« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

MEMBER DIARY

Romney Chose to Hide from the Voices of Intolerance, and that was the Wrong thing to do

The last few days have been pretty interesting when it comes to politics.  Mitt Romney made a huge mistake when he, or a member[s], of his team pushed out Ric Grenell, who is gay, and was his foreign policy spokesman.   

Michael Kinsley of Bloomberg News said this:

“Grenell was told to sit in on conference calls with reporters and not say anything, which is tantamount to firing him. He was told to be silent not merely on gay issues. He was told not to talk about anything, even foreign policy. A spokesman who is not allowed to speak — even internally –doesn’t have much of a job. So Grenell quit, three weeks after he was hired.”

This was a big mistake by team Romney, and that is the case even if Kinsley does not have the details exactly right.  

Team Romney was likely worried about the evangelical segment of the Republican Party, because many of them would not be OK with a gay person working for the nominee.  But that is where Romney made the big mistake, because this was a chance for him to separate himself from the social conservatives that really tend to scare the independent voter. 

If Romney would have went to Ric Grenell , asked him to say, and then given a speech about the importance of showing tolerance even when people do not agree with someones way of life, he would have taken the race to a whole new level. The support he may have lost in the evangelical community would have been offset by the respect he would have gained by everyone else, including the media.

A indomitable candidate would have shown that he was confident enough in his own skin, and in the speech would have said that it is time for the Republican Party to stop judging people by the sexual identity. Romney could have said sexual orientation was a non-issue, much like Eric Fehrnstrom reportedly said when the team interviewed Grenell in the first place.  Republicans can disagree about what they feel the definition of marriage is, but what will doom the party in the appearance of treating other people differently. 

Social conservatives are important, no one is doubting that, but I suspect they will not stay home or vote for Obama because Romney comes out and gives a speech on how the party has to rise above the division of fighting gay marriage.   

Mitt Romney strategist Eric Fehrnstrom states that “voices of intolerance” arose after the campaign announced the hiring of  Grenell, and that those voices led to his quitting the team. 

“I will say that of course there were voices of intolerance that expressed themselves during this debate — that was unfortunate,” said Fehrnstrom, adding that ”Mitt Romney has confronted those voices of intolerance, he did it last October on stage at the Values Voters Summit, where he denounced some of the poisonous language that is being used by some of the same people who had criticized Ric Grenell’s appointment.”

I agree, he did take that step when someone attacked his faith, but in this situation, he did not step up, and do what he should of.  I know many conservatives do not believe that Romney should have ever hired the guy.  If the party wanted to nominate a social conservative, Rick Santorum would have one the nomination, but he came up short. 

This election is going to be about the economy, and with that will be a debate about the proper size and scope of the federal government.  The federal government has grown all too powerful, and it needs to be scaled back.  Passing a defense of marriage act banning gay marriage is the wrong direction if the goal is to limit government power.  I’ve never understood this about social conservatives, how can you want the federal government to have the power to tell people who to marry, and then say you favor smaller government. In fact, you favor a government that has the power to make the laws you want, there is nothing limited about that.  

A truly limited government will at times mean people get to do things many others do not agree with, but as long as it does not directly harm them, then there is nothing the government should be involved with.  Most crime has a victim, and that is why we want government involved, to protect people.  It is part of the governments basic function. What is not part of it is the right to tell someone who they can marry. 

It is disappointing in Romney for not coming out stronger in defense of Ric Grenell.  It does not help his case, the American people may or may not be excepting of gay marriage, but it is moving in that direction.  Young people tend to not care what people do with their private lives. What people will not be excepting of is a party that discriminates against someone just because of sexual orientation.  That is the way it should be.

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

  • commonsenseobserver

    Like the tweets. Grenell left under pressure, there was little the campaign could, or should, have done. But I doubt social conservatives played a major role in his resignation, and I doubt the Romney campaign would have listened to them anyway.

  • commonsenseobserver

    Like the tweets. Grenell left under pressure, there was little the campaign could, or should, have done. But I doubt social conservatives played a major role in his resignation, and I doubt the Romney campaign would have listened to them anyway.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      And if that was the case, Romney should have taken the time to have this play out in public, because General seems to be saying voices of intolerance led to his departure, and that is what Eric Fehrnstrom was saying as well.

      • commonsenseobserver

        … I think…

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          because of the way he was being treated.

  • ennaneko

    He has a reputation for being a defense hawk but he has ties to organizations that try to undermine social conservative interests and promote the ones of the overall gay activist agenda… gay marriage, mainstreaming of what many believe in a neurological or psychological glitch which results in homosexual behavior.

    His public face as a gay activist makes it seem like Romney embraces, supports this sort of behavior.

    Romney already has a problem of being too liberal in the eyes of many. Just letting this guy into the campaign for a short while did its damage.

    Romney is not going to win the gay vote. He will likely not win the states in the union where there are the highest number of openly living gays. What was his campaign thinking when they hired a guy with so much baggage?

    Google the amount of gays who voted for Obama. Some claim it was over 70 percent. They obviously counted the ones that live in the big communities they have in California and New York… places Romney won’t ever win.

    I don’t think they’re a big voting block in places like Iowa and many other places. Why pander to them when Obama has them locked up?

    Why was the Romney campaign trying so hard to piss off social conservatives?

    The “centrists” who think it is bad for a candidate to wear his religion on the sleeve are now the ones who want a guy like Romney to put on the rainbows and inverted purple triangles?

    Get real.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      your voice is the voice of intolerance. Did is gay, therefore he should support gay rights such as marriage. The governments role is not to tell people what sex they can be with. That is not by any means a small government.

      Just because Romney won’t win the gay vote, does not mean he should discriminate against gay. Nobody is asking you to live their lifestyle, only allow them to live theirs. Mind your own business. Gay people do not infect others with gayness, if you think that you are not very intelligent.

      Now if less people like you were to try to force your beliefs on people, maybe gay people wouldn’t feel so at home in the Democratic part. There’s nothing small government about telling others how to live.

      I’m a Christian, and I am straight, but I by no means want to see this government be so big as to tell someone who they can sleep with. Romney should of stood up to people like you and said enough, you intolerance does not belong in a free country. Some people used to believe the same things you said about gays, a neurological glitch, except they thought blacks were lessor humans. This party can do without people like this.

      Gay people are gay, and they have the right to be gay, talk to others about being gay, and other people can choose themselves. No one is going to turn gay because someone fights for gay marriage. Only a simple minded person would think that.

      • zachv

        n/t

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          I just believe it is important to speak from the heart, even if people are not going to like it.

