Yet The Log Cabin Republicans Continue On

Not surprising:

Richard Grenell, the openly gay spokesman recently hired to sharpen the foreign policy message of Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, has resigned in the wake of a full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.

In a statement obtained by Right Turn, Grenell says:

    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.

According to sources familiar with the situation, Grenell decided to resign after being kept under wraps during a time when national security issues, including the president’s ad concerning Osama bin Laden, had emerged front and center in the campaign.

Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

(via)

Share On Facebook
Share On Twitter
Share On Google Plus
Share On Pinterest
Share On Reddit

135 replies
  1. 1
    cursorial says:

    Look, we can’t have gays here! I’m running for office, for Pete’s sake!

  2. 2
    Steve in DC says:

    They care about economics more than they do gay issues. And let’s face it, we have plenty of gay Republicans here. Frankly discrimination issues here aren’t that bad because it’s a major city. The marriage issue sucks but again, not critical. But the tax issue is huge for many of them.

    So they vote their wallets, not their values.

  3. 3
    Steve says:

    If you listen to his substantive views on foreign policy it’s quite obvious why he would be a member of the GOP. He’s a Boltonesque hawk and a nasty piece of work in general, which is why I shed no tears for him.

    Having said that, it was fun to watch the self-styled centrists proclaim this appointment as some kind of ray of hope. Oh look, Romney is going to bring rationality to the GOP, he’s not going to put up with this mouth-breathing anti-gay stuff. Uh, guess what guys. Mitt Romney’s next act of political courage will be his first.

  4. 4
    The Tragically Flip says:

    Tax cuts buy a lot of cognitive dissonance.

  5. 5

    Gay man, gay person, person who cares about a gay person. Or brown skinned person, honestly, or a person who cares about a brown skinned person. Or woman, or person who…

    Yeah, it’s a long list, and for most of it, I’d say ‘self-hating’ or ‘stupid rich’ are the only explanations.

  6. 6
    Jennifer says:

    … the hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign.

    Well that’s a nice little word tap-dance, innit?

    He fails to mention that the hyper-partisans are on his side.

  7. 7
    beltane says:

    There is absolutely nothing about being gay that would preclude one from being a quasi-fascist. The only reason there is a conflict in this country is that one branch of the American neo-fascist party takes Leviticus as its guide.

  8. 8
    Craig says:

    It’s the far right and the far left that are responsible.

    http://www.logcabin.org/site/a.....t=11737507

    Clowns.

  9. 9
  10. 10
    Calouste says:

    Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

    Fairly obvious. You can’t hate on women in the Democratic Party like you can in the GOP.

  11. 11
  12. 12
    Spencer says:

    @duck-billed placelot: you forgot morons on your list. another reason any of the above groups could be conservative is that they are morons. not ‘stupid rich’ but just ‘stupid’

    for example, fox news viewers.

  13. 13

    Why are gay people gay? They can’t help being that, because that is the way they are. Same difference with being a wingnut. Some folks are just wired to see the world a certain way, and no amount of willpower can change that. Nor can being gay. There is no inherent similarity betwixt the two. You can take the gay out of wingnut but not the wingnut out of t……, Oh nevermind.

  14. 14
    rob! says:

    Sullivan wrote this today about Grenell: If you’re gay, or your friend, son, daughter, brother, sister, aunt or uncle is gay, you just learned something about what the GOP now is. Do not forget it.

    Admirable, but oh, I dunno, about a FUCKING DECADE LATE.

  15. 15
    Sly says:

    @Steve in DC:

    They care about economics more than they do gay issues

    If, by economics, you mean white privilege, then you are correct.

  16. 16
    cathyx says:

    I knew a gay republican once. He was very wealthy and he cared more about his money than about his gay rights.

  17. 17
    Calouste says:

    @beltane:

    There is absolutely nothing about being gay that would preclude one from being a full on fascist.

    Ernst Röhm was the head of the Strumabteilung and one of Hitler’s closest advisors for around a decade until Hitler thought Röhm was getting a little too much power and decided to use his homosexuality as an excuse to get rid of him.

  18. 18
    John M. Burt says:

    @beltane: “[o]ne branch of the American neo-fascist party takes Leviticus as its guide excuse.”

    FTFY.

  19. 19
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

    The belief that Republicans, in this case Romney, aren’t really what they keep trying to tell you they are is widespread. Without it, Romney would lose pretty much every state outside the Old South, Idaho, Utah and the Dakotas. The billionaires who basically got gay marriage through the NY lege are now funding Willard’s SuperPACs

  20. 20
    chrome agnomen says:

    @rob!:

    i doubt sullivan’s learned it.

  21. 21
    Punchy says:

    Ken Melman is avaiable. Ted Haggard would help speak to the Evangellys. Mary Cheney could offer some Cheney-esque Neo-con soundbites. Wait, nevermind.

  22. 22
    cathyx says:

    @rob!: So why is Sullivan a republican?

  23. 23
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    Who needs equal rights when you can keep your money? Maybe they figure that if they get to keep enough money then they too can afford to buy what they want (equal rights, in this case), like all of the other rich guys get to?

  24. 24
    chopper says:

    i guess all that talk about the mittster easily tap-dancing to the center now that he’s got the nom was a bit premature, no?

  25. 25
    Jennifer says:

    Dear Log Cabin Republicans:

    Please cite the “far-left extremists” who were involved in the discussions about the personal issues of Richard Grenell which caused him to resign from the Romney campaign.

    Sincerely,
    People Who Are Calling You Out On Your Bullshit

  26. 26
    gocart mozart says:

    @beltane:
    Truer words have never been spoken.

  27. 27
    Odie Hugh Manatee says:

    @rob!:

    Not “learn from it and then do something about it”? Just “do not forget it”? Sully is a fucking idiot.

    I know, I know, we’ve known this for years now but still…

  28. 28
    karen says:

    Sorry but….

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

  29. 29
    Steve in DC says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist

    BINGO WE HAVE A WINNER!

    And let’s not forget that Goldman Sachs is the corporate face of the HRC now. And that Wall Street banks and some of the biggest “fuck the poor” institutions are the most socially liberal in how they treat their gay workers!

    Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative!

    Honestly, the face of gay rights has been “fuck the poor” institutions on Wall Street and in DC for a while now.

    Don’t kid yourself, the billonaires club was the leaders in gay rights, got gay marriage in NYC and gets PR cover from gay rights organizations like the HRC.

    You can’t be an economic populist and advocate for higher taxes and fixing the welfare state and advocate for socially liberal policies at the same time. Because as soon as you do, you let the fucking wolves in.

  30. 30
    KG says:

    @Odie Hugh Manatee: you do realize that in context, those two things mean the same thing, right?

  31. 31
    beltane says:

    @karen: That too.

  32. 32
    David Koch says:

    Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

    tax cuts

  33. 33
    AA+ Bonds says:

    There were “gay” Nazis too; the secret is that they are high-functioning but aggressive narcissists, absolutely out of their goddamned minds

    If they didn’t have money/privilege they would be Jeffrey Dahmer

  34. 34
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

    Because they don’t see themselves as gay, they are conservative men who happen to like fucking other men. Gays, are the rent boys their hire or the twinks they pick up in certain bars.

  35. 35
    gbear says:

    Most gay conservatives are full to the brim with a ‘both sides do it’ mentality. No amount of conversation or argument will dislodge it.

  36. 36
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    Gays, are the rent boys their hire or the twinks they pick up in certain bars.

    Properly, they know these people as “faggots” or “little faggots”.

  37. 37
    Face says:

    Pretty sure the Whack Right has grossly underestimated how mainstream gay acceptance currently is w/ Indys and moderate Rs. I guess its purity over plurality for them. Too bad that wont win them elections.

  38. 38
    JCT says:

    Mitt Romney is a full-on fucking coward and, yet again, buckled under pressure. I could almost deal with the lying if it weren’t for the cowardice — just what we need when the GOP has fully embraced it’s role as the Bully Party. Frightening.

    Electing this spineless schmuck would be the equivalent of handing our government over to the Tea Party toddlers.

    I think his theme music at the GOP convention should be “Brave, Brave Sir Robin” as he clearly has mastered running away from everything.

  39. 39
    Marcellus Shale, Public Dick says:

    if you want to be satisfied with a head-fake towards gay acceptance, be a gay republican.

    this was the plan all along, i am guessing.

    raw money needs the evangels, so this gives them the appearance of a victory, or a fake-bone if you will. gay republicans are squired off with a an, at least he tried.

    look for this to be postioned right over the false equivalence for some major ramming of the narrative that obama couldn’t help “the gays” either. so you know, gay issues shouldn’t matter because most of the country isn’t ready, or the usual santorum.

  40. 40
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Steve in DC:

    You need to pare it down, son, you are losing it

    You can’t sell this DC superhero stuff and still lay it on that thick with the Pat Buchanan Nazi-talk, you are self-marginalizing your character

  41. 41
    Redshift says:

    @Jennifer:

    Please cite the “far-left extremists” who were involved in the discussions about the personal issues of Richard Grenell which caused him to resign from the Romney campaign.

    But Teh Left called out Grenell’s outrageous misogyny, so it must be their fault, too! Never mind that the Romney campaign would have worn that like a badge of honor, not fired him, if that were the only “personal issues” that were raised. Both sides complained about him, therefore it must be the fault of both sides!

  42. 42
    Randy P says:

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:
    This reminded me of Willem Dafoe’s character in “Boondock Saints”, the brilliant gay FBI agent who would say “get away from me faggot!” To the boy he just woke up with, or the bartender in the gay bar he was getting sloshed in.

    I loved that guy for some reason.

  43. 43
    Jay says:

    Any minute now, Jamie Kirchick will be along to blame Grenell’s resignation on Democrats and Liberals.

  44. 44
    Ash Can says:

    Hey Richard Grenell, that beautiful, statuesque drag queen dressed like Carmen Miranda and samba-ing in high heels all over your Republican cred is named “Karma,” and she’s nobody’s bitch, believe you me.

  45. 45
    Redshift says:

    @JCT: And ironically, if he wasn’t such a coward, he wouldn’t need to lie nearly as much.

  46. 46
    kindness says:

    I can’t say that any political group has come up with a fiendish ‘gay tax’ they are about to spring on Americans. Even if they did it would probably be those God-bothering Republithugs to do it….sin taxes and all…

  47. 47
    NCSteve says:

    Why? Because he thinks showing the world how big America’s dick is by killing brown people and peeing on their religions is more important than the fact that those views put him into the company of men who think beating him to death would be a perfectly rational response if he flirted with them.

  48. 48
    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion says:

    @Calouste: So you interpret gay as hating women? Jesus fuck, you’re an idiot.

  49. 49

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:

    they are conservative men who happen to like fucking other men

    Well that should make them bi, since the first adjective implies they enjoy fucking _everyone_

  50. 50
    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion says:

    @Sly: If the “they” in “they care more about white privilege” is supposed to be a reference to gays as a whole, then you are a raving moron. Don’t know how to break it to you, but all gays aren’t white.

  51. 51
    JCT says:

    @Redshift: Exactly! He just can’t make a stand or commit to anything because he is afraid. Hence the incessant lying to cover himself.

    Such a fraud.

  52. 52
    lamh35 says:

    OT: I know many people are not into all the “oh rah” soldier stuff, but this speech to the troops that POTUS gave just now was heartfelt and dare I say emotional. It was Obama at his best and without teleprompter may I point out. Can’t imagine R-Money doing the same.

    President Obama Addresses the Troops In Afghanistan.

  53. 53
    Martin says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion: Hrm. Are you interpreting hating women as hetero male?

    I think you have your logic wrong. If all gay men were Republicans, then you’d have a point. Since only some are, maybe what puts them in the GOP is that they also hate women, whereas gay Democrats don’t hate women. How does that work?

  54. 54
    Steve in DC says:

    @AA+ Bonds

    LOL on Pat.

    No I’m serious, you can’t be socially liberal and yet advocate for the welfare net in an honest sense. Because the key organizations and people pushing for socially liberal policies are the same guys crushing the working class. Look at who’s leading the charge on gay issues…. Goldman Sachs.

    http://www.hrc.org/resources/e.....dman-sachs

    So pick one! Social liberalism or economic populism. You really can’t have both. Because in order to get economic populism you have to attack the same organizations financially backing socially liberal issues and held up as paragons of socially liberal tolerant policies. It was rich Wall Street billionaires, the same ones that are forcing austerity down our necks that enabled gay marriage in NYC.

    If you can’t see that these don’t mix and that the elite in both parties are both socially liberal and fiscally conservative you’ve been living under a rock since Clinton.

    The question is, which do you actually want to fix? The governor of NY is handily in the pocket of Wall Street is the progressive paragon on gay rights issues, this is not a coincidence. He’s considered the best Democratic vote for social issues in 2016, he’s also just about the worst if you actually want to fix Wall Street.

    Gay pro Wall Street Republicans aren’t stupid at all. Romneys biggest backers are some of the biggest donors that helped make gay marriage a reality in NY.

  55. 55
    bootsy says:

    For that matter, why would any Gay Woman be part of the GOP? Though mostly they are a bunch of homophobic men who reserve their ire for the men they feel threatened by, they’re also perfectly willing to reject any laws that protect gay women from being beaten.

  56. 56
    Johnny Gentle (famous crooner) says:

    “Hyper-partisan”? How does “God hates fags” relate to the political process? Let’s do a little test…throw away all party labels, and let’s see if a certain group of people still would want you to burn in hell. If so, then it’s not a “partisan” issue.

    Glad I could clear that up for you, Mr. Grenell, and best wishes living the rest of your professional life among people who fucking hate you.

  57. 57
    Calouste says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion:

    That was fairly obviously a reference to Grenell’s well documented misogyny, which didn’t seem to be a problem for the GOP at all. The GOP clearly has room for women hating gays, as long as they are not too openly gay, because Grenell got dumped for being openly gay, not for openly hating on women. Grenell would not have had a problem with being gay in the Democratic party, but he would have had a problem with his rabid women hating.

