Wednesday, May 2, 2012
GOP Anti-Gay Faction Celebrates Running Ric Grenell Out of Romney's Campaign
UPDATE BELOW: Keeping Grenell muzzled!
Listen to this guy, Bryan Fischer, the director of issue analysis at the American Family Association,
celebrate running Romney's foreign policy advisor out of town because he is gay. These are the people Romney will be beholden to and, apparently, the people who will dictate to him who is acceptable for cabinet positions and who isn't, should he become president.
And make no mistake, NO GAY CITIZEN, NO MATTER HOW QUALIFIED, NEED APPLY!
Ric Grenell was hounded out of his position as Romney's foreign policy advisor by the Christianist gay haters, and they're celebrating it with a victory dance.
Imagine what their influence would be if Romney made it to the White House! I don't understand how any member of the LGBT community would want to be part of the GOP--a political party that reviles them--after listening to this hideously bigoted man:
I call Romney spineless. He can't stand up to this loud-mouthed bigot, how will he deal with America's enemies? Coward!
From the Washington Post:
"Fischer was central to that “hyper-partisan discussion.” He’s the director of issue analysis at the American Family Association, and he blasted the campaign upon Grenell’s hiring for associating itself with an openly gay man.
Grenell also ran into trouble for a bunch of sexist tweets that he ended up deleting from his Twitter feed. In an interview this afternoon, I pointed out to Fischer that Grenell had deep experience in foreign-affairs flacking, a tour of duty that included working under four U.S. ambassadors to the United Nations. Would Fischer worry that, with Grenell’s resignation, the Romney campaign might have trouble finding someone as qualified? Someone with Grenell’s record as a bulldog vis-a-vis aggressive reporters? Someone who could bash the Obama team in the media? “Absolutely not,” responded Fischer. “I refuse to believe that Richard Grenell was the only qualified individual. I think that hire was about homosexuality, so there will be plenty of qualified candidates [Romney] will be able to choose from.” Straight ones, that is."
"STRAIGHT ONES, THAT IS."
There you go, America.
No gay person, no matter how qualified will be welcome if these bigots have any say in the matter. And apparently they decide whom Romeny will have as advisors, NOT Romney! Wow!
What a miserably distopian country these people want us to live in.
UPDATE:
"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. "
Charlie Pierce writing in Esquire:
It's remarkable, this shitcanning of Richard Grenell as foreign-policy spokescritter for the Romneybot 2.0. Remarkable still for its being handled with such notable dispatch. First, you hire on the former mouthpiece for authoritarian nutbag John Bolton to establish further your neo-conservative foreign-policy gravitas. It turns out the guy is openly gay, so bonus! (Remember, all you wavering and otherwise vacant "independent" voters: Once, I was going to be a gayer senator than Teddy Kennedy. Nudge-nudge, wink-wink.) Then, of course, the guy turns out to be just as crackers as his former boss — Bad-mouthing the lovely Callista Gingrich? Calumnizing kindly Doc Maddow? My seconds will call on yours, sir! — and, because he's gay, the megachurches scramble the flying monkeys into the air and, within two weeks, Grenell is as fired as an Ampad worker. Quoth the Politico:
"This was an unforced error, and one that could have been avoided if the Romney campaign had simply said early on we have 100 percent faith in Ric Grenell to do his job," said Chris Barron, one of the co-founders of the group GOProud. "Does anyone in the world doubt that if had been an evangelical or a Mormon or a Jewish person that the Romney campaign would not have defended that person? It is hard for me to comprehend why the Romney campaign chose to leave Ric Grenell hanging out there the way that they did." He added, "Every campaign when you're at this moment where you're making the transition from the primary to the general election looks for their Sistah Souljah moment. And this could have been Romney's Sistah Souljah moment. He could have said, look, this is a guy who was spokesman at the United Nations. This is a guy who served under John Bolton ... and by God, I'm not going to let a handful of extremists bring him down."
Read more: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/richard-grenell-fired-8534269#ixzz1tlMiykZa
This is a shameful example of Mitt Romney's weak-kneed response to outside pressures. He doesn't have the integrity nor the courage to stand his ground. He allowed a barking-mad group of homophobic cretins to overrule his choice of a foreign policy wonk.
Would Romney have allowed an outside group to pressure him to get rid of a Jewish person? A Mormon? An African-American? A Latino? Why is it acceptable for the Christianist bigots to single out a gay person as not acceptable? Why?
And why didn't Romney have the character to stand up to the bigoted bullies and say NO! This is the guy I want, and his sexual orientation is not an issue.
Romney failed. Big time.
Shaw,
ReplyDeleteI think the problem is as you describe it -- hadn't followed this story, but I have yet to see Mitt Romney do anything that suggests a view of politics as anything other than a game, one in which you say whatever it's most expedient to say and do whatever it's most expedient to do, whether or not it's what you really believe should be said or done. The thing is, when he does it, it's always painfully obvious and I think that even a lot of the, uh, most "low-information" voters have been able to pick up on the lack: it's simply a personal quality we're talking about here.
Shaw, I nodded in affirmation continually as I read this post. This inaction on Romney's part, his failure to support his choice should be viewed by any thinking person as an indicator of things to come. I do think that Romney would allow an outside group to ressure him into getting rid of any other minority group if that outside group was the Christian Right. These people wield an enormous amount of power and they use that power like a mighty club to smite anyone who defies them. I can only hope that power plays such as this are paid attention to by the udecided voters and that they realize that they must make a choice in November. If they are at all sane, that choice will not be Romney.
ReplyDeleteI'm not so sure. As a Morman Romney is a member of a minority. For whatever that observation may be worth.
DeleteI agree with bloggingdino, Romney is an opportunist and will throw anybody under the bus if he thinks it will enhance his probability of winning. It is precisely because of this I cannot pull the lever for Mitt.
I suppose we're all saying the same thing really. A lack of political, and personal integrity.
This shows that Mitt will be an obedient to the kooks that run the republican party president. The thought of this man appointing cabinet members and Supreme Court Justices should scare anyone of sense.
ReplyDeleteActually my biggest problem is his integrity, rather the lack thereof. We simply don't know, for sure.
DeleteMitt actually governed pretty much as a moderate as governor of MA. I believe it is plausible he would quickly move to the center if elected. Remember Bush 1?
Of course I will be voting Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee and doing al I can to help create energy and excitement for his candidacy in the Socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts.
"And apparently they decide whom Romeny will have as advisors, NOT Romney! Wow!"
ReplyDeleteNo surprise there. Romney will say and do just about anything to get elected. He knows if any portion of the radical-right base of what has become of the Republican Party stays home in November, his chance of getting elected becomes slim to none. He can't afford to lose a handful of pro-secessionist crackpots in Frackin, Texas, and will get hurt bad if he doesn't express his willingness to take out an abortion doctor to win the allegiance of some gun-wielding crazies in Salvation Springs, Okla., or wherever.
Anyone with a soul who runs for the Republican presidential nomination had better be prepared to check it at the convention door, if he/she hasn't cast it off already. Decency, conscience and fairmindedness are seen as weaknesses and political liabilities in Republicanland.
R.N. wrote: "Mitt actually governed pretty much as a moderate as governor of MA. I believe it is plausible he would quickly move to the center if elected. Remember Bush 1?"
ReplyDeleteIf Romney were to win the 2012 election, the very next thing on his self-centered mind would be winning re-election in four years — exactly what Bush 41 couldn't do, in part because he was too moderate and reasonable. Too "squishy" as Limbaugh and many radical-right types put it at the time.
No, if Romney gets elected he's going to be radical-right all over the place. There's a lot he doesn't know, but does know how essential having the entire far-right cabal behind him, if he is to have any hope of winning. He knows he can't afford defections.
Thank you all for your responses.
ReplyDeleteRN tacked this onto the last part of one of his comments:
"...in the Socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts."
This "Socialist Commonwealth of Massachusetts" has the lowest divorce rate in the US, has the highest achievements for students in math and science, Boston has been named as one of the best places for people to retire to, has the most, as a percentage of its population, citizens with post-graduate degrees, is among the top ten best states for businesses, has one of the lowest unwed birth rates, has a lower-than-national average unemployment rate, and has almost 100% of its citizens covered with health insurance.
If all of those things that contribute to a good quality of life are as a result of what you label "socialist" policies, I'd ask you, and others who indescriminately slap that label on successful states, why it is a bad thing?