Openly gay foreign-policy spokesman for Romney campaign resigns; Update: “He wasn’t under wraps”

posted at 5:52 pm on May 1, 2012 by Allahpundit

Jen Rubin suggests that he quit in frustration, because Romney was too afraid of social conservative disapproval to let him speak for the campaign right now even though the OBL anniversary has pushed foreign policy front and center in the campaign. True?

In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:

“I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. 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. I want to thank Governor 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.”

According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign.

The response from Romney campaign manager Matt Rhoades:

“We are disappointed that Ric decided to resign from the campaign for his own personal reasons,” Rhoades said. “We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.”

Annnnnnnd the inevitable point-scoring from the Obama campaign:

“Today we learned that in the year 2012, a Republican nominee for President can’t have a gay person as spokesman,” wrote Obama Digital Director Teddy Goff on Twitter. “This is the kind of bigoted, anti-gay extremists a Romney administration would find itself held hostage to,” added pro-Obama super PAC founder Bill Burton. “After a brief and wondrous moratorium, Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell once again firmly in place inside the Romney campaign,” said former White House speechwriter Jon Lovett.

The theory, I guess, is that social conservatives turned up the heat on Romney to the point where Grenell felt obliged to muzzle him in lieu of firing him altogether. One minor problem with that speculation: There’s no solid evidence (yet) that any social-con heavy hitters made a major fuss about this. (Update: Wrong. See below.) There’s been some grumbling online — Rubin has a few pieces linked — but Romney surely knew there would be when he hired Grenell. To get him to do a 180 and silence his new spokesman out of fear of a “values” backlash among the base, someone with serious political muscle must have objected. Who? Another minor problem with the going theory: Grenell’s been working for conservatives for years. According to WaPo, “Grenell is perhaps best known for being George W. Bush’s top spokesman at the United Nations, serving under Ambassadors John Negroponte, John Danforth, John Bolton and Zalmay Khalilzad.” Bolton, in fact, reportedly phoned Grenell to try to talk him out of quitting. That is to say, social conservatives have had plenty of time to adapt to the thought of Grenell speaking on behalf of conservative pols. If they’re suddenly up in arms about it, why now? Are they in fact up in arms? And why would Romney risk alienating pro-gay Republicans — not to mention handing Obama a talking point for gay swing voters — by hiring a gay spokesman if he wasn’t prepared to stand by him? (Note that even now, Rhoades’s statement embraces Grenell by insisting that they wished he would stay.) Reminds me of when Komen irritated liberals by cutting ties to Planned Parenthood and then irritated conservatives by reestablishing ties. Mitt’s organization usually isn’t that amateurish. Have they been so here, or is there more to this story?

One other detail about Grenell. Before he was hired by the campaign, he was famous for his acerbic political posts on Twitter — so much so, in fact, that several hundred of them quietly disappeared after he joined the campaign, presumably because they might potentially embarrass Romney. Rubin’s sources say that played no part in his decision to leave, but my sense is that he’s caught more flak for that publicly than he has from social cons for his orientation. Make of it what you will. Exit question: If Romney was worried about how Grenell might be received on the right, why not turn him loose as a critic of Obama’s OBL-related attack on Mitt? That would have gotten conservatives on his side.

Update: A source tells ABC there is indeed more to the story:

But, in an interview with ABC News, a source familiar with Grenell’s departure from the Romney campaign disputed the “under wraps” suggestion.

This source said Grenell, whose hiring was first reported on April 19, had not yet started his duties as the campaign’s top national security spokesman and was in the process of moving from Los Angeles to Boston.

Tuesday would have been his first actual day on the job.

“He wasn’t under wraps; he wasn’t a spokesperson yet,” according to the individual with knowledge of Grenell’s hiring and resignation. “If he had wanted to, he would be a spokesman right now.”

ABC notes that radio host Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association was critical of Grenell’s hiring, but Ed points out on Twitter that Fischer’s also had things to say about Mormonism that likely wouldn’t make his opinion too influential inside Romneyworld.

Update: From National Journal: “A source close to the Romney campaign denied that Grenell resigned because of complaints about his sexual orientation. Rather, the source said, Grenell had become a story himself, which a spokesman should never do.” That’s great, except that by resigning he’s become a much bigger story than he was. Scroll up and read those statements from Obama’s campaign again. They’re having a field day with this.

Update: I was wrong — there are some prominent social cons who objected to Grenell’s hiring. Tony Perkins’s Family Research Council criticized Romney for it here (scroll down) and both Gary Bauer and Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center have complained about it. Did any one of them turn up the pressure on Romney privately? If he was going to bow to them, why did Romney hire Grenell in the first place?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

Let me see now… the guy’s out in LA, signs on not only with a Republican campaign, but a Mormon’s campaign, and everyone with half a brain in Cali knows that it was the Mormons who defeated Prop 8 (by layin’ on some heavy juju amongst the un-washed, easily cowed minorities in the Golden State!)

Geez, how long will it take to connect the dots and draw the correct picture here: the dude’s pals in LaLa land are just drawing him back, after first threatening him with outright blacklisting – and the guy probably has decent long term prospects which he’d like to protect. Not a really tough call for Grenell, but a real embarassment to the gay activists and their practice of tolerance.

ronco on May 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Let me see now… the guy’s out in LA, signs on not only with a Republican campaign, but a Mormon’s campaign, and everyone with half a brain in Cali knows that it was the Mormons who defeated Prop 8 (by layin’ on some heavy juju amongst the un-washed, easily cowed minorities in the Golden State!)

Geez, how long will it take to connect the dots and draw the correct picture here: the dude’s pals in LaLa land are just drawing him back, after first threatening him with outright blacklisting – and the guy probably has decent long term prospects which he’d like to protect. Not a really tough call for Grenell, but a real embarassment to the gay activists and their practice of tolerance.

ronco on May 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Precisely. Tony Perkins doesn’t even know from anything and doesn’t claim any credit at all for this.

ebrown2 on May 1, 2012 at 9:40 PM

To avoid any further embarrassments, GOP should just put every decision, press release, appointment, etc. through AFA first and get their approval. Then make it public.

lester on May 1, 2012 at 9:46 PM

The guy resigns and says this:

“I want to thank Governor 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.”

And the left is reading this as he got shoved under the bus because he was gay. What part of “…and (Gov. Romney’s) clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team” seems ambiguous or unclear?

It was the extremists on the LEFT, upset by some old Tweets, who forced this guy to resign with their typical pile-on smear campaign. And Jennifer Rubin is stupid and irresponsible for floating the “anti-gay far right” shit without a single fact to back it up. The only people — the ONLY people — criticizing this guy’s addition to the Romney campaign were those from the professional left and their merry band of smear merchants.

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 9:47 PM

I’m sorry you feel this way, but I have to ask what does “anti-gay rhetoric” mean anyway? The majority of people who oppose the homosexual agenda, yes mainly found in the political right, have very valid reasons for doing so. At least they have reasons that should be discussed in the public square but too often any reasonable discussion of these varied viewpoints are shouted down and labeled as “anti-gay homophobia”. It’s hard to discuss these issues when your “opponent” gets hysterical, but that’s also part of the agenda. If you don’t think this agenda exists, read After the Ball. It is calculated and it is subversive. Don’t allow yourself to be used.

quiz1 on May 1, 2012 at 8:58 PM

I am not part of a homosexual agenda, nor am I being used by one. I’ve always prided myself as an individual, not a member of any group. After what I’ve posted on here tonight, why would you assume I’m some part of a subversive agenda or being used by one?

Anti-gay rhetoric? Accusing gay men of being child molesters. Accusing women of choosing to be gay just because they haven’t had a good f**k from a man. Obsessing over and openly expressing disgust at private sexual behavior between same-sex couples, with no repudiation from other so-called freedom loving conservatives. I could also type in all the pejorative terms used to describe gay men and women, but I won’t. None of this is valid discourse.

Believe it or not, most gay men and women are not part of some sinister agenda. Most of us go to work each day and support ourselves, because we must rely on ourselves only. Many of us are Christians too. I would even say that in reality, most gays are classical liberal conservatives, but they unfortunately buy into the false security of liberalism. Gays are not all alike, quiz1.

The Republican Party can promote anti-gay rhetoric and falsely think it will grow its influence by pandering to irrational gay-haters- that’s its choice and it has the right to do that, but I will no longer be a part of it after this election.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Ugh!! adding to reply to BKennedy (I’m tired) I absolutely agree that the nuclear family is/can be like the “glue” that helps society with a firm foundation. But there’s a difference between the ability to have kids, desire to have kids, and actually having kids. And there are no guarantees that any family will have productive parents raising productive children. Many times, society would be better if there were no marriage of family with some people.

There are simply too many variables to say “hetero marriage” is good for humanity, “gay marriage” is not.

JetBoy on May 1, 2012 at 9:17 PM

I’d agree with you JetBoy but for one thing:

Live and let live is not what the homosexual activist movement is about.

Marriage is just the foot in the door to what the real goal is, which is creating a legal basis for further intrusions on religious liberty. Catholic adoption services are always the first targets as soon as a judge or legislature legalizes the practice.

Then a homosexual activist goes up to a Catholic adoption agency and demands they adopt a child out to a gay couple. Because Catholic adoption services is very strict in their adherence to placing children in one-man, one-woman households because of their deeply held belief that is the only proper environment to raise children, the gay couple is denied.

Even when referred to an adoption agency that did not use one-man, one-woman as part of their criteria, they still filed a civil discrimination suit. This has happened everywhere homosexual marriage is legalized, no matter how temporarily.

Ultimately only one party actually values any valid principle of separation of church and state, and it’s the church. Homosexual activists will always side with the state for the reasons I mentioned in a previous post. If Catholic agencies do not violate their convictions to what the state deems proper, then they will be punished.

Marriage is not just a contract, it’s an institution. And I’d agree no-fault divorce was it’s biggest blow. But the fact you don’t even take it seriously by referencing the antics of Kim Kardashian leads me to believe it’s not about what is good for society, but of a deep-seated need for not just public tolerance or acceptance, but active endorsement. Academia lusts for a day where they can take everything perverted and put it on a pedestal over what is normal. Homosexual adoption, the denying a child of the right to both a mother and father, will be lauded as heroism because unlike the breeders, homosexual couples made an active choice.

You know that is exactly how this is going to play out. I’d agree there are several fish to fry in the marriage debate, but if you think it’s so flippant and worthless, why would you want it, and why should it’s definition change if you care that little?

BKennedy on May 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

On the other hand, Grenell was specifically a foreign policy spokesman. His job had absolutely nothing to do with his sexual preference. Not even tangentially. So to what degree his being gay had to do with his departure, we’ll probably never know definitively.

gryphon202 on May 1, 2012 at 9:33 PM

Actually quite a bit, when you consider that resolutions that proclaim that to be able to live a homosexual lifestyle is a human right come up fairly often in the UN. Though such bills are less about pushing a gay agenda and more about shaming Muslim countries and their rules about…everything.

Hostile Gospel on May 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

I have several family members who are gay so I’m well aware that they are individuals. And I have to call BS on your claim that you are a RINO holding their nose to vote R this fall. All of the “rhetoric” you’ve posted as an example of typical GOP behavior? Fringe at best. You’ve proven my point. You seem pretty well adept at shaming in order to halt discussion.

quiz1 on May 1, 2012 at 10:03 PM

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Remind me again, how has Obama’s position evolved?

Fred Phelps is a Democrat, not a Republican.

The KKK’s anti-gay hatemongers are a branch of the Democrat Party, historically and today.

And it’s the Democrat party that constantly coddles jihadists and their sympathizers, a people and culture so backward they think homosexuals should be stoned.

I’m reminded of what I read in The Autobiography of Malcolm X, which I read after a minor conflict between suitemates. Malcolm X said (in relation to blacks) that liberals were like a fox, and they would deceive you and have you halfway eaten before you realize they aren’t your allies. He likened conservatives to wolves, who just snarled at you without the deceptive pretense.

Truly informed religious people think homosexuality is a cross that some people have to bear, and they want homosexuals to try and break free of their abnormal relationships to the same or the opposite gender, and if they cannot to live a chaste and holy single life.

Leftists on the other hand see homosexuals as just another constituency to check off at the ballot box.

BKennedy on May 1, 2012 at 10:08 PM

And the left is reading this as he got shoved under the bus because he was gay. What part of “…and (Gov. Romney’s) clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team” seems ambiguous or unclear?

It was the extremists on the LEFT, upset by some old Tweets, who forced this guy to resign with their typical pile-on smear campaign. And Jennifer Rubin is stupid and irresponsible for floating the “anti-gay far right” shit without a single fact to back it up. The only people — the ONLY people — criticizing this guy’s addition to the Romney campaign were those from the professional left and their merry band of smear merchants.

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Jennifer Rubin has been “stupid and irresponsible” for quite some time now.

As for Fischer:

Fischer has been by far the most publicly outspoken pro-family activist on the matter, saying Romney hiring Grenell was like telling the pro-family community to “drop dead” and suggesting that Grenell’s sexuality was even more important in light of the Secret Service scandal.

But he said he was a little surprised. He said that he and two other members of the “pro-family” community — the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer of American Values — were the only three he knew of who publicly expressed their displeasure.

“I’ve had no contact with the Romney campaign. I have not made an effort to reach out to them. They have not made an effort to reach out to me,” he said.

“I’m not aware of others that have expressed public criticism of the hire,” he added. “That’s why it surprised me to hear Grenell talk about how much pressure he was under. I don’t know where that was coming from, and I’m not even sure that’s true.”

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/bryan-fischer-richard-grenell-reaction-good-for-romney-2012-5

ebrown2 on May 1, 2012 at 10:08 PM

Unless someone is having sex with the boss or the enemy, why do I need to know? Gov. Romney has been ignoring the base most of the primary season and this is where he wants to cave? I get a little tired of a very few defining the many.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

There is a difference between opposing someone because they are gay, and opposing someone becuase they are outspoken advocates for gay marriage, yes?

Very few people here seem to be able to make that distinction, which is kind of sad.

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Why are queers in the public limelight so invariably self-centered?

It’s all about them, and if it isn’t they’ll do something to make it that way.

rayra on May 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

Marriage is not just a contract, it’s an institution. And I’d agree no-fault divorce was it’s biggest blow. But the fact you don’t even take it seriously by referencing the antics of Kim Kardashian leads me to believe it’s not about what is good for society, but of a deep-seated need for not just public tolerance or acceptance, but active endorsement. Academia lusts for a day where they can take everything perverted and put it on a pedestal over what is normal. Homosexual adoption, the denying a child of the right to both a mother and father, will be lauded as heroism because unlike the breeders, homosexual couples made an active choice.

BKennedy on May 1, 2012 at 10:00 PM

Foes of “bourgeois heteronormativity” complaining about the status of marraige=Arsonists complaining about the Fire Department

ebrown2 on May 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

@bkennedy

If you read my previous posts, you would read that I’m leaving the Republican Party for the Libertarian Party, which is a better fit for me. I’m a classical liberal conservative and do not defend liberalism or the Democrat Party.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Why are queers in the public limelight so invariably self-centered?

It’s all about them, and if it isn’t they’ll do something to make it that way.

rayra on May 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

That was a phenomenon decried by William S. Burroughs back in 1953′s JUNKIE. Although he was an “out” homosexual during the 50′s, he detested the camp pretenses and outre’ behavior of those who let their sexuality eat up their entire personality to the point that they were just “marionettes” (his term). Jerks like Dan Savage, for example.

ebrown2 on May 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Gov. Romney has been ignoring the base most of the primary season…

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

In fact, during the campaign Mitt Romney sent every signal possible he wanted to get the nomination without owing conservatives or the Tea Party anything.

Before conservatives give their support to Mitt Romney we must see concrete action. We must see that Romney will campaign as a conservative, govern as a conservative and that a Romney administration and a Romney White House will be dominated by conservatives – anything less means that even if conservatives support him and Romney is elected, we will have merely exchanged one set of Washington insiders for another in DC’s halls of power.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Corrected:

Foes of “bourgeois heteronormativity” complaining about the status of marraige=Arsonists complaining about the Fire Department’s response time

ebrown2 on May 1, 2012 at 10:15 PM

ebrown2 on May 1, 2012 at 10:22 PM

am not part of a homosexual agenda, nor am I being used by one. I’ve always prided myself as an individual, not a member of any group. After what I’ve posted on here tonight, why would you assume I’m some part of a subversive agenda or being used by one?

Anti-gay rhetoric? Accusing gay men of being child molesters. Accusing women of choosing to be gay just because they haven’t had a good f**k from a man. Obsessing over and openly expressingdisgust at private sexual behavior between same-sex couples, with no repudiation from other so-called freedom loving conservatives. I could also type in all the pejorative terms used to describe gay men and women, but I won’t. None of this is valid discourse.

Believe it or not, most gay men and women are not part of some sinister agenda. Most of us go to work each day and support ourselves, because we must rely on ourselves only. Many of us are Christians too. I would even say that in reality, most gays are classical liberal conservatives, but they unfortunately buy into the false security of liberalism. Gays are not all alike, quiz1.

The Republican Party can promote anti-gay rhetoric and falsely think it will grow its influence by pandering to irrational gay-haters- that’s its choice and it has the right to do that, but I will no longer be a part of it after this election.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Where do you get the idea that the problem was that Grenell was gay?

