Romney Spokesman Forced to Resign for Being Openly Gay

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

HuffPo

Richard Grenell, Mitt Romney's recently hired openly gay spokesman who was supposed to lead the Romney campaign on the issue of foreign policy and national defense, has resigned, according to a report in the Washington Post.
The Post report, by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, says that Grenell resigned after anti-gay conservatives pushed back against Romney's hire.
One conservative, Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis at the American Family Association, made a particular public spectacle of that pushback against Grenell.

Well...

Ummm...

Yeah...

Too easy to take jabs at Repubs for this but I'm not particularly surprised. Still the fact that you can't be openly gay and be a spokesman for the likely Republican Presidential nominee speaks volumes of the sort of base it is. Still waiting for Romney to condemn the personal attacks on his now former spokesman on the basis of his sexuality and I suspect I'l be waiting for a long time.

TheGuy(wantstobe):
HuffPo

Richard Grenell, Mitt Romney's recently hired openly gay spokesman who was supposed to lead the Romney campaign on the issue of foreign policy and national defense, has resigned, according to a report in the Washington Post.
The Post report, by conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin, says that Grenell resigned after anti-gay conservatives pushed back against Romney's hire.
One conservative, Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis at the American Family Association, made a particular public spectacle of that pushback against Grenell.

Well...

Ummm...

Yeah...

Too easy to take jabs at Repubs for this but I'm not particularly surprised. Still the fact that you can't be openly gay and be a spokesman for the likely Republican Presidential nominee speaks volumes of the sort of base it is. Still waiting for Romney to condemn the personal attacks on his now former spokesman on the basis of his sexuality and I suspect I'l be waiting for a long time.

I think this is absurd but politically the guy was a liability for Romney. If he stuck by him it would severely hurt him in the election.

I don't see why the guy being gay matters, its not like Romney hired him to be an advisor on social policy (that would make his sexual orientation relevant). Of course I am also curious why Romney hired him to begin with, surely he knew he would be a liability.

Edit:

And THIS is a case and point for why the Huffington Post is full of shit. Quite frankly I am ashamed of myself for not doing this sooner:

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/richard-grenell-openly-gay-romney-aide-resigns-backlash/story?id=16255584#.T6CZL9Xc6LA

"Richard Grenell, openly gay Romney aide, resigns after backlash"

Some interesting bits:

"An openly gay Republican operative hired as Mitt Romney's foreign policy spokesman has abruptly resigned from the campaign, suggesting the focus on his personal life had become a distraction."

"While I welcomed the challenge to confront President Obama's foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage, my ability to speak clearly and forcefully on the issues has been greatly diminished by the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign," Grenell said. "I want to thank Gov. Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team."
-Richard Grenell

A Romney aide, speaking on background, tells Yahoo News the campaign tried to convince Grenell to stay with the campaign, but he declined-calling it "completely his decision, not ours."

So this discussion is now much changed and I furthermore demand that the OP amend their post and the topic title to reflect the facts of the case as they are, not as the Huffington Post would like them to be. Romney in fact wanted Grenell to stay on but Grenell is the one who left as his personal issues had unfortunately become a distraction to the campaign.

This ladies and gentleman is why you do not rely on Huffington Post for your news.

Anyone who wants to know why I find the GOP to be a vile cesspool of a party needs to look no further than this incident. Mitt Romney simply can't tell these hatemongers to go fuck themselves, or he can kiss the election goodbye. So his personal choice for this position is hounded away for the apparent infraction of being gay. Pathetic.

And before we get into the "ZOMG BOTH SIDES DO IT!" false equivalency dance, I would like to see one single comparable incident from the Democrat's side.

Seekster:

I think this is absurd but politically the guy was a liability for Romney. If he stuck by him it would severely hurt him in the election.

The fact that his being gay would make him a liability speaks VOLUMES about how in need of an enlightenment the Republican base truly is.

Here's a WashPost article on it.

All in all, no surprises here. I doubt Romney actually holds anything against homosexuals, and he probably okay'ed the hire, but he's pretty much refused to talk about anything that could upset the GOP base, most notably his Mormon faith that is clearly a major part of his life.

