Romney Campaign: No Gays Allowed

[Symmetry]

Pieces in two conservative publications, the National Review and Daily Caller, reflected the uproar by some social conservatives over the appointment. [UPDATE, 4:30 p.m.: Although Grenell also raised the ire of liberal commentators with now-deleted tweets about certain prominent women, none of the sources I spoke with mentioned the tweets as a factor in his resignation decision.]

In the National Review, Matthew J. Franck wrote late last week: “Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?”

Why doesn't Obama do this? I guess his not doing this must mean he is anti-gay!

No, it's about political marketing--just as it is for Romney.

I don't think I've ever argued that this decision wasn't about political marketing. Indeed, from the get go I've posted sources indicating that this was Romney pandering to the homophobic far right. Indeed, I've posted sources from liberals, conservatives, anti-gay sources, foreign and US based sources, all agreeing the same thing.

That Romney caved to far-right anti-gay pressure. I'm not sure why you think I didn't argue that.

[PLAYER57832]

That Romney caved to far-right anti-gay pressure. I'm not sure why you think I didn't argue that.

It seems Obama is not that far off. Apparently he was upset about Biden saying he openly supported equal rights for gay marriage.

So.... politics. If we want politicians to respond to us, we have to actually vote. AND,sadly more and more to convince people we would need tons of money. Money that most of us here don't have.

[Symmetry]

That Romney caved to far-right anti-gay pressure. I'm not sure why you think I didn't argue that.

It seems Obama is not that far off. Apparently he was upset about Biden saying he openly supported equal rights for gay marriage.

So.... politics. If we want politicians to respond to us, we have to actually vote. AND,sadly more and more to convince people we would need tons of money. Money that most of us here don't have.

I think he's caved to conservative pressure, but I make a distinction between Romney caving to the far-right end and Obama caving to a conservative part of the electorate. I'm not that happy with Obama's stance either, to be fair, but I don't see the cases as equal.

[PLAYER57832]

That Romney caved to far-right anti-gay pressure. I'm not sure why you think I didn't argue that.

It seems Obama is not that far off. Apparently he was upset about Biden saying he openly supported equal rights for gay marriage.

So.... politics. If we want politicians to respond to us, we have to actually vote. AND,sadly more and more to convince people we would need tons of money. Money that most of us here don't have.

I think he's caved to conservative pressure, but I make a distinction between Romney caving to the far-right end and Obama caving to a conservative part of the electorate. I'm not that happy with Obama's stance either, to be fair, but I don't see the cases as equal.

True, and on many other fronts. Obama is "better than ... " , not particularly "good".

[Symmetry]

That Romney caved to far-right anti-gay pressure. I'm not sure why you think I didn't argue that.

It seems Obama is not that far off. Apparently he was upset about Biden saying he openly supported equal rights for gay marriage.

So.... politics. If we want politicians to respond to us, we have to actually vote. AND,sadly more and more to convince people we would need tons of money. Money that most of us here don't have.

I think he's caved to conservative pressure, but I make a distinction between Romney caving to the far-right end and Obama caving to a conservative part of the electorate. I'm not that happy with Obama's stance either, to be fair, but I don't see the cases as equal.

True, and on many other fronts. Obama is "better than ... " , not particularly "good".

That's fair comment. Lesser of two evils is one way to phrase the argument on this issue, but I do think Obama has done a fair bit of good for gay rights. I don't see much from a Romney presidency if he won't even stand up and defend a guy he hired once the far-right latched on that the dude was gay.

[thegreekdog]

The president did more for gay rights than any other president (or candidate would have done). It's not a spotless record, but it's definitely better than any alternative (including the Clintons).

[Symmetry]

The president did more for gay rights than any other president (or candidate would have done). It's not a spotless record, but it's definitely better than any alternative (including the Clintons).

Yup, and that's kind of why I don't buy into the lazy moral equivalence of arguing that Romney can't be criticised if you don't also criticise Obama.

[thegreekdog]

The president did more for gay rights than any other president (or candidate would have done). It's not a spotless record, but it's definitely better than any alternative (including the Clintons).

Yup, and that's kind of why I don't buy into the lazy moral equivalence of arguing that Romney can't be criticised if you don't also criticise Obama.

I think the gay community has reason to criticize both me, frankly. The president is trying to stay on the fence so he can both keep the gay voters (and gay-sympathetic voters) and the Christian Democrats who are against gay marriage (yes, they exist and there are a lot of them). Romney is trying to take a hardline on gay marriage so he can get social conservative Republicans out in droves. It's just politicking, but by track record I think they are about even (although I might even put Romney ahead given where Massachusetts is on gay marriage).

[Symmetry]

The president did more for gay rights than any other president (or candidate would have done). It's not a spotless record, but it's definitely better than any alternative (including the Clintons).

