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

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Here's what we know:

1. Lots of gays work for Republicans, way more than people think, and including severe conservatives.
2. Grenell had some mishaps and missteps that would not have been a firing offense.
3. Social conservatives who felt Romney still hasn't sealed the deal with him, or shown that he's really on their side, wanted Grenell out, and were making public complaints.
4. The fact they felt this way made Grenell more prominent by definition, and therefore made his tweets more newsworthy
5. All together, it made it easy for him to be asked to leave to both avoid further trouble and give Romney credibility with the socons who feel he's not one of them.
6. Romney, if elected, will surely hire some gays in his administation.

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. 

[Brittain33]

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?

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Because he was urged to resign or because he didn't want to suffer the brunt of unfair personal attacks?

Have you met gay Republicans?

They know exactly what to expect from their socon allies and they don't take it seriously--they see that gay-baiting as bait for the little people, it doesn't mean anything for their own personal working relationships. They pride themselves at seeing through "the game" and being in power because of their own skill. They most assuredly don't step down because of hurt feelings from the usual suspects.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

Thus, the thread degenerates into the Obama Dems pushing an angle that they think is politically expedient

This is a big nothingburger politically. It's not going to affect Romney's campaign. I'm gay, so that's why I have an inordinate interest in this and in us having a common understanding of how the game is played. As a Democrat, I'd rather the spokesman had stuck around and Romney's allies continued to mistrust their nominee as a result. I don't hold the Romney campaign damnable if they cut him loose (and I can accept that they very well did offer to defend Grinell) because all of this is just political reality and general political evolution on gay rights will solve this flavor of injustice in the future, even in the GOP.

[Brittain33]

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.

[Brittain33]

More details emerge.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/03/us/politics/richard-grenell-resigns-from-mitt-romneys-foreign-policy-team.html

The Romney campaign was ok with Grenell being gay, it was no obstacle to his being hired. The tweets weren't a big deal. But when the SoCons raised it as an issue at the same time that Romney prepared to introduce his foreign policy team and hold a big press call, they benched Grenell. They declined to introduce him (even though his appointment was public knowledge) and asked him to be silent during what would have been his first call as a spokesman. They indicated that their preferred response to the storm was to hunker down and wait for it to blow over, and they would not defend him or allow him the opportunity to do his job. Grenell read this as a sign that he was radioactive.

Inks, you are absolutely correct, there is no evidence they "asked him to leave."

I'm going to put the following in bold, because I think there's a misunderstanding from some heterosexuals here as to why this matters: I don't think Romney's campaign did anything wrong or unusual. Something similar could happen on a Dem campaign, albeit much further down the football field toward equality than this one, and more likely with a trans employee or another minority. I give the Romney campaign credit for being willing to hire an openly gay man in the first place.

Every gay man, Democratic or Republican, in politics or the private sector, knows that there's always a chance he could be held accountable for making "some other person" uncomfortable, and it's not your employer's feeling or fault, but it would really be better if you tone it down, or maybe not show up that day, you understand. And if you don't understand, then you become the problem. The situation used to be far worse for everyone. Gay Republicans choose to play in a realm where the mores are more archaic and difficult than elsewhere, but that's their choice.

So when I dwell on this, it's to acknowledge that what happened to Grenell highlights an injustice that continues. It's a paltry injustice and we've come so far from where we were, but it's the kind of thing that other people take for granted will never be a problem for them. Being told "well, it was his choice, so we don't know the story, but I can hypothesize it's his own hurt feelings, you can't prove it wasn't" trivializes the problem. I don't need a signed affidavit from Mitt Romney asserting that he chose not to defend a qualified defense spokesman because he needed the support of social conservatives to consolidate his campaign as proof of what happened. The situation is too familiar and too banal.

[Brittain33]

The AFA takes a victory lap with the cameras and microphones rolling.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGc6ldB8i44&feature=youtu.be

This is just unpleasant for everyone involved. It doesn't help Romney to have this be the news story.