Mitt Romney’s national security spokesman Richard Grenell, who has been attacked by some social conservatives because he is openly gay, has resigned. Jen Rubin has Grenell’s statement:
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.
There is not much to say about this, other than it’s a shame. Grenell was also criticized by the left for candid comments he made awhile back on Twitter, but his statement seems to imply that the uproar about his personal life was the main reason for his resignation.
If Grenell actually felt the controversy made it difficult for Romney to respond to Obama on national security, then it’s hard to fault the campaign. If there was ever a time that Romney needed a clear message on national security, it’s now. Unfortunately, this will probably be seen as a victory by the vocal group of fringe figures who protested Grenell’s hire, and sadly, it might actually end up encouraging them.
"Fringe figures"? I think there was legitimate reason to be concerned by Romney's decision in this area, because like it or not it raises legitimate questions about what would a President Romney's commitment to the institution of marriage be, or what kind of judicial appointments might he make. Much as I want to see him win, if a President Romney ends up appointing people who are in the David Souter mode, then it will have mostly been for nothing.
Wow. Just wow. Maybe everything the left says about us is true – that a person's being gay is more important than the quality of the man's ideas and character. So, you'd rather spend another (nearly) five years under Obama than accept Ronmey's choice because of what it MGHT say about Romney? Just…wow.
Actually it ISN'T him being gay that caused the flap. It's the fact that he is clearly someone who believes in pushing the gay AGENDA. And he has a noted track record of doing so. This is the point that the staff of Commentary seems rather determined to overlook. n nAnd you rather conveniently overlooked the fact that I said "much as I want to see him win." I certainly want Obama out, but if I end up seeing Obama thrown out and replaced by a Republican who is going to bend and conform more to the demands of social liberalism and further accelerate the process of marginalizing social conservative ideas, then I think those of us who do value these issues have legitimate cause to object. And calling us the "fringe" is a nice reminder of why social conservatives are prone to get sick and tired of being taken for granted all the time by the GOP establishment.
It was your oft-used application of the rhetorical flourish “I say something conciliatory, but you should really start paying attention after ‘but’” that interested me most. My issue is your seeming acceptance of an Obama second term as the figurative equivalent of a Romney first, because he tried to appoint a gay who offends you. On so many fronts that is reckless. If your point is that he would have made a lousy spokesperson – fair enough. I have no idea. You might be right. If you are saying that, by the appointment, Romney betrays a presidency no different from Obama’s…. Where have you been?
"Richard Grenell, who has been attacked by some social conservatives because he is openly gay … " – Alana Goodman n nNote that Goodman refers to "some social conservatives", but she doesn't name them. What is a "social conservative", Ms Goodman? Who are they? Name them. n nShe won't answer us because "social conservative" is Goodman's code for "Evangelical Christian".
No. Bloggers to Commentary–attacking him because he is openly gay. Social conservatives. They aren't bashful. Evangelical? Could be. Maybe not. Maybe some Evangelicals place more emphasis on witnessing to the Good News before condemning sexual sin. Could be.
Uh, gee, what exactly was St. Paul doing before the Corinthians as he emphasized the spreading of the Good News? I guess under the definition of some modern-day people, St. Paul, whom Jesus singled out to spread the Good News to the Gentiles, was just a "Fringe Fanatic" and should have accepted all the warts inside the Corinthian church!
Oh, and maybe some background about Grenell should be in order. n n"At the end of Grenell's service in the Bush administration, he took a notable whack at the administration, telling The Advocate's Kerry Eleveld of his effort to have his partner, Matt Lashey, listed in the United Nations' Blue Book, which is ‘a reference guide of contact information for different member states of the United Nations as well as diplomatic personnel and their spouses.’ n n“Grenell had attempted to have Lashey's name added several times, to no avail. He told The Advocate back in 2008, ‘What put me over the edge was a friend and colleague who met her spouse after I was already with my partner — they got married and subsequently were put into the Blue Book in a matter of days.’ n n“The State Department eventually told him that the Defense of Marriage Act prevented the listing. Although he protested the decision behind the scenes, Lashey's name was not ever added, which led to his coming forward to criticize the treatment publicly as he left his post. n n“Grenell cited his help for LGBT groups, though, as an accomplishment of his time in the Bush administration. He ‘helped secure two former U.S. ambassadors to the U.N., John Danforth and John Bolton, to give keynote speeches at Log Cabin Republican conventions,’ according to The Advocate's report, as well as succeeding in getting some LGBT groups accredited at the U.N.” n n"Then, shortly after leaving the Bush administration, Grenell publicly condemned Bush for opposing a U.N. resolution urging the full acceptance of homosexuality, which the Bush administration believed would facilitate pressure to accept redefinition of marriage." n nThe last point I think should be the end of the discussion on just which side of the issue represents the true "Fringe figures".
Um, yes, gay people now advocate for social acceptance. Is that "fringe"? It's mainstream gay advocacy. The culture wars continue, obviously but gays are pushing for full acceptance of homosexuality. Yes. So the conservative position here is that a gay person who wants homosexuality accepted equally, socially, politically, legally, with heterosexuality is fringe. And you object to your objection being labeled fringe. Let's say then that he isn't fringe and you are not fringe. The fact is that opposing gay marriage probably puts a ceiling on GOP electoral outreach more than it energizes latent support. That's where we are today imo. The whole fringe thing is a semantic red herring.
English translation: Roll over and accept gay marriage or else! All you terrible evil social conservatives, put your views in the closet where they belong! (sarcasm mode now disengaged) n n
Roll over and ADVOCATE FOR gay marriage or you will be destroyed. n nThat is the reality in the modern GOP and why I am no longer a member of it because I just would prefer not to discuss the issue at all. Remaining silent isn't good enough — and that is why I left…. n nAnd what happened later is why I (a) intend to shred my doctoral diploma and (b) vote for Obama. All Obama has done is try to destroy the country — the GOP has tried to destroy me personally….
Commentary: so you were wondering why liberal Jews (in the broad cultural definition) vote Dem? One reason perhaps, they don't enthuse over being enlisted in wars against minorities, even pushy, obnoxious ones.
The poet Yeats put this best — "and the middle shall cease to hold." n nThe gay activists in the GOP have spent the past 3-4 years creating a party where everything is about sex. You are either pro-gay, all the way, or you are "in the way" and to be destroyed. nWell, in such an environment, eventually the other side starts playing by your rules, and everything truly does become about sex and sexual orientation and the rest. n nIn a way, Richard Grenell and I are both casualties of the same stupidity. This is what happens when everything becomes a binary issue of which side you are cheering for — the folks who aren't cheering at all get screwed. And I just didn't want to discuss sex — of any orientation or combination(s) of individuals…. n n
There is no "war" taking place except the war being waged by those whose feelings on this issue are those of Grenell against traditional Christians who don't bend their faith in the name of a phony definition of "tolerance". The objections raised to Grenell don't even remotely approach the level of say, Dan Savage and his recent little screed of bigoted hate (or the perpetual KKK style of bigotry that comes from million dollar SuperPac donor Bill Maher on a regular basis).