Did Richard Grenell choose to resign post in Romney campaign
simply because he wanted to keep his private life private?
In most, but fortunately not all coverage of what John Podhoretz dubbed L’Affaire Grenell, various pundits and pontificators have attempted to discern some anti-gay prejudice or crass pusillanimity within the Republican Party in general and the Romney campaign in particular.
In doing so, most lose sight of the basic facts of the situation which, Jennifer Rubin who first broke the story, reported in her last update to her post on the matter:
Right Turn has learned from multiple sources that the senior officials from the Romney campaign and respected Republicans not on the campaign contacted Ric Grenell over the weekend in an attempt to persuade him not to leave the campaign. Those were unsuccessful.
Despite social conservatives’ criticism of the appointment, the Romney team wanted to keep Grenell on board.
It seems that the real reason Grenell stepped down was the one he articulated in his statement:
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 hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues that sometimes comes from a presidential campaign.
Emphasis added. As Podhoretz put it, the former John Bolton aide “was evidently rattled by attacks from the Right on his fitness for his post.” And not just the right. Scanning the Facebook comments of my liberal friends who posted on the matter, it seems he experienced attacks from the left as well for his choice words mocking leading liberals.
Grenell, Podhoretz suggests, “decided he didn’t need the grief”. One wonders if he, used to flacking for others, was just not comfortable — or not prepared — to become the story himself.
And that rather than being a story with large implications, this may simply be the story of a man who wants his private life to remain private.
FROM THE COMMENTS: Replying to this comment, “Romney WANTED / NEEDED a token gay person in his campaign”, Rattlesnake quips, “Or, maybe he just hired him for his qualifications.”
44 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
I think that’s the case. It’s something I would have done – working for potentially the future President would be great, but the cost might have been too high. Sometimes you just have to take a pass.
Comment by Chicago Nick — May 2, 2012 @ 10:22 am - May 2, 2012
Given how crazy political campaigns get, I don’t really blame him.
Comment by NYAlly — May 2, 2012 @ 10:31 am - May 2, 2012
This doesn’t pass the smell test. He was in politics for a long time. He was in high profile positions before by working for Bush and Bolton. By resigning, he became the story so much more. Is this an issue of gay politics? And that he couldn’t answer to his own hypocrisy? Or maybe his position is not about gay marriage, but foreign policy and he couldn’t change the subject? The article by Jennifer Rubin was despicable because it isn’t true. It’s a Dan Rather’ism (fake, but accurate).
http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/curious-resignation-richard-grenell/515226
“If Grenell could be so critical of Capehart, who does not work for the administration, for failing to hold Obama’s opposition to gay marriage against him, then why did Grenell accept a position with Romney, who has expressed his own opposition to gay marriage in far stronger terms than Obama? (When Grenell took the job, Capehart shot back that Grenell had “chosen power over principle on marriage equality.”) The answer isn’t clear, but the circumstances of Grenell’s early departure from Team Romney and his own strongly-expressed opinions suggest that gay politics, perhaps not just the opinions of social conservatives, might have played some role in the whole affair. But if Romney’s aides are to be believed, it wasn’t on their end.”
Comment by anon23532 — May 2, 2012 @ 10:40 am - May 2, 2012
The question:
I can’t see how this could be answered as a yes. He doesn’t seem like the type to want to keep things private. Openly gay, tweets, without personal filter at least dialed to 5. Nope. I think the stupid tweets had a big impact on the chain of events. But, looking at the more vociferous protests and where they were coming from, I’m not going out on a limb to say that it was the double whammy of supporting same sex marriage and being an openly gay individual that is at the roots of his departure.
And can you imagine if Romney showed backbone and refused to accept the resignation! The So-Cons would have been furious!
Comment by sonicfrog — May 2, 2012 @ 11:38 am - May 2, 2012
“It’s sometimes hard to explain to outsiders what level of principle is required to withstand the personal cost of being an out gay Republican. I’ve only ever been a gay conservative (never a Republican), and back in the 1990s, it was brutal living in the gay world and challenging liberal assumptions. I cannot imagine the social isolation of Grenell in Los Angeles today, doing what he did. And his reward for such loyalty, sincerity and pugnacity? Vilification. I mean: what do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage? A faggot.” – Andrew Sullivan.
{How this quote so defines Andrew Sullivan. He recalls actual experiences to show what it’s like to live in the gay world and challenge the gay orthodox, yet only speculates what it’s like for Richard Grenell. Andrew has to ignore reality to recall his conclusion here. Bear in mind, the Romney campaign not only tried to keep Grenell on, but enlisted leading conservatives in the effort. –Dan]
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 11:40 am - May 2, 2012
“It’s sometimes hard to explain to outsiders what level of principle is required to withstand the personal cost of being an out gay Republican. I’ve only ever been a gay conservative (never a Republican), and back in the 1990s, it was brutal living in the gay world and challenging liberal assumptions. I cannot imagine the social isolation of Grenell in Los Angeles today, doing what he did. And his reward for such loyalty, sincerity and pugnacity? Vilification. I mean: what do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage? A fa–ot.” – Andrew Sullivan.
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 11:40 am - May 2, 2012
I believe that Richard Grenell was privately “encouraged” to resign, for the sake of the Romney campaign.
The Romney campaign knows that evangelical Christians, & social/ religious conservatives are probably one of the most motivated voting blocs for Republicans. Romney knows that he needs to appeal to the middle, but he has to motivate voters who are “Rick Santorum” Republicans.
And they didn’t just “criticize” the appointment of an openly gay man to the Romney campaign. They screamed & they howled. Bryan Fischer at American Family Association stated Romney was telling evangelical voters to “drop dead.”
If Richard Grenell was closeted, I’m 100% sure he would have stayed on the Romney campaign. It is not possible to be an openly gay man & be involved in national Republican politics. The Republican Party will not tolerate it.
“Richard Grenell left because he wanted to keep his private life private” — I’m sorry but that is just B.S., or trying to put a PR spin on it.
Straight Republican conservatives from Romney to Gingrich to Santorum mention and proudly show off their smiling wives & children on the campaign trail, but heaven forbid the public know that a gay man has a male partner.
Comment by James — May 2, 2012 @ 11:43 am - May 2, 2012
Romney’s people have made a point of saying they wanted Grenell to stay but there are also reports that he had been sidelined after the uproar over his appointment; see http://tinyurl.com/7zu23vb
When actions and words say different things, I pay more attention to the actions.
I don’t think this was primarily about wanting to keep his private life private. I think it was more a realization that he was not going to help Romney’s chances of being elected.
Comment by Tom1729 — May 2, 2012 @ 11:47 am - May 2, 2012
And rusty looks to authority to Milky Loads Sullivan, a “conservative” who endorsed John Kerry in 2004 and Obama in 2008, and whose overweening obsession for the last three years has been pursuit of a soap opera conspiracy theory involving the parentage of Trig Palin.
ROLFGATOR !
Comment by V the K — May 2, 2012 @ 11:48 am - May 2, 2012
nope V just another commentary from another person.
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 12:24 pm - May 2, 2012
Nobody wants to see the elephant in the room… The misogynist tweets were despicable other than utterly stupid (every corporation scans social networks for these sort of stuff prior to hiring nowadays), unless you routinely condone gays making tastless jokes on the body of a pregnant woman because they are cut more slack compared to hetero males doing the same thing (if they actually happen to despise the body they usually seek). If this whole debacle underlined something it is that gay males regardless of political orientation think of females just as disposable egg donors and human incubators
Comment by susan — May 2, 2012 @ 2:01 pm - May 2, 2012
susan, some gay males, some.
And Tom1729, there’s no evidence, only speculation, that Grenell had been sidelined. Indeed, he was in the process of relocating when he was supposedly sidelined. And that story has been debunked by people with actual contact to the campaign — and Mr. Grenell.
No, James, there is no evidence whatsoever that Grenell was encouraged to resign. Quite to the contrary. There is considerable — and growing — evidence that he was asked to stay on.
And rusty, quoting Andrew Sullivan for insight into American conservatives or the GOP is liking looking to the ex-gay movement for commentary on the state of gay America.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 2, 2012 @ 2:21 pm - May 2, 2012
I’m inclined to believe that being exposed as the mouthpiece of the liberal wing of the Republican Party acting in duplicity with the Democrat Party to impose homosexual marriage through the US State department was his downfall. Romney had already made it clear that he was not concerned with the base of the Republican Party.
Comment by rjligier — May 2, 2012 @ 2:30 pm - May 2, 2012
Romney picks out & loud gay as a spokesman. If personnel is policy, his message to the pro-family community: drop dead. Bryan Fischer
Bryan Fischer: Re: Richard Grenell: Romney has some ‘splaining to do
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147520359
Monday, April 23, 2012 10:25 AM
This is not just an Etch-A-Sketch moment for the governor, it is a crossing-the-Rubicon moment. It appears to be a dog-whistle to the homosexual lobby, a way of saying to them I’m with you, not with them. It appears to be his way of saying to gay activists that when push comes to shove you can count on me. I’ll be in your corner, not theirs.
Fischer continues. . .By the way, Jennifer Rubin of the Washington Post, its supposedly “conservative” columnist, attacked me this morning in her post. Is this an indication that the homosexual agenda has become a de facto part of the dogma of ruling class Republicans? Somebody from the GOP needs to clarify ASAP.
So . . .BDB
And rusty, quoting Andrew Sullivan for insight into American conservatives or the GOP is liking looking to the ex-gay movement for commentary on the state of gay America.
back to Sullivan . . .if you will
what do Republicans call a gay man with neoconservative passion, a committed relationship and personal courage?
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 2:40 pm - May 2, 2012
rusy, Sullivan is making that one up.
And ignores the fact that the Romney campaign fought to keep Grenell on board–and enlisted leading conservatives to help in that effort.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 2, 2012 @ 2:48 pm - May 2, 2012
Maybe the Grenell story will slowly perculate up to the surface.
It is interesting that some say this, others say that. . .
But as the Romney team is slowly assimilated by the RNC folk and spinmeisters, maybe there was a conflict arising. If Grenell would end up working with Cabinet members yet to be selected but are under consideration ie Gingrich and or Santorum.
Romney needs to shore up his pretty side for the SoCon pack.
It’s was a not-Romney world for many conservatives. The shift is to make it a not-Obama campaign.
Grenell was a feather in the Romney party hat in regards to building credentials for folk.
Mitt Romney hired Richard Grenell as his new foreign policy spokesman. Grenell was President Bush’s communications director at the United Nations for eight years, and has been a spokesman for a handful of prominent Republicans such as George Pataki and Dave Camp.
and yet Fred Karger, a gay Republican activist who waged a long-shot bid for his party’s presidential nomination, said he ran for president to show that “anyone should be able to work for any Republican regardless of sexual orientation.
“I think acceptance is there,” he said. “People now, like Rick Grenell, can be out and working. And he was for eight years in the Bush administration, at a very high level with security clearance in the State Department.
“All we are striving for,” said Karger, “is just to be accepted and treated no differently.”
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 2:52 pm - May 2, 2012
“This was an unforced error, and one that could have been avoided if the Romney campaign had simply said early on we have 100 percent faith in Ric Grenell to do his job,” said Chris Barron, one of the co-founders of the group GOProud. “Does anyone in the world doubt that if had been an evangelical or a Mormon or a Jewish person that the Romney campaign would not have defended that person? It is hard for me to comprehend why the Romney campaign chose to leave Ric Grenell hanging out there the way that they did.”
He added, “Every campaign when you’re at this moment where you’re making the transition from the primary to the general election looks for their Sistah Souljah moment. And this could have been Romney’s Sistah Souljah moment. He could have said, look, this is a guy who was spokesman at the United Nations. This is a guy who served under John Bolton … and by God, I’m not going to let a handful of extremists bring him down.”
The impact, Barron said, was specific: “This is a great day for Obama.”
Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/75821_Page3.html#ixzz1tk0L56ct
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 3:10 pm - May 2, 2012
rusty, I’m not sure Chris is right in this case.
How does he know how the Romney campaign would have acted if someone had taken issue with the faith of one of its aides? And given the evidence that they worked behind the scenes to keep him on, it’s not clear that a public statement of support would have made much difference.
As per this post, it seems it was an entirely personal decision on Grenell’s part. And public statements don’t do as much to assuaging private concerns as do private statements of support.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 2, 2012 @ 3:13 pm - May 2, 2012
Oh, I believe it could have been a very personal decision, BDB. It could have been a draining experience for Grenell and his partner to come under the microscope. or rather the blistering lights of the FRC or AFA.
whether it was a personal decision standing alone or combined with the stressors of being a target for Fischer and/or Tony Perkins, tis a sad waste and a successful bully event.
Thomas Roberts interviews Fred Karger on Grenell.
http://video.msnbc.msn.com/msnbc-tv/47264249/#47264249
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 3:29 pm - May 2, 2012
It is interesting that both Barron and Grenell share the same issue of crossing the line with insults. Tis also interesting how both Chris and Rich possibly share the same experience in getting a little arm twisting from the SoCon pack.
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 3:41 pm - May 2, 2012
Susan. You wrote:
The tweets were not great, but that mini scandal was already going away. And if that was the reason, why didn’t Romney take action when that broke to nullify the attacks relating to the “War on Women”.? That controversy had pretty much blown over.
Oh, and that reminds me. This bit from the Onion is terrific! Some may not like the end… But I say “lighten up” – It’s the Onion!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2bniFJigI0
Comment by sonicfrog — May 2, 2012 @ 5:06 pm - May 2, 2012
Based on what evidence? One or two nutjobs that claim to be conservatives is not evidence of widespread intolerance in the Republican party.
Comment by Rattlesnake — May 2, 2012 @ 5:33 pm - May 2, 2012
Bryan Fischer and Dan Savage are pretty much both just jerks pandering to a fringe audience of haters.
Comment by V the K — May 2, 2012 @ 6:37 pm - May 2, 2012
In my opinion, this is much ado about nothing — trumped up by the media lickspittles to make Romney out to be such a darned homophobic MEANIE!
Pfffft.
$15T in debt. Longest string of 8%+ unemployment since WWII (after BHO PROMISED the Stimulus would reduce it lower and faster). Israel is about to strike Iran.
This is just one of many distractions that the media wants to create.
Eye on the Prize, folks.
Comment by Bruce (GayPatriot) — May 2, 2012 @ 6:45 pm - May 2, 2012
Grenell has already signed on to help Bono Mack out in Cali forni a.
Comment by rusty — May 2, 2012 @ 6:56 pm - May 2, 2012
And then there are the distractions the media hushes up, like Elizabeth “Taxajawea” Warren the phony Injun.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2012/05/02/inevitable_media_circling_wagons_to_protect_warren_over_bizarre_native_american_flap
Comment by V the K — May 2, 2012 @ 7:21 pm - May 2, 2012
Look, I’ve bemoaned the fact for years that looking at the stable of people running for high office is so disspiriting.
You have to be such a focused narcissus you become frankly
creepy.
Look at Newt, Mitt, Obama, Hilary, Bill C. , Edwards, Gore, Biden, I mean come on.
None of these people are real. And those that work for them, either become subhuman or flee.
God Speed Mr Grenell.
Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — May 2, 2012 @ 7:30 pm - May 2, 2012
The fundie Christians (and they call themselves Christian) are like the far left. It is all 100% my way or the highway. Second, they don’t want faggots or dykes to pollute the same air that they breathe. Instead, they prefer those straight and perfect people they always associate with.
Comment by davinci — May 2, 2012 @ 7:49 pm - May 2, 2012
So obvious what happened it’s STARING everyone in the face.
Romney WANTED / NEEDED a token gay person in his campaign as part of his etch-a-sketch LEFT turn to say “see I have gay friends”, but when it came time for Grenell to do his job as in F. Policy, they railroaded him. All they wanted him there for was to sit in his office, look pretty in his suit, go on talk shows and yell at Obama for not supporting marriage equality. Grenell, naively thinking they wanted him for any substantive though processes was pissed and quit.
1. Romney’s campaign should have been up front about what his job was really going to be
2. The outrage was subsiding and in a couple of weeks would have gone away, maybe Romney might have let Grenell do part of his “real” job
3. Grenell realized what was going on and quite to Romney’s dismay – losing out on their token gay-who-hates-Obama
Comment by Al in SoCal — May 2, 2012 @ 9:56 pm - May 2, 2012
Aware of the 2 typos
Comment by Al in SoCal — May 2, 2012 @ 9:57 pm - May 2, 2012
Or, maybe he just hired him for his qualifications.
Comment by Rattlesnake — May 2, 2012 @ 11:00 pm - May 2, 2012
The tweets were not great, but that mini scandal was already going away. And if that was the reason, why didn’t Romney take action when that broke to nullify the attacks relating to the “War on Women”.? That controversy had pretty much blown over.
————————
How can you say it was already going away? His name was mentioned only a couple of weeks ago and the tweets exploded only a few days ago. There have been a lot of bad decisions on all sides. Grenell does not sound very smart, it is at least naive to think that he wouldn’t have been flogged for those (and in return Romney and republicans) and it is totally irresponsible for him to engage in such a thing from twitter (something that the majority of serious people still consider a JOKE communication tool). I mean does this guy have a job? a life? What do you say to kids spending 8 hours a day on Facebook? Yeah right, losers. This man was supposed to have a role in the potential POTUS administration instead he behaves like some B-list celebrity commenting on women’s haircuts and fashion sense.
Secondly, one thing is to diss women for their personality or intellectual qualities (this has been a fair game for centuries), another thing is to appear disgusted by the female naked body or god forbid a pregnant naked body and Jessica Simpson is not your average run of the mill (pregnant) woman. It reinforces the stereotype of female-phobic gay male. Is this what the republican party needs? Leave this crap to Dan Savage who is proudly grossed out by the vagina.
Before you reply with saying that also McCain joked about Chelsea Clinton’s ugliness and many called Michelle Obama an ape it is something entirely different than a gay man ridiculing the image of a pregnant (pretty) girl. Not sure you can understand this and how offensive it is. I have been around gay forums and blogs enough to know that this sort of stuff is very much widespread. Ironic and bitter considering that the majority of people who support gay rights are women.
Comment by Susan — May 3, 2012 @ 5:29 am - May 3, 2012
Susan, you raise something which has long troubled me–why do so many gay man make such cutting comments about women in public fora.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 3, 2012 @ 5:39 am - May 3, 2012
What you say BDB, misogyny – sexism
Tweets about sluts!
Overt postings of scantily clad women with demoralizing comments.
Men folk here are always proper gentlemen!
Comment by rusty — May 3, 2012 @ 6:13 am - May 3, 2012
Favorite comment from our neighbor up North. . .
NUTJOBS who claim to be conservative. . .
Quite ballsy of you to refer to (shhh! Perkins and Fischer)
Those fabulous self appointed speakers from the SoCon camp.
YIKES Rattlesnake you be getting sassy!
Comment by rusty — May 3, 2012 @ 6:18 am - May 3, 2012
Have to agree with you V on the pandering of both Savage and Fischer. . Tis more like cheerleading
Yet, would either be out there pandering if the other went silent!
Comment by rusty — May 3, 2012 @ 6:22 am - May 3, 2012
No, just irritated that people like that call themselves “conservatives.” Unless I’m completely wrong about what conservatives believe, they aren’t conservatives. And they give social conservatives a bad name.
Comment by Rattlesnake — May 3, 2012 @ 5:02 pm - May 3, 2012
Not sure how a gay man making fun of a pregnant woman is somehow more abhorrent than a grown straight man calling a young girl ugly or a black woman an ape.
I work in a predominantly straight male industry and I hear misogynistic comments often enough to know that they’re no more or less disgusting than gay men who are repulsed by a pregnant female.
In the words of Michaela Watkins, Bitch, please.
Comment by Cinesnatch — May 4, 2012 @ 3:56 am - May 4, 2012
Cinesnatch, for the ones who understood no futher explanation is necessary, for the ones who didn’t no other explanation is possible
Comment by susan — May 4, 2012 @ 4:49 pm - May 4, 2012
[...] we do forget that people in the public eye have feelings. (Lends credence to my notion of the personal toll this might have been (was?) taking on [...]
Pingback by GayPatriot » Romney defends Grenell as “accomplished spokesperson” — May 4, 2012 @ 8:18 pm - May 4, 2012
33.Susan, you raise something which has long troubled me–why do so many gay man make such cutting comments about women in public fora.
Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — May 3, 2012 @ 5:39 am – May 3, 2012
As pointed out in 33 by rusty “NO TAX MONEY FOR SLUTS! NO TAX MONEY FOR SLUTS!” Without a whiff of apologia.
Comment by Edmund — May 5, 2012 @ 12:45 am - May 5, 2012
Edmund, I will try to make it simple for you to understand. As a woman (and especially conservative woman) it is no problem to hear that somebody who shares our gender is called a slut (especially when this is 100% true) or ugly (Chelsea Clinton, Michelle Obama). We say the same ourselves to the deserving ones. Remember we are not in the democratic plantation (as gays like you are) so we have no problem admitting that a same gender is indeed a slut, ugly or a bitch, we leave the sisterhood bullcrap to the leftist kind. Same for hearing it from males. I could never be empathic to someone like Jane Fonda, no matter what happens to her regardless of the fact we share the same gender.
This is called tribalism, I leave it to the left’s victim groups.
It is however a totally different matter to hear gays slander the female body up to the very stage that brought them into this world, pregnancy. Or do you think you have been born differently?
Again, for those who understand, no explanation is necessary; for those who don’t understand, no explanation is possible
Comment by susan — May 5, 2012 @ 2:42 pm - May 5, 2012
it is no problem to hear that somebody who shares our gender is called a slut (especially when this is 100% true)
Game. Set. Match.
Please tell me what you know about Sandra Fluke’s actual testimony and her personal conduct, susan.
You sound like a whore. I hope that’s okay for me to say, since I’m not in any plantation. But a whore is someone who sells something valuable – like her integrity – for less than it’s worth. Whore much? It sounds like you whore around a lot.
Comment by Edmund — May 5, 2012 @ 6:17 pm - May 5, 2012
Edmund if you think i am affected by what a troubled leftist gay in the democratic plantation thinks about me on the internet you are even more deluded than i thought. But this was already established a long ago. Beside, my point in this thread was gays’ inner misogynistic attitude and you 100% proved it without shadow of a doubt.
Comment by susan — May 6, 2012 @ 4:48 am - May 6, 2012