Gay Romney Staffer Richard Grenell Driven from Campaign By Social Cons

The Wash Post's Jennifer Rubin reports that Richard Grenell, a foreign policy spokesman who's worked for such hard-core conservative figures such as John Bolton, has resigned from the Romney campaign due to sniping from social cons uncomfortable with Grenell's bedroom predilections. Grenell, says Rubin, was "recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign." Lots of luck with that mission now, Mittens!

Rubin excerpts a statement from Grenell:

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.

What sort of pushback was Grenell getting from social cons? The Family Research Council noted its fears that Grenell would push for U.N. recognition of gay rights (read: the right not to be executed in various countries simply for being gay, being able to get married, and the like). Rubin excerpts a piece at National Review that unmasks the real issue that worries conservatives trembling over Al Qaeda's dead-but-still-with-us threat level:

In the National Review, Matthew J. Franck wrote late last week: “Suppose Barack Obama comes out — as Grenell wishes he would — in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention. How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?”

And just imagine if Grenell and Ann Romney showed up at the annual J. Edgar Hoover Drag Ball and Good Times Revue wearing the same dress! Franck's response underscores that however much conservatives say they hate foreign Islamo-fascists, they probably hate domestic poufters more.

I don't share what I understand to be Grenell's positions on foreign policy - as noted above, he's a John Bolton loyalist (and Bolton was reportedly one of his biggest supporters for the Romney post), so I assume he's never met a country he doesn't want to bomb, invade, or occupy. And Grenell is also notorious for channeling his inner Mr. Blackwell and tweeting bitchy comments about high-profile ladies ranging from MSNBC host Rachel Maddow (would it kill her, he asked, "to take a breath and put on a necklace") and Calista Gingrich (he wondered if the hair "snapped on"). He also railed against folks like Wash Post/MSNBC staffer Jonathan Capeheart for failing to press Barack Obama on his refusal to support marriage equality. So in the best tradition of cop movies, Grenell seems to be a bit of a loose cannon who plays by his own rules; men want to be him and...some men want to be with him. Twitterhea is not exactly what you want in a spokesman for foreign policy and defense type issues, I suppose. Then again, wouldn't it bug the hell out of distant mullahs and imams and clerics far more to know that even conservative Americans don't give a rat's ass about a guy's personal life? Goddamnit, but conservatives are so stupid that they can't even strategize for a minute when their gaydar is buzzing on high alert.

I do not plan to vote for Mitt Romney - indeed, I cannot conceive of any scenario in which either Romney or Obama pries a vote from hand. And I resign myself to the grim fact that one of these guys will be elected, though I remain agnostic on precisely which one will usher in a new era of truly awful governance (read: As bad as it's been, it can always get worse). Everybody who fears four more years of Obama (almost certainly with GOP majorities in one or both houses of Congress), would do well to remember the six years of Bush and a GOP-controlled Congress.

But this mini-episode is one more chit on the huge pile that suggests that when Mitt Romney loses the fall election, conservative Republicans will have nobody to blame but themselves. When confronted with a seriously unpopular incumbent whose massive and idiotic interventions have done squat to revivify the economy, whose left flank is more disappointed in him than Stalin was in Trotsky, whose war-mongering and health care plans are panned even by the most patriotic zombie Americans, and whose stance on marriage equality is indistinguishable from Romney's, conservative Republican bigwigs focus in on whether or not a guy whom John Bolton supports is gay. In a country, no less, in which a majority now supports not simply peaceful tolerance of homosexuality but balls-out gay marriage.

Back in February 2011, Reason.tv covered Andrew Breitbart's Big Gay Party in DC, which protested the exclusion of conservative gay rights group GOProud from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC). Richard Grenell, then with the public relations firm Capitol Media Group, shows up talking with Michael C. Moynihan around the 4.12 mark, saying "The overwhelming majority of Republicans are accepting of conservatives who happen to be gay." Maybe, but in this case, it wasn't the majority that counted.

 

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John Thacker||

    He probably would have kept his job if he hadn't been gay, but he also probably would have kept his job if his obnoxious Twitter comments hadn't caused him to get attacked by Think Progress and others as a sexist who hates women (as well as being a troll).

    Always fun when you see groups on the Left calling for him to resign or be fired (because of sexist tweets or because he worked for John Bolton) but then complaining as soon as he did because it's for the wrong reasons.