I think it'll be funny when the guy who attacked him turns out to be a homosexual. Hilaaaaarious.

Seekster:

If he stuck by him it would severely hurt him in the election.

Why? What possible reason could there be for homosexuality being a liability to Ro-

Heh. Almost got through it.

We both know why. It's cute that you don't want to say though.

Tyler Perry:

Seekster:

I think this is absurd but politically the guy was a liability for Romney. If he stuck by him it would severely hurt him in the election.

The fact that his being gay would make him a liability speaks VOLUMES about how in need of an enlightenment the Republican base truly is.

'Tchyeah, was gonna say. I'd like to go ahead and proffer an invitation for the Republican Party to go ahead and join the 21st fucking Century.

(Captcha: no holds barred)

Mustn't... make... bawdy... joke...

Seekster:
Of course I am also curious why Romney hired him to begin with, surely he knew he would be a liability.

Maybe he's good at what he does and doesn't put "gay as hell" on his job applications? I'm openly gay but I don't exactly go around wearing shirts that say "Yup, I'm gay" or renting billboards to that effect.

Romney already is looked upon with suspicion by some Conservatives who are skeptical of him...the last thing he needs to do is give them more reasons to be suspect. Yeah I agree it sucks but its politics and Romney isnt going to get points in the election for sticking up for this guy.

Seekster:
Yeah I agree it sucks but its politics and Romney isnt going to get points in the election for sticking up for this guy.

He's going to lose points with moderates for firing him for being gay. Employment discrimination is one of the things people most support about LGBT rights, with a 2 to 1 margin of people supporting employment protections.

Dags90:

Seekster:
Yeah I agree it sucks but its politics and Romney isnt going to get points in the election for sticking up for this guy.

He's going to lose points with moderates for firing him for being gay. Employment discrimination is one of the things people most support about LGBT rights, with a 2 to 1 margin of people supporting employment protections.

He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make. Romney hired him so clearly doesnt care if he is gay or not, however the man has to win an election and he can't do that if most of the people who would be impressed by him sticking up for this guy are going to vote for Obama no matter what. The more I think about this the more I wonder if this was a deliberate move; hire him to show that Romney doesnt care if the person is gay but when some Conservative raise a fuss fire him because he is a liability. It allows Romney to more or less have it both ways (pun not intended).

Dags90:

Seekster:
Of course I am also curious why Romney hired him to begin with, surely he knew he would be a liability.

Maybe he's good at what he does and doesn't put "gay as hell" on his job applications? I'm openly gay but I don't exactly go around wearing shirts that say "Yup, I'm gay" or renting billboards to that effect.

Wait, you mean every gay guy doesn't run around dressed like this?

I do believe my worldview has been shattered.

...

...

Yep, definitely shattered.

Seekster:
Romney already is looked upon with suspicion by some Conservatives who are skeptical of him...the last thing he needs to do is give them more reasons to be suspect. Yeah I agree it sucks but its politics and Romney isnt going to get points in the election for sticking up for this guy.

So what you're alluding to is that being hostile to gays is the Republican party's Conservative (your word, not mine) mantra. I just wanna be clear, since you seem to be dancing around the point to prevent saying it outright.

Seekster:
He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make. Romney hired him so clearly doesnt care if he is gay or not, however the man has to win an election and he can't do that if most of the people who would be impressed by him sticking up for this guy are going to vote for Obama no matter what. The more I think about this the more I wonder if this was a deliberate move; hire him to show that Romney doesnt care if the person is gay but when some Conservative raise a fuss fire him because he is a liability. It allows Romney to more or less have it both ways (pun not intended).

It makes him look like he caves to external pressure. Romney needs to start disagreeing with the Republican base if he's ever going to win ground with moderates.

Standing his ground and saying "The guy does his job well, we won't lose that asset" would've given him some much needed personality.

Dags90:

Seekster:
Yeah I agree it sucks but its politics and Romney isnt going to get points in the election for sticking up for this guy.

He's going to lose points with moderates for firing him for being gay. Employment discrimination is one of the things people most support about LGBT rights, with a 2 to 1 margin of people supporting employment protections.

You're implying he has points to lose. Romney has absolutely no love coming his way, a lot of people who normally vote conservative like troops are planning to cast their votes for Obama because Romney seems completely ignorant on a lot of policies. Add his personal religion alienating him from the Christian right, the fact that he and Obama have identical ideas on health care should be run (Really a more damning mark for Obama) and that the only reason he survived the primaries is because the Republicans put absolutely fucking nobody worthwhile forward, and you've got an idea of what the Republican nomination for 2012 is looking like.

Not that i'm complaining too heavily. Obama's a real piece of shit, but maybe when he has his second term the protestors will remind him of where his backbone is and we can get some decent progressive policies passed. Not holding my breath, but things are more likely to improve with Obama than with Romney.

Amnestic:

Wait, you mean every gay guy doesn't run around dressed like this?

I do believe my worldview has been shattered.

...

...

Yep, definitely shattered.

Man, I love that episode.

"You are TOO gay. You, like, sneeze glitter."

Seekster:
He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make.

Yeah, you're just making excuses now.

Let's be honest here: This guy is not a liability. His homosexuality has not a single iota of relevance to his ability to do his job. The liability is the Republican base Romney is trying to court. This isn't a guy campaigning for gay marriage or for the right of gays to prima noctae with every groom in the country- he's just a guy who wants to do a good job who happens to be gay. If that's a liability for Romney, it's because the base Romney is trying to court has been lying to America all this time- they don't want to protect "traditional" marriage... they just plain don't like gays. They are the group that is sinking the Republican party and if Romney was smart, he'd ditch them. Elections are won by courting the middle, not appealing to hateful extremes.

...however the man has to win an election and he can't do that if most of the people who would be impressed by him sticking up for this guy are going to vote for Obama no matter what.

This kinda assumes that there is not a single person who isn't already committed to Obama who doesn't think being gay in and of itself makes someone a horrible person. In other words, that literally every single non-Obama voter is a bigot. I'm just glad you were the one to admit it.

The more I think about this the more I wonder if this was a deliberate move; hire him to show that Romney doesnt care if the person is gay but when some Conservative raise a fuss fire him because he is a liability. It allows Romney to more or less have it both ways (pun not intended).

If that were the case, it would expose Romney as deeply cynical and a moron. I can't imagine any significant number of people will be impressed with a:Romney screwing with this guy's career for political points, or b: Romney bowing and scraping before the worst bigots of the Republican party. It's simply one more in a seemingly endless series of stories about how Romney has either no principles or no spine.

Amnestic:

Dags90:

Seekster:
Of course I am also curious why Romney hired him to begin with, surely he knew he would be a liability.

Maybe he's good at what he does and doesn't put "gay as hell" on his job applications? I'm openly gay but I don't exactly go around wearing shirts that say "Yup, I'm gay" or renting billboards to that effect.

Wait, you mean every gay guy doesn't run around dressed like this?

I do believe my worldview has been shattered.

...

...

Yep, definitely shattered.

Seekster:
Romney already is looked upon with suspicion by some Conservatives who are skeptical of him...the last thing he needs to do is give them more reasons to be suspect. Yeah I agree it sucks but its politics and Romney isnt going to get points in the election for sticking up for this guy.

So what you're alluding to is that being hostile to gays is the Republican party's Conservative (your word, not mine) mantra. I just wanna be clear, since you seem to be dancing around the point to prevent saying it outright.

If Romney were a well known Conservative figure who Conservatives trust well he could get away with this. Romney however can't take the Conservative vote for granted like say Bush could. Conservative principles are not hostile to gays, even Ronald Reagan is on record speaking out against a California law that would have prevented gay teachers in California schools and yet the man also was a proponent of traditional marriage. I disagree with Romney's decision here but I can understand why he did it.