Yup, and that's kind of why I don't buy into the lazy moral equivalence of arguing that Romney can't be criticised if you don't also criticise Obama.

I think the gay community has reason to criticize both me, frankly. The president is trying to stay on the fence so he can both keep the gay voters (and gay-sympathetic voters) and the Christian Democrats who are against gay marriage (yes, they exist and there are a lot of them). Romney is trying to take a hardline on gay marriage so he can get social conservative Republicans out in droves. It's just politicking, but by track record I think they are about even (although I might even put Romney ahead given where Massachusetts is on gay marriage).

I'm not so sure on that, though I do see your point. Romney's politicking for the presidency courts the anti-gay crowd, and Obama courts a skepitical centre. I don't forgive Obama's pandering, but I don't see it as equal to Romney. Bear in mind that Romney donated to "gay-cure" groups.

On the issue of homosexuality, the lesser of two evils.

[thegreekdog]

The president did more for gay rights than any other president (or candidate would have done). It's not a spotless record, but it's definitely better than any alternative (including the Clintons).

Yup, and that's kind of why I don't buy into the lazy moral equivalence of arguing that Romney can't be criticised if you don't also criticise Obama.

I think the gay community has reason to criticize both me, frankly. The president is trying to stay on the fence so he can both keep the gay voters (and gay-sympathetic voters) and the Christian Democrats who are against gay marriage (yes, they exist and there are a lot of them). Romney is trying to take a hardline on gay marriage so he can get social conservative Republicans out in droves. It's just politicking, but by track record I think they are about even (although I might even put Romney ahead given where Massachusetts is on gay marriage).

I'm not so sure on that, though I do see your point. Romney's politicking for the presidency courts the anti-gay crowd, and Obama courts a skepitical centre. I don't forgive Obama's pandering, but I don't see it as equal to Romney. Bear in mind that Romney donated to "gay-cure" groups.

On the issue of homosexuality, the lesser of two evils.

I try to look at policy more than personal stance or political pandering (there was a lot of criticism of JFK because he was Catholic and he took the approach both in politicking and in policy making that Catholicism would not enter into his presidency... and it didn't).

On the one hand, President Obama was instrumental in getting rid of DADT.

On the one hand, Governor Mitt Romney did nothing to undermine Massachusetts' gay marriage policies.

I don't think you can criticze either one for policies (unless you criticize President Obama for not doing anything else).

[Symmetry]

The president did more for gay rights than any other president (or candidate would have done). It's not a spotless record, but it's definitely better than any alternative (including the Clintons).

Yup, and that's kind of why I don't buy into the lazy moral equivalence of arguing that Romney can't be criticised if you don't also criticise Obama.

I think the gay community has reason to criticize both me, frankly. The president is trying to stay on the fence so he can both keep the gay voters (and gay-sympathetic voters) and the Christian Democrats who are against gay marriage (yes, they exist and there are a lot of them). Romney is trying to take a hardline on gay marriage so he can get social conservative Republicans out in droves. It's just politicking, but by track record I think they are about even (although I might even put Romney ahead given where Massachusetts is on gay marriage).

I'm not so sure on that, though I do see your point. Romney's politicking for the presidency courts the anti-gay crowd, and Obama courts a skepitical centre. I don't forgive Obama's pandering, but I don't see it as equal to Romney. Bear in mind that Romney donated to "gay-cure" groups.

On the issue of homosexuality, the lesser of two evils.

I try to look at policy more than personal stance or political pandering (there was a lot of criticism of JFK because he was Catholic and he took the approach both in politicking and in policy making that Catholicism would not enter into his presidency... and it didn't).

On the one hand, President Obama was instrumental in getting rid of DADT.

On the one hand, Governor Mitt Romney did nothing to undermine Massachusetts' gay marriage policies.

I don't think you can criticze either one for policies (unless you criticize President Obama for not doing anything else).

I sort of understand your point, but I don't get why you would say that presidential candidates can't be criticized for their policies.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

I do think you have a fair point criticizing Obama's stance, I don;t think the comparison is equal though.

[thegreekdog]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

I do think you have a fair point criticizing Obama's stance, I don;t think the comparison is equal though.

Why?

[Symmetry]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying Symm.

My point, overall, is that if you compare the policies of both candidates from when they were in office, there is nothing differentiating one from the other with respect to gay rights (except that Mitt Romney was governor of a state that permits gay marriage and President Obama was not and is not the president of a country that permits gay marriage).

I do think you have a fair point criticizing Obama's stance, I don;t think the comparison is equal though.

Why?

I've covered some of this before, but basically most see his campaign as pretty homophobic. Based solely on this issue I'd call him homophobic. but looking into his relationships with homophobic groups he does seem to have caved to the right/