GG Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 If not wanting "fisting kits" given to my 14 year old daugher constitutes a "War on Gays", then call me "Animal Mother", B word. Why would your daughter go to that conference in the first place? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 Well, no offense to the poster, but after 18 posts about "how horrible" this is, without a link or even the gentleman's name, I decided to look behind the "accepted" story. First of all, I frequent most all the major Conservative (read right-wing)sites and I never saw or read of any backlash or uproar (certainly not by the party)as the OP writes. The folks at the Family Research Council and the Media Research Center did raise many objections to the appointment, but they are GOP supporters, not the GOP. They are the GOP extreme, which is exactly what I called them. Grenell's twitter post that "Maddow looks like Justin Beiber" [!} isn't why he was pressured to leave. That sort of thing is a ripple within the tsunami of election rhetoric. "In a statement, Mr. Grenell said that “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 hyperpartisan 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 nonissue for him and his team.”... The pressure from the right was all the more surprising because Mr. Grenell was widely seen as a loyal conservative during eight years as the director of communications for four ambassadors to the United Nations during the Bush administration. He was particularly close to John R. Bolton, the diplomat and lawyer known for his personal bluntness and hawkishness. ...R. Clarke Cooper, executive director of the Log Cabin Republicans, a gay Republican advocacy group, said in a statement that Mr. Grenell “was essentially hounded by the far right and far left.” He added, “Ric made the choice that he feels is best for the Romney campaign.”" A fox blog take It's not a big deal in itself but with Mitt already on the wrong side of immigration according to many independents, as well as opposing gay marriage and civil unions (a newish stance for him to help further his career on the national stage), it makes me as an independent wonder how much more of his soul he'll sell to cater to the extremes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Why would your daughter go to that conference in the first place? Maybe someone asked her to lend a hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Strange turn here. A month ago, the Romney team hires an openly gay man to be its foreign policy spokesman, knowing that it will raise the hackles of the party. This is a move that intelligent people could care less about. If the guy is qualified (seems to be, served as UN under press secretary of some sort under Bush), he gets the job. Then of course, the extreme right erupts in a furor because this guy supports gay marriage (the horror). Maybe the Romney campaign begins to marginalize him (some stories). Bowing to the pressure, he resigns. By most accounts, the Romney campaign wanted him to stay, although this could be self-serving BS. Not sure what the truth is but in any event, it does not bode well for Romney's reach for the Independents that a qualified gay man got run out of his campaign by the extreme elements of his party. As an Independent, I am wary of what role that element of the party will play in Romney's message and ability to govern. And you didn't even mention the whole "He's unreliable, because if Obama says he supports gay marriage, this guy will abandon Romney and turn Democrat!" Because, of course, gay marriage is the ONLY issue that matters to gay men. Yes, the far right is just that stupid. (And, unbelievably, that includes two gay Republicans I know.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Maybe someone asked her to lend a hand. I have to Hand it to you, this made me laugh.... Fisting Kits- just another in the saga of things I had no idea existed..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 They are the GOP extreme, which is exactly what I called them. Grenell's twitter post that "Maddow looks like Justin Beiber" [!} isn't why he was pressured to leave. That sort of thing is a ripple within the tsunami of election rhetoric. It's not a big deal in itself but with Mitt already on the wrong side of immigration according to many independents, as well as opposing gay marriage and civil unions (a newish stance for him to help further his career on the national stage), it makes me as an independent wonder how much more of his soul he'll sell to cater to the extremes. Thanks for your straightforward answer Mr A. , its appreciated. I will continue to quibble with your original statement, you said it would rankle the party (implying a majority at least) not the "extreme" that you nw state. I would suggest that (as an independent) you go back and check Mitt's positions again. Just the first one you mention (immigration) I know that most conservatives consider him as being on the wrong side of the issue and you know the left does too. Here is his last statement released. Romney was proposing that some illegal immigrants, because of criminal history or other circumstances, should be barred from applying for citizenship, while those who are paying taxes and not receiving any government benefits should be allowed to get in line along with people in their home countries. Romney clarified, "I am going to tell them to go home, but they start by beginning the process of applying for citizenship. But I do not believe -- or applying for permanent residency. They're not going to be barred from doing that, but they do not get any advantage by having come here illegally." He really is much more towards the majority opinions on most issues in the country. Now if you want to make the argement that these are mostly for political expediency, that is certainly your right, but you are then falling into the same trap that the dems are pushing now. After a year of claiming that Gov. ROmney is a consumate, "flip-floppin, etch-a-sketch politician, you know expect the public to buy that he is a hard right ideologue is quite a stretch. Thanks. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted May 2, 2012 Author Share Posted May 2, 2012 I absolutely do not think of him as a far right ideologue. The guy signed Romneycare FFS. I just wonder where he will evolve to as this election takes shape. His civil union POV has already shifted to the right. As to the "rankle" statement, most of my post was directed towards the extreme right, and that's what I was talking about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PastaJoe Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 This just fuels the narrative that the Republican party is intolerant to "others". Even if it's just a more socially conservative portion of the party, they appear to have veto power over the rest of the party. If Willard wanted to show true leadership, he would have spoken out against those who didn't like him putting a gay man in a position of prominence. Instead they minimized his position over the past couple of weeks and didn't even include him in foreign policy meetings. Technically Willard can claim he wasn't pushed out, but it's obvious he resigned because they took away the job responsibilities he was originally hired to do and marginalized him to appease the right. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75821.html#ixzz1tkkN2ZdL But Christian Whiton, who served in the Bush State Department as a political appointee and spoke with Grenell on Tuesday, told POLITICO: “Basically, Ric got Etch-A-Sketched.” “I gathered Ric was frustrated that Team Romney wouldn’t aggressively engage Obama on foreign policy. Ric was kept from talking to the press as a spokesman typically would. They seem to have decided to concede foreign policy to Obama, and therefore didn’t need an aggressive spokesman,” said Whiton, a former Newt Gingrich adviser who described Grenell as a “friend.” “This confirms the worst of what people think of team Romney. It seems in retrospect like Grenell was hired to check some diversity box, but was then kept in the closet because others were offended,” said Whiton. “It’s very strange that foreign policy strategy and related issues were not run to ground before Ric was hired. It’s frankly incompetent management.” Ari Fleischer, a former George W. Bush press secretary, also raised an eyebrow to The Washington Post about Grenell’s absence during the first major foreign-policy moment of the 2012 general election. “Why wasn’t Rick the spokesman in the last couple of days, when foreign policy was paramount? That’s the piece I don’t understand,” Fleischer told the paper. “I don’t know why he wasn’t the spokesman on foreign policy for the last several days. It’s something that nobody understands.” Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buftex Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) but they are GOP supporters, not the GOP. My god, you could use that same argument/logic to diffuse about 2/3 of the issues on this board... Edited May 2, 2012 by Buftex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 This just fuels the narrative that the Republican party is intolerant to "others". The only people who believe that aren't voting for Romney any way. It's the progressive narrative that happens all day at places like DailyKos and Huffington Post, designed to make progressives somehow feel better about themselves after a long day of mocking people who believe in God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Appalling! I don't want my kids learning about fisting from some low rent 4th grade teacher. Everyone knows its the parents' repsonsiblity to teach thier children about fisting, in the privacy of their own home! I remember when my dad sat me down for the fisting talk. Have you talked to your children about fisting, yet? :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave_In_Norfolk Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Strange turn here. A month ago, the Romney team hires an openly gay man to be its foreign policy spokesman, knowing that it will raise the hackles of the party. This is a move that intelligent people could care less about. If the guy is qualified (seems to be, served as UN under press secretary of some sort under Bush), he gets the job. Then of course, the extreme right erupts in a furor because this guy supports gay marriage (the horror). Maybe the Romney campaign begins to marginalize him (some stories). Bowing to the pressure, he resigns. By most accounts, the Romney campaign wanted him to stay, although this could be self-serving BS. Not sure what the truth is but in any event, it does not bode well for Romney's reach for the Independents that a qualified gay man got run out of his campaign by the extreme elements of his party. As an Independent, I am wary of what role that element of the party will play in Romney's message and ability to govern. Extreme right? You mean the right wing base, don't you? This is the Southern white guys party, afterall. And Mitt has a serious problem with that base. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPPT1974 Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Well gay marriage will be unforutnately pushed until all fifty states in the USA, will have it pass. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 2, 2012 Share Posted May 2, 2012 Well gay marriage will be unforutnately pushed until all fifty states in the USA, will have it pass. This whole states approving gay marriage thing is the stupidest fight. I know it's baby steps but having the state you live in recognize gay marriage solves very little of the challenge. The challenge is at the federal level. I have a rep who was able to get married during the window of opportunity here in CA and they still have to file 4 tax returns. And the financial benefits that my wife and I have with our retirement and social security and step ups do not apply to him and never will intil the feds do something about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dayman Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Extreme right? You mean the right wing base, don't you? This is the Southern white guys party, afterall. And Mitt has a serious problem with that base. Honestly this is the thing that kills Republicans. Yes, there is clearly and extreme right. And yes, there is clearly and extreme left. I don't think the majority of Americans identify with either. The thing is...it's easier to delineate the extreme left from the Democratic majority than it is the extreme right from the GOP majority. I mean, having Obama v. Romney is a pretty good example. Obama basically does what he does and the extreme left is fairly quiet (even though he really isn't that liberal on a number of issues though a lot of the right refuse to admit this)...the "extreme right" though? Romney has to bow down at their feet. Boehner has no control. The Republicans need to get their own camp in order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Extreme right? You mean the right wing base, don't you? This is the Southern white guys party, afterall. And Mitt has a serious problem with that base. "The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don't know anything about." - Wayne Dyer . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 (edited) This just fuels the narrative that the Republican party is intolerant to "others". Even if it's just a more socially conservative portion of the party, they appear to have veto power over the rest of the party. If Willard wanted to show true leadership, he would have spoken out against those who didn't like him putting a gay man in a position of prominence. Instead they minimized his position over the past couple of weeks and didn't even include him in foreign policy meetings. Technically Willard can claim he wasn't pushed out, but it's obvious he resigned because they took away the job responsibilities he was originally hired to do and marginalized him to appease the right. Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75821.html#ixzz1tkkN2ZdL But Christian Whiton, who served in the Bush State Department as a political appointee and spoke with Grenell on Tuesday, told POLITICO: Basically, Ric got Etch-A-Sketched. I gathered Ric was frustrated that Team Romney wouldnt aggressively engage Obama on foreign policy. Ric was kept from talking to the press as a spokesman typically would. They seem to have decided to concede foreign policy to Obama, and therefore didnt need an aggressive spokesman, said Whiton, a former Newt Gingrich adviser who described Grenell as a friend. This confirms the worst of what people think of team Romney. It seems in retrospect like Grenell was hired to check some diversity box, but was then kept in the closet because others were offended, said Whiton. Its very strange that foreign policy strategy and related issues were not run to ground before Ric was hired. Its frankly incompetent management. Ari Fleischer, a former George W. Bush press secretary, also raised an eyebrow to The Washington Post about Grenells absence during the first major foreign-policy moment of the 2012 general election. Why wasnt Rick the spokesman in the last couple of days, when foreign policy was paramount? Thats the piece I dont understand, Fleischer told the paper. I dont know why he wasnt the spokesman on foreign policy for the last several days. Its something that nobody understands. Grenell wasn't even due to start work until May 1st. Just another contrived issue for the media and lefty nut-jobs that want to carry the water for the Messiah. Edited May 3, 2012 by 3rdnlng Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Extreme right? You mean the right wing base, don't you? This is the Southern white guys party, afterall. And Mitt has a serious problem with that base. Damn Democrats... Er...wait, what? This whole states approving gay marriage thing is the stupidest fight. I know it's baby steps but having the state you live in recognize gay marriage solves very little of the challenge. The challenge is at the federal level. I have a rep who was able to get married during the window of opportunity here in CA and they still have to file 4 tax returns. And the financial benefits that my wife and I have with our retirement and social security and step ups do not apply to him and never will intil the feds do something about it. Funny thing, though...I don't recall having to have federal approval of my marriage for federal benefits. My recollection is that the federal government's sole determination of any state of matrimony is limited to, basically, what the states tell them. The only thing the federal government needs right now is a valid state marriage license. So how in the hell does that not apply to gay marriages? My god, you could use that same argument/logic to diffuse about 2/3 of the issues on this board... That's why 2/3 of the issues on this board devolve to "You're an idiot." Most of the arguments amount to someone being too dumb to make that distinction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Damn Democrats... Er...wait, what? Funny thing, though...I don't recall having to have federal approval of my marriage for federal benefits. My recollection is that the federal government's sole determination of any state of matrimony is limited to, basically, what the states tell them. The only thing the federal government needs right now is a valid state marriage license. So how in the hell does that not apply to gay marriages? I assume because the Federal Gov't doesn't recognize gay marriagaes as legitimate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 3, 2012 Share Posted May 3, 2012 Damn Democrats... Er...wait, what? Funny thing, though...I don't recall having to have federal approval of my marriage for federal benefits. My recollection is that the federal government's sole determination of any state of matrimony is limited to, basically, what the states tell them. The only thing the federal government needs right now is a valid state marriage license. So how in the hell does that not apply to gay marriages? That's why 2/3 of the issues on this board devolve to "You're an idiot." Most of the arguments amount to someone being too dumb to make that distinction. The reason that 2/3 of the issues on this board devolve to "You're an idiot" is because 2/3d's of the posts are yours. That was too easy. Can DiN give me something more intelligent? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts