Who said he was fired for being gay? Sounds like TYT are just making stuff up.

>> ^deedub81:

Who said he was fired for being gay? Sounds like TYT are just making stuff up.

I knew a guy in Reno who called himself deedub, he was a real dumbass.

Okay?

But, seriously - Who said he got fired for "being gay?" It's not like they didn't know he was gay when they hired him.>> ^Boise_Lib:

>> ^deedub81:
Who said he was fired for being gay? Sounds like TYT are just making stuff up.

I knew a guy in Reno who called himself deedub, he was a real dumbass.

Hey dumbass..

In April 2012, he became the first openly gay spokesman for a Republican presidential candidate, after being hired by Mitt Romney.[2] Less than one week later, on May 1, he resigned after pressure from anti-gay conservatives.[3][4]

It's called "lookin' shit up". Amazing, ain't it.

>> ^deedub81:

Who said he was fired for being gay? Sounds like TYT are just making stuff up.

Lets rewind:

Last presidential election, early on Hillary Clinton was considered the likely Democrat candidate. Republicans assumed (rather offensively) that anyone female would be practically guaranteed to vote for her due to some sort of "vaginal solidarity". What did they do? They pushed McCain into naming Sarah Palin as his veep, in spite of the fact that nobody really knew anything about her. The only reason for doing that was that they assumed that they would be hemorrhaging women voters, and Palin would magically solve that. How'd that work out? Not well.

So what is Mitt doing here? Failing to learn from that mistake. Mitt thought that having a gay spokesperson might make it possible for him to steal some of that demographic. He failed to remember that an election is a high school popularity contest, and you have to lock down your base before you can go for the swing vote. He stands to lose way more votes from the religious right-wing bigots that would take offense to his working with an "unclean" homosexual than the votes that he could potentially gain from moderates and liberals who are impressed with this "open minded" appointment of a gay staffer.

I would somewhat disagree with Cenk that that makes Romney the bad guy here, though. And it sounds to me like the spokesperson himself wasn't offended by being "fired"; he just realized that unfortunately his presence was going to have a negative effect on Romney's campaign. If he really did want Romney to get elected, he probably would have resigned once that became apparent -- but on the other hand if he is "fired" it can be seen as an attempt to mollify the right-wing nuts that took offense in the first place. Anyway, I'd say that the whole mess reflects much more poorly on the Republican party and the religious right wing than it does on Romney himself. At least he (sorta) tried, and showed that he is probably less of a bigot than his base...

I agree with everything that you said, up to the last sentence.
>> ^MilkmanDan:

...showed that he is possibly less of a bigot than his base...



You can't discount the possibility that Romney is a raging homophobe--who will do, or say, anything to get elected.

Can anyone tell me how to get the second sentence of my comment to show up--after MmD's.

Who's the dumbass Now?

>> ^Boise_Lib:

I agree with everything that you said, up to the last sentence.
>> ^MilkmanDan:
...showed that he is possibly less of a bigot than his base...


You can't discount the possibility that Romney is a raging homophobe--who will do, or say, anything to get elected.


I'll go you one further. Romney is an amoral sociopath who will say or do anything to get elected, and who's come to the conclusion that he can't get elected without kowtowing to anti-gay bigots.

I don't really think Romney has enough human emotion inside to actively hate gays. He just doesn't give a shit whether they, or anyone else, gets treated like a human being or not. In a lot of ways, that bothers me more than if he were some simple-minded bigot.

@Boise_Lib

Well after a bit of testing, i don't think you can format your single quote to appear in any location within your post (above, between or under specific text). It forever stays at the bottom no matter where you place the text, or how you modify the string. It's obviously a default setting for quoting as it ignores all sift accepted HTML rules.

But the moment you add a 2nd quote, sift-posting allows for more flexibility and lets you put your quote's anywhere you want.
You could just add a blank quote to give the flexibility, for example...


I agree with everything that you said, up to the last sentence.>> ^MilkmanDan:
...showed that he is probably less of a bigot than his base...

You can't discount the possibility that Romney is a raging homophobe--who will do, or say, anything to get elected...



>> ^Sepacore:
*The quote whispers* pretend i'm not here
1 quote denies formatting flexibility you say.. you win this round sift..
2+ quotes enables greater formatting flexibility! Seems we're tied now sift..
Round 3...

@NetRunner

Agree with what you said. The feeling i get from him, it's not that he's overly against anyone per say (although he may be.. show me a perfect human and I'll show you something you've missed), but seems its more like he's incapable of connecting to realistic level's of compassion. Sociopath would be my guess.

If any one does have a video of him where it seem he genuinely is connecting with humans on an emotional level, and here's the kicker, that also isn't an obvious promotional opportunity, I'd like to see it.