Log Cabin Republican David Lampo writes in the Washington Post:
The resignation of Richard Grenell, the recently appointed and openly gay foreign policy spokesman for Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign, was as sudden as it was shocking. It was also yet another disturbing sign that the Romney campaign is still in pander mode when it comes to the anti-gay right. …
…the Romney campaign seems to have caved in to [the American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer] and his followers. Though Grenell was not fired, and after his departure Romney and campaign staffers have spoken highly of him, there was no strong public defense while he was under attack. This fits in well with Romney’s history of pandering to the religious right. …
On May 12, Romney is set to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University, the religious-right stronghold founded by the late Jerry Falwell. He can either continue to pander to those whose primary goal is to construct an American theocracy, or he can use the address to fashion his own Sister Souljah moment and make clear the distinction between private religious values and the time-honored principle of separation of church and state.
Don’t bet the ranch that Romney will show any spine.
More. No surprise here. Via the New York Times: “Mitt Romney used his address Liberty University on Saturday to offer a forceful defense of faith, family and shared Judeo-Christian values, and strongly reaffirmed his stance that marriage should be between only a man and a woman.”
Furthermore. No spine whatsoever.
8 Comments for “Not Exactly a Profile in Courage”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I agree with you on this one, Stephen. Romney could have stepped in and made it clear that he was going to appoint his campaign staff based on merit, without regard to sexual orientation, and the devil (in the form of Brian Fischer) be damned. That would have put the matter to rest pretty quickly.
Did you hear that Brian Fischer has now turned the tables on Romney and is saying:
“Let me ask you this question, people have raised this question, if Mitt Romney can be pushed around, intimidated, coerced, coopted by a conservative radio talk show host in Middle America, then how is he going to stand up to the Chinese? How is he going to stand up to Putin? How is he going to stand up to North Korea if he can be pushed around by a yokel like me? I don’t think Romney is realizing the doubts that this begins to raise about his leadership. I don’t think for one minute that Mitt Romney did not want this guy gone; he wanted this guy gone because there was not one word of defense, not a peep, from the Romney camp to defend him. They just went absolutely stone cold silent, they put a bag over Grenell’s head, they even asked him to organize this phone conference and they didn’t even let him speak at the conference that he organized.”
The Grennel fiasco has turned into a train wreck for Romney, and as awful as his positions are on gay issues, even he doesn’t deserve to be taunted by the likes of Brian Fischer.
posted by David Lampo on
Unfortunately, Romney made his bed and he’s stuck with it. He has spent a year caving in to people like Fischer, so of course that will only embolden them. The only thing a bullie understands is a smackdown, which Romney seems incapable of providing.
posted by Jorge on
The Grennel fiasco has turned into a train wreck for Romney
Could be.
This is only one mistake. Romney’s made maybe two so far. The first was his (and his PAC’s) attack ads making the other candidates personally mad at him. That’s one in the primary, one in what’s essentially the general election. None of these mistakes are fatal yet because they didn’t happen during a nationally televised debate. Too many in a row, though, and his character and competence will come into question.
Not that you can always tell someone’s character and competence by what happens during the campaign.
posted by Doug on
Romney has made a lot more than 2 mistakes unless you don’t count his many gaff’s during the campaign.
posted by Jorge on
I don’t.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is not Romney’s mistakes that bother me. It is positions on LGBT issues.
posted by David Link on
The title of this piece couldn’t be more pointed, which is probably Steve’s point, but it might have been missed. The Iowa Supreme Court justices who were ousted by voters because of their vote on same-sex marriage will be receiving the Profiles In Courage award tonight.
I’m not sure if they felt they were being courageous in their vote, but it couldn’t be more clear that Romney has proved to be a profile in pandering.
posted by Houndentenor on
I don’t know what else Romney can do. He has to pander to the religious right. They don’t consider him a real Christian (too many links to pick just one) and don’t trust him. (he is from Massachusetts, his health care plan is basically the same as Obama’s, he promised gay people to be better on gay rights than Ted Kennedy at one point, et al.) Bush could push them aside when it was inconvenient to pander to them (see: David Kuo’s book about heading the Faith Based Initiatives or countless interviews he did promoting that book). Romney has to choice. It’s probably going to cost him the election.
I have no idea what Romney’s personal feelings are about gay people. Probably he doesn’t care so long as they do their job. But that doesn’t matter because regardless of his personal feelings as president he would be forced to take anti-gay policy positions which would affect us whether he had any hard feelings about us or not.
I don’t care if politicians like me or not. I do care what they do and how it affects me. Romney has no choice. He can’t win without the religious right. Of course, he probably can’t win with them either. This is the bed that the GOP has made for themselves. I can’t feel sorry for them because they are having to wallow in it.