Dags90:

Seekster:
He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make. Romney hired him so clearly doesnt care if he is gay or not, however the man has to win an election and he can't do that if most of the people who would be impressed by him sticking up for this guy are going to vote for Obama no matter what. The more I think about this the more I wonder if this was a deliberate move; hire him to show that Romney doesnt care if the person is gay but when some Conservative raise a fuss fire him because he is a liability. It allows Romney to more or less have it both ways (pun not intended).

It makes him look like he caves to external pressure. Romney needs to start disagreeing with the Republican base if he's ever going to win ground with moderates.

Standing his ground and saying "The guy does his job well, we won't lose that asset" would've given him some much needed personality.

Winning moderates doesnt do Romney much good if he alienates Conservative voters who may just stay home rather than vote for him.

"Standing his ground and saying "The guy does his job well, we won't lose that asset" would've given him some much needed personality."

Yeah it would have impressed a lot of Obama supporters...for about 5 minutes.

Pyramid Head:

Dags90:

Seekster:
Yeah I agree it sucks but its politics and Romney isnt going to get points in the election for sticking up for this guy.

He's going to lose points with moderates for firing him for being gay. Employment discrimination is one of the things people most support about LGBT rights, with a 2 to 1 margin of people supporting employment protections.

You're implying he has points to lose. Romney has absolutely no love coming his way, a lot of people who normally vote conservative like troops are planning to cast their votes for Obama because Romney seems completely ignorant on a lot of policies. Add his personal religion alienating him from the Christian right, the fact that he and Obama have identical ideas on health care should be run (Really a more damning mark for Obama) and that the only reason he survived the primaries is because the Republicans put absolutely fucking nobody worthwhile forward, and you've got an idea of what the Republican nomination for 2012 is looking like.

Not that i'm complaining too heavily. Obama's a real piece of shit, but maybe when he has his second term the protestors will remind him of where his backbone is and we can get some decent progressive policies passed. Not holding my breath, but things are more likely to improve with Obama than with Romney.

Ok let me see if I can spot all the inaccuracies here.

1. You must have inside knowledge into the minds of troops who normally vote Conservative because there is no real indication Obama is going to win anymore military voters than he might otherwise.

2. Romney's faith is by now a none issue. I've spoken with fundamentalists and they really could care less about Romney being a Mormon.

3. Romney's ideas on Health Care are notably different than Obama's not the least of which being that Obama seems to think its a good idea to have one national healthcare system rather than allowing states to handle healthcare perhaps with federal assistance. Everyone in the nation agrees that the healthcare system needs reform but there are differences on how best to reform it.

4. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that progressive policies will cause things to improve.

And number 4 I admit is more of an opinion but off the record ill say its another area where you are wrong.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make.

Yeah, you're just making excuses now.

Let's be honest here: This guy is not a liability. His homosexuality has not a single iota of relevance to his ability to do his job. The liability is the Republican base Romney is trying to court. This isn't a guy campaigning for gay marriage or for the right of gays to prima noctae with every groom in the country- he's just a guy who wants to do a good job who happens to be gay. If that's a liability for Romney, it's because the base Romney is trying to court has been lying to America all this time- they don't want to protect "traditional" marriage... they just plain don't like gays. They are the group that is sinking the Republican party and if Romney was smart, he'd ditch them. Elections are won by courting the middle, not appealing to hateful extremes.

...however the man has to win an election and he can't do that if most of the people who would be impressed by him sticking up for this guy are going to vote for Obama no matter what.

This kinda assumes that there is not a single person who isn't already committed to Obama who doesn't think being gay in and of itself makes someone a horrible person. In other words, that literally every single non-Obama voter is a bigot. I'm just glad you were the one to admit it.

The more I think about this the more I wonder if this was a deliberate move; hire him to show that Romney doesnt care if the person is gay but when some Conservative raise a fuss fire him because he is a liability. It allows Romney to more or less have it both ways (pun not intended).

If that were the case, it would expose Romney as deeply cynical and a moron. I can't imagine any significant number of people will be impressed with a:Romney screwing with this guy's career for political points, or b: Romney bowing and scraping before the worst bigots of the Republican party. It's simply one more in a seemingly endless series of stories about how Romney has either no principles or no spine.

Yeah for Romney is most certainly is a liability. Romney has to win an election here. Like I said if Romney were not suspected by the far right this wouldnt be a problem but the fact is the far right holds him responsible for same-sex marriage in Massachusetts (yes I know it wasnt Romney's fault but they seem to think it is), so for Romney in particular having an OPENLY gay man on his staff is not helpful.

This election is going to be like most elections in recent years, the Republicans and Democrats will split the middle and one is going to get enough to win by a relatively narrow margin. Romney needs to make sure he wins states like Virginia and North Carolina and he can't do that if too many Conservative voters stay home. No this one thing isnt going to hurt Romney bad on its own but this kinds of things add up. Its not that Conservatives overwhelmingly hate gay people, we most certainly do not, its about Conservatives not trusting Romney. The most damaging charge that can be leveled at Romney is that he is "Just like Obama", its false but in politics the truth is rarely present.

Seekster:
[quote="Amnestic" post="528.373593.14448171"][quote="Dags90" post="528.373593.14447922"][quote="Seekster" post="528.373593.14447675"]Snipped

Ok let me see if I can spot all the inaccuracies here.

1. You must have inside knowledge into the minds of troops who normally vote Conservative because there is no real indication Obama is going to win anymore military voters than he might otherwise.

2. Romney's faith is by now a none issue. I've spoken with fundamentalists and they really could care less about Romney being a Mormon.

3. Romney's ideas on Health Care are notably different than Obama's not the least of which being that Obama seems to think its a good idea to have one national healthcare system rather than allowing states to handle healthcare perhaps with federal assistance. Everyone in the nation agrees that the healthcare system needs reform but there are differences on how best to reform it.

4. You seem to be laboring under the misconception that progressive policies will cause things to improve.

And number 4 I admit is more of an opinion but off the record ill say its another area where you are wrong.

On #3: BULL FUCKING SHIT! Obama blocked discussion on single payer and public options, he did not come out in favor of government run health care. He SHOULD HAVE, single payer has proven to be more sound than letting private companies handle it and Jah knows we have a hideous health care system when held in context with the wealth the country controls and we could do with an overhaul.

Anyway on #1 i'm basing that on an NPR ran poll. Something that's been becoming obvious is that Romney's knowledge of military action is out of date, and i've heard from a couple of good sources he's still a bit of a red scare conspiracy theorist.

On #2, i find it hard to swallow that Romney's religion has already become a non-issue. They'll probably vote for him if he does become the candidate, but that's because Republicans are in the same boat as Democrats, we only have one spineless dumbass to vote for.

On #4, i actually have national statistics to show progressive policies would improve the nation. Rehabilitation over criminal punishment is a more progressive issue but is demonstrated to drastically reduce repeat offense, businesses aimed at providing quick employment to former convicts and training them for the work force are also a solid practice and considered to be progressive, dissolving the Reagan era tax cuts... not sure if that's progressive but Jah knows our economy never recovered from Reaganomics. Maybe you disagree, but i can prove conservative policies have consistently bitten us hard enough in the ass to draw blood.

So, in other words, Seekster, Mitt Romney is a craven opportunist who is willing to sell out a staffer in a heartbeat in order to court the hatemonger vote, and that's just fine with you, because at least he's not Obama.

The mental gymnastics needed to defend this bullshit must be exhausting. If Romney had a shred of principles, he'd tell the AFA where to go shove it, but he won't, because the only principle Mitt Romney has is that he really, really wants to be President.

Seekster:
Yeah for Romney is most certainly is a liability. Romney has to win an election here.

You keep asserting that he's a liability without attempting to back up the claim. The only possible reason a guy who happens to be gay can be a liability is if to the block being courted, homosexuality in and of itself is a liability. Which really tells us all we need to know.

This election is going to be like most elections in recent years, the Republicans and Democrats will split the middle and one is going to get enough to win by a relatively narrow margin.

Another assertion without anything to back it up.

Its not that Conservatives overwhelmingly hate gay people, we most certainly do not, its about Conservatives not trusting Romney.