    Btw, you might want to read up on the distinction between “any” and “every”.

  58. 58
    yopd1 says:

    GOP: Gay Only in the Privy

  59. 59
    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion says:

    @Martin: Let me explain this in very small words, so you can keep up. My “logic”, you facile slug, works like this. The comment I was replying to stated that “any” gay man joins the GOP because he wants to hate on women. Why women? If the focus was on the bigotry of the GOP as a party, then why not hate blacks, or Jews, or (for that matter) gays? No, the assumption is that a gay man who identifies as a Republican does so because he hates women. And before you go there in a further attempt to shore up your shit-brained rhetoric, I am not referring to Grenell, who is in fact a misogynistic asshole, but to the “any” gay man in the comment. Clear enough for you now, or do we need interpretive dance for you to be able to follow?

  60. 60
    James E. Powell says:

    It’s not the important part of Grenell’s statement, but I have a question, when he speaks of “President Obama’s foreign policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage,” what the hell is he talking about?

  61. 61
    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion says:

    @Calouste: While you’re at it, you might want to look up the distinction between Grenell and “any gay man”. Fucktard.

  62. 62
    the fugitive uterus says:

    what in the flying fuck did this guy expect???!

    REALLY? WOW, nice going, Sherlock

  63. 63
    Clime Acts says:

    Any theories on why the Romney campaign made this hire to begin with?

    IT’s not as though they didn’t know he was gay, and the potential shit storm that would follow from their right flank.

    ???

  64. 64
    Amir Khalid says:

    So the Mitt campaign hires a foreign policy spokesman who is gay. But when the Teabagger base hears that the new foreign policy spokesman is gay, they get upset. The Mitt campaign decides, We don’t want to piss off our voters; so let’s not have this gay speak for us on foreign policy after all. Understandably miffed at being hired to do a job and then not allowed to do it, the spokesman quits, despite desperate entreaties from the campaign and party elders.

    Mitt has shown just the kind of courageous and principled stand, the KNOB AND BOLLOCKS if you will, that wins people over and persuades the wider electorate. VICTORY!

  65. 65
    balconesfault says:

    @James E. Powell: He’s talking from inside the echo chamber …

  66. 66
    patroclus says:

    Personally, I was far more disillusioned by Renly Barratheon, the gay king on Game of Thrones, getting stabbed in the back on Sunday, than with Grenell getting tanked by the homphobes in his party.

  67. 67
    Calouste says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion:

    Again, go back to your high school English teacher and ask them to explain the difference between “any” and “every” again. Then write it down 500 times.

    Obviously, for Grenell one of the motivations to join the GOP was so he could get away with hating on women. Of course there could be other motivations for other gay men to join the GOP, like you mentioned, hating on black, hating on Jews, hating on Hispanics, or maybe just plain tax cuts.

  68. 68
    balconesfault says:

    @Clime Acts: IT’s not as though they didn’t know he was gay, and the potential shit storm that would follow from their right flank.

    I think the Romney campaign has been deluding themselves over just how much they could shake the etch-a-sketch without having the machinery inside come loose.

    They’re counting on the idea that the wingnuts will come out to vote against the Other in November, no matter what.

    What I don’t think they counted on was that the wingnuts would still bitch and whine about every tack to the center that Romney makes … which will just highlight that Romney’s the preferred choice of wingnuts. Which kind of scares some rational folks in the center off …

  69. 69
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @AA+ Bonds: Yes, never underestimate the ability of the conservative mind to deny reality.

    It’s very simple:
    Gay is bad
    I am a man who likes sex with other men
    I am not bad
    Therefore I am not gay.

    And the next think you know he’s found dead from a meth overdose in a rentboys’ apartment.

  70. 70
    James E. Powell says:

    Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

    Being neither gay nor Republican, I can only surmise that it’s money and what money brings. Maybe it’s similar to pro-choice women who vote Republican. They believe that their income and status are of paramount importance. Also too that their income and status will insulate them from any negative effects of the Republicans ‘social’ policies.

  71. 71
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    @The Other Chuck: operative word here is “fuck” with all the negative implications.

  72. 72
    Mike in NC says:

    Why any gay sane man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

    Fixed

  73. 73
    srv says:

    policy failures and weak leadership on the world stage

    Uhm, Dick? Thanks for demonstrating Romney’s policy success and strong leadership on the world stage so effectively.

  74. 74
    The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion says:

    @Calouste: You referred, not to Grenell, but “any gay man”. Re-read your comment if you need to, but the confusion didn’t start on my end. You generalized. I called you on it. You lack the integrity to acknowledge that you said something you either didn’t mean, or didn’t mean to say.
    Reading comprehension. How does it work?

  75. 75
    the fugitive uterus says:

    @rob!:

    Admirable, but oh, I dunno, about a FUCKING DECADE LATE.

    fucking fuck no! again, brilliant, brilliant men we have here. i am a straight white female and i know better.

    is it just that they want to be a member of The Club so very, very badly? think of all those gay activists who fought for gay rights and AIDS awareness who have been spit on over the years and these guys would betray the shit out of most of them because there is no fucking way those crazy-ass activist types would get into The Club because they have principles and would not fuck over a friend or fellow man just for money, celebrity, power or all of the above.

  76. 76
    Claessens1 says:

    Yes, their wallet is their value.

  77. 77
    Calouste says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion:

    No, the assumption is that a gay man who identifies as a Republican does so because he hates women.

    Nope, the assumption is that some gay men who identify as Republican do so because they hate women.

  78. 78
    Steve says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion: You’re just flat wrong and you should maybe try to come across a little less angry.

  79. 79
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @Steve in DC:

    a lot of words

    Jesus just come up with a different BJ persona to sell the Buchananite stuff, I ain’t reading all that

  80. 80
    Enhanced Voting Techniques says:

    Hey come on guys, it wasn’t that long ago Karol Rove had his boyfriend in as a fake reporter asking GW Bush softball quests.

  81. 81
    Amir Khalid says:

    I think this Grenell incident tells us that Mitt isn’t going to tack to the center post-convention after all. He simply doesn’t have the courage. He’s seen off all his challengers for the nomination, and he’s still so afraid of the Teabaggers he doesn’t let his own designated spokesman speak for him.

    Mitt doesn’t even have the spine to be a presidential candidate. He’d be a disaster as President.

  82. 82
    Calouste says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion:

    Reading comprehension. How does it work?

    Well, I won’t ask you.

  83. 83
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Clime Acts: I think he may have been hired to be let go publicly. He’s the ” publicly I return the log cabin republican cheque of this campaign.”

  84. 84

    @Steve: In what way am I wrong? Was the original comment not offered as a rationale for why ANY gay man (not Grenell, but ANY gay man) would join the GOP? The assumption was that it would be as an excuse for their misogyny, which makes no sense unless one assumes that misogyny is the default setting for gay men (as opposed to say, racism, greed, self-hatred, etc.) Point out a logic fallacy or error of reasoning, and I will acknowledge it. Until you can,I would suggest that when I need guidance on how to express myself, I’ll contact someone qualified to offer it.

  85. 85
    efgoldman says:

    @cathyx:

    So why is Sullivan a republican?

    He’s not. He’s a Tory.

  86. 86
    the fugitive uterus says:

    ok, thinking more rationally now. he had to have known this would not end well, but he was able to make himself a blip on the political screen, perhaps he thinks there will be some benefit from the party down the road, after they shake off the teabaggers – which i hope will be never.

    and Andrew Sullivan seems to have a knack for stating the obvious long after things are FUBAR, especially if he has argued against it in the past.

  87. 87
  88. 88
    Jay in Oregon says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion:
    I don’t know that Calouste was interpreting being gay as hating women, but pointing out that a blatant misogynist like Richard Grenell would find himself more at home in the GOP than in the Democratic Party, regardless of which gender he prefers ticklin’ his pickle.

  89. 89

    @Jay in Oregon: I understand that that may have been Calouste’s intention, and I have no problem with that. I agree that for Grenell, that’s probably the case. But that isn’t what Calouste said. Instead of acknowledging that s/he inadvertently (that’s the kindest assumption) generalized about gay people instead of one incidentally gay asshole, s/he chose to double down and pretend that s/he’d been misunderstood.

  90. 90
    muddy says:

    @lamh35: Thank you for that link!

    It is refreshing to see a president dressed like a president while addressing the troops. Makes a nice change from the dress-up pretend soldier we had previous.

  91. 91
    Chyron HR says:

    @Clime Acts:

    So whatever else this may be, since Romney clearly knew who he was hiring, isn’t this also a clear signal to us Friends of Toto that he is cool with the gays after all? That the recent ugliness during the primaries was just doin’ what had to be done? Didn’t mean anything?

    No, apparently it isn’t. But I’m sure you’ll come up with another reason to vote for him soon enough.

  92. 92
    Steve says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion: That language you’re speaking is not English. Find something legitimate to be offended over, or better yet stop wasting everyone’s time.

  93. 93
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    @Amir Khalid:

    I think this Grenell incident tells us that Mitt isn’t going to tack to the center post-convention after all. He simply doesn’t have the courage.

