Romney's foreign policy spokesman "resigns" for being gay

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He clearly didn't want to leave the job but was effectively forced to. I'll tweak the title if it pleases you.

Where does he make it "clear" that he was forced to leave?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

He clearly didn't want to leave the job but was effectively forced to. I'll tweak the title if it pleases you.

Where does he make it "clear" that he was forced to leave?

By the fact of his resignation, given that there was no other reason for him to leave and no one is obligated to take "I want to spend more time with my family" at face value.

So, what you're saying is that when people resign, if you don't see a good reason for his/her resignation, that means we should assume he/she was forced out?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And how can you say there was "no other reason for him to leave"?  Perhaps the guy didn't want the attention that was being put on him.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There's no black and white. Grenell was surely treated differently and asked to leave because he was gay. However, it's conceivable to see other gays working for the Romney campaign and administration and not being purged. It's just awkward but it is what it is. 

You contradict yourself in the span of a sentence... you have NO proof that he was asked to leave, and certainly not because he was gay.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

And how can you say there was "no other reason for him to leave"?  Perhaps the guy didn't want the attention that was being put on him.

...by people who wanted him out because he was gay. Right?

Why is that so hard to believe?  Maybe the guy didn't want to be hauled into the spotlight.  He was a foreign policy spokesman for a campaign... people in those types of positions typically like talking about what their boss wants to do.  A lot of political staff don't like it when the focus of the story shifts to them and their personal lives.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

There's no black and white. Grenell was surely treated differently and asked to leave because he was gay. However, it's conceivable to see other gays working for the Romney campaign and administration and not being purged. It's just awkward but it is what it is.  

You contradict yourself in the span of a sentence... you have NO proof that he was asked to leave, and certainly not because he was gay.

Your standard of proof is absurd and irrelevant, just as when you say that no precedent on federal recognition of marriage is binding because "it's not the same thing." I've never been to Venice so I have no "proof" it exists. I'm ok with that.

Why is the burden of proof on me?  If the burden of proof is on me to prove that he wasn't fired for being gay, then every wrongful termination case would place the burden of proof on the employer.  I'm sorry, but that's not how it works.  And what on earth are you talking about federal gay marriage for?

I'm asking for any shred of evidence that he was fired for being gay.  And you can provide none.

Again, it's much more likely that the guy didn't want to be subject to added attention and just decided to leave.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

This guy very clearly left because the wingnuts were upset that Romney had hired an openly gay spokesman, it's not very difficult to understand. They obviously hate DU GAYZ...

Yeah.  That much is obvious.  But why did he leave?  Because he was urged to resign or because he didn't want to suffer the brunt of unfair personal attacks?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

When Jenifer Rubin and Ari Fleischer of all people don't buy the official Romney campaign story then why should we? Unless of course you consider them closet lefties who want to undermine the Republican candidate.

Right... because they either must be correct, or they must be lefties who wish to ruin Romney as the GOP candidate.  Come on, dude, at least try to appear somewhat open-minded.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I'm asking for any shred of evidence that he was fired for being gay.  And you can provide none.

Evidence: he was gay, he's been in public life for a while (as Bolton's spokesman), many conservatives had been calling for his ouster, and he stepped down.

Do you accept that when stepping down from a position in tough circumstances like this, people have a definite interest in not naming names because it means they'll never get hired again? Grenell may well return to a Romney administration in the future, if he worked for Bolton he has a future in the GOP. But only if he's a good soldier and takes his punishment from the base this time.

Your standard for evidence is impossible: you're asking for this guy to stoke a firestorm with people he'll have to face again in his career by calling them out. That doesn't happen because it's not part of public relations. You can take the absence of his calling them out at face value, but their demands are on the record, as if Grenell's career.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The added attention was brought to bear by social conservatives who don't trust Romney and wanted him gone. If the added attention made him leave, then by bringing it to bear, they forced him out. People don't become spokesmen or go to work for lightning rods like Bolton because they are shy or reluctant to get criticism or get unwanted attention. Ann Romney, he isn't.

I am willing to believe he wasn't forced out by Romney. But he was assuredly forced out by the people Romney needs who don't trust him.

I never disputed that he was essentially forced out by social conservatives... I've agreed with that.  But you said that he was "asked to leave" implying it was an inside-the-campaign thing, and that's why I was disputing you.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

When Jenifer Rubin and Ari Fleischer of all people don't buy the official Romney campaign story then why should we? Unless of course you consider them closet lefties who want to undermine the Republican candidate.

Right... because they either must be correct, or they must be lefties who wish to ruin Romney as the GOP candidate.  Come on, dude, at least try to appear somewhat open-minded.

And you try to answer the simple questions they asked: why was the foreign policy spokesman essentially hidden from the public during last week when foreign and national security policy was dominating the debate?

One of two reasons:

1. Because it was a smart campaign move.  When foreign policy is dominating the debate, Romney wants to talk about foreign policy, not turn the focus to homosexual issues.  It's a distraction from the issue at hand.  It doesn't mean it would've been permanent... that's just common sense PR.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Aol News/Huffpo seems to state that Romney actually asked him to stay on and not leave.

It also states that numerous earlier reports were either incorrect or misleading.

It is nice sometimes to wait for the facts...

No one on this thread said he was forced to leave by Romney himself, I don't believe. He was forced out, but I can accept it wasn't a Tom-Vilsack-calling-Shirley-Sherrod kind of situation.

It's possible Romney or one of his inner circle had a talk with the gay man and they agreed it would be for the best if he stepped away from the campaign, it was ok earlier but now things have gotten too hot and it would best for the cause if he stepped aside, he'll get his reward later, but that would be complete speculation.

You said he was "asked to leave" which implies that it was within the campaign.  People outside the campaign don't "ask" for a resignation, they "demand"  or "urge for" resignations.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I still don't understand why the burden of proof should be on Romney and the campaign here.  Shouldn't the burden of proof of any wrongdoing be on those accusing the campaign of wrongdoing?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

You said he was "asked to leave" which implies that it was within the campaign.

That was in one post prior to it being posted here that the Romney campaign denied asking him to leave and said they wanted him to stay. When the Romney campaign issued denials that they asked him, I accepted that and didn't attribute any agency to the campaign initiating the forcing out.

Meanwhile you weren't disputing whether it was the campaign or someone else who forced him out, you were going down the path of this being his own choice etc., which minimized the extent of his gayness being a reason for his head to roll.

I hever said it was fully his choice.  It's not like I think he just decided one day, "I'm going to resign."  From the beginning, I've argued he probably left because he was uncomfortable with the pressure put on him by social conservatives.

But even in all of that, I never said that I was sure of anything.  You made some (stupid) assumptions and acted like you actually knew what happened, and you didn't.  Now that you've been proven wrong, you're trying to backtrack and make it sound like you had an open mind in all of this.