  • wareagle||

    the dishonesty is that he is attacked by the left for leaving the reservation, much like conservative blacks are, but the media spin is that the right got the vapors over a gay man in its midst.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Gay men can be sexists? Sorry, but I find that odd.

  • BruceMajor||

    They can and in some cases are. In his case he simply made cutting, funny tweets a la Mr. Blackwell about Madcow and other holy temple prostitutes of the StinkRegress crowd

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Yep. Had he made comments about Ms. Palin's fashion sense, they would be swooning over his snarktastic wit.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Guess I just assumed gay men weren't capable of sexism. I need to get out more often.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    On a semi-related note, some of the most racist men I have had the displeasure of meeting were gay men.

  • Randian||

    Your sarcasm isn't lost on me, FIFY.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    I wasn't actually aiming for sarcasm, but thanks.

  • Skip||

    Yeah I'm sure the lefties were outraged at his disrespect for Calista Gingrich.

  • TingoZing||

    So who really comes up with all that crazy stuff?

    www.Privacy-Guys.tk

  • Soc Indv Sparky||

    An excellent question Tingo.

  • Sharon Stone||

    A 2,000 year old book that can be used to justify about any belief.

  • radar||

    So one blog post from the FRC is enough to force this guy out? Seems like something is missing here.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    My guess is the sniping SoCons are worried they'll - like teetotalers and drinking - slip up.

  • o3||

    penis envy

  • BruceMajor||

    He is tall.

  • fabius||

    I would be willing to bet it was a personal decision that had far more to do with the exile he was suffering within the gay community than complaints from the SoCons. It's obviously a flawed sample, but about 30 or so of my 400 facebook friends are openly gay, and almost all of them have been posting hateful vitriol about this guy and how no decent person at all could support Romney, but least of all a decent gay person. About a quarter of those 400 friends are Fox News watching, backward, rural Mississippi, evangelical, social conservative morons, and not a peep about this.

  • grrizzly||

    The guy has been openly Republican while gay for a long time. He must have learned long ago how hateful and intolerant gay leftists are. There was nothing unusual in their reaction.

  • o3||

    intolerant of RW GAY hypocrites like ken melhman & grenell yea

  • wareagle||

    bullshit. No group practices group thought more than the left. Liberals expect people in certain groups to behave in a certain way and when they don't, they are caricatured as "not a real gay", "not a real black", "not a real woman."

  • o3||

    so teh lub-rahls forced grenell off romney's staff?

  • ||

    Didn't Reason run an article a few weeks ago about liberals being all pissed off and calling an openly gay republican a homophobe, while the democrat was NOT gay and actually a homophobe?

    Face it o, a lot of the hate on liberals is hyperbolic, but they love to skewer themselves some people who don't conform to their ideas of minorities.

  • ant1sthenes||

    No, they were both GOP, but the gay one was anti-establishment.

  • ||

    Ahhh.

  • Brandybuck||

    A friend of mine said he was at a Berkeley GOP event many years ago, and noticed this guy being shunned by everyone. So he goes up to talk to him, and sees that he has a Log Cabin Republican button on his jacket. My friend proceeds to apologize for the rude behavior and bigotry of the other Berkeley Republicans. The guy responds "This is nothing! At least they're not spitting on me like they do when I'm at a gay event wearing this same button!"

  • Brandon||

    Why the hell aren't all gays, pot smokers, business owners, cancer patients, gun owners, dog owners, and minorities libertarians?

  • tarran||

    My closest friend two employers ago was a lesbian black ex-army sergeant with a masters degree from Harvard's Divinity School with numerous scars from an IED attack.

    We got to talking politics one day and she shared with me that she agreed with the Republican party on everything but gay rights and that she was ashamed to be black and a republican.

    She didn't believe me when I told her of the existence of the Log-Cabin Republicans.

    I found it profoundly sad that this very intelligent person felt duty bound because of the color of her skin to support politicians she despised.

  • BruceMajor||

    He's not totally isolated. He spoke at last years Log Cabin national convention and knows all the gay libertarians and neocons etc. We all talk to each other and at this point we don't take the gay leftovers seriously in any way. 35% of gays don't vote Democrat.

  • np||

    I don't think it was just that. The NRO had several articles already, including the one linked:

    Kevin Williamson "detest[s] the gay marriage debate." Join the club. None of us in the thick of defending marriage thought years ago that we would find it necessary to do so. But necessity is imperious, and can't await the leisure of "days of peace and plenty." The marriage debate is as important to the future of a free society as anything else he has named.

    I think they're just freaking about his (long time) advocacy for gay marriage... which should be the least of their concerns right now.

  • BruceMajor||

    Is Kevin gay? Just to be rude. I've always wondered. When you Hets started getting pierced ears and tribal tatts you just confused us all.

  • R C Dean||

    If/when Romney loses to a very beatable Obama after towing the so-con lion and throwing all else under the bus, I would like to believe that there would be some soul-searching in Repub and so-con precincts.

    But I doubt it.

  • T||

    In true zealot fashion, they'll decide it's because they didn't go so-con enough. I'm not betting on sanity to prevail.

  • NeonCat||

    "If only we'd chosen Santorum" will be the cry.

  • AlmightyJB||

    They will either have to change or they will become extinct. No one under 30 today will put up with it so it may take some time but eventually socon pandering will cost them every election.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    No, it will be once again proof that the social cons weren't intolerant enough. If they'd only nominated REAL CONSERVATIVE (TM), they'd have won.

  • BruceMajor||

    Gary Johnson 2012!

  • Pippers||

    Yeah, really. If Romney wanted to show some leadership, he should have rallied against the anti-gay SoCons pushing this crap. The party will take Romney down just like they took McCain down. If there was ever a time for Romney to show some teeth, and get some of the independents, it was now.

  • BakedPenguin||

    I remain agnostic on precisely which one will usher in a new era of truly awful governance

    When Obama was elected, I wondered how - how would it be possible - that he was going to be worse than Bush the lessor. Then he showed me, and the world.

  • John Thacker||

    Everybody who fears four more years of Obama (almost certainly with GOP majorities in one or both houses of Congress),

    You have a strange concept of "almost certainly." It offends me, as a probabilist.

    While I agree that an Obama Presidency plus GOP control of at least one branch of Congress is probably the least bad option, I cannot see how you justify "almost certainly." I would say that there's at least a 15% chance of unified Democratic control; the probability is much higher conditioned on President Obama winning re-election.

  • R C Dean||

    I dunno, John. Assuming the economy doesn't start showing significant improvement in the next few months, I don't see the Dems taking the House or holding the Senate. That's just too big a hill for them to climb.

  • sarcasmic||

    Olympia Snowe is not running again. Odds favor her being replaced by a Democrat.

  • wareagle||

    but who will notice the difference? That's something that gets overlooked - each party has folks who seem better suited for the other side.

  • o3||

    mcconnell will

  • wareagle||

    the only difference he'll notice is that he won't have to ask which party one of his own belongs to.

  • o3||

    the 2 maine senators mostly voted gop

  • sarcasmic||

    True she's a RINO, but she didn't side the the Dems on every issue.

    Only the important ones.

  • R C Dean||

    The Dems have 21 Senate seats up for grabs (plus two "independents" for a real total of 23), and the Repubs have 10. The Dems are leading in 15 races, and the Repubs 8. That means there are two Repub seats in play, versus 8 for the Dems. These are basically your ten tossup races.

    The Dems currently have a majority of 53 (counting the independents). If the Repubs win 4 of the 10 tossups, they get the majority. So I put their odds at 60% of taking the Senate. Maybe not as big a hill for the Dems to climb as they thought.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It doesn't have to be about the whole economy.

    Keep your eye on the strike price of unleaded gas options for through the summer.

    If we see a price spike through the summer, Obama's gonna have a tough time of it.

  • R C Dean||

    The Repubs hold a 47 seat majority in the House.

    At this point, according to Cook's Political Report,* the Dems are on track to take 5 House seats from the Repubs, and the Repubs are on track to take 7 fro the Dems. So, basically, no change.

    *I think. Its not terribly obvious how to read their charts.

  • Ken Shultz||

    When confronted with a seriously unpopular incumbent whose massive and idiotic interventions have done squat to revivify the economy, whose left flank is more disappointed in him than Stalin was in Trotsky, whose war-mongering and health care plans are panned even by the most patriotic zombie Americans, and whose stance on marriage equality is indistinguishable from Romney's, conservative Republican bigwigs focus in on whether or not a guy whom John Bolton supports is gay.

    Hear, hear!

    When the economy is serving the Republicans more or less what they need to win...

    Despite the American people recently growing an organic movement in opposition to Obama's economic policies, which handed them control of the House...

    The Republicans are still obsessed with foreign policy and bedroom behavior.

    Disgraceful. They're so dumb, they don't even know what's in their own best interest. The only thing they have going for them is that the Democrats are at least as clueless.

    Democrat or Republican, I don't want any of them making decisions for me.

  • T||

    Democrat or Republican, I don't want any of them making decisions for me.

    Which, quite honestly, is one of the reasons I'm a libertarian. These people are morons, but they presume to think they can make good decisions for all 300+ million of us. Uhh, no, man, most of you 'tards can't even keep your personal lives straight.

  • fabius||

    Exactly. Most of them are not very smart. Many of them are flatly stupid. The ones who are pretty smart, though, may be the worst of all. If your cognitive abilities are anywhere near the 90th percentile or so, there are so many opportunities to be productive and successful that if you decide you'd rather be a politician then there is something truly fucked in your head.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Even if they were smart, they wouldn't be able to make the choices for me that reflect what I care about--not as accurately as I can for myself, say, in a market.

    ...but they're not smart. They're not smart enough to coordinate themselves. How could they possibly be smart enough to coordinate the rest of us?

    Call it libertarianism or call it something else. I want to make my own choices for myself instead of these clowns makin' my choices for me.

  • fabius||

    Agree. I was responding specifically to what T called "one of the reasons" he's a libertarian - the fact that these people are morons.

  • Aresen||

    I doubt they are morons. Many of them are highly intelligent.

    But they are utterly cynical and amoral. They will pander to the worst elements for the sole purpose of gaining and holding power.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Moron is as moron does.

    If people with high IQs do stupid things, then they are stupid.

    If the Republican leadership doesn't do what's in its own best interest or does what's contrary to its own best interest, then they're stupid.

    Stoopid.

  • Lord Humungus||

    from Byron York:

    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.
  • Ken Shultz||

    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.

    I don't know what that's supposed to mean, exactly. Is someone suggesting that Grenell was just in the campaign as part of some elaborate hoax--for the purpose of resigning at the right time, just to make Romney look bad on gay rights?

    Because although that would be a ridiculous argument--it's absolutely typical.

    Isn't that Republican Standard Operating Procedure #104?

    Anything that makes Our Dear Leader look bad is an elaborate conspiracy to trick average Americans into thinking he isn't really a genius...

    Wow, Romney really has won the Republican nomination, hasn't he.

  • SusanM||

    Shouldn't that be Balls & Boobs out (let's not forget the ladies)?

    But yeah, the SoCons make it clear that they want nothing short of a dictator in office. And "making it clear" is their fatal flaw more than anything else (they want man to dominate man - and the dems want it the other way around). Which, in it's own way is worse than the Dems dumping tons of law and regulations on us and calling it freedom.

  • o3||

    so the dems want man to NOT dominate man?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Damn, you're impressively retarded.

  • o3||

    susan's words sherlock

  • SusanM||

    Have you never heard of irony (not to be confused with "goldie", BTW)

  • Zeb||

    Is that sort of like bronzey?

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Nothing can be confused with Goldie, aka The Mack.

  • Virginian||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAH

    Oh orrin you are truly the dumbest person ever.

  • o3||

    but im mary, remember

  • Zeb||

    "Balls out" actually comes from a safety device for steam engines and does not refer to testicles.

  • T||

    You mean I've been doing it wrong all this time?

  • SusanM||

    That was you!?

  • BruceMajor||

    Show me.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    "But yeah, the SoCons and Democrats make it clear that they want nothing short of a dictator in office"

    FIFY'd, Susan. No charge.

  • Lord Humungus||

    and from the "Gay Patriot" - which sounds like an awesome swordfighting parody movie.

    http://www.gaypatriot.net/2012.....-campaign/

    Media coverage, however, made Grenell's personal life rather than his experience and foreign policy credentials the focus in stories about his appointment. Thus, not just social conservatives who are to blame. The media are also to blame for sensationalizing this.

    That said, social conservatives' choice to focus on an aspect of Grenell's private life irrelevant to his capacity to serve must have made this a trying time for this supremely qualified conservative.
  • wareagle||

    Media coverage, however, made Grenell's personal life rather than his experience and foreign policy credentials the focus in stories about his appointment.

    Exactly. Mitt didn't hire Grenell to establish bona fides with gays; he hired a guy who came highly recommended to do a particular job. The malicious truth is that the MSM chose to focus on Grenell's being gay, basically saying "we can't let Repubs get away with hiring a gay man, not when our guy refuses to do likewise".