So to prove he can be trusted he's sacking a guy who has done no wrong? Suuuuuuuuure.....

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
Yeah for Romney is most certainly is a liability. Romney has to win an election here.

You keep asserting that he's a liability without attempting to back up the claim. The only possible reason a guy who happens to be gay can be a liability is if to the block being courted, homosexuality in and of itself is a liability. Which really tells us all we need to know.

This election is going to be like most elections in recent years, the Republicans and Democrats will split the middle and one is going to get enough to win by a relatively narrow margin.

Another assertion without anything to back it up.

Its not that Conservatives overwhelmingly hate gay people, we most certainly do not, its about Conservatives not trusting Romney.

So to prove he can be trusted he's sacking a guy who has done no wrong? Suuuuuuuuure.....

How many times must I repeat myself? If this were say...Rick Perry, the man wouldnt be a liability to him. The issue however is that Mitt Romney, who was governor of Massachusetts when the first same-sex marriage licenses in the country were issues (I may be wrong on that but if I am there should only be a few exceptions) Massachusetts was the first to legally recognize same-sex marriage and it was while Romney was in office, it had nothing to do with Romney but Romney is looked upon suspiciously on this issue already. Hiring an openly gay guy on his staff...even for a position unrelated to social issues, is not helpful to his campaign.

Kat you are never going to vote for Romney anyway...why do you think you can lecture me, a Romney supporter, on where Romney gets his support and what views his supporters hold?

The fact that he hired him in the first place gives Romney some points in my book; though he loses most of them for folding under pressure that would have went away.

Seekster:

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
Yeah for Romney is most certainly is a liability. Romney has to win an election here.

You keep asserting that he's a liability without attempting to back up the claim. The only possible reason a guy who happens to be gay can be a liability is if to the block being courted, homosexuality in and of itself is a liability. Which really tells us all we need to know.

This election is going to be like most elections in recent years, the Republicans and Democrats will split the middle and one is going to get enough to win by a relatively narrow margin.

Another assertion without anything to back it up.

Its not that Conservatives overwhelmingly hate gay people, we most certainly do not, its about Conservatives not trusting Romney.

So to prove he can be trusted he's sacking a guy who has done no wrong? Suuuuuuuuure.....

How many times must I repeat myself? If this were say...Rick Perry, the man wouldnt be a liability to him. The issue however is that Mitt Romney, who was governor of Massachusetts when the first same-sex marriage licenses in the country were issues (I may be wrong on that but if I am there should only be a few exceptions) Massachusetts was the first to legally recognize same-sex marriage and it was while Romney was in office, it had nothing to do with Romney but Romney is looked upon suspiciously on this issue already. Hiring an openly gay guy on his staff...even for a position unrelated to social issues, is not helpful to his campaign.

Kat you are never going to vote for Romney anyway...why do you think you can lecture me, a Romney supporter, on where Romney gets his support and what views his supporters hold?

So Romney has to pander to the hatemongers in order to have a chance at winning. Good to see you finally acknowledge the demographic that makes up the backbone of your beloved Republican party.

Dags90:

Seekster:
He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make. Romney hired him so clearly doesnt care if he is gay or not, however the man has to win an election and he can't do that if most of the people who would be impressed by him sticking up for this guy are going to vote for Obama no matter what. The more I think about this the more I wonder if this was a deliberate move; hire him to show that Romney doesnt care if the person is gay but when some Conservative raise a fuss fire him because he is a liability. It allows Romney to more or less have it both ways (pun not intended).

It makes him look like he caves to external pressure. Romney needs to start disagreeing with the Republican base if he's ever going to win ground with moderates.

Agreed.

And Seekster, apparently you have no memory whatsoever, or you're simply too young to remember that during the 2000 campaign, Bush had several gay staff members and openly stood behind his decision to hire and keep them. He also said that laws weren't the way to change people's position on abortion, that you "have to change their hearts". Oh, and Dick Cheney championed civil unions.

The Republican Party has been anti-gay as a policy matter for some time, but inflexibility toward gay *individuals* is something that's incredibly new and shows how far the party has regressed. Whatever happened to "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Seekster:

How many times must I repeat myself?

As many as it takes to admit that the Republican base Romney is kowtowing before is horrifically unreasonable. If having gay people on your campaign staff has anything to do with voters "not trusting" Romney on gay marriage, then opposition to gay marriage apparently is not about "marriage". No, it's about opposition to gay.

Seekster:
How many times must I repeat myself? If this were say...Rick Perry, the man wouldnt be a liability to him.

Because Perry would never have hired him in the first place?

The issue however is that Mitt Romney, who was governor of Massachusetts when the first same-sex marriage licenses in the country were issues (I may be wrong on that but if I am there should only be a few exceptions) Massachusetts was the first to legally recognize same-sex marriage and it was while Romney was in office, it had nothing to do with Romney but Romney is looked upon suspiciously on this issue already.

This would be a credible claim if I had heard even a single case of Republicans believing Romney was on a mission to covertly introduce gay marriage.

Hiring an openly gay guy on his staff...even for a position unrelated to social issues, is not helpful to his campaign.

You keep asserting this without offering up a reason why.

Kat you are never going to vote for Romney anyway...why do you think you can lecture me, a Romney supporter, on where Romney gets his support and what views his supporters hold?

Because I read the news and am informed? Candidates are not secret societies you don't get to know about until you're committed to voting for them.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
This election is going to be like most elections in recent years, the Republicans and Democrats will split the middle and one is going to get enough to win by a relatively narrow margin.

Another assertion without anything to back it up.

Seekster is wrong about the rest, but right on this by every source and every poll I've read in recent weeks. Most national polls that I've seen recently show one or the other up by 5 points or less, and every analyst and pundit from either side I've seen speak on this predict a close election, simply because of the poor economy. It is, actually, to Obama's credit that polls are this close, with an economy as deep in the shitter as ours currently is, conventional and historical wisdom is against the incumbent.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:
He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make.

Yeah, you're just making excuses now.

Let's be honest here: This guy is not a liability. His homosexuality has not a single iota of relevance to his ability to do his job. The liability is the Republican base Romney is trying to court. This isn't a guy campaigning for gay marriage or for the right of gays to prima noctae with every groom in the country- he's just a guy who wants to do a good job who happens to be gay. If that's a liability for Romney, it's because the base Romney is trying to court has been lying to America all this time- they don't want to protect "traditional" marriage... they just plain don't like gays. They are the group that is sinking the Republican party and if Romney was smart, he'd ditch them. Elections are won by courting the middle, not appealing to hateful extremes.

There is a lot of truth in this. Even Bill O'Reilly made this distinction by sticking up for Ellen Degeneres when the One Million Moms group was demanding that they fire her from being their spokesperson just a couple of months ago.

I couldn't find a video of the whole argument, but basically he argued that nobody has the right to say someone shouldn't have a job just because they're gay, as the One Million Moms were arguing that Ellen should be fired. To say they shouldn't marry is one argument, to say they shouldn't have a job is another thing entirely. While I still disagree with Bill on the marriage thing, and a lot of things quite frankly, I am glad he hasn't quite joined the bandwagon of conservatives who are all but running gays out of town with pitchforks and torches in hand.

Polarity27:
Whatever happened to "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

Pffff, that's hippie, liberal DEMOCRAT talk!

I can't blame Romney for being the spineless, soulless android we all thought he was. He hired an openly gay man because he thought the individual would work in his favor and he didn't back him up once the AFA started bitching because he won't risk slighting Evangelicals that only tolerate him as it is. It's sad that that's how Romney's going to let it be but he's only playing the numbers and frankly even if Romney himself was bothered by his reputation as an empty suit that sold his soul for the Republican nomination he has to know that he's in the wrong party in the wrong election year to do anything about it.

Katatori-kun:

Seekster:

Kat you are never going to vote for Romney anyway...why do you think you can lecture me, a Romney supporter, on where Romney gets his support and what views his supporters hold?

Because I read the news and am informed? Candidates are not secret societies you don't get to know about until you're committed to voting for them.

