Romney Unnecessarily Criticized For ‘Tar Baby’ Remark
Political correctness gone too far? Yeah, I think so.
Prominent black Bay Staters are outraged by Gov. Mitt Romney’s use of the words “tar baby” to describe the Big Dig as he stumped for presidential points in Iowa.
“Tar baby is a totally inappropriate phrase in the 21st century. If Calvin Coolidge didn’t use it, why the hell should Mitt Romney?” railed Larry Jones, a black Republican and civil rights activist.
Tar baby can refer to a sticky mess, but it also has been recognized as an epithet to humiliate black people. President Bush’s spokesman Tony Snow learned that in May when his expression, “I don’t want to hug the tar baby of trying to comment on the program,” raised the hackles of political correctness.
“He thinks he’s presidential timber,” Jones said yesterday of Romney, “but all he’s shown us is arrogance.”
Romney, who made the remark while addressing a couple hundred Republicans at a picnic in Ames, Iowa, on Saturday, offered an apology yesterday through the Herald and his spokesman, Eric Fernstrom.
“The governor was describing a sticky situation,” Fernstrom explained. “He was unaware that some people find the term objectionable and he’s sorry if anyone’s offended.”
When asked about the potential political millstone that is the Big Dig, Romney told Iowans, “The best thing for me to do politically is stay away from the Big Dig – just get as far away from that tar baby as I possibly can.”
David Deyoe, Iowa’s Story County Republican chairman, said he heard some “chuckles” in the audience, but believes Romney “was basically just trying to make it clear to everyone it (the Big Dig) was something he wanted to get away from. Clearly, that’s what he meant.”
Situations like this remind me of a scene from the ‘Seinfeld’ TV show, the Cigar Store Indian episode, after Jerry gets into a bit a kerfuffle when he gives Elaine a cigar store Indian as a gift in front of woman he wants to go out with, who is Native American. This scene occurs after he goes to apologize to this woman and they decide to go out to a Szechuan restaurant, and Jerry asks a mailman, who happens to be Chinese, and the mailman flies off the handle, accusing Jerry of asking him because he is Chinese. Of course, the Native American woman balks.
JERRY: You know, I don’t get it. Not allowed to ask a Chinese person where the Chinese restaurant is! I mean, aren’t we all getting a little too sensitive? I mean, someone asks me which way’s Israel, I don’t fly off the handle.
GEORGE: So, anyway, what’s uh, what’s the status with, uh…
JERRY: Ah, she kinda calmed down. I talked to her today. In fact I’m gonna see her tonight.
GEORGE: Oh, great.
JERRY: Yeah, but I’m a little uncomfortable. I’m afraid of making another mistake.
GEORGE: Aw c’mon.
We are living in a society where harmless phrases or questions, like “tar baby” (which I’d be willing to bet 90% of the people that read this article were not aware of it’s literary reference), or a radio talk show host calling Matt Amorello a “fag” meaning “sissy boy”, or asking a mailman, who happened to be Chinese, where a Chinese restaurant is.
If there was only equal outrage over the not so obscure racist remarks made by Democrats, like former Klansman Senator Robert Byrd, or Senator Joe Biden, or Senator Hillary Clinton; or how about the Democrats’ treatment of MAryland Lt. Governor Michael Steele, the Republican candidate for U.S. Senate, who has been refered to as an “Uncle Tom” and has endured the indignity of having Oreos thrown at him during a campaign appearance, or Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice being called “brown sugar” in a Doonesbury cartoon, or how about the countless other examples of racism courtesy of the Democrats. I could go on, and on, and on, and on…
Let’s also consider the fact that both the Boston Globe and the Boston Herald have used the term “tar baby” in their articles before without demands for apology from so-called civil rights leaders.
Like this example, where the Globe refers to the Iraq War as a “tar baby”:
As for the indispensable nation, far from standing astride the world, the United States, hemorrhaging red ink, is today desperately seeking breathing space to reconstitute itself. Iraq was conceived as a short war, producing a quick victory. Instead, it has become a tar-baby that has left the mystique of the American military establishment in tatters… [emphasis added]
How about the fact that Senator John Kerry, yes, the same one that ran for president a few years ago, used the term “tar baby.”
From the June 21, 2003 edition of the Boston Globe:
Politically, Kerry’s mission was a potential “tar baby,” he recalled, that his advisers warned him to avoid. [emphasis added]
While I believe that no apology is necessary, Governor Romney has apologized for the remark.
I think all the thin-skinned race-baiters need to grow up and stop grasping for straws.
Follow us on TwitterJoin us on Facebook
TAGS: Big Dig, Boston Globe, Boston Herald, John Kerry, Mitt Romney, racism.
