Just two weeks ago, the Romney campaign hired Richard Grenell to serve as the Republican's spokesperson on foreign policy. And while this isn't ordinarily a high-profile position, the decision proved to be problematic for a couple of reasons.
From the left, Grenell proved to be controversial because of a series of social-media messages that targeted women in politics and media with sexist language. From the right, Grenell was criticized for being gay, which some religious right activists found outrageous because, well, they just don't like gay people.
Today, Jennifer Rubin reports that Grenell has been "hounded from the Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives," just two weeks after joining Team Romney.
Pieces in two conservative publications, the National Review and Daily Caller, reflected the uproar by some social conservatives over the appointment. [...]
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 larger significance of this is what it tells us about Romney's relative weakness in the face of pressure from his base. The former governor hired a qualified former Bush administration official; the right said gay people are bad people; so Romney quickly accepted his own staffer's resignation, despite the fact that the aide had done nothing wrong on the job. Romney was comfortable with Grenell's misogynistic tweets before getting the job, but uncomfortable with anti-gay animus from the right after Grenell was already on the job.
If Romney had more courage, he would have stood by his staffer, and told the religious right to get over it. But since that backbone doesn't exist, and Romney's afraid social conservatives' hatred of the president won't be enough on Election Day, Grenell gets to experience firsthand Romney's fondness for firing people who provide services for him.
For more on Grenell's background, here's a segment we aired after he got the job.
Update: Romney aides have since told Rubin that the campaign urged Grenell not to resign. This seems hard to believe -- he was on the job for 10 days, during which time, as Rubin reported, the 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."
As Ed Kilgore joked, "Whatever. It doesn’t much matter if Grenell was fired or was made so uncomfortable that he decided to 'self-deport.'"
Leave a Comment:
This says it all:
Romney is gutless.
Gutless, brainless, heartless, no courage... this guy need to see the Wizard of Oz, stat!
He sure isn't his father... I lived in MI when his father was governor..and I was actually a Republican...BOY, WAS THAT LONG AGO! I am getting waaay too old!
True, but he also should have told Grenell to cut out his misogyny or he WOULD be out for real.
Yes, folks, this is the person who wants to be president. Because he has a firm grasp on "right" and "wrong" and is completely in favor of civil rights.
<sigh>
More proof that Republicans evolved from creatures without backbones and instead came directly from pond scum.
I've always thought that Black and Hispanic Republicans were an oxymoron and I sure don't get the republican gays. How on earth do they think those are their people? Strange.
Believe it or not, some gays have valid reasons for wanting lower taxes, lower deficits, pro-growth and pro-business policy, rein in regulations perceived to be excessive or poorly executed, pro-life policies, respect for persons of faith (seriously becoming a problem for progressives), secure borders, empower local government (limit the Federal government's ability to abrogate State laws and set policy for all centrally, in accord with the Constitution), domestic energy production, robust and active foreign policy backed by a strong and well-funded military, etc., etc.
In other words, just because a person may be LGBT, it does not automatically follow that they would agree with liberals and progressives on other issues. And to some people, one issue is not enough to cast a vote. To some LGBT people, their non-heteronormativity is not the only factor that is important to them, nor is it the only way they identify themselves (some also identify as engineers, artists, teachers, cooks, carpenters, lawyers, soldiers, parents, Americans, et al.)
So yes, even though the GOP has become toxic to gays in so many ways, it is a fallacy and rather bigoted to assume that any LGBT person who votes Republican must therefore be self-hating or doesn't "get" that the GOP includes the Religious Right, along with the other varieties of conservatism (pro-business, pro-military, libertarian...) They understand just fine. What some liberals and progressives do not yet understand, apparently, is that gay people can hold differing opinions on issues like foreign policy, labor unions, Keynesian economics, immigration policy, abortion, gun rights, energy policy, and on and on. What makes anyone think that if you are gay, you must therefore tow the Democratic Party line on everything else?'
I would submit that it is only the people who believe liberals/progressives are the exclusive advocates of "sane policy" who also believe that gay people cannot reasonably be Republican without therapy. And since so many conservatives also believe they alone hold the only "sane policy positions," this is why the nation hasn't been more starkly polarized since Reconstruction.