      • ennaneko

        The gay activists don’t just want tolerance they want everyone to submit to them. They want everyone to embrace, condone, and help them indoctrinate people to see homosexuality not just “equal” but the same same as heterosexuality by force. They want the whole world to change to accommodate them, so they don’t feel bad about being gay.

        They want to cover the sun with a finger. A lot of people around the world have seen homosexuality as abhorrent, glitchy, and faulty human behavior for thousands of years.

        Contrary to leftist paranoia, the social conservatives in this country don’t want to stick gays in ovens or slaughter them. They are the type of people who think everything can be fixed and corrected. They believe there is hope for everyone to correct themselves. They tolerate gays because there is hope that on their death bed they’ll realize their lifestyle was wrong and repent at the last second. They can live and do their thing but they should recognize that a lot of people take what they do as abhorrent and wrong.

        You also talk about the government getting so big that in can tell people what not to do. A lot of these homosexual groups give money to candidates that want taxpayers to pay for AIDS research, HIV meds, pay for STD treatments, etc. They want the government get so big that they start hunting mean kids who make fun of effeminate kids. They are also fund candidates who want the government to pay for all the stuff that results from sex in the bedroom.

        “Government, stay out of the bedroom until its time to clean up the sheets.”

        Government is the room service..

        As for marriage… marriage is one thing and relationships are another. Marriage wasn’t invented so people can express lust or love for one another with the governments consent.

        Just because marriage for gays would not be recognized, it doesn’t mean social conservatives want the government to go around telling people which consenting adults they can or can’t have sex with.

    • adair

      a Romney speech defending Grenell. That’s going to happen every day between now and November.

      • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

        he would gain respect in the middle, as well as many in the media. The center left and center right tend to permeate the media, and they also seem to care less about gay marriage being banned.

  • kipling

    Romney made a foolish mistake in hiring Grenell. Grenell was not properly vetted and the 700+ tweets he deleted is indicative of his efforts to cover his past in order to get a job.

    I doubt social conservatives have much to do with the firing / quitting. Little was said of the hire at RedState. The first I heard of Mr. Grenell’s hiring was from moderates wringing their hands about possible objections from social conservatives. The facts of the story are far from settled but there was not much blowback from social conservatives.

    Romney is who Romney is but he is not a social conservative and we do not expect him to act as one. I was not surprised by the hiring of Mr. Grenell. Nor will I be surprised when Romney continues to move left in the general election. Our “stalwart” is a constantly moving ship without any fixed star.

    The attempt to blame social conservatives is simply a CYA moment. That is why the story comes from Jennifer Rubin who is the mouthpiece of the Romney campaign.

    See Erick Erickson and Byron York on the subject.

    http://www.redstate.com/erick/2012/05/02/jennifer-rubin-just-cant-stop-making-up-stories-about-social-conservatives/

    http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/curious-resignation-richard-grenell/515226

    • ennaneko

      There was that Dan Savage thing that was making the rounds of talk radio, blogs, etc. A militant gay activist was badmouthing Christians.

      The liberal blogs were celebrating the hiring of Grenell and the thought Romney was ready to “kiss the rings ” of gay activist groups and disavow social conservatives.

      Some social conservative got wind of it and the whole affair had the potential to turn into a wildfire at the time when Romney was allegedly pursuing the support of certain social conservative groups. He was in talks to deliver the commencement address at Liberty University, I believe. When they discovered he also badmouthed conservatives on twitter… they probably thought this Grenell guy could be perceived as too much like Dan Savage.

      • kipling

        I agree with most of what you say. But it still does not put the firing of Grenell at the feet of social conservatives. Grenell was a bad hire from the start and a misstep of the Romney campaign. I would be very interested to see what was in the 700+ twitter messages Grenell deleted. Grenell has the unique ability to alienate both the left and fellow conservatives. He does not play well with others and was the wrong choice for a spokesman.

        Grenell is a loose cannon whose hiring backfired on Romney and had the potential – as you point out – of really producing a blowback. Romney eventually realized that and sought to minimize potential damage. Romney created the problem and when forced to own up to a bad decision sought to blame it on social conservatives.

        • mikeymike143

          romney already has the moderate vote in the bag. he needs to shore up the conservative base before he understandably veers left for the general.

          and i think making jim demint the VP choice would be the type of olive branch that conservatives of all stripes would glady accept. :)

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            he already pandered to the fringe of the party, now if social con. Don’t want to come out and support Romney over Obama, they will end up in a worse position than if they had supported Romney when he had a gay advisor. The party cannot afford Romney running as a social conservative, they will lose.

          • snowshooze

            Which one can scoop up the most of the middle?
            Lovely.

          • gekster

            A liberal marxists, who openly states his marxism, or a consevative who leans liberal, maybe, because if he doesn’t go conservative he doesn’t get re-elected.
            I’l bet the guy who has to play conservative over the guy who has showed an avoud marxism.

            Who do you chose.

          • snowshooze

            Until then, Romney can stay up at night worrying about me.
            Otherwise… he’ll pander off to every moderate, every Independent, every Democrat he can toss a fish to.
            And he’ll leave the rest of us to rot.

          • checkmate2012

            Or was this another dog eat dog story? :)

          • commonsenseobserver

            We all believe in economic liberalism, I’m sure.

            Romney’s really more of a moderate, than a liberal. Certainly not to the left of Obama or even Snowe.

          • snowshooze

            A Moderate Democrat then.
            Honestly, he could be in their party, but the ticket was spoken for.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Maybe even Grover Cleveland?

          • snowshooze

            I should read up on them, just for kicks. You could be correct.

          • commonsenseobserver

            The Whigs celebrated Clay’s vision of the “American System” that promoted rapid economic and industrial growth in the United States. Whigs demanded government support for a more modern, market-oriented economy, in which skill, expertise and bank credit would count for more than physical strength or land ownership. Whigs sought to promote faster industrialization through high tariffs, a business-oriented money supply based on a national bank and a vigorous program of government funded “internal improvements,” especially expansion of the road and canal systems. To modernize the inner America, the Whigs helped create public schools, private colleges, charities, and cultural institutions. Many were pietistic Protestant reformers who called for public schools to teach moral values and proposed prohibition to end the liquor problem.

            I didn’t mean the British Whigs, of course. :P

          • snowshooze

            No but really, I am going to have to look at this mess a while… to fathom the depths of it.
            A very interesting mix there, no wonder it died out.

          • ennaneko

            Mitt Romney will lose without the right. The right rather lose to the enemy than get shot by a fellow soldier. You just saw that in France. The social conservatives think suicide is wrong.