I love how he thinks that supporting a candidate gives you knowledge on how the party politics work.

Seek, I may not be one now, but I think my Republican bona fides way exceed yours and I'm going to tell you I think you're full of it. The average Republican voter is uncomfortable about Pride parades and conflicted (or against) about the subject of gay marriage, but wouldn't be unkind to a gay person they know personally. Same thing with racial minorities-- they vote for racist candidates with racist policies, but consider themselves tolerant people who would be good to non-white people they know personally. It's that just world fallacy that's in play with Republican thinking, they think the world is already just because they themselves try to be polite, kind, and fair, so therefore there's no need for social justice in policy or law. Being "one of us" usually confers transactional immunity on people who get the brunt of Republican policies, meaning that a gay guy could run a major district in Virginia without getting shit for being gay, a Black guy could be voted into the Electoral College as an Elector without getting shit for being Black, and a Pagan woman (me) could sit on the county executive committee as YR rep without getting shit for being Pagan.

The people who would *not* offer that immunity to a loyal Republican used to be extremely rare, sitting on the fringes. If Romney thinks they're that common now, the Party is in some serious trouble. The base has shrunk immensely in the last few years, but I still think the average Republican voter or Republican-leaning Independent thinks as I said above. I also can't understand why *anyone* would defend that decision or continue to support the GOP if it kowtows to the openly intolerant. "Mean in policy, nice personally" has been the GOP's standard operating procedure since forever-- it's scary if it actually has changed that much.

Polarity27:

Dags90:

Seekster:
He fired him because he was a liability, he was a liability because he was openly gay. Thats an important distinction to make. Romney hired him so clearly doesnt care if he is gay or not, however the man has to win an election and he can't do that if most of the people who would be impressed by him sticking up for this guy are going to vote for Obama no matter what. The more I think about this the more I wonder if this was a deliberate move; hire him to show that Romney doesnt care if the person is gay but when some Conservative raise a fuss fire him because he is a liability. It allows Romney to more or less have it both ways (pun not intended).

It makes him look like he caves to external pressure. Romney needs to start disagreeing with the Republican base if he's ever going to win ground with moderates.

Agreed.

And Seekster, apparently you have no memory whatsoever, or you're simply too young to remember that during the 2000 campaign, Bush had several gay staff members and openly stood behind his decision to hire and keep them. He also said that laws weren't the way to change people's position on abortion, that you "have to change their hearts". Oh, and Dick Cheney championed civil unions.

The Republican Party has been anti-gay as a policy matter for some time, but inflexibility toward gay *individuals* is something that's incredibly new and shows how far the party has regressed. Whatever happened to "love the sinner, hate the sin"?

I wasnt really actively following politics up until 2004 so I was unaware of that but it doesnt surprise me. I said earlier that someone like Bush wouldnt have any problems with this because nobody questions Bush's commitment to things like traditional marriage. Romney is a different story. This has more to do with who Romney is than who they gay guy who was fired is.

Yes banning abortion won't doesnt completely fix the problem, one thing about Conservatives is we know that government is not the answer to all of societies ills and more often than not it is probably the source of those ills. Good for Cheney, I agree with him on that. There is nothing at all wrong with civil unions.

Also let me repeat that I agree with everyone here that this was a bad move for Romney, all I am saying is I understand why he did it.

It makes sense, fire the gay man in order to sure up the further right side of the political party that are still sore that Santorum isn't going to be the nomination. But he doesn't go out and say "Being gay is bad so I fired him" in order to not scare away some of the moderates/independent votes. I probably would have done it if I was in his position, but of course I wouldn't have a chance anyways seeing as I am a gay man.

Captcha: forget this. I think captcha doesn't think this is a big deal.

Dags90:

He's going to lose points with moderates for firing him for being gay. Employment discrimination is one of the things people most support about LGBT rights, with a 2 to 1 margin of people supporting employment protections.

Agreed, this kind of thing makes Libertarians hate Republicans. Liberals annoy me at times and spend money poorly, but at least they mostly treat most people somewhat equally. Republicans have a pretty bad history of this sort of shit.

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked