Romney Campaign: No Gays Allowed

[Phatscotty]

Symm music is hittin
BBS, you are ruining the movie magic!

[demonfork]

And how am I baiting?

Are you skipping your meds again?

[thegreekdog]

I didn't see 15 of the same posts. I saw 2. Is there some special program I need for that?

It appears that the title of the thread is misleading; that shouldn't stop the thread of course (since we have a lot of those types of threads in the off-topics forum). But based on the evidence provided by GabonX, without refuting evidence from Symmetry, the thread title appears misleading.

[PLAYER57832]

This article seems to put a different view on things. If this article is accurate, then it does look as if Romney is pretty anti-gay.

That is not suprising. Nowadays, to be elected in many places you have to cater to the far religious right.


Per the party as a whole, there are the Log Cabin Republicans. However, I would not say the represent homosexuals or Republicans as a whole.

y David Horsey

May 4, 2012, 5:00 a.m.
Richard Grenell had the right resume to be Mitt Romney’s spokesman on foreign policy -- a stint as communications director for four of the George W. Bush administration’s U.N. ambassadors, a degree from Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, his own international PR firm and frequent stints on TV as an expert on international issues. Too bad for him he has a boyfriend.

Grenell was the first openly gay spokesman for a presidential candidate, but he never got to speak. Before he even officially started the job, enraged homophobes in the so-called pro-family community spooked Romney’s campaign staff. The campaign aides tried to stuff Grenell into a metaphorical closet until things blew over. During a major conference call with reporters in which President Obama’s national security policies were dissected, Grenell was forced to sit in silence.

On May 1, Grenell quit his job.

The Romney campaign folks say they tried hard to persuade Grenell to stay. But they were too timid and too cowed by the religious right to do what he asked them to do: let him do his job.

From the perspective of the campaign, it seemed like a good idea to wait until the controversy faded and not let Grenell become the focus of attention instead of their candidate. But no matter how long they kept him in the background, the day would come when Grenell would end up on TV delivering Romney’s foreign policy message. As soon as that happened, the wing nuts, snake handlers and talk-radio gas-bags would pounce.

The problem is not Grenell’s views on international affairs, which are pure Republican; it is his outspoken support of gay marriage. Bryan Fischer, the American Family Assn.’s tweeting Savonarola, told his Twitter followers that, by hiring Grenell, Romney was telling pro-family conservatives to “drop dead.” A National Review columnist predicted that Grenell would quickly switch sides and support President Obama if the incumbent came out in favor of same-sex marriage. The Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins raised the fear that Grenell would use his position to establish “sexual orientation” as a basic human right. (As opposed to what, a capital crime?)

As Americans become more accepting of homosexuality, the literalist wing of Christianity becomes more freaked out. Sean Harris, pastor of the Berean Baptist Church in Fayetteville, N.C., recently got himself media attention when he said to the men in his congregation, “Dads, the second you see your son dropping the limp wrist, walk over there and crack that wrist. Man up. Give him a good punch.”

As far as I know, Richard Grenell’s wrists are firm. I can’t say the same about Romney and his team. Romney is about to become the leader of his party and, perhaps, leader of the Free World. It would be nice to see him man up and tell the medieval wing of his party that it will not dictate to him about whom he hires to run his foreign policy. Instead, as he has for months on the campaign trail, Romney continues to suck up to the anti-gay religious activists, most of whom find his Mormon beliefs repugnant.

Barry Goldwater would not have dumped Ric Grenell; he would have told the carping Bible-thumpers to go to hell.

The man who was once the voice of American conservatives slammed Pat Robertson for “trying to take the Republican Party and make a religious organization out of it.” When Jerry Falwell opposed the appointment of Sandra Day O’Connor to the Supreme Court, Goldwater said, “Every good Christian should kick Falwell" right where it counts. And, of gays in the military, Goldwater said, “everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar.”

After his retirement from the Senate, Goldwater warned that his party was being taken over by a “bunch of kooks.” Well, the kooks are in charge now, and, apparently, Mitt Romney knows who is boss.

[xeno]

Is it just me or does this Romney guy give off that New World Order sort of vibe?

[demonfork]

Is it just me or does this Romney guy give off that New World Order sort of vibe?

"When the people shall have torn to shreds the Constitution of the United States the Elders of Israel will be found holding it up to the nations of the earth and proclaiming liberty and equal rights to all men"

-Joseph Smith-

[Symmetry]

Is it just me or does this Romney guy give off that New World Order sort of vibe?

I think he's just a typical pol, with no thoughts of his own beyond what will get him elected. I don't even particularly think he's anti-gay, just very willing to play to the far-right when it seems like it might get him votes.

[Symmetry]

EXCLUSIVE: Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives

Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.

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?”

The argument that Grenell could essentially not be openly gay and serve on a GOP presidential campaign was belied by the fact that Grenell has been a loyal Republican for many years, working for esteemed foreign policy figures including former Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton.

The ongoing pressure from social conservatives over his appointment and the reluctance of the Romney campaign to send Grenell out as a spokesman while controversy swirled left Grenell essentially with no job. The Romney camp has not responded to my request for comment.

UPDATE (3:50 p.m.): Right Turn has learned from multiple sources that the senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful. During the two weeks after Grenell’s hiring was announced the Romney campaign did not put Grenell out to comment on national security matters and did not use him on a press foreign policy conference call. Despite the controversy in new media and in conservative circles, there was no public statement of support for Grenell by the campaign and no supportive social conservatives were enlisted to calm the waters. Beyond his statement, Grenell has declined further comment today.

This, from a conservative source.

[BigBallinStalin]

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.

[PLAYER57832]

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.

If you equate the individual with the campaign direction then you seriously misjudge what politics is about.

To be a politician means an inherent amount of hypocricy. Depending on whether that is a negative (waffling, capitulating to the opposition, not standing one's ground) or a positive (willing to compromise, answering to constituency, etc.) generally depends on which political actions you like or dislike.

No one gets to be a powerful political by being openly hateful to much of anyone outside of political opinions. That is, I strongly disliked much of what Ronald Reagan stood for, but he was a nice man in person and his speeches tended to be very eloquent. (at least when he spoke on non-controlversial topics outside of a political debate).

[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/