            If Romney wants to lose, he’ll pander to the most fickle of elements and people who already have a date to the dance in November.

            Gay agenda obsessed liberals are already happy with Obama for getting their choice group to openly serve in the military. The most prominent and wealthy gays are going to support Obama.

            Why does the Romney campaign think that the dimwits who vote for Obama are going to think he’s cool for backing the gays? Do they think he as a real chance at taking the hipster vote in California and flipping it for Republicans?

            70+ percent of gays voted for Obama. Even the 32%- 40% of latinos/hispanics voted for McCain and about 40% voted for Bush. Needs to be practical.

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          the problem was that some people want big government to force a Christian agenda, which is silly, and I’m a Christian. I’m just one who thinks people make their own choices, and its not my place to judge them, or to bar them from marrying the person they love.

          • ennaneko

            They want kids indoctrinated in schools to think like the want them to. They want to erase thousands of years of common sense.

            The GLAAD types want government to intervene on their behalf to “protect” kids who feel bad for being gay. They want government to spend more money on diseases that affect a lot. They want the government to beat evil social conservatives over the head for them.

            They ally themselves with groups that want the government to bail out people of the consequences of things that happen in the bedroom.

          • putnwaste

            N/T

          • ennaneko

            i love that absurd argument. If you don’t like something or element of it annoys you, you must secretly like it.

            Of course… that makes total sense.

            That’s what I’m going to tell a fly when I squish it. I’m going to tell that to a restaurant owner whose food I don’t like. I’m going to tell that people with bad breath… I’m going to tell them to stop talking and brush their teeth because I love the smell of putrid decay.

          • avgjo

            ennaneko. It is amazing how puerile these arguments get.

            My favorite is the ‘If you vociferously oppose the gays you must be gay yourself.’

            So I guess since ‘gays’ vociferously oppose ‘bigots’ they must really be bigoted themselves?

          • rightlane1111

            There is a portion of the Republican Party that will not support Romney if he even goes near Gay Marriage…or Gay anything. You might not think it is fair…but that is how a portion…the ultra Right think about it and you and I can’t change that. With the election really coming down to the Latino vote…as I have always said…alienating the right will really do us in and Obama wins.

            There are lots of people that are on the government dole. You are in college…how many people on Sallie Mae…using it as “INCOME” AND NOT WORKING? He’s already got a majority of student.

            With the defense of marriage act coming up for votes in NC…I can tell you that the Bible Belt does not want Gays dictating that a Church (1st Amendment Rights) has to perform a marriage by their minister in their Church…somewhere out West they rented rooms from the Church and wanted the minister to perform the marriage ceremony. Romney can’t afford to lose the South…and that is just the reality of it.

            FYI…I think Gays should have civil unions…but I am opposed to Gay Marriage because it is a sacrament.

          • kipling

            The man is a loose cannon whose inability to stay on message and do his job made him a bad choice for a spokesman.

            Even the articles you cited noted how polarizing the man was for both conservatives and liberals. If Grenell became the center of attention then the Romney campaign message goes out the window.

            His job was to be the spokesman on foreign policy for the campaign. If he became the issue then the foreign policy message would be lost thus he could and can not do his job well.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      I wasn’t there, and I don’t know what happened. I do know Romney should have stood up to those who want to quit voices in the party that happen to be gay. I think social conservatives should live the way they want, and stop trying to use government to force their beliefs on others.

      Gay people don’t think its wrong to be gay, and there’s no clear causal that shows gay people affect straight people. Its discriminatory to try to force people into marrying only the opposite sex. Its one of the charades about social conservatives, they don’t want small government, they want big government that pushes the agenda they want. A free country would not do that. Gay people should have every right a straight person has.

      • kipling

        First, Romney makes a bad hire without properly vetting Grenell.

        Second, Grenell turns out to be a loose cannon who attacks conservatives and liberals alike.

        Third, Romney attempts to muzzle Grenell – according to center77 – prior to his official start date.

        Fourth, Grenell decides to resign and blame “voices of intolerance.”

        Fifth, Romeny campaign blames “voices of intolerance.”

        I think I missed something. Where are the voices of intolerance? Where are the social conservatives who got to Romney? What I see is a botch campaign hire that Romney wants to blame on someone else. There is no evidence otherwise. Simply accusations and the accusations do not even name the culprits.

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          according to me, WHAT. I said some dude from Bloomberg said that in the post, and then I stated Romney’s team blamed social conservatives who were intolerant. I said clearly that regardless of what happen, Romney could have used this to show he has the balls to stand up to the fringe of his own party. Its that simple.

          • kipling

            I want to see the smoking gun and the intolerant voices. Otherwise, it is just Romney blaming a bad hire and the consequences on someone else.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            I am not sure how you do not see them.

  • westcoastpatriette

    You’re full of leftist propaganda in this diary, center, and you apparently do not recognize your intolerance of social conservatives in your tirades. This is the sloppiest argument I have ever heard from you. You sound like an indoctrinated child educated in the public school systems. Think you need to go back to the drawing board on this one.

    • commonsenseobserver

      But I also don’t think social conservatives were intolerant in this case. Not the silent majority, in any case. Notwithstanding what the campaign believes.

      • westcoastpatriette

        :)

        • zachv

          • http://www.hakubi.us/ Neil Stevens

            .

          • checkmate2012

            One-sided blather for gays rights. sick of it

          • westcoastpatriette

            thanks. :)

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            is good in some situations, and that is probably true. I just don’t think it is true in this instance. Intolerance is good when its against intolerant people. I think that’s my point, the party should never pander to voices of intolerance.Years ago people believed blacks were sub human, lessor of sorts. Some people still believe this. My point is, the country by and large does not care what gay people two. I think if conservatives want people to buy into this ideology, we have to be consistent in what we believe. The government should be limited, and that includes limiting the power to choose who someone marries. I just think that the argument banning gay marriage is a big government argument.

          • westcoastpatriette

            and I do not have time to spend on this right now.

            But, for starters, you are confusing what someone does — engage in same sex unions — with who they are — as if homosexual attractions and relationships are not a choice, but rather, an unchangeable condition that they are born into. That is why I said you have been indoctrinated by the rhetoric. That is simply an assertion that is thrown out to draw people such as yourself into sympathy for them and there is no scientific evidence to confirm that premise.

            Do some honest research and you will find that this is an unproven statement. Your close-mindedness on this one point leads you to further false conclusions — poor babies, they were born this way and they should be accepted as they are.

            You are way behind the curve ball on this and you need to catch up before you alienate a lot of allies with the insulting comments you are making toward people who disagree with you.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            and probably a really bad one at that. It is funny, the people who say it is a choice are always the ones who have an agenda. It is a choice, because if it isn’t, the they have to admit they are being intolerant, much like it would be if it was skin color.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            That being one in which you feel free to demand proof for axiomatic assertions with which you disagree immediately after making a series of your own axiomatic assertions:

            I think … your post are misguided
            I just don

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            I wonder, is it really being intolerant towards intolerant people. Although, I also wonder how I’m holding a 4.0 and have never received under 98% on any of my papers. If I said I wanted to spend my time talking down to people that I don’t agree with, would yo feel I’m more qualified to speak up. You try typing comment after comment on red state on a Tab, and see how much you care about existing time with sentence structure.

            I would just tell you what you are doing, but condescending people know they are being condescending. Once you come down from your pedestal, the one you seem to have placed yourself on, please indeed come point me towards a style guide. If you feel better after your meaningless rant, can you please explain your logic behind half the stuff you just wrote. Circle around again and then deduct from what I said. I cannot even begin to point out all the backwoods reasoning going on is this thread.

            So spare me the lecture, I pay good money to get enough. And worry about your own grammar, Mr. Smart[y] pants. My God, I couldn’t make this up.

            Its striking how many people lack valid arguments, so they resort to petty nit picking. Excuse me if after sitting in class all day, doing homework all night, I slack off when I’m debating issues on Red State. Let me guess, divorced.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            Ooops, is that not how they do it in Texas.

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            but that’s okay, right? I was born that way.

            (More free advice to the young: while the style tips were intended to enhance your essays into journalism, mass communication and political science are both fields requring you to have an ability to figure out what other people are actually saying and thinking, so–here’s a good place to start.)

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            frankly I surprised you do not run a mega-church or something. Lets talk about the issue at hand-gay marriage was is not the governments job to ban, then you can discuss your greatness with someone who cares that you think your great. Although, I would like to point out. The original post was not so aimed at gay marriage, only those who had an issue with Romney hiring a gay spokesperson, because by definition of law, discriminating against a person based on sexual identity is against the law.

          • Bill S

            Federal equal employment laws do NOT include allowance for “sexual orientation”. Some federal agencies have interpreted it that way for their hiring, but it is not in the law.

            http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/qanda.html

          • CincoSolas_del_Bronx

            is the self-contradiction which became apparent as you went from

            1) an assertive dismissal of a class of people holding that homosexual practice involves a morally culpable choice, to
            2) a rejection of wcp’s argument based on an assertive dismissal of her ability to disprove that holding, to
            3) an inability to similarly disprove any of several assertions of my own about the culpability of another behavior–intolerance–
            4) which behavior you have asserted as involving a morally culpable choice.

          • Bill S

            That those who oppose homosexual marriage have an “agenda” but those who support it do not is the height of stupidity. You are blinded by your own agenda and dislike for those who oppose it.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            once again, some does read the full context, and goes with an insult.

          • Bill S

            Every time this comes up, the very next thing that happens is that the homosexual marriage advocates immediately begin pushing for full acceptance, and any allowance for religious or other waivers are fought. Case in point:

            http://thecoloradoobserver.com/2012/05/clock-runs-out-on-civil-unions-measure/

            YOU may not have such an agenda, but the vast majority of supporters of homosexual marriage have a distinct agenda of full societal acceptance of their chosen “lifestyle”. Marriage is just a step in that direction.

            It is most certainly an agenda.

      • snowshooze

        No, you don’t get the benefit of Marriage.
        There is no future in it for the Government, as you are not contributing new Taxpayers, so that is a dead end.
        And having you marry 16 y.o. kids out from their Parent’s roof isn’t exactly a great contribution either.
        No, for you, full rate. Married with children actually deserve a break.
        Ok, have some fun with that.
        No, I am not a hater, but why would I want to encourage this lifestyle?
        I can only advise they should be respectful and stay in the closet.
        Fire away.

        • westcoastpatriette

          you get the RS award for the most blunt and humorous comment of the day. My last laugh for the night.

      • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

        and those need to be confronted. Its a losing issue for conservatism, and I believe it is harmful to the country. I don’t wish to see any voice silenced only confronted. And I don’t even think there’s an political advantage to doing it, but its right.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      or that I want the government to stay out of people lives. I’m confused, are you saying you want this over reaching government. What happens when liberals take over and they want to force Christians to do something, we all fuss over it, but then we turn around and do the same thing.

      Additionally, only a simple minded person would try to insult someone because they don’t agree with them. My views do not come from my education, which by the way is good, they come from the fact I have a gay sister, and a few gay friends. They are people, they love, they bleed, and they hurt. This rhetoric that comes from social conservatives hurts them, and its flat out bigoted in many instances.

      People want to attribute science to being gay, they want a cure, but what they should be doing is loving people despite what they are.

      I think social conservatives can have their tirades, and I think our president, or anyone who wants to be one should speak for everyone, and leave the fringe to wallow in their hate for those not like them. I have no intolerance for social conservatives, I’m partly one of them- pro-life, pro-Jesus, but I’m also pro gay marriage, or more like pro staying out of it.

      The government has no right to make me buy abortions for hippies, but it also has no right forcing others to live a Christ like life. That is not freedom, and its not freedom of religion.

      The education system is always blamed when people don’t agree, nope, I just form my own views, away from the comment boards. Why do people always resort to personal stuff, just straight your argument, and I’ll counter.

  • checkmate2012

    You should know that Grenell

    • checkmate2012

      I put out proof and all I get is crickets. I need “How to challenge and get a response 101″!

      I know you’re busy with garfield…again :)

      • gekster

        Just tell me.
        I can chew gum and walk.

      • garfieldjl

        I’m not going to bother speculating on why Romney decided to not hire this guy (or to fire him), this kind of stuff goes on all the time.

        You generally don’t want to have a staff member in your political campaign generating a lot of flak, this could go either way and there was not really any correct way for Romney to handle this.

        I fail to see what Romney did wrong in this situation because there was really no right way to handle the situation. If it had been a job at a business and it was discrimination based on the guy’s sexual orientation, then it would be a legit issue. However, this has to do with a political campaign, and the guy made a bunch of headlines that Romney really didn’t need and therefore it is a stupid issue to go after Romney on.

        • checkmate2012

          My comment only included you as you and gek were at it again-that’s all. Nothing about you I swear- sorry I stepped outside for a moment and would have responded sooner. You are not involved at all I promise :)

          • garfieldjl

            I would say I would be more effective on this issue, cause I’m well known of being critical of Mitt Romney.