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/297194/re-all-means-let-s-worry-about-richard-grenell-matthew-j-franck#

The problem was not his sexuality, but his support of same-sex marriage-the difference is important-though with their usual lack of guile Ed and AP have foolishly bought into Democrat talking points once again. And the vast majority of the “commentariat” here have followed right along, lemming-like.

Personally I agree with Williamson at NRO that Grenell’s support of same-sex marriage should have been overlooked considering the position he was hired to fill.

But it’s fundamentally dishonest to pretend that the problem was his mere sexuality. No matter how convenient such an incorrect assertion is for those with an axe to grind, and who therefore have little concern for the facts.

Suppose Grenell was an outspoken supporter of Obamacare, and Romney decided that even though Grenell’s position didn’t have anything to do with domestic policy, he didn’t want to have a supporter of a fundamentally Democratic position on his team?

We wouldn’t even be talking about it.

But then it is easier to run around calling people bigots, then taking the time to understand the actual issues at play.

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Seems fitting.

lester on May 1, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Unless someone is having sex with the boss or the enemy, why do I need to know? Gov. Romney has been ignoring the base most of the primary season and this is where he wants to cave? I get a little tired of a very few defining the many.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

Who said the problem was who Grenell was having sex with?

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:35 PM

Apparently these guys.

“Tony Perkins’s Family Research Council criticized Romney for it here (scroll down) and both Gary Bauer and Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center have complained about it.”

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:41 PM

@quiz1

I’ve been responding to posts on this message board for over two hours, so I hardly call that halting discussion. I’m just relaying my observations as a gay conservative involved with the party for over two decades. If you choose to deny my truthfulness, then so be it.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 10:21 PM

By acquiescing to a very small number it again paints conservatives in a very unfair light. Also, doesn’t speak well of Gov. Romney, either he made an poor choice or he isn’t willing to stand up for his picks. Hopefully Mission Accomplished Afghanistan will keep this from getting much media.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:35 PM
Apparently these guys.

“Tony Perkins’s Family Research Council criticized Romney for it here (scroll down) and both Gary Bauer and Dan Gainor of the Media Research Center have complained about it.”

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:41 PM

Did you actually bother to read Perkin’s or Bauer’s statements?

I’m guessing you didn’t.

They both complained about Grenell’s political positions regarding gay marriage, not his sexuality.

There is a difference, you know.

Gary Bauer, in his daily email to Campaign for Working Families members, called the hire an “unforced error” and a “disappointment.” Bauer said he is not upset that Grenell is gay but is angry that he wants to marry his longtime partner, claiming that it would only be acceptable if Grenell would oppose his own right to marry:

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/tony-perkins-gary-bauer-side-with-bryan-fischer-romney-openly-gay-staffer

Kevin Williamson is making progress. In his reply to my post about Richard Grenell, he has gone from blandness to high-minded insouciance about the presence of a self-described “activist” on same-sex marriage’s being recently hired by the Romney campaign as foreign-policy spokesman.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/297194/re-all-means-let-s-worry-about-richard-grenell-matthew-j-franck#

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:53 PM

@quiz1

I’ve been responding to posts on this message board for over two hours, so I hardly call that halting discussion. I’m just relaying my observations as a gay conservative involved with the party for over two decades. If you choose to deny my truthfulness, then so be it.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 10:42 PM

I choose to deny your truthfulness. You’ve spent the entire thread tossing out sweeping statements like this one:

over 20 years of horrible anti-gay rhetoric from Republican candidates and their supporters.

No examples of what you consider to be this “horrible, anti-gay rhetoric” we’re given, but I haven’t seen any myself, and you claimed there was some among the people here. You are a “victim” and you are also a classic example of a “moby,” based on your posts in this thread. Go peddle your own bigotry someplace else, por fa vor.

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 10:55 PM

I’m a classical liberal conservative and do not defend liberalism or the Democrat Party.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 10:17 PM

Good on you. Lefties are never truly liberal or progressive. They just stole the terms.

However, they will try to make hay out of this story, the hypocrits, if they have to stretch the truth a la Nancy Pelosi and Wasserman-Schmutz.

Mitt…well, he is the other guy who’s an eunuch, after the biggest of them all, Obama.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 10:57 PM

The Republican Party can promote anti-gay rhetoric and falsely think it will grow its influence by pandering to irrational gay-haters- that’s its choice and it has the right to do that, but I will no longer be a part of it after this election.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

What is this “anti-gay rhetoric” that you claim the Republican Party is promoting? Specific examples, please, or admit you’re full of crap.

And while you’re at it, define “gay-haters.” If it involves wanting to preserve traditional marriage and not condoning homosexual behavior, then I’m afraid that has nothing to do with hatred, and if you believe it does, then you’re just another gay bigot or a liar.

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:53 PM

So you don’t think his personal desires could be kept separate from the performance of his duties? Is the fear that he would use his position at a soap box? Is he considered an activist? As spokesman, when he is being interviewed, would the press bring these things up? Knowing the media, I guess that isn’t out of the realm of possibilities. As we know, what is said and how it is portrayed in the media, seldom match.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM

I hope the day comes soon enough when a black female gay atheist or a 1/32 Native American female gay agnost, or other such combo, runs for office so we can put all the PC crap behind us. It’s all very tedious.

MLK cries in his grave over what Obama made of the race issue.

What a stupid world it has become. Regression is in exponential swing.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 11:02 PM

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:52 PM

The article is about economic and financial issues more than social ones. The land doesn’t care much about the latter, before the former are redressed.

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM

@JannyMae

LOL. What is a moby?

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 11:08 PM

Schadenfreude on May 1, 2012 at 11:04 PM

What they care about and what is portrayed in the media are two very separate things.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 11:10 PM

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 10:53 PM
So you don’t think his personal desires could be kept separate from the performance of his duties? Is the fear that he would use his position at a soap box? Is he considered an activist? As spokesman, when he is being interviewed, would the press bring these things up? Knowing the media, I guess that isn’t out of the realm of possibilities. As we know, what is said and how it is portrayed in the media, seldom match.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Personally, for what it is worth, I disagree with Perkins and Bauer-I would’ve have Grenell stay, as I don’t think his political positions regarding gay marriage should disqualify him from being a foreign policy spokesman-there was always the option of dumping him later if he became too outspoken.)

