Last August, when
Republican Congressman Doug Lamborn used the term “tar baby” in a condemnation
of Obama’s economic policies, he apologized, backtracked and recanted usage of
the term because…well, he’s probably not a moron. And using a term like “tar
baby” when castigating our nation’s first black president is so offensive that
if one has aspirations of re-election in any state other than Alabama (he reps
Colorado by the way), apologizing for such a slur is a smart move.
But last week, when
Michelle Bachman said “This is just about waving a tar baby in the air and
saying that something else is a problem” when discussing Obama’s energy policy,
I honestly can’t ascertain if this comment is racist (which is quite possible)
or if she is so oblivious to social mores that the statement’s inherent bigotry
escapes her (which is equally likely).
Am I being naïve? Maybe
part of me wants to believe that an elected official and ex-presidential
hopeful with such a close relationship to Jesus Christ would never dare utter
such a hate-mongering slur.
 |
| I can anal-rape your soul with my thoughts! |
But one has to wonder. The
woman does have 247 foster children. The woman conducted her entire on-camera
post-State of the Union address to an imaginary friend standing camera left.
The woman publicly proposed that HPV vaccines cause mental retardation and
when look into the eyes of this
photo, I see a woman not only capable of racism, but also arson, battery and
kitten genocide.
So was she making a
not-so-subtle jab at Barry? I’m sorry but I can not recall ever having even
heard the fucking term ‘tar baby’ used to describe a ‘sticky situation’ which
both Lamborn and Bachmann have cited in defense of their comments. Taken by
itself, one slip like this would be easier to dismiss. But when you take these
comments and place them alongside a litany of GOP remarks, one starts to
glimpse a larger, more disturbing picture.
Newt Gingrich, who for
some reason is still running for President, famously made headlines earlier in
the year when he said “Obama is the best food stamp president in American
history.” And unlike Bachmann, I’m willing to concede that Newt has control
over his verbal faculties and knows exactly what he’s saying. In case you
missed the subtext to his little quote, here it is. ‘Our black president has
gotten more black people on welfare than any of our WHITE presidents ever did.
And the WHITE taxpayers are footing the bill!’
So how far have we come
from the “He’s a terrorist” shouts of the McCain campaign trail? How far have
we come from this picture that was circulated via email by California
Republican official Marilyn Davenport?
Not very far.
And now, in the latter
stages of the ‘Who can out-white each other’ primary, the Republicans have
anointed Mitt Romney as their chosen honky. It was a squeaker but in the end,
Santorum’s sweater-vest, God-peddling vengeance was no match for Mitt’s
Mormony, country club pedigree.
Eager to hop on the
accidental racism bandwagon, Romney recently unveiled his latest prop; a
non-racist, I repeat NON-RACIST sign that says simply and quite elegantly
“Obama Isn’t Working.” And again, like all the other slings mentioned above,
this one too can be written off as ‘inadvertently racist.’ Republicans will
predictably claim it is an assessment of Obama’s policies and not an affront to
the stereotype of black men as lazy, jobless welfare recipients. But come on
man. Seriously.
It begs one to question
how much racism is clouding the upcoming election. I like to think that after
four years, it would be less of a factor. But a recent Pew Survey showed that
among white male voters, Obama trails Romney by 26 percentage points.
By comparison, McCain
garnered more white male votes by a 16 percent margin. So Obama faces more
formidable obstacles than a sluggish economy and high gas prices. He faces an
enormous deficit amidst this voting block.
So here I am, a white male
voter, asking myself what polls might reveal if Obama were white. Are these
poll marks comparable to what any incumbent president presiding over a bad
economy would receive? Or are they those of a black incumbent president? I hate
the fact that I am even asking this question but I feel it’s a valid one.
I never liked John Kerry.
But would a black George W. Bush have received a second term with a resume that
included Iraq, Katrina and his annihilation of a five trillion dollar budgetary
surplus?
Probably not.
But conjecture like that
is futile. In the mean time, let us hope that this sideshow does not persist
through to November. Let’s hope Republican leaders put a stop to this. I like
to think that the GOP is better than these bullshit shenanigans. But I could
very well be wrong.