    I read somewhere today that Santorum is withholding his endorsement, which endorsement in itself means nothing, but if Li’l Ricky is gonna be agitating on the right, and the Bishops and the Colorado Springs outfits do the same, I think it’s gonna be uncomfortable for The Willard

  94. 94
    Suffern ACE says:

    You know, I’m not certain gay men and lesbians vote Repiblican for reasons more fucked up and silly than people at large. Being that they live amongst us and all they’re bound to pick up odd ideas from blogs and establishment media just like everybody else. Also, if I recall, the right winger types left the log cabin republicans over iraq, civil liberties and marriage, so I’m not certain why they get all the press for being fucked up, when it’s GOProud who are the front group these days, sponsoring events with Breitbart and Norquist. Corrupting the youth those ones are. If I recall, they didnt endorse McCain last time. So I’m guessing they already don’t feel all that Republican to begin with.

  95. 95
    Calouste says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion:

    I don’t pretend I have been misunderstood. There are three people so far on this thread who have commented that they understood my comment as I intended it and only you who very loudly argues otherwise.

  96. 96
    Jim, Foolish Literalist says:

    Bryan Fischer thinks the Willard is making progress, but has a way to go

    “I was kind of pleasantly surprised,” Fischer says of Grenell’s resignation, adding, “I think Governor Romney is going to be far more careful now.”…
    But is that enough for him to drop the misgivings that Romney is actually a cultural conservative? “Do I trust him?” Fischer says. “No.”

  97. 97
    slag says:

    @Calouste: Ha! I was going to make the same point you made (specifically in reference to this post: http://www.balloon-juice.com/2.....-amaze-me/). I feel your pain.

  98. 98

    Perhaps Grenell found 3 people in the Republican party who agreed with his viewpoint. By your logic, his viewpoint was validated.

  99. 99
    Suffern ACE says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: He he. Maybe some enterprising person should as him who else he’d like to see resign from the campaign.

  100. 100
    danielx says:

    Totally OT but very noteworthy…

    One of my favorite bloggers, Jenny Lawson aka Jenny the Bloggess is #1 with a bullet on the NYT combined Print and Ebook nonfiction best seller list. It don’t get no better than that. She had me at….www.thebloggess.com

    Victor says I can’t stay home and drink myself to death until I’m making more than $100 a month on my blog so this week I sent out my first real business proposal and Victor was all “So how goes the blog sales?” and I’m all “Awesome. I’m in discussions with a mucky-muck at Chipotle” and then he looks over my shoulder at the email and is all “WHY ARE YOU DISCUSSING MIDGET PORN ON A BUSINESS PROPOSAL?” like that never happens to him. It happens, people. In fact, if you plan on getting private ads this is totally going to happen to you too.

  101. 101
    JCT says:

    @Jim, Foolish Literalist: Look Mitt, these are the types of people you are trying to impress.

    So awesome.

  102. 102
    Tonal Crow says:

    Ha! Romney’s going to have to kiss wingers’ rings (and possibly other parts of their anatomies) regularly to deter the teatards from Going Galt (sm).

    Then he’ll be obliged to bullshit to the swing voters about how he’s not “severely conservative”.

    Rinse and repeat, probably several times daily.

    Break out the popcorn, because the Romney’s-on-every-side-of-every-issue circus has just begun.

    Oh, by the way: General Motors is alive, but bin Laden is dead. And Republican War on Women also too.

  103. 103
    Smiling Mortician says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion: I get your point, but Calouste didn’t actually say “any gay man.” That was Cole in the original post, which was — of course — about Grennell. It makes sense (to me, at least) that Calouste was answering Cole’s implied question with an answer that might explain a gay man like Grennell being a Republican (since we know he’s a blatant misogynist). YMMV, obviously.

  104. 104
    Peregrinus says:

    I’ve met a few gay conservatives here and there – I think it’s mostly that they’re well-off enough to believe that they’re above the social fray. Someone upthread compared it to pro-choice women voting Republican, which I think is the perfect comparison.

    In both cases you’ve got people voting for a party whose principal rhetoric is currently denying or stripping their subsectors of basic human rights. There’s clearly some idea of their being somehow “safe” from the actual effects of that policy.

  105. 105
    Jay B. says:

    @JCT:

    Mitt Romney is a full-on fucking coward and, yet again, buckled under pressure. I could almost deal with the lying if it weren’t for the cowardice—just what we need when the GOP has fully embraced it’s role as the Bully Party. Frightening.

    Yeah, Shirley Sherrod and Van Jones were let go with the courage of a thousand lions.

  106. 106
    dedc79 says:

    The GOP screws the poor, and some poor people still vote for them. They treat women like nothing more than baby incubators, and many still vote for them. The GOP sends our troops on unnecessary wars, and yet many still vote for them. The GOP demonizes union members and teachers, and some still vote for them. So maybe it shouldn’t be all that surprising that there are gays out there who continue to vote Republican. Some gays do stupid things just like the rest of us.

  107. 107
    Steve says:

    @Jay B.: This is a good reason why Tom Vilsack should never be President, true.

  108. 108
    Brian R. says:

    @The Other Chuck:

    Congratulations on winning the entire internet.

  109. 109

    @efgoldman:

    Exactly, and the Tories in the UK are the equivalent of Democrats in the US.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PCLF2ji0rZI

  110. 110
    Catsy says:

    @Steve in DC:

    No I’m serious, you can’t be socially liberal and yet advocate for the welfare net in an honest sense.

    Bullshit.

    So pick one! Social liberalism or economic populism. You really can’t have both.

    False dichotomy, 15-yard penalty.

    Because in order to get economic populism you have to attack the same organizations financially backing socially liberal issues and held up as paragons of socially liberal tolerant policies.

    Fucking nuance, how does it work?

    If you can’t see that these don’t mix and that the elite in both parties are both socially liberal and fiscally conservative you’ve been living under a rock since Clinton.

    Both Sides Do It! ™

    The question is, which do you actually want to fix?

    False choice.

    The governor of NY is handily in the pocket of Wall Street is the progressive paragon [according to whom?] on gay rights issues, this is not a coincidence. He’s considered the best Democratic vote for social issues [by whom?] in 2016, he’s also just about the worst if you actually want to fix Wall Street. [which has what to do with gay rights?]

    I don’t even know where to begin unpacking everything that’s wrong with this idiocy. Perhaps we can start by pointing out the completely fucking obvious fact that just because a given person or business is on the side of the angels when it comes to one issue doesn’t mean we can’t hold their feet to the fire on a completely unrelated issue.

    To put it another way, we can acknowledge that Ron Paul is right when it comes to ending the Drug War and be grateful for his vote and advocacy on that issue while still recognizing that he’s still a reactionary right-wing tool and a racist piece of shit. Or more generally, just because lots of stoners want to end the Drug War because they like to smoke pot doesn’t mean someone who hates marijuana can’t be in favor of ending the Drug War.

    This is completely fucking elementary.

    In other words, peddle your steaming pile of horseshit elsewhere–you’ve been living in DC for far too long. You might want to consider a hobby more suited to your particular flavor of political analysis–perhaps writing columns for the WaPo.

    You might also want to avoid walking and chewing gum at the same time–it could be lethal for you.

  111. 111
    Villago Delenda Est says:

    Rmoney had a chance here to demonstrate that he is a vertebrate, and he’s failed, spectacularly. If Grenell is the right guy to be the spokesman for the Czechoslovak concerned Rmoney campaign, his sexual orientation shouldn’t be an issue.

    But obviously, the wowsers were aghast, so Rmoney like the chickenshit he is dumps this guy to shore up his highly suspect status with the still not quite aquiescent base.

  112. 112
    Jay B. says:

    @Steve:

    Hilarious. Is that a parody of a cultist, or the real thing?

    The Cossacks work for the Czar.

  113. 113
    Mnemosyne says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion:

    Instead of acknowledging that s/he inadvertently (that’s the kindest assumption) generalized about gay people Republicans instead of one incidentally gay asshole, s/he chose to double down and pretend that s/he’d been misunderstood.

    Fix’d. Because now you’re trying to spread out even more and claim that not only did Calouste claim that gay Republicans are misogynists, you’re claiming that s/he said that all gay men are misogynists because, what, all gay men are Republicans?

    You’re really making no sense here. Go back to your Log Cabin meeting and poll your friends there about their feelings towards women if you’re so convinced that there’s no possible way that gay Republican men could be there because they’re misogynists.

  114. 114
    Shalimar says:

    @The Very Reverend Crimson Fire of compassion: No, the original comment did not seem to be offered in the way that you took it. But feel free to keep digging that hole and being an asshole about your misinterpretation.

  115. 115
    Chris says:

    @Calouste:

    Ernst Röhm was the head of the Strumabteilung and one of Hitler’s closest advisors for around a decade until Hitler thought Röhm was getting a little too much power and decided to use his homosexuality as an excuse to get rid of him.

    Partly, Rohm was getting too much power. The other half of the equation is that Rohm’s SA were the most radical part of the Nazi movement, violently hostile to Germany’s traditional establishment – for example, they wanted Hitler to abolish the German army altogether and replace it with the SA.

    That was all right as long as the Nazis were an outside, fringe movement trying to break into the mainstream. But in 1934, Hitler was now in power, and he had to choose between his old supporters (the SA radicals) and his new supporters (the traditional elites who were now on his side). He chose the latter, gutted the SA (including Rohm), and ultimately replaced them with the SS.

  116. 116
    Chet says:

    @Steve in DC: So I take it gays, then, are the new Jews and homophobia is the new socialism of fools. Good to know.

  117. 117
    JCT says:

    @Jay B.: Gosh, I forgot that Obama was directly involved in both of those instances.

    Lucky for you that you have Romney to vote for. A man’s man for sure and not a n-clang either. Win-win.

  118. 118
    Steve says:

    @Jay B.: It’s a weird sort of pathology that insists the President is personally involved in every decision no matter how lacking the evidence may be. I guess you have to be a “cultist” to believe the Secretary of Agriculture might fire a mid-level employee to avoid political embarrassment without clearing it with the Oval Office first.

  119. 119
    pseudonymous in nc says:

    Rich gay Republicans are like rich Republican parents whose daughters get knocked up and want abortions: they have the money and the connections to ensure that the laws they support for the poors don’t inconvenience them.

  120. 120
    The Moar You Know says:

    Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is just beyond me.

    And yet most of the gay men I know are. Will never understand that.

  121. 121
    AA+ Bonds says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    Jesus that must be terrifying, get out before someone kills someone else

    I mean Christ Almighty what a terrible tiny marginalized self-hating group of people gay Republicans are

    I think you can only get there by having some sort of early life experience that teaches you that the enemy is inside you

  122. 122
    The Moar You Know says:

    @Steve in DC: Thank you, concern troll. Love your continued pushing of GOP talking points, delivered with a soft shoe and a note-perfect “both sides do it” delivery. You’re good.

  123. 123
    Calouste says:

    @Chris:

    Thanks. I left out some details for the sake of brevity.

  124. 124
    jl says:

    @The Moar You Know:

    ” soft shoe and a note-perfect “both sides do it” delivery. ”

    I think S in DC was running the false dichotomy gambit in that comment.

  125. 125
    flint says:

    @cursorial: @The Moar You Know: Daddy issues.

  126. 126
    flint says:

    @cursorial: @The Moar You Know: Daddy issues.

  127. 127
    Jay B. says:

    @JCT:

    Another one today.

    So Obama wasn’t involved with Sherrod (which she disputes) or Jones or Armendariz — But Romney was involved?

    I’m not voting for fucking Mitt Romney (or his feckless campaign manager). But then I’m also not pretending that Obama (or, if you prefer, his feckless Administration) is some profile in courage against stupid conservative attacks. It’s folly to pretend otherwise.

  128. 128
    Jay B. says:

    @Steve:

    Doubling down on the cult thing, no? Sherrod was, technically, a mid-level DoA employee — who happened to get in the middle, through no fucking fault of her own — into a fake national story hustled by racists and set to go onto O’Reilly that night. You do know how simpering and dishonest that makes you sound, right? That it was just some routine internal matter?

    For the record, Sherrod said that the DoA told her they were firing her because Gibbs in the White House wanted her gone. The Administration even apologized. I wonder why?

  129. 129
    L. Ron Obama says:

    @JCT: “Sir Romney ran away”?

  130. 130
    Baron Jrod of Keeblershire says:

    @Jay B.: Obviously it was all part of Obummer’s master-scheme. In fact, every single thing which happened over the past 5 years that you don’t like is part of Obongo’s Kenyan plan to destroy the USA! USA! USA! USA! USA! USA!

    Sorry, I meant to just type the name of the greatest country on God’s Green Earth, but it came out as a chant. It’s a common problem for red-blooded patriots.

  131. 131
    Steve says:

    @Jay B.: Your routine is stale at this point.

  132. 132
    mclaren says:

    Why any gay man would be a member of the GOP is beyond me.

    There are homophobic gays, just as there are anti-Semitic Jews and anti-black racist blacks. These people have some very serious emotional problems, but they do exist, and the GOP provides a home for them…as it does for so many other people with severe emotional and mental problems.

  133. 133

    […] think that a man as cowardly as Mitt Romney should be president of the United States? Also, what John Cole says — why any gay person would support the Republicans is beyond me, too. … This entry was […]

  134. 134

    […] think that a man as cowardly as Mitt Romney should be president of the United States? Also, what John Cole says — why any gay person would support the Republicans is beyond me, too. … ← Tory […]

  135. 135
    donquijoterocket says:

    @cathyx:
    Hell in this country as long as you have money you have rights,straight,gay or otherwise.Not being Wonder bread might be the only exception.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. […] think that a man as cowardly as Mitt Romney should be president of the United States? Also, what John Cole says — why any gay person would support the Republicans is beyond me, too. … ← Tory […]

  2. […] think that a man as cowardly as Mitt Romney should be president of the United States? Also, what John Cole says — why any gay person would support the Republicans is beyond me, too. … This entry was […]

Comments are closed.