Romney should not have apologized.
No, he shouldn't have,and neither should have Trent Lott-why are Republicans so easily intimidated by those who have no moral authority to do so? It's frustrating. Apologising for nothing only validates their hypocrisy.
Where was all their indignation with Je$$e Jack$on and "Hymietown", for just one example?
I have to agree with you here . . . He didn't hold a press conference to apologize and didn't even offer his own words . . . just his press secretary who said:
``The governor was describing a sticky situation," said Eric Fehrnstrom, the governor's spokesman. ``He was unaware that some people find the term objectionable, and he's sorry if anyone was offended."
Sort of the "I'm sorry you misunderstood my meaning you idiots" kind of response.
You shouldn't have to apologize for other people being brainless.
Agree with you on how overblown the Trent Lott thing went . . . he should have had more support from Republicans on that one. He should have offered an "apology" similar to Romney's and stayed in his job.
I agree completely. My only objection to his use of the term is that it's too 19th century, and probably doesn't resonate clearly with a 21st century audience. I much prefer the more temporally appropriate term, 'Gorilla Glue Baby.'
A "tar baby" obviously would be black, but just as obviously would not really be a baby and therefore not a black baby. The tar baby in The Song of the South is a trick which catches Brer Rabbit, but the color of the "baby" has no obvious invidious meaning, and the story reflects on Brer Rabbit for being petulent and for being easily fooled by a crude trick - and not on any putative model of the tar baby itself. Anyone who really objected to that should be apoplectic over ever having been called "black" - but that is not the history of the use of that adjective.The central issue is not however the particulars of the instance, but the ability of a potential presidential candidate to stand on his hind legs. The Republican Party is the party of the middle class, and the middle class is predominantly white. Whoso would represent the middle class should be willing to defend people who are unfairly attacked, even if they are white. A potential presidential candidate has to be able to defend himself before anyone would suppose that he might defend others.
Jack Kemp is a noted advocate of racial equality and of opportunity for all, blacks not remotely excluded. And Jack Kemp was the author of the Kemp-Roth bill which transformed the Republican Party in the 1970s from the party of the balanced budget to he party of sane tax rates. Kemp was a logical choice for VP nominee in '96, and failing of election then would have been the logical choice for the presidential nomination in '00.
But Kemp blew all that in the VP debate when Al Gore flattered Kemp as the only non-racist Republican, and Kemp did not defend the Republican Party. Who wanted to associate themselves with a racist party, as Kemp allowed it to be branded??? After all the good that Kemp had done for the party, his leadership in it came to an ignoble end. A textbook case of how to to lose your base.