Aaron Margolis is a life long resident of the Bay State, and works at an architectural firm north of Boston. Aaron has a Master of Architecture Degree from Boston Architectural College and is currently in the process of becoming of a Registered Architect.
Great research on that word…I can shove the Kerry quote in the face of anyone who I hear giving Mitt a hard time…
on the other hand…
why, oh why did he use that expression? I can hear Homer Simpson saying, “Doh!”
Hmmmm… I can’t imagine why…
Funny,
Here we are again discussing how the media displays its anti-Republican bias when Republicans are called out for “Political Incorrectness”. Romney was critized for the use of the term “tar baby” in a situation that specifically relies on the TRADTIONAL meaning of “tar baby” as a sticky situation. Sure, maybe there are other better phrases that Romney could have used. But in this incident, there clearly was no Racist intent, and Romney was once again merely displaying his wide command of English Vernacular. Romney was not insulting the African-American Community, and the issue should be dropped. However, Liberals like Sal can’t let it go, they are so filled of hate against Right Wingers (still havn’t gotten over 2004) and make a big fuss. (Of Course when Hillary! makes a truely derogatory and belittling joke about Indian Americans, its completely ignored, though I will admit she like Romney apoligized for her gaffe.)
And the most ironic part is, Sal, in his passionate counterattack against the “Typical Racist Republican”, can’t refrain from bashing Romney’s Religious Group. (Usin’ the Ol ‘94 Teddy Kennedy Strategy huh?) So Sal, Who is the Uncompassionate Bigot?
The hypocrisy continues….
Wow, cool….pre cival war quotes.
Hey, look at the bright side –Pretty Mitt could be Mel Gibson:
Oh yeah, and Aaron’s claim that people threw Oreos at Michael “Stem Cell Holocaust” Steele?
Just another typical wing-nutter fabrication
Anyone who has spent time with Black folks, grew up with them, or works closely with them would know that it’s an offensive term. That’s the problem. None of these clowns you mention, whether they are republicans or democrats, have knowledge of a large part of their constituency. Amongst normal people, it can be shrugged off as ignorance. But elected officials owe it to their voting base to not be totally ignorant. If Maxine Waters or Barbara Lee made a comment about “crackers” and then pled ignorance, the blogs would be all over them. Get a clue!
If an elected official is out of touch with the constituents, I’d say thats the fault of the political system and that no guilt lies on the elected official. I think if we had a better functioning democracy, few politicians would say ‘tar baby.’
Sal,
I can’t help but notice you are ignoring the part of Aaron’s post that is the most damaging to your loved lefties. When Democrats, even your personal hero John Kerry, use the same word there is no outrage.
And to dig up quotes from religious figures is just plain stupid. Even the Klan has used religious quotes to justify their actions, does that all Christian religions are racist?
So why don’t you stick to the point and address the fact that Republicans are held to a different standard then you lefties. Or would that cause you to admit that it is ok when one group is judge by different standards, as long as it is a group you don’t like.
And to Paul K, you are correct that if a prominent Dem made stupid remarks, the blogs would be all over them. The problem is that when the Republicans make a remark that COULD be seen as politically incorrect it is on the front page of the Globe. But when Dems make the remark, the only places you can find a mention of it is in a blog or from a talk radio host.
JK wrote:
Oh puh-leeze. You mean like Jesse Jackson vs. Pat Robertson?
When Jesse Jackson was overheard privately joking he was going to “Hymietown” (NYC) in the 1980’s, it made national news and he publicly apologized. Right-wing Republicans demanded that Democrats publicly denounce Jackson, and you’ll still hear right-wingers today cite this incident.
But when right-wing preacher Pat Robertson published an entire book seriously arguing that there was a global Jewish conspiracy of bankers and Freemasons to establish a New World Order, it got almost no media coverage and the Right didn’t make a peep (in fact, they still invited Robertson to address official GOP events and sought his endorsement).
This, of course, is on top of Robertson seriously arguing on his TV show that,
Hmmm. Where was the media coverage on that one?
Now Jesse Jackson isn’t elected to any public office, but the media managed to uncover his out-of-wedlock child –fathered in a consensual relationship with another adult– in about 18 months. It made national headlines and was cited by the Right as evidence of the uniquely liberal trait of immorality.
But the same media engaged in a 50-year cover-up of Republican Segregationist Strom Thurmond’s illegitimate child –fathered with an underage black housekeeper whom he raped. Even after his death, the Right simply pretended it never happened –that he never fought to deny his own daughter basic constitutional rights– and the media applauded him as “the longest serving Senator” when they renamed a Senate chamber after him.
Now I could spend time citing innumerable examples of Right-Wing Republican racism and bigotry by people in power –from Dick “Barney Fag” Armey to Al “Rance Ito-o-o” D’Amato” to Pat “Holocaust Denier” Buchanan to Evan “picaninny” Meacham– that are routinely downplayed by the media compared to perceived slights by so-called liberals in the entertainment world like the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore, Barbara Streisand and Sean Penn.
