Romney Surrenders to Religious Right, Forces Out Gay Spokesman

[rug]

Tuesday, 01 May 2012 15:57 Press Release

WASHINGTON--(ENEWSPF)--May 1 - Today, Mitt Romney spokesman Richard Grenell, who is openly gay, resigned from his job on the Romney campaign. Grenell’s hiring less than two weeks ago provoked harsh criticism among Religious Right activists including the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins, former FRC president Gary Bauer and the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer. Fischer went so far as to suggest that Grenell posed a national security risk, as reported by People For the American Way’s Right Wing Watch.

Michael Keegan, President of People For the American Way, said:

“Mitt Romney is once again trying to have it both ways: claiming that he personally tolerates gays and lesbians while at the same time pandering to the anti-gay right-wing base whose intolerance is legendary. Obviously, it’s not working.

“Romney is clearly depending on Religious Right leaders to help him energize a wary base and they insist that he tow the line. But the support of those leaders comes at a price. If Romney is letting the likes of Bryan Fischer, Tony Perkins and Gary Bauer dictate all his hiring decisions, he leaves no doubt as to what kind of president he would be.

“If Romney will cave to the far-right fringe on this, is there anything he won’t give them when they ask?”

http://www.enewspf.com/latest-news/gay-and-lesbian/33096-romney-surrenders-to-religious-right-forces-out-gay-spokesman.html

[Goblinmonger]

1. Well, it's their firmly held religious beliefs.

Who are we to judge/comment on that?

[cbayer]

2. The spin I heard on NPR yesterday was that he had some inappropriate "tweets"

and was resigning for personal reasons.

Another source said he was quitting because of "the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues" (supposedly his words).

Anyway, he was used, imo, and then scapegoated to boost Romney's anti GLBT credibility.

I don't trust Romney at all. I think he will do anything to get elected.

[dmallind]

3. Isn't the influence itself a more germane question?

Certainly he's not waving off the religious groups pressuring him as meaningless fringe groups that speak for a few extremists only (I would imagine orthodox Hindus want him to eschew beef but I am sure he cares not). Certainly he's not hearing enough from the "mainstream" groups who believe Christianity is all about universal love and tolerance and equality.

This certainly IS a man who will do anything to get elected. While he may not be an Einstein he's managed to win a governorship and as the de facto nominee has access to the best Macchiavellian political gurus GOP money can buy. I don't think the 101 level ideas that he has to win over moderate independents and appeal to the white bread majority, especially with his own potentially questionable religious beliefs, have escaped him, and certainly not his handlers. I doubt the sophomore-level idea that hardcore social conservatives have no viable alternative is causing them much puzzlement either.

So, after hiring a gay man 2 weels ago and with the above in mind, why would he bow to pressure to lose him now if this were not important to much more than a ffringe of the Christian majority?

[cbayer]

4. Who said they were a fringe?

They are a significant voting bloc (see 2000 and 2004 presidential elections).

And they have two central issues - abortion and GLBT rights.

They are not going to vote for Obama and they don't want to vote for Romney. So he has to do whatever he can to woo them.

No question in my mind that Romney was pressured into firing this one.

[dmallind]

5. just a tiny sample....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x734492
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8113262
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x296811
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x819793
http://upload.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=439&topic_id=732320&mesg_id=732335
http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bos1/7
http://sync.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5551861


So where was the supposedly much greater influence of Christian voices who speak for equality and tolerance? Can't blame the media here - why didn't these leaders speak to Romney's people directly like the AFA etc did?

[cbayer]

6. Oh, you are talking about the AFA being called fringe, then.

I think the links you post refer more to their position than to their influence.

I don't think anyone doubts their influence, they just note that their positions are extreme.

The religious left aren't even on the table. They aren't going to vote for Romney no matter what he does.

See GLAAD report on why you are not hearing liberal/progressive christian voices. They are there, they just get no press.

[dmallind]

8. How is the press relevant here? Since when did fringe = influential?

[cbayer]

9. I'm not sure I am getting your point here.

Could you restate it?

[dmallind]

10. Oh come on quit weaselling. Those are very basic words

Media stories are not influencing Romney - pressure groups are. Pressure groups that cannot be "fringe" in any way whatsoever when they have donors in seven figures, dues-paying members in six, and radio stations and tv channels in three. When any "mainstream" "progressive Christian" group can get a quarter of those numbers maybe they'll have influence like the "fringe". If they have the numbers, then they are blasphemously culpable in not using them. Face it - pro-rights Christian groups are either a small minority, or spineless, or both.

[cbayer]

11. Weaseling?

When I ask an honest question in good faith because I don't understand what you have written and you call it weaseling, it's a conversation stopper.

[skepticscott]

7. So where is the influence

from "liberal" and "progressive" religious movements? They aren't influencing Romney, obviously, and Obama is still adamantly opposed to allowing gay marriage, again out of fear of backlash from the religious right. And yet you and others like you say that a significant majority of the population and of the "religious left" favor it. So why are they influencing neither candidate? Why is Romney not the one afraid to oppose gay marriage, rather than Obama being afraid to support it?