Archive for the ‘Mitt Romney’ Category

Dan Savage, or rather Keenan Houlahan, the plumbing advice columnist whose internalized homophobia led him to abandon his given name of Keenan Houlahan as too faggoty,  for the masculine comic book hero moniker “Dan Savage,” has once again sought media attention, calling a gay political group “faggots” for endorsing someone not his choice for President.

In particular he called them “house faggots,” which is probably projection, given Democratic party gays’ long tradition of sucking up slights, evasions and half-measures, while bending over and spreading their wallets for politicians who otherwise ignore them.

It was kind of an odd charge though, since the group he was attacking, GOProud, is not a membership organization, and has an advisory board heavy with heterosexuals, like author Margaret Hoover and taxpayer advocate Grover Norquist.  How can these people be house faggots when they aren’t even faggots?

One supposes he was aiming at the group’s director, Jimmy LaSalvia, and founder, Chris Barron, who are bonafide (as it were) homosexuals, or perhaps its staff, a uniformly delectable group of college age gay interns (I have visited their Capitol Hill office).  The curiosity there is that Chris Barron did not endorse Romney, but instead is supporting Libertarian presidential candidate Governor Gary Johnson, and was indeed a Johnson delegate this May at the Libertarian Party nominating convention.  Further the GOProud advisory board endorsement was not unanimous, and even the endorsement they did issue had a heavy context of “gay people are more than simply gays, they also are taxpayers who need jobs and a president who will not lie to them, hence Barack Obama fails on all counts,” and for those who are two party faithful, only one “hold your nose” or “hope he evolves” choice remains (and Romney’s history is certainly one of … evolutions).

The gay trolls who live in the leftover blogosphere are in their usual ferment.  Too ugly to leave their basements for a gay bar or film festival, they sit at home all night on their PCs typing howlers in worship of their hero Keenan Houlahan.  The comments at the leftoid RawStory are particularly laughable.  The author manages not to know or report any of the facts I laid out (GOProud board may be mainly straights, Barron a Libertarian not supporting Romney, etc.).  The insectoid readers continue on, discussing Log Cabin Republicans, which is (1) not GOProud, (2) a membership organization, and (3) has, I believe, not (yet) endorsed Romney.  And of course these poor anencephalic poofters (no doubt doubly anencephalic, actually) begin barking about how white gay males who are part of the 1% identify with the ruling class, even as these leftoid pole smokers defend their master’s use of predator drones to kill gay children in Arabia, his placing of gay and lesbian Americans on his Presidential kill list, and his bailout of crony capitalists who control the Federal Reserve System.  And even while gay white male Keenan Houlahan strokes these sheeple and laughs all the way to the bank and his White House dinners with their money.

Good thing so many of them will not breed.

From Mediaite:

Dan Savage Calls Gay Conservative Group GOProud ‘House Faggots’ For Romney Endorsement


Columnist and co-creator of the It Gets Better project Dan Savage called a gay conservative group “faggots” after the group endorsed Mitt Romney Wednesday.
GOProud endorsed Romney in a news release and said they would commit “significant resources” to his campaign. The group describes itself as “a national organization of gay and straight Americans seeking to promote freedom by supporting free markets, limited government, and a respect for individual rights.”
“Most gay Americans – like their straight counterparts – are not better off than they were four years ago,” Jimmy LaSalvia, GOProud executive director, said in a statement endorsing the Republican nominee. “The truth is that gay people are living in the disastrous failed Obama economy too.” Savage tweeted a link to a story about the groups endorsement, mocking them as “GOP house faggots” for “grab[bing] their ankles, right on cue.”
LaSalvia said the group opposes Romney’s support of a federal marriage amendment and acknowledged the group’s endorsement was not unanimous with two members of its board voting against it.
“For far too long, the gay left in this country has been allowed to dictate what they believe qualify as ‘gay issues,’” LaSalvia said in the statement. “We think that jobs, the economy, healthcare, retirement security and taxes are all ‘gay issues,’ and on every single one of those issues, Mitt Romney is light years better than President Obama.”
GOProud has not officially released a statement on Savage’s tweet, but co-founder Christopher Barron responded on his site: “Apparently, faggot is an entirely appropriate slur as long as Dan Savage is slinging it and gay people who you don’t agree with are on the receiving end. It gets better my ass.”

