Richard Grenell, is, or was, Romney’s National Security Spokesman, in charge of dispensing lies concerning Foreign Affairs. In a richly ironic development, he has had to resign from his job defending one form of Republican craziness because his open homosexuality got him in trouble with an entirely different group of Republican crazies. I have no sympathy for the guy, as it is quite difficult to gin up much concern for any gay person who would be personally crazy enough to affiliate with a party, many of whose members would be happy to put him into a concentration camp. But his resignation statement brought me up short:
The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin, who broke the news Tuesday, suggested that the openly gay Grenell likely resigned because of a “full-court press by anti-gay conservatives.” Grenell confirmed his resignation in a statement to Rubin:
I have decided to resign from the Romney campaign as the Foreign Policy and National Security Spokesman. 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. I want to thank Governor Romney for his belief in me and my abilities and his clear message to me that being openly gay was a non-issue for him and his team.
Grenell is described in the articles by members of the press as a “liar”, and though I can’t speak to that directly, it certainly appears that he’s a member of the Humpty Dumpty squad, making words work overtime as he proves he is master over any mere dictionary definition.
No reasonable person could interpret the use of the term “hyper-partisan discussion of personal issues”, coming from a spokesman for a Republican candidate, as anything but an attack on Democrats. Even Humpty Dumpty would draw the line at calling a Republican attack on a Republican “partisan”. Yet where are the Democrats in this story? Nary a peep from our side, so far as I’m aware. From a partisan perspective, they would likely have preferred the guy stay where he was, both because he has a reputation among the press corps as a liar, and because his presence would have been a constant source of friction among the Republicans. It would appear that Republicans can’t help themselves; they simply must blame Democrats for all their self inflicted woes.
But I’m not here to defend the Democrats. They should be able to take care of themselves, though of course, they’re not. I write to defend our sorely traduced language. Our poor words are having their identities stolen left and right. Well, actually come to think of it, mostly from the right. In a country in which our legislators can take the time to legislate against holding hands, can’t they spare a moment or two to legislate a suitable punishment for assault and battery upon our poor defenseless words?
Post a Comment