            I really don’t think this a legit issue because we’re talking about a political campaign, there is no right way for Romney to handle it.

          • checkmate2012

            It’s not about Romney and this comment isn’t about your reply either.

            My comment was about Grenell’s own actions that should be judged on their own merits. He wasn’t an employee yet, he erased 700 or so text msgs, and then he quit before he started in a hissy fit.

            If I was his employer, I’d be happy as a clam; elsewise we’d see a lawsuit for unlawful termination…as in discrimation for sexual preference when in fact Romney rightfully looked past that and hired him based on his experience, as it should be.

            The left knows how to make an issue about nothing that’s for sure. (Again, not about you or your comment garfield).

          • garfieldjl

            I didn’t read the article.
            1. I believe you
            2. I think this entire issue is much ado about nothing.

            The guy made himself into an issue, so there was really no correct way for Romney to handle this. I don’t even think there would have been grounds to sue regardless. It isn’t like he was fired from a law firm, pizza parlor, etc. due to his sexual orientation. This has to do with the guy making himself into an issue in a manner that is detrimental to Romney and his political campaign.

          • checkmate2012

            I provided enough info in my post to get the gist and was hoping the diary originator would respond.

            As we’ve seen in other posts, if we just let go of much ado issues that the Left bring up constantly, that truely are either lame or misconstrued, then we’ll lose the narrative. So just wanted to set the facts on the table…as in it’s not a gay thing as suggested by others but definitely not by you ;)

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            Besides, that’s didn’t even cover my point, which in my post I stated regardless of what caused him to step aside, Romney could have used this to tell the people who were saying stupid things that it is not right.

      • checkmate2012

        to no avail….crickets. I’m not mean enough :)

        • gekster

          I just don’t buy tripe.
          And I am stupid enough to respond.
          Never claimed to be bright.
          Why start now . ;)

          • checkmate2012

            Since Frank Zappa matter of fact! So was just looking for How to challenge 101 tips. Your are right, not tripe for sure :)

            Mean isn’t the right word; I should have said en garde!

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      Your making a bunch of invalid points. The guy did not just up and quit, although it seems you thing he did. Romney could nave taken this moment to put anybody who would discriminate against a gay person I. There place, he did not do it, and out of fear of the social conservatives. I’m saying who cares about pandering to a bunch of intolerant boobs, it would have been right to speak up regardless of what happened to cause Ric to leave.

  • zachv

    I think Romney handled it quite well. They patted Grendell on the back after the departure, and criticized those who need to be.

    • snowshooze

      But, well, that IS Romney, trying to be all things to all people… and playing both ends off the middle.
      That will net you a sore crotch.

      • garfieldjl

        I don’t think Romney wanted to know the guy’s sexual orientation and from a business standpoint, that kind of question is illegal to ask.

        As much as I generally agree with you as far as an assessment of Mitt Romney, this instance can be drawn up to private sector business experience coming into play.

        • snowshooze

          I would never leave my tail exposed.
          To do so is a sign of incompetence.

  • http://www.secureamericanow.org Ashbrook

    The most troubling part of this story is that in a world that has numerous potential defense spokesmen why did the Romney campaign recommend and hire a guy who publicly criticized well known political women and who belongs to radical homosexual groups? The Romney campaign failed to do its homework.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      I think if your gay, then actually you would want to fight for gay rights. I’m Christian, and I fight for Christian right, and liberals think that is radical. I don’t think either is, we should leave each other be. Gays can love who they want, and I’ll worship who I want.

      • ennaneko

        The best thing is for social conservatives to sit tight and passive, then let the liberals have their way.

        We can assume that left wing social warriors and their hard socialist brethren don’t see religiosity and old world vaues as the “opiate of the masses.”

        Conservatives: “roll into a ball, get pushed to the fringes of society, let the lefties have all the good land, dictate what your children are exposed to, and slowly go extinct so we can have our way!!!”

  • ennaneko

    - claim to be Christian and “conservative” … then repeat left wing social activist talking points

    Oh my… the social conservatives need to be tamed.

    oh please.

    • zachv

      Largely embrace gay marriage. Perhaps excluding the Deep South, we grew up in an era where gays weren’t shoved in a closet by homophobia or had myths about them — it’s a choice, immoral, promiscuous — go unchallenged.

      Therefore our age group is largely tolerant of other people–even conservatives and Christians. My roommate as I’ve said before is an evangelical, who like her evangelical friends, all support gay marriage. My college’s College Republican Chair was gay. It’s no big deal.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      but if you are saying I don’t act like normal fundamental Christians, I agree. If your claim I don’t believe, you totally missed some very important lessons in the bible.

      Its not leftist to say you want governments power to affect how people choose (you know, free will and all) to spend their time in the privacy of their own bedrooms. What gives gov the right to say what marriage is. You believe God defines it, fine, but why does that give you the right to force your belief on those who believe that there is no god.

      I don’t want the gov forcing people into my church and more than I want them forcing people out of it.

      If you say I’m not conservative because I’m not a statist, then I don’t want to be conservative. Social statist want government (big gov) to protect their rights, so do I. Gay activist want the right to live how they see fit, so do I. I want gov out of it.

      There’s absolutely no way a person is going to become gay because their allowed to by law, they may hide it, they may stay in the closet. Exactly how is telling them they must continue to do that right. A person is gay, they didn’t become that way because another gay person gave it to them. If they want to hide it, that’s on them, but the government should not have the right to say “you can be gay, but you can’t marry who you love, or walk around acting a certain way. That’s silly, and petty to boot.

      The best thing to do is worry about yourself, and hope you never have a gay child, because they will have it tough by the sounds of it.

      Even if you think its a sin, that logic is flawed. Jesus said, how can you judge another when you have your own twig in your eye. We all sin, and fall short, what makes your sin any less of an offence to god. There’s only one sin greater than others in gods eyes.

      • kipling

        First, opposition to homosexual marriage is not an attempt to impose Christianity on homosexuals. It is a defense of the oldest institution known to man and the foundation of a civil and prosperous society. The homosexual agenda seeks to redefine marriage based on their definition. Those who oppose homosexual marriage are simply seeking to conserve it. The conservation of tradition and history is at the root of conservatism.

        Second, the warning from Matthew 7:1-6 is a warning against judging hypocritically. Scripture and Christ tell us to judge on numerous occasions. We are supposed to judge by their fruit. We judge leadership. Etc. Etc.

        If you believe in Scripture then you have to recognize Romans 1:18-32 where homosexuality and the acceptance of homosexuality is seen as the wrath of God upon a society that has rejected the knowledge of God and turned to idolatry. To say that there is nothing wrong with it is to deny the validity of Scripture. If you want to reject the Word of God, then do not claim to follow Christ in that regard.

  • iphess

    Romney is not in trouble with the gay vote – he’ll never get it anyways. Romney is in HUGE trouble with conservatives, and particularly social conservatives. If Romney can’t win over the base, he will get smoked in the general election. Conservatives may not join Romney anyways, but intentionally ticking them off will not help matters. Romney cannot afford to have a large portion of the GOP turn on him., as his margin of victory will be small enough as it is.

    • acat

      Then their “value” to the GOP and to the rest of Conservatives who are holding our noses and working to get rid of Obama will have been demonstrated quite clearly ….

      nada.

      Mew

      • iphess

        On the contrary – it would prove that moderates can’t win without conservatives. I’m not recommending the tactic, of course. But if we wanted to, we could sit out the election and make a point to the liberal GOP establishment – you want our vote, you’d better earn it, and if you don’t get it, you’ll lose on epic scales.

        • acat

          Regardless of who’s playing.

          We need moderates just as much as moderates need us.

          You may choose to withhold your vote, but if you do, it is on your head.

          Mew

          • iphess

            If you had, you would have noticed a) I commended Romney, and b) I said the strategy is not one I’d recommend. My point, and one you seem to be diverting attention from, is that liberal Republicans can’t continue to slap conservatives in the face and then take their vote for granted. Someday conservatives will force liberal Republicans to face the music in a general election, as they’ll see it as the only way to make establishment Republicans pay attention to them. I fear that if Romney isn’t careful, this will be the election this happens.

      • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

        than they would have in the first place.

        • iphess

          I agree with you. I was a Santorum supporter, and I can’t stand Romney. HOWEVER, I will gladly vote for Romney, and I am doing my darndest to convince others to do so. My point is that liberal Republicans just can’t slap conservatives in the face and then take their vote for granted.

          Also notice how I commended Romney for doing what I did.

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      to show voters he has views that are not developed at a polling firm, which is what a lot of people think. If you would find a way to dispelled this, he would be destroying Obama right now.

      • commonsenseobserver

        Uh, no, Romney cannot make the “voices of intolerance” shut up magically. “Standing up” to them would not have helped Grenell or the gay rights movement, it would just have offended ambivalent social conservatives.

        Fehrnstrorm (or whatever) made a silly comment that could have alienated everyone…

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          which would have be brave, as well as the right thing to do. He has his advisors say it, and he hides from the intolerant that he needs to vote for him.

          • iphess

            There are A LOT of conservatives who are at best unenthusiastic about Romney. A lot of them are not sure if they’ll support him. I’m trying to do what I can, but only Romney can truly convince them. Playing political games and trying to appeal to voters who will never vote for him anyways will do nothing but convince voters that Romney is not the conservative he claims to be but rather the liberal he governed as. But if Romney continues to talk conservative, picks a conservative VP, and gets conservative advisors, Romney will likely not only get the conservative vote, but their enthusiasm.

  • Flagstaff

    was letting it go public. Maybe couldn’t be helped.

  • kipling

    The problem with the United States of America is not that we are not tolerant enough. The problem is that we are too tolerant. We have tolerated a worsening decline in our public morals. We have tolerated failed schools and an education system that indoctrinate our children. We have tolerated the growth of a totalitarian government that imposes upon every area of our lives. We have tolerated a socialist in the White House.

    As a proud father of three daughters, you better bet that I am going to be intolerant of a lot of things in life.

    I will not tolerate the radical homosexual agenda or the redefinition of marriage. I will fight against and I will speak out against it.

    • PowerToThePeople

      and well written.

      The author of this post and some others equate the fight for the protection of marriage as us being intolerant or wanting to hold the gays away from their pursuit of happiness. What they do not understand is that marriage is not a right, most of us have no issue with civil unions, but we do have a problem with the radical attack on marriage.

      They also seem to gloss over the fact that the gay movement could care less about marriage, it only has to do with the pushing of their agenda. Hawaii is a prime example of this. A measure was put on the ballot in 08 that would allow any gay person to be make their union under a civil union. It would give them the same benefits as a married couple, give them the paper, but they fought it harder than the anti gay marriage groups because it did not tear apart the tradition of marriage. They had their opportunity to have the unions they so proclaim they want and given that Hawaii is and was a very liberal state, it would have passed easy had they not come out in mass against it.

      Marriage has to be protected not only at a state level, but at a federal level as well. They want to end marriage as we know it for no other reason than to force their lifestyle on everyone. If it is not protected at a federal level and fought for day after day, Hutchinson Kansas and Washington State referendums will not be the exception, they will be the norm. And if the two referendums pass, which would force churches to allow gay marriage to occur in their buildings, I hope the conservatives that stated allowing gays to have marriage is either the right thing to do or will not harm anyone speak as loudly that they were wrong as they did when they piously lectured us. Doubtful, but one can hope.

      • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

        and exactly why does letting a gay person marry another gay person destroy marriage. If I was to get married, it won’t matter one bit that some gay people got married. It won’t matter to my kids if I get married and down the street two women are married. Its not like gay rubs off on other people, and for those that clamour encourages others to be gay, I say, come on. To me, I could never fathom being with a man. But, I don’t look at gay men and think, gross. I judge them the same I would anyone else. Its not my place, I’m not God. I having business telling them who to love, how to live, and what color they should wear. Heck, gay men usually dress better.

        It become intolerant when you actively try to bar another group from sharing the same freedoms you have. If you barred a black man from marrying a white woman, or wished they wouldn’t, that’s intolerance. Tolerance is excepting that some people are different than you, and they have a right to be so. Your values are for you to endure to, not to force on others. The role of government is to protect people from criminals, not stop gay people from sharing the country as full citizens.

        Statist want the government to control people, Christian statist want the same thing, albeit they want it to do it in a Christian manner. That’s a complete opposite of a limited government.

        • kipling

          Homosexual marriage is an attack on the basis of a free society – marriage and the family.

          I claim marriage as a Jewish and Christian institution based on Genesis 1-2. I claim marriage based on western civilization dating from the Romans. I have more claim to it than a fringe group of less than 1% that only recently wanted to change it.

        • PowerToThePeople

          the whole pious act is tiresome.

          Like it or not, some aspect of our life is controlled in one way or the other. Want to speed, pay the ticket, can not do drugs, can not have sex in the public park, can not punch a cop in the face, and so on. But that is not the point.

          There are all kinds of things in life that are not equal. Women do not get to fight on the front lines, women can not play in the NFL, men do not get to have babies although I doubt many complain, under 21 can not drink, and so on.

          The problem with your argument is that somehow marriage should be shared. I disagree and disagree for many reasons. But if my only reason was the past behavior of gay activist, that would be enough. As I stated above, Hutchinson Kansas and Washington State are two prime examples that the agenda of the gay community is not simply marriage, it is to end the tradition of marriage and end the ability of the Christian community to practice their faith. They have repeatedly refused to support civil unions because being recognized as legally entwined is not their goal.

          So in closing, if you want to define those of us who are against gay marriage as “statist,” great. I am fine with that attached name. There comes a point where we have to recognize that there is an agenda, the agenda is not to “marry” but rather to end the ability of Christians to use their church as their faith dictates. We have to recognize that gay activist are intent on our faiths demise and will use all measures to accomplish that goal. Due to that, the law has to be at a federal level. If all they want is a paper stating they are now legally recognized as a union, fine. Let me know when they themselves are actually ready to support that and limit it to that as well, and they will have my full support. Until then, I will continue to speak out against gay marriage, vote against gay marriage, and work to keep it against the law.

          PS, drop the liberal crap. Being against gay marriage has nothing to do with being against gay people or finding them gross. Nor does recognizing that our faith calls it a sin. I do not dwell on their physical acts, do not care who they sleep with as I have better things to do. Grow up and stop with the regurgitated leftist talking points. It is no more valid than the lefts claim we do not like Obama only because we are racist.

          • checkmate2012

            Great way to shut the few up as in stop making it a marriage that isn’t. For my two cents, I’m sick and tired of a small group of like-minded people trying to change the rules against the majority.

            They’re not happy living in the mainstream and every group wants special rights. We’re all Americans with unique traits and although we celebrate in different ways, doesn’t give us the right to impel others to bend to our ways. Get over it!

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            the idea that some how that’s going above and beyond is silly.

          • snowshooze

            Really kinda sick.

          • kipling

            Homosexuals have the same right to marry as non-homosexuals. They can marry anyone of the opposite sex who agrees to marry them. Heterosexuals are not allowed to marry the person they love. What if the person they love does not want to be married or even loves them in return? What about brothers and sisters?

            The “marry the person they love” meme has no substance.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            just because you say it is,that does not make it so. Its no better than liberals forcing anti Christian laws on people.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            about it. Now I’d never wish to silence your views or right to fight for what you believe, but reality still should dictate the discussion. Admit your intolerant of what others believe, that’s fine. But don’t be surprised when others reject intolerance, much like that happen when slavery was rejected.

          • PowerToThePeople

            and your argument, your piousness, your complete inability to pick up sarcasm, your lack of knowledge of what the word statist means, and your leftist talking points are laughable.

            I will say it in simply English so maybe even you can understand.

            Stupid argument you make, not backed by reality, you put you on pedestal of crumbling mortar, you not smart enough to understand I make fun of you comments, come back when you have dose of reality as student with no life should not tell real adults how to think.

            Simple enough?

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            maybe you should rethink the use of that word. Equating big government to paying a speeding ticket is a stretch. One is for the start of citizens, the other is because of the need of some to use government to force their morals on others. I’m sure you don’t feel the same when liberals want to force Christians to pay for abortions, how’s that any better. Gay marriage will not cause more people to be gay. It won’t seep into your house. Your under the assumption people choose to be gay, which is just silly. Live the way you want, let others live how they want to. You anything something is wrong, but that does not make it the governments job to push that. I’m not approving of a big gov in any fashion.

          • texashistorian

            or at the very least, it is not clear whether it is or isn’t. What IS a choice is how they behave. I am with you on living and let live, but you have to be intellectually honest here. As a society we proscribe behavior on moral grounds all the time- take a look at any criminal code you choose and that is what you will find. The gay lifestyle is a choice, whether or not the inclinations to live it are.

          • westcoastpatriette

            and the gay pushers know it, too, as they used to call what they do their “sexual preference” before they realized that that term implies a choice. They want us to buy their dogma so they can be given the same respect as the civil rights movement had so they changed the label and hoped nobody would notice.

            But a pig will always be a pig — no matter how much lipstick and perfume you put on it. It is an immoral choice…period.

          • PowerToThePeople

            the dumber the material gets. You should have quit when you were only a little bit behind, now you simply have to count your losses and decide when you have lost enough.

            Your rationale makes no sense and is just a bunch of regurgitated stupid that the gay activist have even given up using. Because you seem unable to come up with anything other than idiotic talking points and “look at me I am superior” BS, going to go waste my time in a bit more of a better fashion with other idiots not on your low level.

        • iphess

          The liberal idea that we’re denying homosexuals “rights” by not allowing them to marry is silly. They can marry – just to someone of the opposite gender. Whatever heterosexuals can do, homosexuals can do as well. If we allow homosexuals to marry people of the same gender, that is ADDING rights, and also redefines it.

          But if we are denying them “rights”, they aren’t we denying polygamists their “rights” by not allowing them to have multiple husbands or wives? Of fathers to marry their daughters? Of brothers to marry sisters? Where does it stop?

          • http://www.CaboKurt.com cabokurt

            They do not have the same rights, anymore in N., Carolina. Thank God.

    • demsaresatanic

      a nation with no common values. As I have posted from time to time, when school prayer was abolished by the SC, and Americans did nothing more than complain, that told us that America was in decline and probably would not recover. That young men can come here and claim that they are conservative, yet claim that homosexual marriage does no harm to the sanctity of natural marriage, is illustrative of that point.

      • commonsenseobserver

        I disagree with them, but I guess such people do exist.

  • kipling

    Where are all the fiscal conservatives up in arms?

    After all, did the fiscal conservatives not tell us that the election was too important to allow social issues to distract us?

    • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

      which is kind of the point of my post. Which is why I am a fiscal conservative, but I am not a complete social conservative. I am 100% pro life, but on gay marriage, I’m 100% for freedom.

      • kipling

        According to fiscal conservatives, all you social issues people should shut-up and not blow this election for us. Social issues people simply need to go to the back of the bus and pull the right lever when told to do so.

        • commonsenseobserver

          To suggest that Romney hired Grenell just to piss social conservatives off? Perhaps they did not consider the implications, or ignored the wishes of social conservatives, but it is taking things a tad too far if you suggest that Romney deliberately hired Grenell to diss social conservatives and advocate liberal ideals.

          • kipling

            I said it raised the specter of social liberalism.

            I am also being rather tongue in cheek here by turning arguments normally used against social conservatives back on those who would advocate social liberal policies.

            As I said previously, Grenell was a bad hire for several reasons. I do not think Romney hired him to intentionally tick off social conservatives. He was a bad hire and now Romney – or at least his campaign – is trying to blame the consequences of that hire on social conservatives. Very poorly done on his part.

          • commonsenseobserver

            I misunderstood “pushing social liberal issues.”. And, yeah, his campaign staff actions’ are rather stupid.

          • kipling

            nt

        • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

          should pander, besides, good luck moving those social issues forward with the Democrats. Besides, look at Romney’s record, the segment of the party that won was the part that did not care so much about social issue, or they would not have picked Romney. Besides, social issues is to broad of a term. Some people are pro life, but also pro gay marriage.

          • commonsenseobserver

            Do you have any clear proof that Romney has been pandering to anyone, at least in this incident?

            If he’d wanted to satisfy social conservatives, he’d have fired Grenell, instead of simply waiting for everything to be settled before letting Grenell resign and then slamming social conservatives.

            Everyone is reading too much into this issue.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            that he would not be intolorant,that he was not being so. His lack of a speech on the need of tolerance was enough to show he was pandering. The right thing is often not the political expedient thing.

          • snowshooze

            Very good.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            condones the view of the all powerful moral defining government, its to large. Who needs a government that can say a person can’t smoke, or can’t drink. Both those things really do harm society, there’s clear causal. With gay marriage, there is no clear prospect, only that developed by the church, which is not the maker of all law. You and I can choose to live like Christ, to the best of our ability, but its up to others to choose how to live their own life. Freedom is important to me, even when I do not agree with how someone lives. The way to bring people into the fold is not by force, it only means they don’t believe anyways. Gay people will be gay regardless of how you feel about it. There should be no law saying they can’t wed another.

          • westcoastpatriette

            you are morally deficient for calling yourself a Christian. And you are completely naive on this subject.

            Changing the definition of marriage to allow sexual perversion under the law will open the floodgates to persecution of those who reject the legality of the contract as well as encourage all other forms of sexual perversion to be forced on us and our children.

            That you cannot see this is amazingly stupid and shortsighted.

            Our nation cannot function without a moral and religious people. Get over yourself.

          • funwithknives

            engage in this life-long activity, why ask all your fellow citizens to sanctify and thereupon approve it?
            Civil unions exist and are used with some frequency.

            If you want The State to approve This, you have to be prepared for what a majority will approve OF.
            People do not like to be talked-down to, even if it is couched in 21st Century terminology. Get their backs up and the return gets lessened.
            Their rights stop at my nose. Period. You want to expand Civil Unions, with legal recognition for inheritance, health benefits ,etc.?
            I’m in for that. I desire no state involvement in marriage at all. Go to a divorce court or Child services to see why. Government does this thing, really horribly. Now contracts among ‘agreeing two parties’ with finite laws, rules, and consequences, I’ll take that all week long.

          • Melody Warbington (rwm52)

            you’d allow as well. Or maybe not. Once you allow marriage to anyone and everyone, do you have any limits say, on polygamy? How about marriage to animals or children? All of these have already happened in other countries. And before you go saying this is absurd, check the comments in the last link below.

            Perhaps you’d consider some suggested reading as the issue of why conservatives support traditional marriage has been discussed many times over here at redstate.

            Try here and
            here. Note the comments here in particular.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            marry their pooch. The difference being that the dog cannot choose to marry. As for polygamy, I really could care little if people are allowed to do that either. If all parties are doing it by their own will, then why not. It is not like history is not chalked with people marrying many people: Moses, Abraham, David and Solomon. It never says this is right in the old testament, or does it say it is wrong, only in the new testament (1 Corinthians) does this subject get touched on, at least not that I am aware of.

            But to be exact, I am not arguing so much for gay marriage being right or wrong, that is not for me to judge. I am only saying, out side of religious teachings, there is not clear moral reason that a person can not be gay. The gay people I know all say they did not choose to be that way. My sister struggled with it for years, but I always knew she was not being true to herself. It made he very unhappy. As a person who loves people, I would never wish for another person to not be happy. Unless what made that person happy clearly harmed other people, which I do not believe gay marriage does.

            The thing that gets me is that stopping gay marriage does not stop a person from being gay, it does nothing, except take a persons right away from them.. I strongly feel that all people should have the same rights, and when a certain group is barred from doing something another group can, that is discriminatory. A person is gay regardless, so they should have the right that others have. Some people do not think interracial couples should be allowed to be married, but that would also be discriminatory.

            No one can say for sure why a person is born attracted to the same sex, but it happens, and it has always happened. That is why I think it is intolerance that makes people want to ban another from being married, as long as that person is gay. It really comes down to whether or not I want a government powerful enough to stop someone from marrying the person they love.

          • commonsenseobserver

            And would have done little in terms of pratical impact. If anything, it would have worsened ties with conservatives, while the rest would have regarded it as pure pandering. Not that they haven’t already tried a variant of what you said- only with Fernstrorm as the one denouncing “intolerance”.

            It’d have been much better to agree on a public statement with Grenell explaining his resignation, and rebutting all rumours that it was doing so under pressure from conservatives, and ending off by wishing him the best of luck and thanking him for his work for the Republican Party.

          • commonsenseobserver

            They were certainly the last thing on the campaign’s mind.

          • snowshooze

            What was that?

          • commonsenseobserver

            0_o

          • commonsenseobserver

            0_o

          • snowshooze

            Yep.

          • commonsenseobserver

            But I’m open to disagreement. I think they would have been more worried about the tweets, though. :P

          • kipling

            According to you he is clearly not a social conservative. So, is he a fiscal conservative or a strong defense guy?

            Or do you mean he represents the moderate wing of the party as opposed to all the conservative factions?

          • commonsenseobserver

            Which means he represents every faction now as the standard bearer of mainstream Republicans. Including libertarians, moderates, and strong conservatives. This is his great “burden” as the presumptive nominee.

          • kipling

            center77 made the comment about which segment of the party won with the Romney nomination. I asked which segment Romney represented.

            I agree that it is his “great ‘burden’” to represent all Republicans. We shall see how he bears up under such a diverse burden.

          • http://www.timothy-bladel.com/ center77

            I think that is the great challenge of this nominee. I also believe that in this situation, he missed out on a chance to show that a person sexual orientation should not be judged when that person is looking for a job.