You were doing so well, until "'tow' the line".
@pooee, I don't know if you will ever get this because this article on Rachel's Blog is 3 days old, but I do want to respond to your post above. I wondered about your detailed post berating liberals for assuming that people in the LGBT community would gravitate to the liberal party was bigoted. There is a vast difference between assumption and bigotry. I would assume you connected with a party that did not hold the very foundation of your sexual being in an ill light, the same way you could assume a person like myself that respects a person's rights of personal choice to be among members of the Democratic Party.
I also wondered if you had invested similar time writing letters to your Republican elected statesmen calling them bigots when they are so busy passing anti gay legislation as opposed to the time you spend striking out towards people who support your basic rights? Maybe swinging at non-threatening targets gives you a sense of payback and is easier on you mentally for you to stay cozy in your smug refrain, than facing the fact that the people whose club you want to belong to don't like you for bigoted reasons. Whatever keeps you going though.
By the way the political philosophy that you attribute to the RW party has never really existed, and if you believe that then you have drank their magical potion of denial long ago.
Just confirms the religious rights' narrow mindness. Why do they have so much clout?
Because they are a fear based organization. What they cannot understand nor tolerate-they hate and fear.
Passion, focus, and ruthlessness.
And, yeah, we could do the Monte Python thing except I'm really not in the mood.
And there, my friends, is why Mitt's flip-flopping rhetoric doesn't matter. Because in the end, Mitt is going to do what he's told by socially conservative corporate leadership. He would be a puppet, not a President.
Maybe this is the house of cards that is finally falling in Mitt's campaign?
Did you actually expect Romney to say anything? He's just a puppet, the 1% hold one set of strings and the Religious extremist hold the other.
Very charitable to use a marionette as your metaphor...
Maybe someday Mittens will grow up to be a real boy.....
He's exactly what Grover and Paul Ryan want. Fits the bill.
Of more amazement is why Grenell accepted the position to begin with??!
It can be challenging to know that others hold passionately opposed opinions to one's own. It is also difficult when one thinks they have the higher moral ground to accept that others on a different side believes the same.
I'm a Christian and a Republican. I believe abortion is wrong but I can understand how someone else sees it simply as an option or choice. I don't agree with it, but I can accept their view.
Too often we think those who disagree with us on a moral issue are evil, mean, unloving, etc, when in reality they don't have to be any of these. How they go about communicating their opposing view is often more relevant to their character than their view itself.
IMHO
ahhh, character. Yes. I do believe that Grenell's character is in sync with the Republican party. What is of amazement is that a gay person can overlook being personally invalidated by the party they choose to identify with.
So you are accusing Richard Grenell of being a sellout and of lying when he states:
Hmmm, President Obama recently said you should take a person at his word.
No one accused Richard Grenell of anything. It's a valid question as to why any self-respecting LGBT person would go to work for someone who belongs to the political party that would dearly love to see all LGBT people go back and hide in the closet again. Personally, I don't get it myself but apparently, Mr. Romney said the right things to Mr. Grenell and he accepted the position. Too bad he didn't realize just how short-lived that position would be or that Mr. Romney is definitely NOT a man of his word, unless the word is liar.
@RobDon - unfortunately, Grenell did take Romney at his word and got burned by weasel-speak. There's nothing in that quote that gives assurance beyond Romney and his team. If the base wants Grenell out, then apparently, Grenell's nameplate has been taken off the door.
President Obama believes marriage should be between a woman and a man yet there are gays in his administration. Any conflict there?
RobDon, there are a number of basis on which to defend Romney, his staff, Grenell, even the right wing bigots who screamed his sexual orientation was more important than his knowledge, but false equivalence is not one of them. Obama and Romney both believe marriage should be between a man and a woman however no one has been forced out of the Obama camp after 10 days because of sexual orientation, so please explain how Romney's silence in the face of homosexual bigotry is equivalent to Obama's support of gay rights?
Obama has also stated that he believes in Federal same-sex benefits. The LGBT community strongly believes that Obama will support equality regardless of his personal beliefs... and I have been an active member of the LGBT community for 53 years. He's the best thing going for us at this time, and he has our support.
Did anyone actually read the article? Everyone assumes he was forced out. It could be that he was, but is says he resigned. In addition, he received pressure from the "left" and the "right". Who knows the reason for his resignation. Sometimes, keeping you mouth shut is the best thing you can do. It gives you a chance to evaluate what the actual problem is. I am not a fan of Romney, but I do think everyone need to keep an open mind and not so quick to judge.
Romney confirms his ability to be influenced by the religious conservatives - again - it does not matter that the staffer did not do anything wrong. So now we know who Romney owes - he is a flip-flopper. Of course the fact that he was gay did not matter initially -but later it did.
Politics and religion = problems. I, as a woman, could never vote for him.
This is interesting. I wonder had he not resigned and instead had been asked to leave, if he could have sued for employment discrimination. Even many Republicans have said that gay people should not be fired from their jobs for being gay. Being pushed out, I suppose, is legal?
It's 2012 and I am heartily sickened by the moral wrecktitude (mis-spell intended) calling itself a candidate for POTUS. I am thoroughly ashamed of the incendiary language, gutter mentality, and an entire campaign for the highest office in the land that is largely based on little more than fear and prejudice, repeatedly playing to the lowest common denominator instead of doing what a candidate for POTUS MUST DO - which is LEAD.
Gee sounds just the Bush campaign(s), doesn't it?
Romney is a clown, his camp will spin this into some kind of stinky silk....but could you writers please PROOF READ THESE ARTICLES, I type fast also, but I do not get important words wrong in a well read forum. "hounded form the Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives," I am guessing he was hounded FROM the right....yes?
.
Romney is like a jellyfish--translucent, spineless, shape shifting and drifts with the tide.
You forgot "poisonous to those beneath him."
And white. Don't forget white.
OK, who's going to do the photo editing to put a jellyfish on Mitt?
It's not Cthulhu [1] but the process should be similar.
[1] Not-great, not-all-that-old one. However, squid and jellyfish are both marine invertebrates.
Being a male over 50 I find it hard to believe the pole in this demographic. A large majority of the over 50 associates of mine are not Mr. Romney supporters. If anything, we are disgusted with the right and Mr. Romney, Mr. Flip Flop and can't wait to exercise our right to vote.
Now I hear that NJ Governor Mr. Christie might be convinced to run as VP if Romney convinced him. Now, one of my over 50 friends who has worked magnanamously in the arts community for years was targeted by the Christie machine as someone who misused NJ state arts funding. His home was searched, he was hauled into court, he was abused and intimidated. The result? There was no evidence of wrong doing. All records were in place. Thousands of NJ tax dollars were spent on this witch hunt. If he teams with Romney, these kinds of behaviors will be more common place here in the US if by any chance they happen to win.
The religious right seems to hold the opinion that "gayness" is a choice and that gay people made the wrong one. I never chose to be heterosexual, and to me if you "choose" to be hetero while ignoring your true sexuality, that doesn't make you less gay. Just a liar. for references see: Larry Craig.
Tell me again: Why do gay people accept jobs from anti-gay politicians in the first place?
Because like everyone else they have to support themselves.
because they suffer with internalized homophobia, poor things.
Romney is a true dolt!!!
It shows how dangerous the far right really is. Here is a guy who not only was extremely qualified but a former member of the BUsh administration. In other words one of their own. But because he was gay they had to push him out. THis is just a tiny little touch of what will happen if America is foolish enough to give any more power to the GOP and the religious fanatics that have taken it over.
I am almost unable to even watch Romney speak any more. He is so stiff, fake, disingenuous and bafflingly idiotic that looking at him simply angers me. As if that isn't bad enough seeing women standing behind this pariah, smiling and supporting his positions AGAINST THEM, well this just makes me better understand how Germans fell for Hitler, they are stupid.
And they will all soon realize that what they fear most will come to pass more speedily than what they hope.
I'm sorry, but can someone please explain to me why anyone who is gay would not only BE a Republican, but want to help elect them?
I mean, let's take a look at the GOP's "gay agenda":
They oppose same-sex marriage. They oppose gay adoption. They would prefer that gay couples (or even individuals) not become foster parents. They do not want to provide gays with any legal protection against discrimination in the workplace, school, housing, medical care, taxes, etc. And if they really had their druthers, they'd pack up every gay American and ship them off to some deserted island on the *highly mistaken* belief that if we got rid of all "the gays" there would never be any more born (um, WRONG!!).
So basically, any gay American who actually finds themselves siding with the GOP, let alone actively working to put them in power at any level of government, is akin to a black person actively trying to elect members of the KKK.
Why not just shoot yourself in the foot now and get it over with?
Because gay people, like straight people, do not always prioritize the same things. Libertarians, as an example, believe that income is the way you gain freedom. So the more money you have the more freedom you have. Therefore if you want to be free to do the things you want to do in life- such as being w/ the one you love- then you must make money. Thus an anti-tax, anti-regulation, expanded corporate powers agenda would be far more akin to what you believe to be true about the world than a Democratic agenda of lower income inequality and equal rights. Libertarians fundamentally reject the notion that governments can give you rights (Santorum touched on this when he did his campaign). They fundamentally believe that you gain rights by the things you own and the wealth you amass. Therefore to them you would not be pushing for civil rights if you went through the government. You'd only be doing that if you pushed for higher wealth for gays.
Others simply vote Republican because that's how they were raised and how their family votes (most people do this anyways).
There are others still who are vehemently religious and are anti-abortion (yes there are gay men who are as adamantly opposed to abortion as straight men (and there are even gay women who have this attitude as well))
Basically the reason why a gay person votes Republican is for the same reason a straight person does. Why anyone does (at this point in time anyways) is beyond me. Whether the person is gay or not seems to me a moot point.
I would buy that explanation if it were backed up by facts. But let's face it - while a gay person who also happens to be wealthy may be able to avoid some of the problems ordinary (non-rich, non-influential) gay Americans deal with, they can't escape all of them. At the very least, they can't buy their way into marriage equality if it is banned nationwide, which IS a goal of the right-wing.
However, I DO agree 100% that it is beyond comprehension for ANYONE that is not already a member of the 1% to support the GOP, whether they are gay or not. I just find it doubly incomprehensible for someone like Grenells to do so.
I'm giving you the argument as I have heard it given to me by libertarians. I may be incorrect in how I am presenting it because of my own internal biases, but that is the gist of my understanding of their argument. Their argument is that freedom is tied directly w/ income and therefore the primary focus of any one individual needs to be that of economics (making more money). It's completely legitimate for you to reject that theory, but that is the libertarian belief system in a nutshell.
There is also the additional factor of people who are gay still being anti-abortion, pro-plutocracy, etc. Remember even some GLBTQ people can be racist. I've known white GLBTQ persons who were racist against blacks regardless of sexuality. Some GLBTQ people really hate federal assistance programs. One of my exes was vehemently anti-federal assistance. Ironically enough she used student loans to go to school, joined the national guard and used her GI bill to get her masters, and was also against tougher immigration policies. But that's a whole other story.
Anyways my point was from their perspective you and I are insane because we look to the government to solve our problems instead of looking towards businesses. And if you start from that mentality then you can understand how and why it would be that someone would vote Republican instead of Democratic. The only other time is when social issues are involved and as I said GLBTQ people can be just as conflicted.
Is that legal - can he sue them?
If the electorate would educate themselves, go to numerous sources and find the facts for themselves, I think it would eliminate any confusion. I honestly don't think any of them would vote Republican. After our new Gov. here in Wi., I would never ever vote Republican again, they should change their name to Tea-Party Republican. They cannot tell the truth about anything, I mean anything.Look at Romney one hour it is one way, and in the next it is another way and we could even have a third way. He has no idea what he believes, depends where he is and who he is talking to. He talks about economics and jobs? His state when he was Gov. ranked #47 in job creation. He knows nothing about economics or job creation. Now he hires someone who is "Gay", but when others complain, he is gone, with no defense from Romney. Flip and Flop!
If a person is not seen as totally equal, no other issue matters. the Republicans do not see gays as equal citizens.
Why did this gay man sign on to work for a right wing anti gay Republican? He was willing to support a man who would deny gay people their civil rights.
As for Romney? Hardly a shocker that he'll do as he's told. He isn't running for President but to be the rubber stamp of the right wing.