I just hate seeing conservatives fall into the trap of arguing these issues on Democratic terms (“if you are against gay marriage, you are an anti-gay bigot“), and seeing people like Bauer and Perkins (neither of whom I care for, but still….) having their positions misrepresented to fit Democratic talking points.

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 11:15 PM

By the way, Cindy, my understanding is that Grenell is considered an activist-that is the problem.

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 11:17 PM

@JannyMae

you’re just another gay bigot or a liar.

God bless you, honey. I’m sorry I got you all upset and defensive. But please read all my posts from the last several hours and maybe you’ll understand a little better where I’m coming from.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 11:18 PM

@JannyMae

LOL. What is a moby?

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 11:08 PM

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=moby

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 11:22 PM

So you don’t think his personal desires could be kept separate from the performance of his duties? Is the fear that he would use his position at a soap box? Is he considered an activist? As spokesman, when he is being interviewed, would the press bring these things up? Knowing the media, I guess that isn’t out of the realm of possibilities. As we know, what is said and how it is portrayed in the media, seldom match.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM

Gay Marriage is an issue worldwide. Many other gay issues are also an issue world wide. Many in the world are very biased against gay people (the world is not fair but that is his job why allow a distraction?)

I have not seen his post. But most Gay Marriage advocates claim any Christian/Jewish objection based on the bible is bigotry. If he did that he is not qualified. You must fight battles with words not just try to shut up the opposition. That will never work with Obama. To the contrary he needs to over come people like Gay Marriage people that just try to shut people up by calling names.

Steveangell on May 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I’m a gay conservative who has campaigned for Republican candidates and have voted straight ticket Republican since I was eligible to vote. I am confident that I’ve done a lot more work for conservatism than many who post vicious anti-gay comments here.

I’ll suspend my own personal interests again and do what’s best for this great country by voting for Romney this fall, but then I’m out of this party for good and joining the Libertarians. It’s discouraging…I love Jesus, I’ve always worked hard and been responsible, I’ve never taken a handout, and I always treat people with dignity and respect. People like me and Grenell, who have faithfully served the conservative movement, do not deserve this treatment.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 7:23 PM

Then think for a few minutes.

Can Mitt possibly win with most of the conservatives not voting for him. Very unlikely.

Mitt signed into law Gay Marriage after appointing the Judges who forced it. Thus Mitt is very weak on this issue. Hiring a Gay Mariage advocate who is very vocal about it says loud and clear. “I am Mitt and I believe in Gay Marriage”. Maybe not for America but for the rest of the world. This is a foreign issue after all.

Every Moderate since Nixon has lost. Either Mitt starts caring and supporting conservative issues or he will lose. That is just a fact.

If you want Gay Marriage you are in the wrong party. If the other party does not work for you do not try to change ours covertly.

Steveangell on May 1, 2012 at 11:47 PM

God bless you, honey. I’m sorry I got you all upset and defensive. But please read all my posts from the last several hours and maybe you’ll understand a little better where I’m coming from.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 11:18 PM

I did read them all. That’s why I called you a moby. I’ll let you do a search on that yourself, if you don’t mind, since you can’t provide any of the examples that I asked for. It’s been nice meeting you, honey.

Bless your little heart!

JannyMae on May 2, 2012 at 1:02 AM

Oh, by the way, GMO, it’s a NOTORIOUS dishonest tactic that liberals use, to only quote a small portion of someone’s post, and ignore the rest of it, and not even address the points made in it. The way you did, here:

@JannyMae

you’re just another gay bigot or a liar.

God bless you, honey. I’m sorry I got you all upset and defensive. But please read all my posts from the last several hours and maybe you’ll understand a little better where I’m coming from.

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 11:18 PM

Not only did you quote only that small portion of my post, you completely distorted its meaning by doing that.

Sorry I bothered with you. My mistake.

JannyMae on May 2, 2012 at 1:06 AM

What happened to the good old days when it was assumed that people really didn’t want to know ?

viking01 on May 2, 2012 at 1:19 AM

I get a little tired of a very few defining the many.

Cindy Munford on May 1, 2012 at 10:09 PM

oh you mean like how the very small homosexual population defines what is and isn’t right to the vast majority.

unseen on May 2, 2012 at 3:12 AM

good now if Mitt flips on about another 100 things maybe I could vote for the guy.

unseen on May 2, 2012 at 3:13 AM

GMO on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Good gravy, you need to practice your reading skills, I was agreeing with most of what you said. I was referring to the LEFTIST GAY MAFIA. And there’s a big one. And how it’s destructive for everyone, gay or straight. That’s why Republicans should have no beef with gay conservatives who want to better the party. Is that clearer?

di butler on May 2, 2012 at 3:19 AM

Why are queers in the public limelight so invariably self-centered?

maybe because sleezy breeders are also just as self centered and afflicted with a nagging case of blinding hypocrisy when they decide they are right and every one who disagrees with them on anything is wrong and a minion of satan. oh yeah and god is behind them so everyone else dare not even ask for similar rights and considerations from the government. just because one is centered on one’s own personal beliefs doesn’t render one automatically altruistic and selfless. it tends to make people tyrants.

just because one loudly professes this or that religious dogma doesn’t detract from that also making one at center stage of the universe- god’s warriors because , naturally, You personally know exactly what god wants. it’s still NPD only with a stylized religious agenda that conferes instant superiority over others.it’s still NPD and tyranny by any other name.

everyone in the public spotlight of any orientation is to a degree self centered. it’s because our society has nurtured a cult of personality that reigns supreme over politics and religion as well as over the other aspects of our media centered lives. it’s why barack was constantly envisioned as jesus crossed with a pop star. sadly people largely respond to celebrity. it is dysfunctional and dangerous. the religious are not above using celebrity to manipulate and exploit people for personal advantage. nothing says control and bling bling like religion.

mittens on May 2, 2012 at 5:45 AM

Then think for a few minutes.

