned by a cop knows it doesn't go like that. Crowley might have not explicitly called Gates scum or an intruder or anything like that, but obviously something about his tone and approach put Gates on the defensive. I've already said Gates probably overreacted, but obviously he was reacting to something. And even if Crowley was a perfect gentleman and Gates was irrationally tilting at racial windmills, the more important point is that the subsequent arrest was poor police work. Stupid, even.

"There are a lot of us from the South who hold those values, which I think the party is supposed to be about. We strayed from them in the past few years, and that's why we performed so badly in the national elections."

Well at least Vitter is taking some personal reponsibility. If he hadn't "strayed from" those values with the D.C. hookers, I'm sure the Republicans would have that permanent majority they worked so hard for.

Our resident Republican fellow (not that there's anything wrong with that, shoot me if I ever identify as a Democrat) hopes and prays that Gates comes out of this looking like a major asshole, but is not dishonest enough or dumb enough to claim that Crowley had a legitimate right to arrest Gates on his porch. There isn't any intelligent debate on that point: Gates was not a threat or even a legitimate disturbance. So we have two guys, and we can be pretty sure that one or both of them was acting like an asshole. But one guy certainly broke no law (yelling at the cops is protected by the First Amendment you love so much), and the other guy arrested him anyways. And our law and order-loving republican friend hopes the guys who was wrongfully arrested comes off looking like an asshole.

As to whether cops frequently put people on the defensive by being aggressive and generally assholic, I assure you that I'm not the only person who has arrived at that conclusion.