CNN source: Openly gay Romney spokesman quit after being told not to speak on conference calls

posted at 9:05 pm on May 2, 2012 by Allahpundit

That jibes with what Jen Rubin heard yesterday. She claimed that Grenell was being kept “under wraps” by the campaign; the campaign countered that Grenell hadn’t even moved to Boston to officially start work for them yet. What about conference calls, though? Lots of those lately thanks to the Bin Laden anniversary. Was Grenell in on them or not?

According to CNN, yep:

A foreign policy spokesman for the presidential campaign of Mitt Romney left his job in part because he was restricted from speaking publicly, a source with direct knowledge of the situation told CNN on Wednesday.

The source said Richard Grenell, who was hired to the Romney camp less than two weeks before his departure, was told on several occasions not to speak on the campaign’s conference calls with reporters…

In a Wednesday interview on CNN’s “The Situation Room,” Romney senior adviser Dan Senor said that Grenell had apologized for the tweets, and “he certainly wasn’t speaking for the campaign.”

“Richard Grenell was an extremely talented public servant who worked for four US ambassadors to the United Nations,” Senor told CNN’s Wolf Blitzer. “I worked with him in the early part of the 2000s and [he] is an extremely talented guy and we were lucky to have him.”

I still can’t figure out why, if this is some sort of anti-gay purge, Team Romney continues to praise Grenell publicly. Here’s Senor saying the campaign was lucky to have him and yesterday campaign manager Matt Rhoades issued a statement insisting that “We wanted him to stay because he had superior qualifications for the position he was hired to fill.” If you’re trying to placate social conservatives who object to Grenell’s hiring, that’s an odd way to do it.

Maybe keeping him on and muzzling him was their way of kinda sorta standing by Grenell while bowing to social cons anyway? Andrew Sullivan has also heard that Grenell was told to keep quiet on conference calls — even though he allegedly helped organize them:

Some actual reporting from yours truly. It seems clear from sources close to Grenell and reporters on the foreign policy beat that his turning point came last week. He’d been part of organizing a conference call to respond to Vice President Biden’s foreign policy speech, now known best for the “big stick” remark. So some reporters were puzzled as to why Grenell, a week into his job as Romney’s national security spokesman, was not introduced by name as part of the Romney team at the beginning of the call, and his voice completely absent from the conversation. Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasn’t absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up.

Sources close to Grenell say that he was specifically told by those high up in the Romney campaign to stay silent on the call, even while he was on it. And this was not the only time he had been instructed to shut up. Their response to the far right fooferaw was simply to go silent, to keep Grenell off-stage and mute, and to wait till the storm passed. But the storm was not likely to pass if no one in the Romney camp was prepared to back Grenell up. Hence his dilemma. The obvious solution was simply to get Grenell out there doling out the neocon red meat – which would have immediately changed the subject and helped dispel base skepticism. Instead the terrified Romneyites shut him up without any actual plan for when he might subsequently be able to do his job. To my mind, it’s a mark of his integrity that he decided to quit rather than be put in this absurd situation. And it’s a mark of Romney’s fundamental weakness within his own party that he could not back his spokesman against the Bryan Fischers and Matthew Francks.

I wondered about that too. Why try to turn down the heat over Grenell’s hiring by making him lie low when you could have turned him loose as an attack dog against Obama and won conservatives over that way? Unless I’m missing something, there have been no surprises about Grenell since he joined the campaign: He’s openly gay and was well known for being confrontational and sometimes snotty with his political opponents on Twitter. The backlash from some social cons and lefties was thus entirely foreseeable. Why didn’t Team Mitt foresee it and plan accordingly?

On the other hand, I keep seeing liberals reach for Fischer as an example of social conservative pressure on Romney to cut ties with Grenell. That’s insane. As Byron York pointed out last night, it was Fischer to whom Romney alluded at the Values Voter Summit last year when he criticized certain speakers at the event for betraying the values of decency and civility by using “poisonous language.” Fischer, meanwhile, went on to say, “The next president needs to be a man of sincere, authentic, genuine Christian faith.” This is not a guy who’s getting Romneyworld to jump through hoops. But maybe Tony Perkins or Gary Bauer might? They’ve also criticized the Grenell hiring publicly, which was to be expected; the question is, have they or some other prominent social con criticized it privately and vehemently enough that Team Mitt thought better of bringing Grenell on after they hired him. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for why they’d muzzle him — that they simply underestimated the degree of opposition from the right, because of his orientation, or from the left, because of the fake-outrage ginned up over his snotty tweets. The thing is, Mitt’s organization usually doesn’t underestimate anything; that’s why he’s the nominee despite the base’s general “Anyone But Romney” sentiment. Mystifying.


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

Is this really because he’s gay? If this guy worked for the Bush Admin for 7 years, why didn’t Soc Con groups have an issue with him then? Is it more a matter of Romney being risk averse? The guy became an issue for the left and So Cons for different reasons and that’s why they let him go maybe? To avoid ANY controvery?

The left is going to say it’s because Romney folded to anti-gay crowd but that just doesn’t make sense.

dforston on May 2, 2012 at 10:12 PM

If it was just a question of Romney being risk adverse, why hire the man in the first place? His sexual orientation was no secret.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:18 PM

Allah,

Maybe there’s a private scandal he’s involved in (say,has a really wide stance when using the toilet) that Team Romney knows about but nobody else does and they decided to just jettison him while keeping it under wraps and hoping it goes away? Might explain Grenell’s comment about his private life.

Darth Executor on May 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM

First, he’s “openly gay”, remember? This “scandal” scenario doesn’t make much, if any, sense in that context. Second, they didn’t “jettison him”. He quit. Don’t fully understand why, but he was not fired and they went to considerable effort to ask him to stay on.

Really? It’s simple. It’s a symptom of Romney’s biggest weakness, flip-floppiness. Wanting to have it both ways: He’ll make sure he fires the gay employee to satisfy one segment while praising the gay employee to the skies to satisfy another segment…..
ddrintn on May 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM

He wasn’t fired.

Buy Danish on May 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM

How about grenell woke up in the wrong position that morning and as a result was quite cranky?

Now what are those tweets mentioned on CNN?

unclesmrgol on May 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM

Look out, AP, the Mittwitts don’t like stories that could possibly be construed that Gov. Romney made an error.

Cindy Munford on May 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Get off. Mitt makes mistakes left and right. And I cringe every time he does. But he’s still my guy over Obama.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Look out, AP, the Mittwitts don’t like stories that could possibly be construed that Gov. Romney made an error.

Cindy Munford on May 2, 2012 at 9:44 PM

Cindy, you said yourself this is confusing. I don’t know what happened..none of us do.. In truth it would have been better at this point if Romney had never hired the man. And I like this guy.

But the Mittwitts are more concerned with defeating Obama than they are with the constant nit picking at Romney. Silly us.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

This is why Grenell was silenced:

Besides the first lady, Democrats who were targets of Grenell’s more pointed tweets included President Barack Obama, the Obamas’ daughter Malia, Vice President Joe Biden and various members of the media, many connected to NBC or its liberal-leaning cable affiliate, MSNBC.

But many of Grenell’s most biting Twitter messages were directed at fellow Republicans.

According to an account posted on a Politico blog the day after Grenell joined Romney’s campaign, he was a particularly sarcastic tweeter during some of the televised debates for Republican presidential candidates earlier this year. Grenell targeted Gingrich and his third wife, Callista, over their appearance and Newt Gingrich’s turbulent marital history.

Of Callista Gingrich’s blonde hair, Grenell tweeted on March 13: “do you think callista’s hair snaps on.” According to Politico, Grenell earlier had tweeted: “does callista speak?”

Among Grenell’s tweets about Newt Gingrich, a former U.S. House speaker, was this missive in January: “what’s higher? The number of jobs newt’s created or the number of wives he’s had?”

And in an apparent reference to Gingrich’s weight, Grenell mused in January: “i wonder if newt has investments in Lipitor,” referring to a cholestoral-lowering drug.

Regarding Romney, his future boss, Grenell was a little friendlier, tweeting in January that the former Massachusetts governor “wasn’t my 1st choice but he’s gonna be the nominee. He will need your vocal support.”

This guy obviously has a problem staying on message. He’s ruffled a lot of feathers. He seems to be exactly the wrong person to work as a spokesperson for the Romney campaign. This is a classic case of a bad hire: looked good on paper, recommendation from a trusted source (Bolton?), solid in the interview, and then bam, you realize a couple of days later wrong choice. You make him uncomfortable and hope he goes away. Romney’s people are not going to bash the guy; they made the mistake in hiring him. He’s probably very good at what he does, just not right for Romney.

I’ll have to say I am surprised at the ineptitude displayed by the Romney camp on this. This is the kind of mistake they are not supposed to make. There are no excuses; this is their f-up and they own it. Let’s hope they don’t do it again.

Mr. Arkadin on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Really? It’s simple. It’s a symptom of Romney’s biggest weakness, flip-floppiness. Wanting to have it both ways: He’ll make sure he fires the gay employee to satisfy one segment while praising the gay employee to the skies to satisfy another segment…..
ddrintn on May 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Nonsense…the man quit, he was not fired and the Romney people tried to talk him out of leaving.

You have no evidence at all that he was fired..

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:24 PM

Perhaps asking Grenell to remain silent during the call(s) was simply BECAUSE he has a reputation for being confrontational and ‘snotty’ on Twitter recently. Its possible that this was not the time to ‘unleash’ him, particularly on the press and team Romney may have had cause to worry that if he were to be unleashed he might respond before the press in a way that was not in keeping with the campaign’s image, or, indeed, become an embarrassment. Its been reported repeatedly that Grenell scrubbed his Twitter account of ‘a couple of hundred’ entries when he was hired by the Romney campaign and its been suggested that this was to prevent them from embarrassing the campaign or the candidate.

I’d like to point out that ‘hyper partisan comments’ to which he alluded in his resignation letter don’t necessarily have to refer to his sexual orientation. A ‘private issue’ could be his temperament as easily as any other aspect of his professional life.

You know, people change over time. Grenell worked for 4 UN ambassadors. He had a long record of very good public service. However, given his recent Twitter accounts, something may have changed in his demeanor and team Romney may have only discovered it AFTER he was offered the position.

It was my understanding that he was hired only a couple of weeks before his resignation, and he was hired due to that exemplary resume and the recommendation of John Bolton, for whom he had worked. His resume and references were exceptional.

However, a couple of weeks isn’t much time to get to know a person, particularly when the majority of the contact has been via telephone and internet. IF the campaign team discovered that he was more inclined to be confrontational than they has thought, or feared that he might even embarrass the campaign and the candidate, it would certainly account for team Romney’s desire to observe him and get some real time feedback from him in as neutral and controlled an environment as possible…such as an ‘observer’ in a conference call.

It may be that Mr Grenell felt slighted because he was asked to remain silent and then render his own assessment and make recommendations, based on that assessment, to the team.Its worth noting here that he had not yet moved to Boston or assumed his duties as Spokesman.

However, unless someone from team Romney wants to make a statement, or Mr Grenell decides to clarify, we may never know.

thatsafactjack on May 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Yeah, something smells bad here. But it’s refreshing to see the anti-Mitt loons wee-weeing all over the place on yet another leftist set up.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Get off. Mitt makes mistakes left and right. And I cringe every time he does. But he’s still my guy over Obama.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 10:21 PM

Well, you have to realize..a lot of people will only vote for a candidate who is perfect and agrees with them 100% of the time..so unless Mr or Ms Perfect is running then they do not feel the need to show support for someone they think is a mere mortal.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Yeah, something smells bad here. But it’s refreshing to see the anti-Mitt loons wee-weeing all over the place on yet another leftist set up.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Ain’t that the truth.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM

I hear ya.

And then there are the Ron Paul trolls.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 10:30 PM

I’ll have to say I am surprised at the ineptitude displayed by the Romney camp on this. This is the kind of mistake they are not supposed to make. There are no excuses; this is their f-up and they own it. Let’s hope they don’t do it again.

Mr. Arkadin on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Really? When this got the hire in the first place people just loved the idea..no one talked about his tweets or anything else…now they will say that Romney should have known better than to hire a guy they all liked a week ago.

So far, all we know is that the guy got the job and then quit it within a few days. And thus far, Grenell has not bad mouthed Romney and Romney has not bad mouthed him.

Much ado about not a lot.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Well, you have to realize..a lot of people will only vote for a candidate who is perfect and agrees with them 100% of the time..so unless Mr or Ms Perfect is running then they do not feel the need to show support for someone they think is a mere mortal.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM

Your snark is excellent tonight Terrye. Certainly you’re not talking about how the fawning media perceives Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

Rovin on May 2, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I hear ya.

And then there are the Ron Paul trolls.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 10:30 PM

Oh yes, they are such connivers…always planning and scheming etc…They do not let a little thing like the fact that their guy is a fruit cake slow them down..not a bit.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:33 PM

Your snark is excellent tonight Terrye. Certainly you’re not talking about how the fawning media perceives Mr. and Mrs. Obama.

Rovin on May 2, 2012 at 10:32 PM

I will be honest, there are times when I have to turn the TV off rather than watch some idiot TV “journalist” slobber all over the First Couple.

I just have lost all patience with them.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:35 PM

What an unnecessary mess. This kind of distraction needs to be put to rest as soon as possible. If Romney team is as good as I hope it would and should be, it should show up and defuse this cleanly and quickly. I do not expect no mistake in a long presidential campaign, how a mistake is handled and resolved can be a plus. Don’t fumble early.

galtani on May 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM

This guy obviously has a problem staying on message. He’s ruffled a lot of feathers. He seems to be exactly the wrong person to work as a spokesperson for the Romney campaign. This is a classic case of a bad hire: looked good on paper, recommendation from a trusted source (Bolton?), solid in the interview, and then bam, you realize a couple of days later wrong choice. You make him uncomfortable and hope he goes away. Romney’s people are not going to bash the guy; they made the mistake in hiring him. He’s probably very good at what he does, just not right for Romney.

I’ll have to say I am surprised at the ineptitude displayed by the Romney camp on this. This is the kind of mistake they are not supposed to make. There are no excuses; this is their f-up and they own it. Let’s hope they don’t do it again.

Mr. Arkadin on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I think that Romney’s campaign just got trolled, or that Grennell got outside pressure unrelated to the 3 fringe characters on the SocRight who had a problem with him.

ebrown2 on May 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM

They told us that if we voted for a RINO, they wouldn’t purge gays.

faraway on May 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Much ado about not a lot.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:31 PM

Pretty much.

ebrown2 on May 2, 2012 at 10:39 PM

They told us that if we voted for a RINO, they wouldn’t purge gays.

faraway on May 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Who is they? From what I hear it was not the socalled Rinos who had a problem with this guy.

It could just be that twitter got him into trouble..it happens to all sorts of people. That is one thing about twitter, people can say any silly thing that pops into their heads and all too often they do.

It might be that once he got the job, he found out it was not what he thought it was so he quit.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:40 PM

ZZZZZZZZZZZ…

The Notorious G.O.P on May 2, 2012 at 10:42 PM

I think that Romney’s campaign just got trolled, or that Grennell got outside pressure unrelated to the 3 fringe characters on the SocRight who had a problem with him.

ebrown2 on May 2, 2012 at 10:36 PM

Could be..and we might never really know.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:42 PM

Grenell is a self-described “activist” for gay marriage. In March, he sharply criticized Jonathan Capehart, an opinion writer for the Washington Post who is gay, for attending a state dinner at the Obama White House but not using the opportunity to confront President Obama over Obama’s opposition to gay marriage. Writing in the Washington Blade, a gay newspaper, Grenell accused Capehart of selling out to Democratic leaders like Obama who don’t support gay marriage, while bashing Republicans, even those who have more liberal positions on gay rights.

If Grenell could be so critical of Capehart, who does not work for the administration, for failing to hold Obama’s opposition to gay marriage against him, then why did Grenell accept a position with Romney, who has expressed his own opposition to gay marriage in far stronger terms than Obama? (When Grenell took the job, Capehart shot back that Grenell had “chosen power over principle on marriage equality.”) The answer isn’t clear, but the circumstances of Grenell’s early departure from Team Romney and his own strongly-expressed opinions suggest that gay politics, perhaps not just the opinions of social conservatives, might have played some role in the whole affair. But if Romney’s aides are to be believed, it wasn’t on their end.

Perhaps Mr. Grenell decided to quit because of pressure on his end, then used the criticism from some social cons as the excuse.

I don’t post much anymore at HotAir, but this kind of post is just a bunch of garbage that cannot be ignored. Yeah, sure, Santorum was pressuring Romney threatening him with the social conservative vote. LOL. You do know that Santorum had an openly gay senate aide working for him for 10 years right? That being the case, I just don’t think Santorum would have a problem with Romney hiring a gay foreign policy expert.

This whole story is missing some very large pieces because none of it makes sense. Lets just wait for the facts before we jump to the kind of delusional conclusions Budfox latched onto.

KickandSwimMom on May 2, 2012 at 10:03 PM

Welcome back, KickandSwimMom. As you know, I am no Santorum fan, but you are exactly right. To think that Santorum had anything to do with this is absurd.

I don’t think Grenell’s sexuality had anything to do with his resignation.

I think his passionate views on gay marriage may have had something to do with his resignation.

I think the tweets may have had more to do with this than anything. Gingrich was more likely to have objected to Grenell than Santorum, just because of the fat jokes and the slaps at Callista.

Maybe the guy just had second thoughts, because his friends gave him sh*t. It happens.

Mr. Arkadin on May 2, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Perhaps asking Grenell to remain silent during the call(s) was simply BECAUSE he has a reputation for being confrontational and ‘snotty’ on Twitter recently. Its possible that this was not the time to ‘unleash’ him, particularly on the press and team Romney may have had cause to worry that if he were to be unleashed he might respond before the press in a way that was not in keeping with the campaign’s image, or, indeed, become an embarrassment.
thatsafactjack on May 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

This explanation makes no sense. He was hired as a national security spokesman. His entire job is talking to the press. His reputation for being confrontational was longstanding — and not surprising given that he is a protege of John Bolton, who was also no shrinking violet when it came to the press. Grenell had already been speaking with reporters — remember, he had taken part in setting up the conference call. Unless the Romney team did absolutely no vetting, they knew what they were getting when they hired him.

cam2 on May 2, 2012 at 10:51 PM

decided to quit because of pressure on his end

Watch your language young man. :)

faraway on May 2, 2012 at 11:10 PM

The conference call likely was a test.

I suspect the Romney campaign quickly realized that their new spokesman had difficulty differentiating that who he was hired to represent differed from his personal life agendas. Although Dan Rather represented the See-BS political agenda they had to let even him go when his personal actions overstepped the ability of the PR and legal departments to reign him in.

When that type of problem personality fails to prioritize work from home life or personal agenda then it is proper that such a present and future liability no longer works for the Romney campaign.

viking01 on May 2, 2012 at 11:19 PM

reign = rein

viking01 on May 2, 2012 at 11:21 PM

Always fantastic to NEVER have an answer to an assertion. Why was he “silenced”? Forget asking Romney, let’s just get to the opinions and gossip.

Romney is terrible, but reporting is worse, and probably dead now. The sport is who can infer what, and then watch others build on nonsense until all of it becomes ‘truth’.

John Kettlewell on May 2, 2012 at 11:58 PM

There is a big difference between “silenced” and deciding that maybe it is best to choose not to assign a certain dramatic spokesman to speak for you.

viking01 on May 3, 2012 at 12:18 AM

This story looks very bad for Romney. Most people may oppose gay marriage but that doesn’t mean they hate gay people and want to shut them out of public life. Since this election is shaping up to be about nothing, because the two candidates are so much alike, then this amounts to a wedge issue that Obama will exploit to separate Romney from the mainstream.

This may have been Romney’s Dukakis moment, even if the GOP media tries to cover it up or spin it away.

CurpliTium on May 3, 2012 at 12:27 AM

This explains why Clarence Thomas remains silent.

/

SouthernGent on May 3, 2012 at 12:28 AM

Allahpundit is completely missing the obvious explanation. The fairy probably has a gay lisp, and that’s not gonna fly on a conference call.

joe_doufu on May 3, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

There is no reason to shoot the messenger, in this case Allahpundit.

Cindy Munford on May 3, 2012 at 12:45 AM

There are a few queer things about this.

The campaign hired him knowing about his demeanor online… they wanted a fire breathing neocon to contrast against Obama’s foreign policy and his position on some domestic issues were known to be different from the official platform. But that has been the case with the GOP for a long long time… they have tolerated having a number of other closeted and openly gay professionals in very prominent positions.

I’m not sure what went wrong with this appointment but it seems odd that the campaign would let him go or that he would want to leave. Not many people are saying this but I am wondering if it is a sign that Romney is re-evaluating his foreign policy stance in lieu of the general election and wants to change direction. His current policies haven’t exactly found traction.

lexhamfox on May 3, 2012 at 12:48 AM

Sorry, but let me repeat what I just posted on a completely different topic over at NRO.

Who even SPEAKS to Andrew Sullivan now? If you do speak to him, you must first ask him how his investigation into S. Palin’s uterus is going. After he answers you can then speak or listen to him.

The demented Andrew Sullivan should be dead to anyone on the right, even remotely on the right.

Talk about your war on women.

Give me a break.

Yeah, I used to sort of, kind of, like him too.

Now, he doesn’t exist.

Oh yeah, btw, the Grenell story is a dead letter, no legs, unless we keep trying to peg them on.

He was hired. He was gay. He quit.

Kinda of makes you feel you really knew the guy.

Jocon307 on May 3, 2012 at 12:55 AM

Unless I’m missing something, there have been no surprises about Grenell since he joined the campaign: He’s openly gay and was well known for being confrontational and sometimes snotty with his political opponents on Twitter. The backlash from some social cons and lefties was thus entirely foreseeable. Why didn’t Team Mitt foresee it and plan accordingly?

I agree. This whole thing strikes me as somewhat of an “own goal” by the Romney team. I had thought that one upside of the interminable Republican primary season was that Romney and his team would have already made most of their mistakes and gotten over their “opening night jitters” by the time the general election rolled around. But it seems they’re still making amateur hour mistakes, and it’s beginning to worry me.

Hayabusa on May 3, 2012 at 1:06 AM

Complete and utter troll job. This is the Demorcrats specialty. The latest manufactured outrage.

In any case, When you have human garbage like Fisher hanging around, its a hanging curve ball for the left.

rickyricardo on May 3, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Why try to turn down the heat over Grenell’s hiring by making him lie low when you could have turned him loose as an attack dog against Obama and won conservatives over that way?

Shades of McLame/Palin!

Expected.

DannoJyd on May 3, 2012 at 3:05 AM

Allahpundit is completely missing the obvious explanation. The fairy probably has a gay lisp, and that’s not gonna fly on a conference call.

joe_doufu on May 3, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Seriously, dude? I mean, seriously??

di butler on May 3, 2012 at 3:06 AM

Yawn — another day, another Hot Air piece obsessing about some homosexual.

This is a deliberate destraction from real issues

DaMav on May 3, 2012 at 3:38 AM

When you have a loose cannon on the deck…sometimes it’s best get it over the side as quick as possible !

BigSven on May 3, 2012 at 3:57 AM

Just be glad the flamer’s gone and hope Romney doesn’t make such a foolish hiring mistake again.

tommyboy on May 3, 2012 at 4:07 AM

Just be glad the flamer’s gone and hope Romney doesn’t make such a foolish hiring mistake again.

tommyboy on May 3, 2012 at 4:07 AM

Because of his sexual leanings or are you glad because you disputed his policies?

lexhamfox on May 3, 2012 at 4:14 AM

Because of his sexual leanings or are you glad because you disputed his policies?
lexhamfox on May 3, 2012 at 4:14 AM

Yes

tommyboy on May 3, 2012 at 4:25 AM

Gay guy has hissy fit. Throws his toys out of the pram. Stomps out.

Gee, THAT’S never happened before.

Jack Bauer on May 3, 2012 at 5:46 AM

But the Mittwitts are more concerned with defeating Obama than they are with the constant nit picking at Romney. Silly us.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

Mitt is like a Chow Chow; all cuddly and fluffy until they turn on you and bite you in the a$$. As much as we despise Duh Won, we are fools to not keep a very wary eye on Mittens. He’s expecting a compliant GOP congress. I too want a GOP congress but without the lapdogs.

swinia sutki on May 3, 2012 at 5:57 AM

Gay guy has hissy fit. Throws his toys out of the pram. Stomps out.

Gee, THAT’S never happened before.

Jack Bauer on May 3, 2012 at 5:46 AM

Seems it was the social cons who had the hissy fit.

Now back into your pram, infantile jack gary bauer…

verbaluce on May 3, 2012 at 6:43 AM

Just a thought. All politicians need to stay off of twitter. Some thoughts needs to be kept to yourself. We have 24/7 news. I don’t need or want 24/7 access to every thought anyone has.

SC.Charlie on May 3, 2012 at 7:35 AM

ddrintn on May 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Romney didn’t fire him. He quit.

Cleombrotus on May 3, 2012 at 7:42 AM

He wasn’t fired.

Buy Danish on May 2, 2012 at 10:19 PM

He’s obviously under pressure to quit. Doesn’t Romney have control over his organization? If Romney had come out strongly defending the guy when there were the first rumblings about objections to Grennell’s sexual orientation, the story would have stopped right there. If Romney were a stronger candidate, that’s exactly what would have happened.

ddrintn on May 3, 2012 at 7:43 AM

ddrintn on May 2, 2012 at 9:51 PM

Romney didn’t fire him. He quit.

Cleombrotus on May 3, 2012 at 7:42 AM

See above.

ddrintn on May 3, 2012 at 7:46 AM

Yeah, something smells bad here. But it’s refreshing to see the anti-Mitt loons wee-weeing all over the place on yet another leftist set up.

minnesoter on May 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM

Ain’t that the truth.

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:28 PM

Oh, give me a break. Every misstep from Romney is attributed either to a) not being a misstep at all but a brilliant move or b) the fault of the lefty media with the ABR loons buying into it.

ddrintn on May 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM

He’s obviously under pressure to quit.
ddrintn on May 3, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Mere speculation on your part.

Listen, if I quit every job where things didn’t go the way I wanted them to, I’d never have employment.

Cleombrotus on May 3, 2012 at 8:10 AM

He wasn’t fired.
If Romney had come out strongly defending the guy when there were the first rumblings about objections to Grennell’s sexual orientation, the story would have stopped right there.
ddrintn on May 3, 2012 at 7:43 AM

Did I miss something? Where we’re the “rumblings” again?

Cleombrotus on May 3, 2012 at 8:15 AM

Seems it was the social cons who had the hissy fit.

Now back into your pram, infantile jack gary bauer…

verbaluce on May 3, 2012 at 6:43 AM

I agree with you that implying the guy had a hissy fit is silly.

However, I don’t think little read posts by a few lesser-known so-cons is the same as so-cons having a hissy fit.

I happen to be a so-con with a lot of so-con friends and the most ‘ire’ anyone could muster up is “Sounds like he’s a really good fit for the job.”

Which is what makes this odd. Unless there was some major behind the scenes wrangling, the amount of ‘hissy’ directed at this guy had to register somewhere between 1 and snooze on the scale of what a political figure can expect to get.

It doesn’t make sense to quit because of that.

Of course, it also doesn’t make sense to quit because you were asked to stay quiet on a conference call in your first couple weeks of employment before you’d had time to relocate and go through your on-boarding process.

Which is to say, none of this really makes sense.

JadeNYU on May 3, 2012 at 8:24 AM

more proof that mittens is a lousy choice…nobama and nomittens 2012

Pragmatic on May 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM

The thing is, Mitt’s organization usually doesn’t underestimate anything; that’s why he’s the nominee despite the base’s general “Anyone But Romney” sentiment. Mystifying.

What’s “mystifying” is why some folks insist on suddenly treating discredited outfits like NYT and CNN as legitimate sources of credible news. But since we’re playing the game then heck, I’ve got anonymous sources with knowledge of the campaign that say this is all BS. There, see? My anonymous sources just refuted what their anonymous sources claim. How enlightening!

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:25 AM

more proof that mittens is a lousy choice…nobama and nomittens 2012 – Pragmatic on May 3, 2012 at 8:54 AM

Really? You are one of those that think Obama walks on water, aren’t you. This morning what I am most infuriated about is the Obama handling of the blind Chinese activist. It appears that the embassy took him for ride and dropped him off into the hands of the Chinese. Can we get a campaign slogan going about the Democrat war on blind people and indifference to Chinese thuggery.

SC.Charlie on May 3, 2012 at 9:27 AM

Maybe keeping him on and muzzling him was their way of kinda sorta standing by Grenell while bowing to social cons anyway? Andrew Sullivan has also heard that Grenell was told to keep quiet on conference calls — even though he allegedly helped organize them:

If that’s true, there is some dysfunction in the Romney campaign…Romney team’s etch a sketch strategy does lend it self to a campaign identity crisis. (I thought Romney’s campaign was about the state of the American Economy- not conservative social issues) This is a case of cutting off the nose to spite the face. This election isn’t going to be about Social Conservative issues. If Romney is portraying himself as the “Adult” alternative candidate to Obama “Amateur” than his campaign should reflect such.

Dr Evil on May 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Oh, give me a break. Every misstep from Romney is attributed either to a) not being a misstep at all but a brilliant move or b) the fault of the lefty media with the ABR loons buying into it.

ddrintn on May 3, 2012 at 7:49 AM

I know it was intended to be sarcasm but the fact is that you summed it up very well. In this case the credibility of the story is minimal, which is why the paranoid ABR misfits and trolls like yourself enjoy it so much. And AllahChihuahua enjoys serving it up to you.

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

paranoid ABR misfits

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

Vote for Romney becuase…….um……because……..if you don’t, Obama will win! We don’t need a real reason, you paranoid ABR misfits!

Romney 2012!!!

MadisonConservative on May 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

If Romney is portraying himself as the “Adult” alternative candidate to Obama “Amateur” than his campaign should reflect such.

Dr Evil on May 3, 2012 at 9:28 AM

You said it yourself: “If true…” That’s the whole point. There’s no credible evidence that any of it is true. That’s why we get phrases like “If true…” And “that seems to jibe with…”

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Vote for Romney becuase…….um……because……..if you don’t, Obama will win! We don’t need a real reason, you paranoid ABR misfits!

Romney 2012!!!

MadisonConservative on May 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

You’re upset because the truth hurts and you don’t like it. Don’t be a paranoid ABR misfit and you won’t get called one.

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

He’s obviously under pressure to quit. Doesn’t Romney have control over his organization? If Romney had come out strongly defending the guy when there were the first rumblings about objections to Grennell’s sexual orientation, the story would have stopped right there. If Romney were a stronger candidate, that’s exactly what would have happened.

ddrintn on May 3, 2012 at 7:43 AM

What rumblings? When were the “rumblings?” That’s the flaw in this ridiculous story.

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

We’ve got a war on women, might as well have one on gays, too. Unless lightning strikes between now and Tampa, like it or not we have our choice in front of our faces.

Kissmygrits on May 3, 2012 at 9:35 AM

I need coffee!

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:36 AM

There is something more to this story than what is being told otherwise this makes no sense at all.

That being said – on the scale of 1 to 10 on the who gives a crap meter – this rates about a -5.

gophergirl on May 2, 2012 at 9:15 PM

THIS!!!!

Gunlock Bill on May 3, 2012 at 9:39 AM

This is an issue???…give me a break…

PatriotRider on May 3, 2012 at 9:41 AM

Don’t be a paranoid ABR misfit

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:33 AM

Criticism of Romney is support for Obama!!! You say you’re merely questioning the record of a self-identified progressive, I say you’re ACTIVELY ENDORSING ANOTHER SELF-IDENTIFIED PROGRESSIVE! SHUT UP, PARANOID ABR MISFIT!

ROMNEY 2012!!!!!!!!1111

MadisonConservative on May 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

He helped “organize a conference call”?

As someone who has “organized” numerous conference calls, it takes all of 20 minutes and no one really needs help doing it. It’s pretty much a one person job.

I have continuous read that his first day on the job was supposed to be May 1st. The day he decided to quit. At this point I’d like to see the job offer they sent him. (I’m assuming, as with most positions of this caliber, they mailed him an offer with the starting date, benefits, who they report to, etc.)

ButterflyDragon on May 3, 2012 at 9:58 AM

This whole story is gay.

Dongemaharu on May 3, 2012 at 10:07 AM

I’m totally pro-gay rights, and, from what I’ve read, I put the blame here squarely on Grenell, who appears to be a drama queen and seems to sometimes let his support for same-sex marriage override his concern for other issues.

Richard Grenell was asked to lay low (for whatever reason… to avoid getting asked about his rude, disparaging Twitter behavior or to avoid letting him becoming a story himself), and Grenell’s ego couldn’t take it. Grenell refused to be a team player, and he threw a hissy fit. Plain and simple.

It all became about him. Grenell put himself and his ego before his duty to the campaign and to the country. Grenell resigned in this way, AGAINST the campaign’s wishes (they wanted him to stay), knowing it would hurt Romney and knowing it would give the Obama campaign an easy weapon to use against Romney. That tells me all I need to know about the kind of person Grenell is. Sexual orientation was never the issue. The issue is Grenell’s apparent selfish tantrums.

Grenell isn’t any kind of victim here. The man obviously has a problem keeping his ego in check and in understanding the bigger picture. Maybe it’s good that a campaign advisor who might have a real problem staying message, being a team player, and avoiding becoming a story in and of himself, is no longer with the campaign.

bluegill on May 3, 2012 at 10:13 AM

They could have fifty valid reasons for not having an employee on a conference call.

This guy obviously has a problem staying on message. He’s ruffled a lot of feathers. He seems to be exactly the wrong person to work as a spokesperson for the Romney campaign. This is a classic case of a bad hire: looked good on paper, recommendation from a trusted source (Bolton?), solid in the interview, and then bam, you realize a couple of days later wrong choice.

Mr. Arkadin on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

He spoke out of turn and probably not in a manner the campaign found acceptable. A presidential campaign is a very carefully orchestrated presentation of a candidate. Everyone working in it represents the candidate. If this jackass worked for me and tweeted as described I’d can his ass on the spot.

dogsoldier on May 3, 2012 at 10:14 AM

Sooooo, Allah, is Grinell saying he was discriminated against because he was gay? Is that the reason his gay-ness is news? I’m genuinely confused. Why should be orientation be the lead fact here? Remove the gay factor, and you’re looking at just an everyday employment turnover in a campaign – which happens all the time and does not warrant new stories.

I don’t believe that gays or blacks or eunuchs or greens should receive any special consideration. The constant whine from gay groups is boring and grating.

cane_loader on May 3, 2012 at 10:16 AM

I say you’re ACTIVELY ENDORSING ANOTHER SELF-IDENTIFIED PROGRESSIVE! SHUT UP, PARANOID ABR MISFIT!

MadisonConservative on May 3, 2012 at 9:55 AM

I’m sure you were being sarcastic, but it should be pointed out that disgruntled, self-obsessed sore losers from the primary season who now campaign against our nominee are only helping Obama. The late great Andrew Breitbart understood this very well:

“Anyone who’s willing to stand next to me and fight the Progressive Left, I will be in that bunker, and if you’re not in that bunker because you’re not satisfied with this candidate, more than shame on you, you’re on the other side.”
- Andrew Breitbart, 2012

bluegill on May 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM

What an odd world. Apparently everyone else knows people who act completely differently from the one I live in. “Openly Gay” means what? They attend parties with their partner? If they’re guys they make passes at your husband?

I’ve several gay acquintenances. Their sexual lives never came up. And they never made the statement, “I’m gay”. It just was/is. How exactly do you pursue a conversation about your sex life with co-workers and acquintences?

I did attend a gay wedding. It was very nice but there was a difference. I’ve never attended a man-woman marriage where the guests talked solely about their crowd, their parties and who’s doing whom and making non-stop commentary about the looks or lack thereof of the people attending, peppered with graphic and embarrassing sexual descriptions. This was a posh crowd. Young professionals; members of the choir who performed at a big Obama function. I’d known the groom for years and attended parties and functions in his company. He never discussed his sex life, just like man-woman couples don’t discuss something so private in social settings. It’s just NOT done, but in the gay community, making other’s uncomfortable with really private information about something so very private is the norm? And the ONLY subject of conversation and jokes?

I work with people I know are gay. It’s never discussed by them or by anyone else. Why would this even come up? If one is good at one’s job or even bad at their job, why is this part of the discussion unless that person makes it an issue? It’s been years since most people even paid attention. Also, I know MANY fundamentalist Christians. They wouldn’t bring it up either! They may think it’s a sin, but they think some of the things I do are sinful and I’m sure they don’t think I’ve much of a chance of getting to heaven. But they certainly don’t have the lack of manners that would prompt a public chastisement or discussion. Most of them are Southern and manners would preclude such a discussion.

I’m not questioning that there are some really disgusting folks out there who think bullying is OK. Some are anti-gay and some are gay anti-Christians. Both groups generalize and make situations untenable. Tolerance for me but not thee seems to be the watchword.

Bottom line? What is openly gay exactly. Does that apply to people who’s focus of all conversations are their sex lives? There are legal issues which are very real and like government mandating abortions on religious institutions would force churches to accomodate something they think a sin.

Portia46 on May 3, 2012 at 10:21 AM

Maybe someone already spotted the obvious, but maybe he was asked to keep quiet on the call because he hadn’t officially started yet?

skydaddy on May 3, 2012 at 10:28 AM

bluegill on May 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You and many others keep citing that quote, and I keep citing this video.

I will not team up with right-leaning progressives to take out full-on leftist progressives. Progressivism as a whole needs to be stopped, and standing shoulder to shoulder with them is not the way to do so.

MadisonConservative on May 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM

The fairy probably has a gay lisp, and that’s not gonna fly on a conference call.

joe_doufu on May 3, 2012 at 12:31 AM

Zipper or button?

platypus on May 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM

So CNN and Andrew Sullivan say Grenell quit, in effect, because he didn’t like the way his boss chose to use his abilities and Romney’s people say they wish he hadn’t. Where’s the controversy here?

Knott Buyinit on May 3, 2012 at 10:30 AM

If he’s that talented, Team Romney should keep pressing him to return. Mollifying allies who were egotistical drama queens is what Eisenhower did for a living, you know.

Seth Halpern on May 3, 2012 at 10:39 AM

“Maybe keeping him on and muzzling him was their way of kinda sorta standing by Grenell while bowing to social cons anyway?” – AlP

Mittens stepped in it BIG time. MittBots still think he’s the greatest thing since Benson channeled Old Joe Smith – and they still hate blacks too. Wake up! The GOP needs a brokered convention. In his zeal to appeal to social-cons, ‘gelicals, and the rest of the whacked-out zealots, Willard threw a decent man under the bus. ANYONE endorsed by Mr. John Bolton is damn good in my book!

“The next president needs to be a man of sincere, authentic, genuine Christian faith.” – Fischer

Well, that automatically excludes Willard Romney. Next?
Romney is an embarrassment to MEN in general and the GOP specifically.
~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on May 3, 2012 at 10:39 AM

I’ll have to say I am surprised at the ineptitude displayed by the Romney camp on this. This is the kind of mistake they are not supposed to make. There are no excuses; this is their f-up and they own it. Let’s hope they don’t do it again.

Mr. Arkadin on May 2, 2012 at 10:22 PM

I don’t see how this is a screw-up for the Romney campaign. Grenell just decided to be a drama queen and quit.

rockmom on May 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

There was once a guy that worked for the Romney campaign.
He no longer does that.

That’s about the extent of what this story is worth. Absolutely. Nothing.

bridgetown on May 3, 2012 at 10:44 AM

Which is to say, none of this really makes sense.

JadeNYU on May 3, 2012 at 8:24 AM

I don’t think there’s any great mystery as to what happened here.
Aside from what CNN etc, are reporting via various sources – you also have the guy’s statement.
Fair to say that it appears the Romney camp really wanted him to stay – and for them his being gay wasn’t an issue. But it does seem clear that the guy was asked by the Romney camp to be quiet. Even if that was only for a little while, it wasn’t gonna fit well for Grenell.
Just following the highlights that are out there – it makes plenty of sense.
And I would imagine that as a someone familiar with the concerns of social conservatives – though I accept it’s not all lock-step dogma there – I can’t imagine you’d be surprised there’d be objections from many in that camp.
And they do, unfortunately, seem to have some sway.

verbaluce on May 3, 2012 at 10:48 AM

WAAAH! They forced me out because I’m teh ghEY!!! Look at me!! I’m SPESH-ul!

cane_loader on May 3, 2012 at 10:49 AM

bluegill on May 3, 2012 at 10:18 AM

You and many others keep citing that quote, and I keep citing this video.

I will not team up with right-leaning progressives to take out full-on leftist progressives. Progressivism as a whole needs to be stopped, and standing shoulder to shoulder with them is not the way to do so.

MadisonConservative on May 3, 2012 at 10:29 AM

Better straighten up, MadCon! If you don’t actively support the progressive, the progressive will win!! Do you want that on your conscience?

tom on May 3, 2012 at 10:50 AM

I don’t think Grenell’s sexuality had anything to do with his resignation.

I think his passionate views on gay marriage may have had something to do with his resignation.

I think the tweets may have had more to do with this than anything. Gingrich was more likely to have objected to Grenell than Santorum, just because of the fat jokes and the slaps at Callista.

Maybe the guy just had second thoughts, because his friends gave him sh*t. It happens.

Mr. Arkadin on May 2, 2012 at 10:46 PM

Allah was well aware of this but did not put it in the post. It was much of the discussion yesterday and the reados these two did not want him.

Gay is not a problem.
Being a very vocal Gay Marriage Advocate is a huge problem for the Gov who first got Gay Marriage in the nation Mitt. It makes us wonder if Mitt actually supports Gay Marriage and is just lying about it. This hire convinced me Mitt is actually pro Gay Marriage just like Obama.

Steveangell on May 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM

I don’t see how this is a screw-up for the Romney campaign. Grenell just decided to be a drama queen and quit.

rockmom on May 3, 2012 at 10:40 AM

He was very likely forced out for his Gay Marriage advocacy. But this was a known when they hired him. Obviously Mitt is very weak on Gay Marriage or he would not have hired him. This is an issue worldwide so it is not at all true this would have not impacted his job. Obviously Mitt had no problem with someone on his staff in a senior position advocating Gay Marriage.

Well the base has a huge problem with that.

Mitt keeps up with this kind of carp and the base will never support him.

Steveangell on May 3, 2012 at 10:58 AM

You said it yourself: “If true…” That’s the whole point. There’s no credible evidence that any of it is true. That’s why we get phrases like “If true…” And “that seems to jibe with…”

cicerone on May 3, 2012 at 9:31 AM

Any time Andrew Sullivan is mentioned there has to be a “if true”.

Andrew Sullivan did his best to savage Sarah Palin’s public image. I doubt seriously he’s going to be any more charitable to Mitt.

Dr Evil on May 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM

Andrew Sullivan did his best to savage Sarah Palin’s public image. I doubt seriously he’s going to be any more charitable to Mitt.

Dr Evil on May 3, 2012 at 11:12 AM

I’d agree that Sullivan’s credibility is shot for just about everything now. But I seriously doubt he’s going to be as hostile to Mitt as he is to Palin.

tom on May 3, 2012 at 11:15 AM

That’s the only explanation I can come up with for why they’d muzzle him — that they simply underestimated the degree of opposition from the right, because of his orientation, or from the left, because of the fake-outrage ginned up over his snotty tweets. The thing is, Mitt’s organization usually doesn’t underestimate anything; that’s why he’s the nominee despite the base’s general “Anyone But Romney” sentiment. Mystifying.

Not really.

How many millions of dollars did the Mormon Church spend in California to defeat gay marriage? The church is “anti-gay” to it’s very core. Millions of Mormons out there will be giving to Willard’s campaign, Mormons who don’t like gays – it’s pretty simple really. So the gay guy gets tossed overboard in order to keep those Salt Lake City warbucks trucking into the campaign coffers.

Don’t worry though – one day the Mormon Church will announce that gays have equal status within the congregation – just as they did with blacks in the 70′s (80′s?).

And Willard McDole will hear that announcement on his car radio (just as he did with the blacks) … and, on a lonely highway, Willard will pull his car over to the side of the road and weep with joy.

HondaV65 on May 3, 2012 at 11:53 AM

I’m a Christian and a social conservative who believes that the Bible teaches that homosexuality is a sin, so I don’t support homosexuality.

I don’t hate homosexuals, but I do not like the behavior of the militant ones who try to shove their sexuality down the nation’s collective throat.

Having said that, and I have not kept up with this particular story that closely, I don’t care if a homosexual (open or not) works with or for a conservative / Republican candidate.

As long as the homosexual guy is not trying to use his position with the Republican to sneak the homosexual agenda in, or mess up the Republican candidate in some way (sabotaging him because he’s really an undercover Democrat, or a homosexual who hates the GOP), I don’t care.

I’ve had acquaintances and coworkers who were homosexual, lesbian, and bisexual, and they were no better or worse than the heteros I knew or worked with.

Someone else in this thread did say,

Being a very vocal Gay Marriage Advocate is a huge problem for the Gov who first got Gay Marriage in the nation Mitt. It makes us wonder if Mitt actually supports Gay Marriage and is just lying about it. This hire convinced me Mitt is actually pro Gay Marriage just like Obama.

Steveangell on May 3, 2012 at 10:53 AM

That is a good point. I could maybe see other social conservatives/ Christians being leery on those grounds.

TigerPaw on May 3, 2012 at 11:57 AM

The source said Richard Grenell, who was hired to the Romney camp less than two weeks before his departure, was told on several occasions not to speak on the campaign’s conference calls with reporters…

Was Grenell the swishy type? If so, who would want him representing a serious political campaign?

MisterElephant on May 3, 2012 at 12:35 PM

I don’t get this story at all. Unless he spoke with a lisp and giggled, I don’t see what his sexual orientation had to do with anything. Gays need employment like everyone else and if he was qualified, so be it.

pat on May 3, 2012 at 12:48 PM

Terrye on May 2, 2012 at 10:27 PM

So they don’t vote at all?

thatsafactjack on May 2, 2012 at 10:25 PM

Your assessment is pretty much what I was thinking, though you put it together far better than I could have at this point.

As for hiring a gay staffer, I should think that boat had sailed. You look for the best-qualified person for the job, period.

UnrepentantCurmudgeon on May 3, 2012 at 12:57 PM

Romney is hurt by this, because the Left will be able to make it look like the bigots control the GOP and Romney. I’m trying to figure out some spin to reassure gay Republicans and moderates in general. I’m not having any success.

thuja on May 3, 2012 at 1:40 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3