Read Full Post »

Reason.com covering gay issues a lot this month:

Romney’s Gay Marriage Challenge

What does he mean by “domestic partnership”?

Last Thursday, the day after President Obama finally endorsed gay marriage, his campaign released a video that faults his presumptive Republican opponent, Mitt Romney, for not doing likewise. “President Obama is moving us forward,” the ad says. “Mitt Romney would take us back.”
In a sense, Obama is the one going back, returning to a position he took as a political novice in 1996. But the same changes in public opinion that made it thinkable for him to stop equivocating on gay marriage present a challenge to Romney as he repositions himself for the general election.
Sixteen years ago, when Obama supported “legalizing same-sex marriages” as a candidate for the Illinois Senate, a Gallup poll found that only 27 percent of Americans agreed with him. According to a Gallup poll conducted this month, that number has risen to 50 percent.
A new CBS News poll indicates that support for legal recognition of gay couples (not necessarily “marriage”) is even higher. Thirty-eight percent of respondents said “gay couples should be allowed to marry,” while another 24 percent said they should be “allowed to form civil unions.” Only 33 percent favored “no legal recognition.” Surveys during the last few years have yielded similar results.
In short, “no legal recognition” for gay couples clearly has become a minority position, which poses a problem for Romney. The former Massachusetts governor has opposed same-sex marriage since the beginning of his political career, and he favors a constitutional amendment that “defines marriage as a relationship between a man and woman.”
The Obama campaign’s video implies that Romney—unlike Obama’s Republican predecessor, George W. Bush—also opposes civil unions, but that is not true. Since running for governor in 2002, Romney has said he supports “domestic partnerships” for same-sex couples that include “the potential for health benefits and rights of survivorship.” What else they might include is not entirely clear, and this is the tricky part for a candidate trying to keep social conservatives happy without alienating swing voters by seeming intolerant or insensitive to the problems gay couples face because of their unequal legal treatment.
Romney’s idea of domestic partnerships clearly does not go as far as the civil unions that Obama favored until last week (which he said would provide “all the rights” of marriage). “I do not favor marriage between people of the same gender,” Romney said after Obama’s announcement, “and I don’t favor civil unions if they’re identical to marriage other than by name.”
But contrary to the Obama campaign’s video, Romney does support shared health plans as well as joint adoption. “If two people of the same gender want to live together, want to have a loving relationship and even want to adopt a child,” he said on Fox News last week, “in my view that’s something that people have the right to do.”
Already this is dangerous territory as far as social conservatives are concerned, which explains why Romney’s campaign later insisted he was only explaining what Massachusetts and many other states allow. “He thinks a traditional family is far better for children,” a spokeswoman told CNN, but “he acknowledges it’s a state issue” and “did nothing to change it” as governor of Massachusetts.
As that whipsawing statement suggests, federalism will get Romney only so far, especially since he has chosen to nationalize the issue by calling for a constitutional ban on gay marriage. If the ban does not apply to civil unions, it will not stop states from allowing legal arrangements “identical to marriage” but for the name, which Romney says he opposes. But if the federal government tries to prevent those, states won’t really be free to “make decisions with regard to domestic partnership benefits,” the approach he says he favors.
Romney is not the only Republican with conflicting impulses on gay marriage. In the CBS News survey, 70 percent of Republicans supported a constitutional ban, while 63 percent said the issue should be left to the states.
Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason and a nationally syndicated columnist. Follow him on Twitter.

Read Full Post »

The same week Obama and Hilary are selling Chinese dissidents out, with little lickspittle whore Jay Carney trying to justify his master’s murders, as usual, the Romney campaign has castrated itself, having driven out its foreign policy spokesman, for being gay. God damn, mother fucking, stupid, pansy assed, self-defeating Republican bitches.

Read Full Post »

Andrew Sullivan breaks actual news on The Daily Dish: email permalink 2 May 2012 09:57 PM The Muzzling Of Ric Grenell: An Update [Re-posted from earlier today]. Some actual reporting from yours truly. It seems clear from sources close to Grenell and reporters on the foreign policy beat that his turning point came last week. He’d been part of organizing a conference call to respond to Vice President Biden’s foreign policy speech, now known best for the “big stick” remark. So some reporters were puzzled as to why Grenell, a week into his job as Romney’s national security spokesman, was not introduced by name as part of the Romney team at the beginning of the call, and his voice completely absent from the conversation. Some even called and questioned him afterwards as to why he was absent. He wasn’t absent. He was simply muzzled. For a job where you are supposed to maintain good relations with reporters, being silenced on a key conference call on your area of expertise is pretty damaging. Especially when you helped set it up. Sources close to Grenell say that he was specifically told by those high up in the Romney campaign to stay silent on the call, even while he was on it. And this was not the only time he had been instructed to shut up. Their response to the far right fooferaw was simply to go silent, to keep Grenell off-stage and mute, and to wait till the storm passed. But the storm was not likely to pass if no one in the Romney camp was prepared to back Grenell up. Hence his dilemma. The obvious solution was simply to get Grenell out there doling out the neocon red meat – which would have immediately changed the subject and helped dispel base skepticism. Instead the terrified Romneyites shut him up without any actual plan for when he might subsequently be able to do his job. To my mind, it’s a mark of his integrity that he decided to quit rather than be put in this absurd situation. And it’s a mark of Romney’s fundamental weakness within his own party that he could not back his spokesman against the Bryan Fischers and Matthew Francks. I’m with GOProud’s Jimmy LaSalvia on this. A couple other thoughts. How many gay conservatives oppose marriage equality – now, apparently, a litmus test (though it wasn’t for Cheney)? I cannot think of any. Why? Because marriage equality started out as a conservative revolt within the gay community. Gay conservatives and Republicans helped pioneer gay marriage as an issue – to some serious pushback from the gay left at the start. So if all gay Republicans who support marriage equality are banned even from speaking on other topics entirely (like Iran or Afghanistan, where Grenell is a fire-breather), who’s left? The answer, I’m afraid, is no one. Grenell was prepared to stay silent on gay issues entirely and do his job. But that wasn’t enough. Romney’s anti-gay agenda is therefore deeper and more extreme than Bush’s. I might add that the private conversation among many Republicans in this town is that this was unjust and unfair. The Romneyites are correct when they say they tried to talk him out of it. But they kept and keep their views quiet. The gay-inclusive elements in the elites simply do not have the balls to tackle the religious right. And this is particularly true of Romney, as this case now proves. The Christianists gave Bush a pass on social issues because of his born-again Christianity. They trust Mormon Romney not an inch. And this week demonstrates without any doubt that Romney will therefore not be able to deviate from their wishes an iota. He has no room to maneuver. The notion that he could be a moderate on social issues in office is, alas, a pipe dream. Remember: Grenell was told to be silent solely because he was gay. He was accused in National Review of being a potential fifth columnist for Barack Obama, simply because of his support for marriage equality, which he was never going to speak in public on anyway. His job was to speak on national security, a job for which he was very well prepared and very, very neoconservative. But the bigots won.

Read Full Post »

Mitt Romney speaking before attendees at the 2012 Conservative Political Action Conference (Washington Blade photo by Michael Key)

Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney (Blade file photo by Michael Key)
Mitt Romney swept a series of GOP presidential primaries this week as news surfaced that Newt Gingrich will suspend his campaign on Tuesday.
With Romney poised to wrap up the Republican nomination — and ready to pivot to the general election contest — his campaign announced the appointment of a gay man, Richard Grenell, to serve as national security and foreign policy spokesman.
The developments this week raise questions about whether the Log Cabin Republicans will endorse Romney for president, despite his promise to pursue a federal amendment banning same-sex marriage, among other anti-gay positions he’s articulated during the primary season.
The debate over whether to endorse Romney could prove thorny for Log Cabin. On one hand, the organization is likely to feel pressure from its Republican base to throw its support behind the party’s standard-bearer in the general election. On the other, Romney has backed anti-gay positions during the primary season, including support for a U.S. constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage throughout the country and a pledge to defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court.
Christian Berle, Log Cabin’s deputy executive director, said the board will make the endorsement decision in advance of the Republican National Convention in Tampa Bay, Fla., this August.
“The endorsement of any candidate is something Log Cabin Republicans takes very seriously, particularly when it comes to a presidential nominee,” Berle said. “Staff and the board of directors will take the next several months to review Gov. Romney’s record and his vision for leading the country. Log Cabin Republicans will maintain its battle focus on building a stronger, more inclusive GOP.”
If history is any guide, then Log Cabin may withhold support for Romney because of his support for the federal amendment. Log Cabin endorsed George W. Bush in 2000. But in 2004, the group created a national stir when it withheld its endorsement of Bush’s re-election due to the president’s support for a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. In a 22-2 vote, the Log Cabin board decided to withhold the endorsement.
Log Cabin’s then-president Patrick Guerriero explained the decision not to endorse Bush in an op-ed piece published in the Los Angeles Times.
“This year, despite our loyalty to the party of Ronald Reagan and Abraham Lincoln, we have decided, after significant discussion, to withhold our endorsement of President Bush,” Guerriero wrote. “It was a difficult choice, but our integrity requires it, and the Republican Party’s future will be stronger because of it.”
Although other concerns were cited, the primary reason for withholding support for Bush was his call for Congress to pass a Federal Marriage Amendment to send to the states for ratification.
“The constitutional amendment would not only ban gay marriage, it would also jeopardize civil unions and domestic partnerships,” Guerriero said. ”The president’s support of an unnecessary and discriminatory constitutional amendment ignores the party’s belief in state autonomy and disregards the nation’s reliance on federalism. Using the Constitution as a campaign tool weakens our nation’s founding document and erodes our party’s proud tradition of equality and liberty.”
In many ways, Romney’s views mirror those of Bush in 2004. Romney signed a pledge from the National Organization for Marriage to back a Federal Marriage Amendment, defend the Defense of Marriage Act in court and establish a commission on “religious liberty” to investigate the alleged harassment of same-sex marriage opponents. NOM has endorsed Romney, whose Free & Strong America political action committee donated $10,000 to the organization as it sought passage of California’s Proposition 8.
Log Cabin has an awkward history with Romney. In 2007, Log Cabin ran an ad against Romney in Iowa attacking him for not being conservative enough. It included footage of Romney running for U.S. Senate and expressing pro-choice views and distancing himself from former Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush. A message at the end of the ad says it came from Log Cabin, but the Blade reported in 2008 that it was financed by Gill Action Fund.
“For years, he’s fought conservatives and religious extremists,” a female voice in the ad states. “Mitt Romney opposed the gun lobby, even Ronald Reagan. … A record fighting the religious right, a pro-choice record, Massachusetts values: Mitt Romney.”
But despite his support for a federal amendment, Romney’s anti-gay positions aren’t as extreme as other GOP candidates who competed against him for the Republican nomination. In a December interview with the editorial board of the Des Moines Register, Romney said he’s “not planning” on working to reinstate “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” unlike the other candidates such as former U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum. Additionally, Romney said that although he backs a Federal Marriage Amendment, he doubts the political wherewithal exists to pass it.
Meanwhile, Romney’s decision to hire Grenell, who’s gay and a former Bush administration official, as his national security and foreign policy spokesman, was viewed as a pivot to the political center now that the primary season is ending. Grenell has come under fire for speaking out on Twitter against women, Democratic officials and the Gingriches. Around 800 tweets were reportedly deleted from his account.
Log Cabin threw its support behind Republican presidential nominee John McCain in 2008. In a 2008 Q&A with the Washington Blade, McCain said he’d establish a national AIDS strategy and would welcome a review of a “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” — although the lawmaker was the primary opponent of repeal during the 2010 legislative effort. As a U.S. senator, McCain voted against the Federal Marriage Amendment and didn’t run for president supporting the measure.
Many gay Republicans and Log Cabin chapter leaders declined to comment when contacted by the Washington Blade about whether Log Cabin should endorse Romney. In a leaked email dated April 13 obtained by the Blade, Log Cabin’s national staff told its chapter leaders not to speak to the Blade about the endorsement.
“We have been informed that Chris Johnson of the Washington Blade is reaching out to our chapter leaders with questions regarding the potential for Log Cabin Republicans to endorse Mitt Romney,” the email reads. “Please redirect Mr. Johnson to the national staff on this issue. No endorsement decision has been made, and it is in the best interest of our organization to refrain from comment at this time.”
Still, a handful of gay Republicans voiced support for the idea of a Romney endorsement when contacted by the Blade.
Bob Kabel, who’s gay and chair of the D.C. Republican Party, responded favorably when asked if he believes the national gay organization should throw its support behind Romney.
“I do think Log Cabin should endorse Romney,” Kabel said. “Romney has a good track record as governor of Massachusetts on gay issues, including appointing a number of openly gay officials in important positions. Other than on marriage, which we have a strong disagreement about, he is actually quite good on gay issues and, in addition, I think Log Cabin would support him because of his background and proven ability to understand the economy and create jobs. That what’s important to so many people, including gay people.”
Although Kabel touts Romney’s work on gay issues in Massachusetts, many LGBT advocates have criticized him for working to block legalization of same-sex marriage in Massachusetts and resurrecting a 1913 law preventing non-residents from marrying in the Bay State. According to MassEquality, Romney abolished the Governor’s Commission on GLBT Youth and rescinded an executive order prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in the state workforce. Another Republican, former Gov. William Weld, had put those measures in place.
Jim Driscoll, a gay Nevada-based activist who served on the Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDS during the Bush administration, also called on Log Cabin to endorse Romney. Driscoll is a Romney supporter who donated to his campaign — both in 2008 and 2012 — and supported him during the Nevada caucuses.
“I think they should endorse him,” Driscoll said. “It looks to me as if the only issue there is the marriage amendment. This isn’t something that I’ve followed closely, but it seems to me that there’s very little chance that that marriage amendment can pass. It’s kind of a dead issue. I don’t see that it has any momentum. And I suspect that while [Romney] formally favors it, he’s not going to lift his little finger to do anything to see that it passes.”
Outside groups on the right and left had their own views on whether Log Cabin should get behind Romney.
Jimmy LaSalvia, executive director of the gay conservative group GOProud, refrained from directly saying whether Log Cabin should endorse Romney.
“It’s not for me to opine on whether Log Cabin Republicans should or should not endorse Gov. Romney,” LaSalvia said. “It should be noted, however, that in 2004 they emphatically stated that they could not endorse a candidate who supported a Federal Marriage Amendment, and in 2008 they spent more than $100,000 to run television and radio ads attacking Mitt Romney.”
Jerame Davis, executive director of the National Stonewall Democrats, said “any credible organization” working for the LGBT community “cannot and should not endorse Mitt Romney,” but noted the question of an endorsement will likely be a difficult one for the organization.
“Log Cabin is in a very precarious situation when it comes to endorsing Mitt Romney,” Davis said. “On the one hand, if they do endorse Romney, they are sending a clear signal to the rest of the LGBT community that being partisan hacks is more important than standing up for LGBT equality. On the other hand, if they don’t endorse Romney they become largely irrelevant in the debate about who will be the next president. Not only would this give their rivals, GOProud, an opening to out flank them on the right, but it would also be problematic for their executive director, who happens to sit on the RNC finance committee.”
Former Log Cabin leaders were reluctant to weigh in on whether the organization should endorse Romney. Guerriero, who after leaving Log Cabin served as head of Gill Action Fund, didn’t respond to multiple requests for comment. He’s now a partner at Civitas Public Affairs Group.
Patrick Sammon, who headed Log Cabin during its decision to endorse McCain and is now a filmmaker, declined to comment.
But Rich Tafel, who founded the organization and led it from 1993 to 2003, said in an email to the Blade that the organization, “will probably endorse Mitt Romney.”
“Mitt is a moderate, which is [why] he’s had a tough time this primary,” Tafel said. “He has a history of supporting gays and appointing them, which makes him unique among the GOP candidates. He has a 45 percent chance of winning so LCR has a responsibility to ensure it has a role with him should he win. He’ll need to move back to the middle to win this.”

Read Full Post »

Here’s a typically dishonest piece.

Richard Grenell was harsh with reporters he thought dishonest when he was at the UN, according to some Reuters’ scribbler.  And that’s a sin!

And he made fun of some the priestesses of the left, like Rachel Madcow, who have no problem smearing other people on air (like me) without even calling them first, or reporting fake stories (e.g. that Gary Johnson had dropped out of the presidential primaries to endorse Ron Paul).  But to belittle such an august personage – a federal crime.  And he even deleted some of his past tweets and took down his website, hiding personal and other information, now that he has to represent someone else, not himself.  A crime!

Is this all you impotent boys on the Left have got?  I suggest the little blue pill.  You’ll still be DES babies with microphallus. but it might function.

Expect more of this from the deranged left as their dog eating Lord Zero’s campaign derails.

Richard Grenell, New Mitt Romney Spokesman, Scrubs Online Attacks On Media And Women

Posted: 04/22/2012 10:37 am Updated: 04/22/2012 3:00 pm
NEW YORK — Richard Grenell, a former Bush administration official who joined the Romney campaign Thursday as national security and foreign policy spokesman, appears to have deleted more than 800 of his past tweets following scrutiny overnumerous swipes aimed at the media, prominent Democratic women and the Gingriches. Grenell also apparently took down his personal site, which featured writing on politics, foreign affairs and the media.
On Friday afternoon, Grenell still featured a link to his personal site (http://www.richardgrenell.com) on his Twitter profile, which then showed that he had tweeted 7,577 times, according to a screenshot taken Friday by The Huffington Post. By Sunday morning, Grenell’s Twitter feed only listed 6,759 tweets and his personal site is no longer available. (Some examples of past writing have been archived on the Internet and can be found here.)
In the Twitter-fueled 2012 election, it’s not surprising that reporters quickly began digging through Grenell’s Twitter feed, even before he got a chance to scrub out a number of impolitic and sexist comments.
ThinkProgress noted Grenell’s tendency to make cutting remarks about the appearances of prominent women in media and politics, including his tweet advising MSNBC host Rachel Maddow “to take a breath and put on a necklace,” and another suggesting she resembled a Justin Bieber.
In another tweet, Grenell wrote that “Hillary is starting to look liek Madeline [sic] Albright.” He discussed First Lady Michelle Obama working out and “sweating on the East Room carpet.” He also asked whether Callista Gingrich’s “hair snaps on,” and on another occasion, commented how Gingrich’s third wife “stands there like she is wife #1.” Politico flagged more examples and noted Grenell’s “old pastime” of “ridiculing the Gingriches.”
When contacted about Romney’s hiring of Grenell and his removal of online writing, a campaign spokesperson referred The Huffington Post to a response Grenell gave to Politico. “My tweets were written to be tongue-in-cheek and humorous but I can now see how they can also be hurtful,” Grenell said. “I didn’t mean them that way and will remove them from twitter. I apologize for any hurt they caused.”
Maddow certainly didn’t think Grenell’s tweets were so “tongue-in-cheek” or “humorous,” pointing out the ones written about her during Friday night’s show,while asking if the Romney campaign sees “any sign that they understand that a long, string of really nasty, sexist tweets about Callista Gingrich’s appearance might be alienating to people who might otherwise consider voting for Mr. Romney.”
But Maddow’s not the only member of NBC/MSNBC who Grenell has knocked in recent months. Grenell described NBC’s “Meet the Press” on Twitter as “a commercial for the Democratic Party & its radical feminist agenda,” while taking a few shots at chief foreign affairs correspondent Andrea Mitchell and political director and White House correspondent Chuck Todd.
“[A]re any reporters asking HillaryClinton tough questions?” Grenell asked on April 3. “NBC has expert foreign policy reporter Andrea @mitchellreports asking non-questions.” On March 27, Grenell tweeted that MSNBC “has ushered @chucktodd so far left he’s lost his ability to see a Russian video moment as anything more than a 2nd term reality.” That same day, Grenell said what he “love[s] about twitter and facebook is that it has outed reporters from their phony facade of pretend non-partisan commentary.”

Richard Grenell Twitter

He has also taken a few jabs at BuzzFeed, writing that the Ben Smith-led site “looks like it’s either working for [liberal watchdog Media Matters for America] or the Obama re-election.” (Smith wrote Saturday how the hiring of Grenell, who’s openly gay, quickly prompted an attack from Bryan Fischer, the anti-gay head of the American Family Association).
Grenell also recently tweeted that New York Times reporter Matt Bai “isn’t fit to cover Obama,” and once tweeted that this reporter is a “liberal” who “ignores george @stephanopoulos’ secret coordination w/ WhiteHouse on contraception,” both posts that appear to have been removed. On another occasion, Grenell disputed whether this reporter’s article included a “clarification” or, in his view, a “correction.” In a subsequent tweet, he alleged that bias was the motivation for clarifying the article.
On his now-removed personal site, according to a few posts archived online, the spokesman takes similar swipes at the “Fourth Estate.”
In May 2010, Grenell criticized New York Times columnist Charles Blow in a post headlined “Charles certainly does Blow.”
“Blow’s writing is choppy and vapid,” Grenell wrote in a post that has since been removed. “His filing today is a 474 word piece of partisan whining for his favorite political party labeled ‘Liberals in Limbo”. While conservatives won’t be shocked that Blow is on staff and writing for the Grey Lady, intellectuals everyway [sic] should demand she do better than Blow.”
Grenell has blogged for The Huffington Post as recently as last month.
Given Grenell’s repeated swipes at the media, reporters may be concerned that they won’t get a fair shake and that legitimate questions could be dismissed as being motivated by liberal bias.
But Ari Fleischer, a former White House press secretary who worked with Grenell during the Bush years, told The Huffington Post that reporters would do “better to judge people on their human interactions than their Twitter feed.”

Fleischer recalled dealing with Grenell when he served as a U.S. spokesman in the United Nations, speaking each day with him on a prep call that also included officials from the Pentagon, CIA, State Department and Joint Chiefs of Staff. Fleischer described Grenell as “sharp,” “savvy” and “substantive.” He said Grenell “understands the rough and tumble of politics,” along with broader policy issues.
And, Fleischer said, Grenell “was a consumate professional in what he did at the Untied Nations.”
While the Bush administration was apparently impressed with Grenell’s efforts at the U.N., some members of the U.N press corps weren’t as pleased with his press handling.
Reuters veteran Irwin Arieff told The Huffington Post that he’s “appalled to hear that the Romney campaign has hired Mr. Grenell in any capacity.” In an email response, Arieff, who worked over two decades at Reuters, including seven years covering the U.N, said he found Grenell “to be the most dishonest and deceptive press person I ever worked with.”
“He often lied, even more frequently offered half answers or withheld information that would weaken his case or reflect poorly on his ideological point of view,” Arieff said. “He was always argumentative with the press, castigating reporters for asking questions he did not like, and calling them to criticize them for writing articles he did not like.”
Arieff said Grenell “frequently called my superiors — or got Amb. [John] Bolton — to call my editorial superiors to complain about stories, even if they had no errors and were right on target but simply did not fit in with his and/or Bolton’s political views.” Later, Arieff said that Grenell “was above all a conservative ideologue, who did all he could to twist the press coverage of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations to conform with his and Amb. Bolton’s political line.”
Some U.N. reporters had similar gripes with Grenell’s press handling, according to a 2003 2003 Village Voice article.