Instead, I’ll ask you the same question no right-winger can answer: Right-wing Republicans claim people should vote for them because ascribing to right-wing conservative values makes people behave in a more honest, ethical, and moral way. If this is true, then why do so many more right-wing Republicans advocate and tolerate things like Bob Jones Jr.’s inter-racial dating ban, David Duke’s racialism, Pat Buchanan’s anti-semitism, Rev. Sun Myung Moon’s homophobia and Trent Lott’s praise of segregation?
Why is so much corruption in government being perpetrated by right-wing Republicans –like Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Jack Abramoff, Ralph Reed, David Safavian, Philip Giordano and Bob Taft– if their beliefs are supposedly superior to those of their Democratic counterparts?
Sal, having a debate with you is a waste of time. One with the utmost self-control is hard-pressed to resist just calling you a dickhead.
The most interesting part of the Globe article on this incident was in the closing five paragraphs, where Rev. Rivers, Minister Don Muhammed (Nation of Islam) and Rev. Ray Hammond (Ten Point Coalition), in a stunning example of consistent intellectual honesty, dismissed the controversy and declined to fault Romney.
But Sal knows better.
Sal,
Again you fail to stay on point. The whole subject of this posting has to do with the way major media outlets overly criticize conservatives for “racist” remarks, while going much easier on liberals. The use of references to people in the entertainment or sports were world is weak at best and intellectually dishonest at worst. The discussion is on politicians not celebrities, who will get more press anyways since most Americans are morons who would rather watch American Idol then CSpan. To that I offer the following on you posting.
Jesse Jackson “hymietown” versus Pat Robertson “jewish conspiracy”
I did some quick searches on both for articles in the NY Times and Boston Globe over the last 25 years. For Jesse Jackson there were 85 articles in the Globe and 130 in the Times. For Pat Robertson there were 65 in the Globe and 66 in the Times. I reviewed a few articles from both publications and both Jesse Jackson and Pat Robertson were treated harshly for there remarks/writings. Based on this quick comparison, you are correct that the good reverend was more often criticized then the evangelist. However, lets be serious, both of these two are fringe characters for there respective parties.
So I looked at a couple more examples that are more to the point and related to more prominent members of there respective parties. Mitt Romney versus John Kerry on the use of “tar baby” and Trent Lott versus Robert Byrd on “racism” and “segregation”. I did the same type of search on these subjects.
Mitt Romney versus John Kerry
The Globe contained five articles and the Times contained two articles on Mitt Romney and the use of “tar baby”. In the Globe, three of the articles were negative and criticized Romney for the use of the term; two were from the 1990’s and were actually related to Kerry’s use of the term. The two Times articles were the same as two of the Globe’s negative articles. The Globe contained eight articles and the Times contained one article on John Kerry and the use of the term. Two of the articles in the Globe and the one in the Times were the same three articles that were critical of Romney and included a line saying that Kerry used the word in the past with no criticism. One of the remaining articles was off point and related to college basketball (who knows). The remaining five articles, including the two that also appeared under Romney, were from the 1990’s and simply quoted him on the use of the term with no criticism. So in this case, Romney was unnecessarily criticized for the use of “tar baby” and Kerry was not.
Trent Lott versus Robert Byrd
The Globe contained 32 articles including racism and 57 including segregation for Trent Lott. The Times contained 65 articles including racism and 98 including segregation. For Robert Byrd, the Globe contained 16 articles including racism (33 in the Times) and 14 articles including segregation (18 in the Times), most of the articles appear to have been praising Byrd for raising above his racist past. There are two articles about Lott for every one about Byrd. Considering both men are from the south, both were former members of the Dixiecrats and both supported Strom Thurmond for president.
Hmm, so what could have lead to this discrepancy, what is different about these two men? Let see, one is a former Exalted Cyclops and Kleagle (what ever the hell that means) of the Ku Klux Klan (Byrd), one used the word “nigger” in a television interview in 2001 (Byrd) and won said to a dying Strom Thurmond that things would be different if he were elected president in the 1948 (Lott). For some reason, these facts don’t seem to point to any reason why Lott would have more articles written about him regarding racism. Oh wait, Lott is a Republican and Byrd is a Democrat, that explains it!
So it looks like in these cases, Democrats are given favorable treatment and Republicans are unnecessarily criticized on race related issues.
If you choose to reply to this, please try and stick to the point and provide any kind of plausible explanation for discrepancy regarding race. And please don’t try and defend Byrd with the usual lefty ways such as he was only in the Klan for one year (this was debunked in the 1980’s) and he that he reformed his ways (did he? he used the word “nigger” in 2001).
As far as some of the other remarks you made in you post, please don’t confuse me with a Republican. I am a constitutional conservative that votes independently of party affiliation. I feel the Republican Party has been hijacked the religion. I feel people should vote for conservative candidates because small government is good government. Not because of moral superiority, I could careless about morals, just don’t bother me and do what you want with yourself. And all politicians are crooks that take brides, ripe off the public and do other nefarious things. Some just don’t get caught.
By the way, David Duke is yours (Democrat). Obviously conservatives have enough problems with racist perceptions; we don’t need any of your bad apples.
Well that explains why you have your facts wrong, JK. For starters, the “major media” where the overwhelming majority of Americans get their news is television and radio, not newspapers. Your “quick searches” of the Times and Globe are useless; they don’t they tell you what the print media reported in places like California, Texas and Florida which are bigger markets than Boston/New England.
If you expect to be taken seriously, you have to use a serious search service like Nexis –which is what I use– that includes transcripts of radio and TV broadcasts plus major news magazines like Time and Newsweek.
Yeah, an entirely bogus claim which I debunked with substantive examples, like Jesse Jackson getting more media coverage for privately using the slur “Hymietown” than Pat Robertson did for writing and publishing an entire book espousing Jew-hating conspiracy theories.
Now, unless your a conservative moral relativist, you have to agree that it is more egregious when someone deliberately advocates and supports racist views and behavior –like Republican Bob Jones’ inter-racial dataing ban or Robertson’s Jewish conspiracy theories– than someone carelessly making an offensive remark –like Howie Carr saying “towelheads” or Byrd explaining that white Southerners used to use the phrase “white nigger.”
Not only does the media go easier on right-wing conservatives for this kind of behavior generally, they do so even when the right-wingers are guilty of far more deliberate and serious offenses, such as Robertson’s. And the media extends this same double-standard to reporting immoral behavior.
They dispatched hordes of media operatives to research and cover progressives/Democrats like Jackson and Gary Condit (remember the round-the-clock cameras stationed at Condit’s DC apartment?) but engaged in a 50-year cover-up of segregationist Republican Strom Thurmond fathering a child with an underage black housekeeper he raped. Affairs by Democrats like Gary Hart were aggressively pursued by the mainstream media in real-time, but it took outrage over the impeachment of President Clinton before private citizens exposed affairs by Republicans like Henry Hyde and Bob Linvingston that occurred many years earlier, but were never investigated or reported.
What is more indicative of racism, whether someone thoughtlessly uses the phrase “tar baby,” or if, like Thurmond, they gave speeches against “the nigger race” while being father to a mixed-race daughter? If the media are biased in favor of Democrats/liberals, then why did they give a free pass to Republican rapist Strom Thurmond until after he died –the longest serving US Senator ever– but go after the likes of Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, who are comparatively powerless and have never even held elective office?
You’d think it might have been newsworthy when this Republican Senator –who previously ran for president on a pro-lynching platform– was publicly criticizing President Clinton for having a consensual affair with an adult. But no– you’ll find more instances of the media promoting rumors that Hillary Clinton had an affair with Vince Foster than you will about Thurmond’s sordid history of rape and racism.
Wrong again, JK. Pat Robertson has been one of the most powerful kingpins of the Republican establishment for the past two decades.
Robertson owns his own Religious Right media empire with TV and radio stations, his own university, private aircraft, and PACs. When he ran for the GOP presidential nomination in 1988 –after securing commitments from 3 million volunteers– he finished ahead of Poppy Bush in the Iowa caucuses. He used the campaign to subsequently found the Christian Coalition which has been one of the most, if not the most influential right-wing organizations in GOP politics over the past two decades.
He has assisted scores of Republican political campaigns through the Christian Coalition, and with his personal protege, Ralph Reed, has formally advised or worked for Republican leaders from Newt Gingrich to Bill Frist to Jack Abramoff to Oliver North to George W. Bush. Robertson himself has bragged that since 1984 no Republican has won the presidential nomination wthout his endorsement.
Yet a Republican kingpin like Robertson, with all his racist and bigoted statements, books and theories, gets less media criticism for it than the firestorms directed at mere entertainers like Michael Moore or the Dixie Chicks for criticizing George W. Bush.
Nice try! Like all the other pro-segregation Southerners who refused to recognize the error of their ways and reject racism (such as Thurmond, Phil Gramm and Jese Helms) David Duke switched parties from Democrat to Republican. He served in the Louisiana state senate as a Republican, ran for Governor as a Republican, ran twice for US Senate amd once for US Rep. as a Republican, and endorsed the 2000 independent campaign of conservative Nixon-Reagan staffer –and Holocaust denier– Pat Buchanan.
As they say: conservatives, pick-up your own trash.