Can Mitt possibly win with most of the conservatives not voting for him. Very unlikely.

Mitt signed into law Gay Marriage after appointing the Judges who forced it. Thus Mitt is very weak on this issue. Hiring a Gay Mariage advocate who is very vocal about it says loud and clear. “I am Mitt and I believe in Gay Marriage”. Maybe not for America but for the rest of the world. This is a foreign issue after all.

Every Moderate since Nixon has lost. Either Mitt starts caring and supporting conservative issues or he will lose. That is just a fact.

If you want Gay Marriage you are in the wrong party. If the other party does not work for you do not try to change ours covertly.

Steveangell on May 1, 2012 at 11:47 PM

Mitt was always Liberal, never “severely conservative.” Yet he may still be elected since Obama is such a disaster that American voters may take half an Obama (Romney) rather than the full Obama. If Romney does become POTUS, keeping Mitt from doing stupid Liberal stuff is going to be a full time job for conservatives.

Gladtobehere on May 2, 2012 at 5:58 AM

If Romney does become POTUS, keeping Mitt from doing stupid Liberal stuff is going to be a full time job for conservatives.

Gladtobehere on May 2, 2012 at 5:58 AM

Even if (R)’s take the Senate, Conservatives will still be woefully underrepresented. They will have to put up with being reviled and called obstructionists by the commie-fluffers in the media and by their own party bosses and other big-government statists…like Mitt. Luckily for them, Mittens is such a weak character that it will be easy for them to tell him to eff off. Conservatism is not an ideology for the weak-willed.

swinia sutki on May 2, 2012 at 6:15 AM

Dreadnought on May 1, 2012 at 11:17 PM

It is just so weird to have a different threat about an outright gay advocate being cheered by the Left for bullying teens at an anti-bullying seminar and this guy having to resign his position.

unseen on May 2, 2012 at 3:12 AM

That to.

Cindy Munford on May 2, 2012 at 6:41 AM

Steveangell on May 1, 2012 at 11:36 PM

I just wish we could fight Obama and not ourselves.

Cindy Munford on May 2, 2012 at 6:43 AM

I don’t really care why he’s gone, I’m just glad he’s history. I don’t know how Mitt thinks hiring some flamer will help come November.

tommyboy on May 2, 2012 at 7:09 AM

Believe it or not, most gay men and women are not part of some sinister agenda. Most of us go to work each day and support ourselves, because we must rely on ourselves only. Many of us are Christians too.
GMO on May 1, 2012 at 9:54 PM

Here is the problem, and it’s not you, but the “people” around you…if you spoke out against the “gay agenda”, the agenda that embraces and celebrates such things as the Folsom Street Fair, or you speak out against the activist gay agenda, the kind that wears costumes to a Church, or promotes open public sex, you would be attacked.
Your “lifestyle” has placed you under arrest, you are a captive of that lifestyle for fear of being criticized by a radical group that would think nothing of making your life miserable for being who you are, and believing in just living and not a constant state of protest.
So you are not part of teh “sinister agenda”, but like many “minorities”, you get swept up in the constant barrage of attacks and protests…making it difficult for you. If you stood up for what you (and all the others) believed, and fought against those masters, your integration into society would be seamless.
But you and other don’t…so you are (perhaps wrongly, perhaps not) stereotyped with the people who are protesting, and you accept it without counter protest.
When I see a group of gays, go up against the radical group of gays and shout them down, than I will believe that “you are not part of the sinister plot”.

right2bright on May 2, 2012 at 7:29 AM

Sad to say, but terms like “queers” and “flamers” tossed around in this thread prove that the left may indeed be correct about many conservatives being homophobes.

Personally, I think we’d have better success taking the country back without socons like Gary Bauer and their bigot followers. They’re the ones who turn off independents, many of whom agree with Republicans on the need for smaller government.

What the hell does Grenell’s sexuality have to do with his professional abilities? And why should he keep it under wraps in a closet somewhere? Heterosexuals don’t hide the fact that they’re hetero, do they?

If we really want limited government, it should be limited to its Constitutionally delegated powers. Enforcing personal morality values from the 50s is outside that construct. Whatever happened to morality being a personal matter?

No one should bow to these socon ***holes, let alone Grenell or Romney. The whole campaign team could be gay for all I care – so long as they’ll shrink the size of government once they’re in office, it doesn’t matter.

DRayRaven on May 2, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Gay lobby cannibalism and nothing more.

Grenell is an outstanding, talented guy and I could give a fig about his sexual orientation. But that’s not the issue here.

What should be troublesome is that otherwise principled people who can contribute in a meaningful way to Romney’s campaign are being pressured to disassociate themselves from it.

Romney has always been the type of person who hires the most talented people to do the job. Period. Full stop. That is his MO from the business world and it carried over into politics. He could care less what one group or another says superfluously about someone who is clearly the most qualified person.

Marcus Traianus on May 2, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Sad to say, but terms like “queers” and “flamers” tossed around in this thread prove that the left may indeed be correct about many conservatives being homophobes.

So?

tommyboy on May 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Put aside the “gay” factor -

The fact remains that Romney was his boss.

This guy obviously wanted his OWN 15 minutes of fame and apparently wasn’t give it fast enough.

Amjean on May 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM

So?

tommyboy on May 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Yeah, you’re right. If we ultimately succeed in limiting government to its Constitutional parameters, bigots like you won’t matter anymore.

DRayRaven on May 2, 2012 at 8:26 AM

Yeah, you’re right. If we ultimately succeed in limiting government to its Constitutional parameters, bigots like you won’t matter anymore.

DRayRaven on May 2, 2012 at 8:26 AM

DRayRaven, here’s some good advice from a source that has stood the test of time: “”You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Gladtobehere on May 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Gay lobby cannibalism and nothing more.

Grenell is an outstanding, talented guy and I could give a fig about his sexual orientation. But that’s not the issue here.

What should be troublesome is that otherwise principled people who can contribute in a meaningful way to Romney’s campaign are being pressured to disassociate themselves from it.

Romney has always been the type of person who hires the most talented people to do the job. Period. Full stop. That is his MO from the business world and it carried over into politics. He could care less what one group or another says superfluously about someone who is clearly the most qualified person.

Marcus Traianus on May 2, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Problem is, Grenell wasn’t just a policy guy anymore, he became a spokesperson.

If he were a competent spokesperson and wanted to resign, he wouldn’t have done so in a way that is incredibly destructive to Mitt Romney’s chances to become President. In his resignation he basically left wiggle room to demonize a huge portion of a base Mitt Romney is going to need in November, which the left giddily jumped on.

Ann Coulter is also a massively competent policy person. Should Ann Coulter be Romney’s next foriegn policy spokesperson? Or would her history of comments, like Grenell’s twitter feed, make her a bad person to select as the face of Romney’s campaign?

If nothing else, the fallout in this proves Grenell wasn’t suited to the spokesperson task. This is a Hilary Rosen proportion failure for what should have been a low profile staff change.

BKennedy on May 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Romney and the GOP are out of touch…..Palin/West 2012
If not Palin/West, then Gary Johnson is the only alternative (NOBAMA AND NOMITTENS)!

Pragmatic on May 2, 2012 at 9:09 AM

Problem is, Grenell wasn’t just a policy guy anymore, he became a spokesperson.

If he were a competent spokesperson and wanted to resign, he wouldn’t have done so in a way that is incredibly destructive to Mitt Romney’s chances to become President. In his resignation he basically left wiggle room to demonize a huge portion of a base Mitt Romney is going to need in November, which the left giddily jumped on.

Ann Coulter is also a massively competent policy person. Should Ann Coulter be Romney’s next foriegn policy spokesperson? Or would her history of comments, like Grenell’s twitter feed, make her a bad person to select as the face of Romney’s campaign?

If nothing else, the fallout in this proves Grenell wasn’t suited to the spokesperson task. This is a Hilary Rosen proportion failure for what should have been a low profile staff change.

BKennedy on May 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Exactly, Bolton should choose his political associates with more care.

ebrown2 on May 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM

This guy obviously wanted his OWN 15 minutes of fame and apparently wasn’t give it fast enough.

Amjean on May 2, 2012 at 8:15 AM

This was also my reaction.

I was dismayed to see the negative coverage this was getting.

At this point we know that the Romney campaign did NOT try to muzzle Grenell and did not try to force out Grenell; in fact, it turns out that several senior campaign officials and advisors(including John Bolton himself) tried hard to persuade Grenell to start work.

Now, I am completely pro-”gay rights” or whatever term you want to use (and I don’t think sexual orientation should be any kind of factor whatsoever pro or con in whether someone should be hired, etc.) but I think the fault lies with Grenell here.

It seems that Grenell, based on the reports I’ve read, was a DRAMA QUEEN. It seems that Grenell wanted it all to be about him. Just taking a look at some of his borderline misogynist tweets over the last year show that Grenell is certainly someone who can get carried away and can get personal in political debate. He may have let his support for gay marriage overcome all else. For some people, disagreement on certain issues makes them totally unhinged (e.g., Andrew Sullivan), and they take your disagreement with them over a particular issue (e.g., gay marriage) as a deeply personal insult.

Honestly, I’m furious that Grenell allowed this episode to unfairly hurt Romney (who has always been extremely tolerant and even pro-gay) by quitting and letting the news media run with the story that Romney is supposedly against gays. By wounding Romney in this way (and in giving the Obama campaign a weapon to use against Romney), Grenell is also by extension hurting his country.

Also, by drawing attention to criticism he received (from like TWO prominent idiots who always spout out about such things and from random other embarrassing, JannyMae-like commenters), it seems Grenell wanted to make the whole episode about supposed Republican intolerance.

Grennell, apparently, let his personal politics and his desire to be made a larger issue (and expected some kind of unneeded, loud official response from the Romney campaign against the easily-dismissed, couple of criticisms made about his hiring?) come before his duty to serve the campaign and his country.

Romney has plenty of time to show voters the kind of man Romney really is (which is a man of tolerance who rejects the intolerant fringes). It’s upsetting that Romney got hit in the press over this yesterday, but maybe in the long run it’s a good thing a potentially campaign-distracting drama queen like Richard Grenell is out of the picture.

bluegill on May 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM

DRayRaven, here’s some good advice from a source that has stood the test of time: “”You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye.”

Gladtobehere on May 2, 2012 at 9:06 AM

Yeah, because it’s bigoted to dislike bigots. Gotcha.

DRayRaven on May 2, 2012 at 9:37 AM

I was dismayed to see the negative coverage this was getting.

At this point we know that the Romney campaign did NOT try to muzzle Grenell and did not try to force out Grenell; in fact, it turns out that several senior campaign officials and advisors(including John Bolton himself) tried hard to persuade Grenell to start work.

Now, I am completely pro-”gay rights” or whatever term you want to use (and I don’t think sexual orientation should be any kind of factor whatsoever pro or con in whether someone should be hired, etc.) but I think the fault lies with Grenell here.

It seems that Grenell, based on the reports I’ve read, was a DRAMA QUEEN. It seems that Grenell wanted it all to be about him. Just taking a look at some of his borderline misogynist tweets over the last year show that Grenell is certainly someone who can get carried away and can get personal in political debate. He may have let his support for gay marriage overcome all else. For some people, disagreement on certain issues makes them totally unhinged (e.g., Andrew Sullivan), and they take your disagreement with them over a particular issue (e.g., gay marriage) as a deeply personal insult.

Honestly, I’m furious that Grenell allowed this episode to unfairly hurt Romney (who has always been extremely tolerant and even pro-gay) by quitting and letting the news media run with the story that Romney is supposedly against gays. By wounding Romney in this way (and in giving the Obama campaign a weapon to use against Romney), Grenell is also by extension hurting his country.

Also, by drawing attention to criticism he received (from like TWO prominent idiots who always spout out about such things and from random other embarrassing, JannyMae-like commenters), it seems Grenell wanted to make the whole episode about supposed Republican intolerance.

Grennell, apparently, let his personal politics and his desire to be made a larger issue (and expected some kind of unneeded, loud official response from the Romney campaign against the easily-dismissed, couple of criticisms made about his hiring?) come before his duty to serve the campaign and his country.

Romney has plenty of time to show voters the kind of man Romney really is (which is a man of tolerance who rejects the intolerant fringes). It’s upsetting that Romney got hit in the press over this yesterday, but maybe in the long run it’s a good thing a potentially campaign-distracting drama queen like Richard Grenell is out of the picture.

bluegill on May 2, 2012 at 9:22 AM

Absolutely, Grennell trolled the Romney campaign.

ebrown2 on May 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM

The guy resigns and says this:

“I want to thank Governor 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.”

And the left is reading this as he got shoved under the bus because he was gay. What part of “…and (Gov. Romney’s) clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team” seems ambiguous or unclear?

It was the extremists on the LEFT, upset by some old Tweets, who forced this guy to resign with their typical pile-on smear campaign. And Jennifer Rubin is stupid and irresponsible for floating the “anti-gay far right” shit without a single fact to back it up. The only people — the ONLY people — criticizing this guy’s addition to the Romney campaign were those from the professional left and their merry band of smear merchants.

Rational Thought on May 1, 2012 at 9:47 PM

Plus the ABRtards got an opportunity to get their panties in a wad.

Any excuse (even a fabricated one) will do.

Gunlock Bill on May 2, 2012 at 10:15 AM

Sad to say, but terms like “queers” and “flamers” tossed around in this thread prove that the left may indeed be correct about many conservatives being homophobes.

So?

tommyboy on May 2, 2012 at 8:04 AM

Glad to see you value your hatred so much.

*sigh* Just f**king pathetic.

MadisonConservative on May 2, 2012 at 10:39 AM

What a hoot!
What an embarrassment to Mittens!
What a GREAT ad for the long-time Leftist talking point!
Way ta go, Willard!
/sarc
what a maroon

And thanks to the elítist GOP establishment, RINOs, whatever, yer stuck with that clueless, never-been-around-the-block Ken Doll of a candidate.
This “paleocon” likes the Libertarian Party more by the day.
What a sorry excuse for a candidate and a man.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on May 2, 2012 at 11:32 AM

GMO, there are times when I feel the same way. The main problem is that the Libertarians don’t have a real shot at winning, so it really is a “two evils” situation.

McDuck on May 1, 2012 at 7:27 PM

McDuck, as long as people keeping believing this, it will remain that way.

I agree that right now third party candidates don’t get the attention needed to produce a winning campaign (and don’t think the DOP and Dems don’t work together to ensure they remain the only to parties… go learn how televised presidential debates are setup). But for those of us who do believe that the two parties is merely a choice of “two evils” there comes a point at which we just have to accept that it will be a long painful road to making a third party viable. But it has to start sometime if it is ever to happen at all.

As long as we continue to “suck it up” and vote for the lesser of two evils, it’s all we will ever have.

gravityman on May 2, 2012 at 12:04 PM

Oh I missed this part. Clearly it makes their unions of lesser value.

Daemonocracy on May 1, 2012 at 7:30 PM

Good to know that my marriage doesn’t count for as much simply because my wife and I prefer not to have kids. Do we not get to call it “marriage” now?

gravityman on May 2, 2012 at 12:07 PM

What is this “anti-gay rhetoric” that you claim the Republican Party is promoting? Specific examples, please, or admit you’re full of crap.

And while you’re at it, define “gay-haters.” If it involves wanting to preserve traditional marriage and not condoning homosexual behavior, then I’m afraid that has nothing to do with hatred, and if you believe it does, then you’re just another gay bigot or a liar.

JannyMae on May 1, 2012 at 11:01 PM

If I may interject in GMO’s defense, here’s a prime example…

I don’t really care why he’s gone, I’m just glad he’s history. I don’t know how Mitt thinks hiring some flamer will help come November.

tommyboy on May 2, 2012 at 7:09 AM

It didn’t take long to find this fine example of tolerant rhetoric and gay-hate.

gravityman on May 2, 2012 at 1:01 PM

if it requires pandering to a special interest group im not interested.

chasdal on May 1, 2012 at 6:25 PM

Such as? What, to you, would qualify as “pandering”?

bmmg39 on May 2, 2012 at 1:02 PM

The rest of us conservatives will continue to work to keep the country afloat, because there are – I know, impossible to imagine – more important things that need to be done other than cater to an infinitesimal minority.

Rebar on May 1, 2012 at 7:33 PM

Yes, there are far more important things to do right now than to screech that gay marriage is some sort of threat to the family or to marriage or the entire republic.

The other side is looking to pounce on any shred of anything they can find to call us “sexist, racist, anti-gay…”; we don’t need to gift-wrap ammunition for them.

bmmg39 on May 2, 2012 at 1:48 PM

I don’t care if he’s ‘gay’ or whatever. Why do I even know what his “orientation” is? I don’t care. It’s the leftist gays bringing this up, not us. They set us up all the time, just like the rest of the left always tries to do. And the dumb-masses keep biting the hook. Let it go.

Squiggy on May 2, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Ok, Mitt, I hope you learned the lesson: When it comes to your next important hire, i.e. picking a running mate, do some real vetting. You can’t expect to ride to the White House on the back of a Trojan Horse.

Captain Obvious on May 2, 2012 at 8:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4