Press handlers are expected to be control freaks. But several sources in the UN press corps who spoke on condition of anonymity describe the U.S. spokesperson as “rude,” “arrogant,” and a “bully,” neither popular nor a particularly good source. “He’s unbearable,” says one journalist. “Very pushy and very demanding,” says another. Grenell is said to complain incessantly, hectoring correspondents and their bosses and trying to “mold” wire stories to fit his message. He yells at anyone whose slant doesn’t follow his, says one source. “He yells at people whenever he is uncomfortable, particularly foreigners,” says another.

A couple correspondents covering the U.N. told the Village Voice that they began to simply avoid Grenell altogether. “I don’t go to his briefings,” one reporter said at the time. “I don’t have respect for him.” Another reporter told the paper that they “have as little to do with him as possible.”
It remains to be seen how Grenell deals with reporters who will soon be calling to hash out Romney’s national security positions. Reporters covering Romney have generally regarded the campaign’s press operation as professional and disciplined. Romney staffers push back against some potentially negative stories, as any campaign does, but typically avoid questioning reporters’ motives. So the hiring of Grenell, someone with long-standing public gripes about the national media and quick to make bias claims, is noteworthy.
The addition of Grenell also comes on the heels of Mitt Romney’s having twicecriticized the media in the past week alone, even suggesting during a Breitbart.com interview that there’s a “vast left-wing conspiracy” being waged against him. Earlier in the Republican primary Romney had shied away from knee-jerk media bashing.
This story was updated to mention that Richard Grenell has blogged for The HuffingtonPost.

Read Full Post »

Politicians vs Pets:  When a Democratic National Committee war room/opposition research/press person tried to start a War on Dogs (she was an affirmative action hire with severe learning disabilities, including dyslexia, and she got the three letters reversed) by citing the Romney family’s use of a canine trailer to transport the family dog on vacation, little did they know it would blow up in their faces when it was (re) discovered that Barack Obama grew up thinking dogs were for eating, not petting.

So disturbed were Democrats by learning a fact (the only one so far revealed) about anything Barack Obama did before the age of 22, that on the April 22nd edition of ABC’s This Week with Clintonian Chipmunk George Stephanopolus, newly de-unemployed Keith Olberman admitted that he ate dog whenever he eats from street vendors in Manhattan, especially if Vice President Biden takes him to a 7-11 or any of those chains run by brown people.  Miffed by the addition of another lesbian dog fancier to the round table, Donna Brazille tried to top Olberman by saying her “mamma always told her to pay attention to the recipe, not the species” and that she too ate dog, pussy, whatever was put before her.  Both then looked at the Clintonian Chipmunk, as the lunch hour approached.

BigHomo has an exclusive scoop that this animal abuse by the political class extends beyond the two major parties.  In the heretofore unpublished video below, GOProud founder, Gary Johnson campaigner, new Libertarian, RedEye guest and sports commentator Chris Barron is shown forcing one of his 3 dogs to join him for nude streaking along the West Virginia-Virginia border in a foot of snow in celebration of one of his favorite team’s victories.  There is no confirmation to the rumor, yet, that TV’s Andy Levy was bringing up the rear with cats on a leash along with Greg Gutfeld using a harnessed Bill Shultz to pull a sleigh to deliver toys (of sorts) to the West Virginians.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »