Archive for the 'Conservative zaniness, right-wingers, etc.' Category

Openly Gay Republican Driven Off Romney’s Team

Tuesday, May 1st, 2012 by Barry Deutsch

Conservative blogger Jennifer Rubin:

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. [...]

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. [...]

Right Turn has learned from multiple sources that the senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful. During the two weeks after Grenell’s hiring was announced the Romney campaign did not put Grenell out to comment on national security matters and did not use him on a press foreign policy conference call. Despite the controversy in new media and in conservative circles, there was no public statement of support for Grenell by the campaign and no supportive social conservatives were enlisted to calm the waters. Beyond his statement, Grenell has declined further comment today.

The title of this post is a little vague. If Grenell was driven off Romney’s team, then who did the driving?

The title of Rubin’s post is “Richard Grenell hounded from Romney campaign by anti-gay conservatives,” and that’s a fair enough take on it. But I think that Grenell, a longtime Republican activist, knew from the start that some prominent conservatives, from the religious right to the National Review, would oppose his appointment. Grenell was fully prepared to take some flack.

It’s more likely that what Grenell couldn’t stand was being kept in the closet (pun intended) by the Romney campaign. Romney could have put Grenell out there on the Sunday morning shows and other gabfests and let Grenell do his job: Talking right-wing foreign policy. (A job that Grenell could have done well, and certainly better than Romney himself.) Instead, Romney chose to let right-wing anti-gays intimidate his campaign. Romney, typically, was trying to have it both ways; keeping Grenell on staff as his foreign policy spokesman (demonstrating to independent voters that Romney is not anti-gay), but not actually allowing Grenell to act as a spokesman (to placate the right wing).

I think Grenell understandably found that to be an impossible situation.

I think Grenell was driven off Romney’s team not by the entirely predictable whines of the anti-gay activists, but by Romney’s cowardly refusal to let Grenell do his job.

Although this episode usefully demonstrates how intolerant the GOP is, and how much Romney will bow to the far right, I’m not happy about it. There is a significant chance that Romney will be the next president; whoever replaces Grenell will no doubt be generally as right-wing as Grenell himself, but unlike Grenell will not be openly pro-gay rights. It’s imaginable that there could be a time, in the next four to eight years, when having someone who is pro-gay in the White House could make a difference. It would be better if Grenell had remained.

Reagan and Bush Sr. Debate Immigration

Friday, September 16th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

Alex Knapp writes:

I’m not sure what astounds me more. The compassion and pragmatism in Reagan and Bush’s positions on illegal immigration, or the fact that they’re not speaking in talking points.

Conor Friedersdorf writes:

Of course, the fact that two guys took a position three decades ago doesn’t mean it’s the right one, but the clip is testament to the fact that, although the Reagan/Bush team remains the most popular historical ticket among Republicans by a wide margin, and the subject of constant nostalgia, it isn’t at all clear if GOP voters today would accept their rhetorical moderation or positions on offer.

No, Michelle Bachmann Didn’t Pledge To Ban Pornography

Thursday, July 7th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

ThinkProgress writes:

BREAKING: Bachmann pledges to ban pornography | Tonight, Michelle Bachmann became the first presidential candidate to sign a pledge created by THE FAMiLY LEADER, an influential social-conservative group in Iowa. By signing the pledge Bachmann “vows” to “uphold the institution of marriage as only between one man and one woman” by committing herself to 14 specifics steps. The ninth step calls for the banning of “all forms” of pornography. The pledge also states that homosexuality is both a choice and a health risk. You can read all the details of the pledge here.

I’m already seeing this quoted around the blogosphere and on twitter. But it’s wrong.

You can read the full text of the pledge here (pdf link). It’s full of all sorts of extreme, sexist, homophobic, racist garbage, allegedly for the purpose of protecting marriage. But it doesn’t call for a blanket ban on pornography. Here’s the relevant passage, in which the candidate vows:

Humane protection of women and the innocent fruit of conjugal intimacy — our next generation of American children — from human trafficking, sexual slavery, seduction into promiscuity, and all forms of pornography and prostitution, infanticide, abortion and other types of coercion or stolen innocence.

A footnote then explains:

Human trafficking, child pornography and prostitution, pimping, sexual slavery and forced abortion are inherently coercive of vulnerable females. Infanticide and abortion are inherently coercive of the babies who are killed.

Unless I’ve missed something, that’s all the document says about pornography.

Taken as a whole, this seems to be calling for a ban on child pornography and porn made using trafficked women.1 It’s a little hard for me to make out, because it’s written in Fundimentalese rather than standard English, but to conclude from this document that Bachmann has pledged to “ban pornography” is more than a bit of a stretch.

  1. Considering the huge market out there for pornographic depictions of men, I find it odd that they only call for women and children to be protected.

Cartoon: The Economic Policy Rainbow (Republican Edition)

Wednesday, June 8th, 2011 by Barry Deutsch

Script for this comic