    In this regard, liberals and social conservatives are substantively the same - nasty little weasels who live to tear people down and impose their version of dominion over the rest of us. Sometimes, the GOP's penchant for unforced footshots is staggering.

  • Just Dropping By||

    The malicious truth is that the MSM chose to focus on Grenell's being gay, basically saying "we can't let Repubs get away with hiring a gay man, not when our guy refuses to do likewise".

    [CITATION NEEDED]

    Please identify an individual that the Obama administration refused to hire because of that individual being gay or lesbian.

  • BruceMajor||

    I wonder if anyone at Media Matters was stoking any fires. Grenell dated David Brock way back when Brock was a conservative Steven Glass at Weekly Standard.

  • Loki||

    Grenell is also notorious for channeling his inner Mr. Blackwell and tweeting bitchy comments about high-profile ladies

    Oh, snap! Not the stereotypical bitchy gay dude! Seems like they could have just waited for him to say something stupid and then used the fake outrage to oust him.

    As it is by week's end the MSM narrative will be that Mitt Romney himself asked for head of "that foreign policy faggot" on a silver plate. Despite the fact that Grenell himself has said that for Mittens "being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team." Gotta love TEAM RED's ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The next 6 months can't go by fast enough.

  • Tim||

    Way to show some backbone, Mitt.

  • rts||

    Finally, a half-decent editorial cartoon.

  • squarooticus||

    Never thought I'd see one of those in Reason.

  • David_TheMan||

    SOrry but the UN gay rights shit is bullshit and so is your defense of it Nick.

    All people have a right to live their life how they see fit, trying to make a initiative strictly for gays seems ridiculous to me. Also marriage isn't a right no matter how people try to spin it, especially government officiated marriage.

  • SusanM||

    Personally I would settle for being left alone. There are plenty of initiatives specifically against gays and lesbians (Does that bother you?). I would settle just for taking those off the books - as would most of us. So long as laws exist against us there will be a push for laws for us.

  • Tonio||

    Susan, what exactly are you referring to? I admit that there are lots of laws still on the books that disproportionately affect gays and lesbians (ie, anti-sodomy laws), but these laws are pretty uniformly unenforced and unenforceable after Lawrence v Texas.

  • ||

    I think she (and the appeal to the UN in general) is referring to other countries like Saudi Arabia and Indonesia where you can still be stoned for being "out".

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Wait, so let me get this straight. If two people love each other, they need someone else's permission to make a commitment to live as spouses?

    Methinks you need to study up on this whole "Liberty" concept before you open your mouth in these parts again.

  • David_TheMan||

    Never said people needed another's permission to live their life, nice strawman though.

  • Zeb||

    When a specific group of people consistently has their rights denied, I think it is reasonable to give a little extra attention to protect their rights. Leaving the debate about gay marriage aside for the moment, this is not about special rights for gay people. It is about protecting the human rights of people who share a certain characteristic.

  • David_TheMan||

    How about just protect human rights (the real ones not that extra UN BS) period instead of going the gay, white, black, asian, or any other subdivision you can break it down as.

    I understand some groups get it worse than others, but I don't think supporting "rights" for different groups is the way to move forward.

  • ||

    What Zeb said.

  • Old Mexican||

    In the National Review, Matthew J. Franck wrote late last week: "Suppose Barack Obama comes out - as Grenell wishes he would - in favor of same-sex marriage in his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention[...]


    "Franck light, Franck bright,
    First Franck I see tonight,
    I wish I may, I wish I might,
    Have this wish I wish tonight!"

    [..."]How fast and how publicly will Richard Grenell decamp from Romney to Obama?"


    Is that like today's office pool?

  • Old Mexican||

    I do not plan to vote for Mitt Romney - indeed, I cannot conceive of any scenario in which either Romney or Obama pries a vote from [my] hand.


    Maybe if cold and dead?

  • robc||

    If they were literally the only two options on my ballot, I would probably vote for one of them.

    Maybe.

  • R C Dean||

    Certainly, if Nick has the misfortune to live in Chicago. Hell, in that case, there's no telling how many times Zombie Nick will vote for Obama.

  • BruceMajor||

    If Nick doesn't stop doing such great gay coverage, a bunch of libertarian mo's are going to go on the Reason Cruise and gang Lewinsky him.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    Apparently, the social conservatives object to Grenell because he disagrees with his boss, and with voters in 30 states, about gay marriage. Romney and those voters can always be wrong, of course, but let's not claim that socons simply think "he's gay, fire him!"

  • tarran||

    And why do they disagree with gay marriage, Eduard?

    Because it's not like they're bitching about marriage licenses for hetero couples.

  • Eduard van Haalen||

    It's very simple - they oppose gay marriage because they want to burn gay people at the stake. I'm surprised you had to ask.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    What a dishonest article. The guy quit because of policy differences (Grennell's position on the UN) not because SoCon R's hate gays or are uncomfortable around guys in pink.

    You True Libertarian clowns are so pathetically desperate to prove that you're above it all. Sad. Sad.

  • Lyle||

    Grenell needs thicker skin on this. He could have remained... unless it was Romney who asked him to go. That's not Romney's people are saying though.

    Wish he was still on the team.

  • Scruffy Nerfherder||

    I'd be willing to bet that the decision was made mutually after some campaign meeting with FOTF and FRC (who were supporting Santorum before the primary cinched up). Romney is not going to throw away that voting bloc since the Republican electoral strategy has been based on the South since Nixon.

  • Lyle||

    Maybe, and if true that's immature on the part of the Republican leadership. It's not like Grenell is on the team for gay marriage or a gay agenda, other than to help humanize Romney and the Republican party, besides his real job of being a foreign policy guru.

  • Lyle||

    I also don't think the South is really anti-gay. Anti-gay marriage yes, but not really anti-gay. I think he could have remained if either Grenell or whomever would have held firm.

    Maybe Nick Gillepsie is right though and he got pushed out by the SoCons... pitiful and stupid if true.

    Still voting Romney and Republican across the board come (maybe give or take a few local offices) November.

    It's all about the economy and little or nothing to do with being gay.

  • Tonio||

    That's some world-class contortion there, Lyle. Tell you what, why don't you let gay people decide who is anti-gay and who isn't based on our own needs and aspirations.

  • Lyle||

    Tonio,

    Excuse me, but I don't really think must Southerners are anti-gay. If you disagree, you disagree... doesn't matter a lick if you're gay or not Tonio.

  • tarran||

    It's all about the economy and little or nothing to do with being gay.

    If it's about the economy, why are you wasting your vote on a guy who only offers minor tweaks on Obama's policies?

  • Lyle||

    Oh yeah... I'm not going to be wasting my vote for voting for someone who has no chance of winning. Who has power kind of matters. I'll pick what I think is the lesser evil, thank you very much.

    You can do something different, if you want.

  • benji||

    Don't worry, your vote won't decide the election.

  • Wholly Holy Cow||

    Of course, the swipe at John Bolton is de rigeur. I mean, the guy just wants to defend the country from those that rejoice (you know, terrorists, etc.) in seeing dead Americans. Chic Libertarians know the best defense, either personally or for nation states, is a disapproving look. You know the one, the kind of your friends give you when you don't immediately nod yes when someone states: Isn't Obama cool?

    Anyway, I'm sure the Free State Project would have done a bang up job in protecting itself. I mean, provided that its enemies congregated only in bars and its only weapons were appletinis.

  • ||

    Yeah, invading and/or drone striking every country that looks at us funny is a super winning foreign policy and isn't fiscally irresponsible at all.

  • Stormy Dragon||

    the guy just wants to defend the country from those that rejoice (you know, terrorists, etc.) in seeing dead Americans

    No, the guy just wants to provoke foreignors just for the sake of being provocative. And however funny that may be, it's pretty much the opposite of being a diplomat.

  • Lyle||

    I agree that Franck's National Review argument that Grenell would Benedict Arnold Romney over gay marriage is nonsensical. Doesn't Dick Cheney's daughter support gay marriage too... will she vote for Obama come November.

    Don't think so. Some hacks in D.C. are just foolish though.

  • Pip||

    but balls-out gay marriage.

    They should keep their balls covered.

  • Tom Hynes||

    "Poofter" is the preferred spelling. Google fight has 17,400 hits for poofter and only 244 for poufter.

    A loose anal sphincter makes your farts go "poof".

    Please issue a correction immediately.

  • MikeKiwi||

    You're not voting for Obama or Romney? Good! That means you won't be cancelling my vote. Also, why don't you get one of the girls (or gays) in your office to take you shopping? Those clothes you wear all the time are depressing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement