Romney camp caves into pressure, muzzles aid

[Birdpreacher]

Mitt hires who he believes to be the best man for the job. I admired Mitt for this,unfortunately he allowed pressure from conservatives to dictate how he handles his campaign. So much for a strong leader…

By the way, anyone buying the argument that if Obama made Gay Marriage legal, this aid would suddenly jump ship on his foreign policy views?

But Richard Grenell, the political strategist who helped organize the call and was specifically hired to oversee such communications, was conspicuously absent, or so everyone thought.

It turned out he was at home in Los Angeles, listening in, but stone silent and seething. A few minutes earlier, a senior Romney aide had delivered an unexpected directive, according to several people involved in the call.

"Ric,” said Alex Wong, a policy aide, “the campaign has requested that you not speak on this call.” Mr. Wong added, “It’s best to lay low for now.”

nytimes.com/2012/05/03/us/politics/richard-grenell-resigns-from-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-team.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Mitt hires who he believes to be the best man for the job. I admired Mitt for this,unfortunately he allowed pressure from conservatives to dictate how he handles his campaign. So much for a strong leader…

By the way, anyone buying the argument that if Obama made Gay Marriage legal, this aid would suddenly jump ship on his foreign policy views?

nytimes.com/2012/05/03/us/politics/richard-grenell-resigns-from-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-team.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

What does being openly gay have to do with his expertise on foreign policy? Sometimes conservatives (not all of them) hoist themselves by their own petard.

 

[mattyc4]

What does being openly gay have to do with his expertise on foreign policy? Sometimes conservatives (not all of them) hoist themselves by their own petard.

Agreed. I don’t see how Ric being gay has anything to do with his credentials. If Romney will not stand up for someone who has the necessary expertise, credentials, and ability to do the job AFTER he already hired him, simply because a fringe protested, he will not be receiving my vote.

Matt

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

Agreed. I don’t see how Ric being gay has anything to do with his credentials. If Romney will not stand up for someone who has the necessary expertise, credentials, and ability to do the job AFTER he already hired him, simply because a fringe protested, he will not be receiving my vote.

Matt

If Romney cannot stand up to people on his own staff, how is he going to deal with the likes of Alkaseltzerman in Iran or Chavez of Venezuela, or Doggone-Ill in North Korea?

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Agreed. I don’t see how Ric being gay has anything to do with his credentials. If Romney will not stand up for someone who has the necessary expertise, credentials, and ability to do the job AFTER he already hired him, simply because a fringe protested, he will not be receiving my vote.

Matt

 

[mary_bobo]

Shall we believe everything the NYT says and the spin they choose to put on it? I think there might be more to this story than we know at this time.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

Shall we believe everything the NYT says

Usually works for me.

Do you think the article is a lie, Mary? What part of the article do you believe is manufactured?

 

[scipio337]

While this is unfortunate, I don’t see any indication this was orchestrated by Romney himself.

Having worked on more than one campaign, they can get pretty dramatic.

 

[buffalo]

I support Romney’s decision. The operative point was this man was openly gay. Either Romney understands the homosexual act to be intrinsically evil or he does not. Asking his staff to rise to a higher morality is a good thing.

 

[mattyc4]

I support Romney’s decision. The operative point was this man was openly gay. Either Romney understands the homosexual act to be intrinsically evil or he does not. Asking his staff to rise to a higher morality is a good thing.

This is factually incorrect. He hired Ric knowing full well that he was openly gay and supported marriage equality. He caved in to the pressure from the far right fringe–which is not the behavior of a man I would want in the Commander-in-Chief. If he cannot stand up to his own party on a relatively non-controversial decision, how can he(as Scott pointed out) negotiate with a firm stance against North Korea and Iran?

The simple facts of this case are as follows:

1. He hired Ric, knowing that he was an OPENLY gay man, who fervently believed in marriage equality
2. His foreign advisory credentials are impeccable.
3. The Romney campaign refused to allow him to do his job because the fringe right was up in arms because the man was gay.
4. He was not supported in completing a job in which he was eminently qualified for, just because he is gay. This is wrong.

Matt

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

I support Romney’s decision. The operative point was this man was openly gay.

How does that affect his job performance or his ability to be an excellent political operative? Might as well dump him for being a Catholic or a Jew.

 

[Rich_Olszewski]

This is factually incorrect. He hired Ric knowing full well that he was openly gay and supported marriage equality. He caved in to the pressure from the far right fringe–which is not the behavior of a man I would want in the Commander-in-Chief. If he cannot stand up to his own party on a relatively non-controversial decision, how can he(as Scott pointed out) negotiate with a firm stance against North Korea and Iran?

The simple facts of this case are as follows:

1. He hired Ric, knowing that he was an OPENLY gay man, who fervently believed in marriage equality
2. His foreign advisory credentials are impeccable.
3. The Romney campaign refused to allow him to do his job because the fringe right was up in arms because the man was gay.
4. He was not supported in completing a job in which he was eminently qualified for, just because he is gay. This is wrong.

Matt

In spades!!

 

[buffalo]

This is factually incorrect. He hired Ric knowing full well that he was openly gay and supported marriage equality. He caved in to the pressure from the far right fringe–which is not the behavior of a man I would want in the Commander-in-Chief. If he cannot stand up to his own party on a relatively non-controversial decision, how can he(as Scott pointed out) negotiate with a firm stance against North Korea and Iran?

The simple facts of this case are as follows:

1. He hired Ric, knowing that he was an OPENLY gay man, who fervently believed in marriage equality
2. His foreign advisory credentials are impeccable.
3. The Romney campaign refused to allow him to do his job because the fringe right was up in arms because the man was gay.
4. He was not supported in completing a job in which he was eminently qualified for, just because he is gay. This is wrong.

Matt

No it is not simply that he is same sex attracted. A chaste homosexual has no need to declare himself.

If a staff member is going be be in the crosshairs for his immoral actions than he should be let go. If Romney did know all this and still hired him then he made a foolish mistake.

 

[mattyc4]

If Romney cannot stand up to people on his own staff, how is he going to deal with the likes of Alkaseltzerman in Iran or Chavez of Venezuela, or Doggone-Ill in North Korea?

I completely agree. This was not a courageous act.

Matt

 

[scipio337]

This is factually incorrect. He hired Ric knowing full well that he was openly gay and supported marriage equality. He caved in to the pressure from the far right fringe–which is not the behavior of a man I would want in the Commander-in-Chief. If he cannot stand up to his own party on a relatively non-controversial decision, how can he(as Scott pointed out) negotiate with a firm stance against North Korea and Iran?

The simple facts of this case are as follows:

1. He hired Ric, knowing that he was an OPENLY gay man, who fervently believed in marriage equality
2. His foreign advisory credentials are impeccable.
3. The Romney campaign refused to allow him to do his job because the fringe right was up in arms because the man was gay.
4. He was not supported in completing a job in which he was eminently qualified for, just because he is gay. This is wrong.

Matt

Can we see in the article where “He caved in to the pressure”, “HE” being Romney? There is nothing in the article that indicated Romney had anything to do with it. It appears Ric was asked to lay low until his actual start date, May 1st.

And the point the opposition had wasn’t that he was gay, it was his position on an issue.

I doubt this issue will dissuade anyone. Those who oppose Romney as president will probably still oppose him, those who support him will probably still support him.

 

[scipio337]

I completely agree. This was not a courageous act.

Matt

Let’s be honest Matt, were you considering voting Romney before this?

Based on your post history, I’m guessing it would be a resounding “No”.

 

[mattyc4]

No it is not simply that he is same sex attracted. A chaste homosexual has no need to declare himself.

If a staff member is going be be in the crosshairs for his immoral actions than he should be let go. If Romney did know all this and still hired him then he made a foolish mistake.

He chose to declare himself, as is his right in the United States of America. He chose to support marriage equality and do so with fervent vigor–as is his right in the United States of America.

Romney hired him knowing all of this and refused to stand up for his employee, whom he told this would not be an issue.

Furthermore, his opinions on marriage equality and his sexuality have absolutely nothing to do with his job. He was a foreign adviser–and an extremely good one. This is a travesty, that an openly gay man cannot be allowed to do his job.

Matt

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

I support Romney’s decision. The operative point was this man was openly gay. Either Romney understands the homosexual act to be intrinsically evil or he does not. Asking his staff to rise to a higher morality is a good thing.

What does being openly gay have to do with his expertise on foreign policy? Sometimes conservatives (not all of them) hoist themselves by their own petard.

This is exactly what I’m talking about.

 

[qui_est_ce]

Shall we believe everything the NYT says and the spin they choose to put on it? I think there might be more to this story than we know at this time.

I agree. The NYT had two articles (that I know of) where they blasted the Papal reprimand of LWCA, somehow tying it in to sex, pedophile priests, and contraceptives. They referred to BXVI has the former “Rottweiler” blah blah blah.

What was sickening is that it was posted to FB by my Catholic friends.

The NYT certainly leaves out certain pertinent facts on many occasions.

 

[mattyc4]

Can we see in the article where “He caved in to the pressure”, “HE” being Romney? There is nothing in the article that indicated Romney had anything to do with it. It appears Ric was asked to lay low until his actual start date, May 1st.

And the point the opposition had wasn’t that he was gay, it was his position on an issue.

I doubt this issue will dissuade anyone. Those who oppose Romney as president will probably still oppose him, those who support him will probably still support him.

His campaign, his responsibility. To answer your following post–yes I was considering voting for Romney. Like many recent college graduates, I am socially liberal but fiscally conservative. And, to be perfectly frank, I have long suspected Romney of being a moderate, which would appeal to me.

And yes, looking at my posting history, you can see I firmly believe in marriage equality–but I am not a one-issue voter.

Also, since when has the republican party tolerated no dissent? Why does every politician have to believe in every single conservative principle? People are not automatons–they think for themselves. This was a conservative man with a singular liberal position. This should not be an issue.

Matt

Matt