Posted on 07/04/2007 7:49:30 AM PDT by chief911
Robert Traynham, former communications director for U.S. Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., had been wooed by several presidential campaigns, but seemed to be heading for something of a timeout from politics.
Now it seems he's changed course and has signed on with actor and former Sen. Fred Thompson's campaign as a senior adviser.
It's a "shrewd move," says Sharon Cobb...
who notes Traynham brings strong qualifications to the campaign plus hiring the openly gay man could help win support of moderate Republicans.
Since Santorum's defeat, Traynham has hung out his own PR shingle, working for a variety of private sector clients including Philadelphia-based Comcast and has been working on projects including a book deal of his own, teaching and serving as a commentator for National Public Radio.
When we e-mailed Traynham last night saying we thought he was staying out of politics for a while, he responded, "I thought so too!"
"Yes, I am (on) board and very pleased to be helping Senator Thompson test the waters for a possible presidential run," he wrote.
There goes my last hope of Santorum running for President. Perhaps a VP slot is in the works. I believe Santorum could help the GOP carry Pennsylvania in 2008.
Katie, bar the door.
Here come all the “why did he hire a GAYYYY man” negative posts.
This opens Fred to attacks, certainly. On the other hand, Santorum was reliably pro-life and pro-family, an orthodox Catholic.
This is the first time I’m dissappointed with Thompson. It makes NO sense to hire an openly homosexual in a prominent role. VP Cheney’s homosexual daughter has hurt him.
One of the reasons I so strongly oppose Rudy the Rumpranger is because he is to homophilic. Senator Thompson, please don’t make the same mistake. You don’t have to condemn homosexuals, but don’t embrace them - which gives them the “legitamacy” they desire - either.
Senator, please don’t sink your campaign so soon buy doing something stupid. Stay clear of pro-choicers, gun grabbers, and homophiles.
Traynham only became openly gay once he was outed by slimy gay activists, so it's not like he flaunts it.
As long as Traynham doesn't promote a homosexual agenda, I have no problem with this. There are many, many hetereosexuals who promote the gay agenda, and I have a much bigger problem with them than with a gay man who doesn't.
Traynham isn’t running, Thompson is.
If Traynham is the best in the business and he can help get a conservative into office, I say, go for it.
This guy will be serving roles as Thompson's communications and press director. He will have ZERO influence on policy. He has an extensive, impeccable record; not only did he work for Santorum, he also worked with the RNC and on Capitol Hill.
The fact that he's homosexual is completely irrelevant, although unfortunate.
You said: “I believe Santorum could help the GOP carry Pennsylvania in 2008.”
How, he couldn’t even keep his own senate seat?
I don't see how, since it is Elizabeth Cheney (the straight one) who is an advisor.
This time, he won’t be running against a Pennsylvanian. If you are from York or Allentown or Erie, who do you choose? Santorum? Or Hillary?
Is Liz Cheney also working for Thompson?
Isn’t Santorum now a resident of Virginia ?
BUMP what you said!
Pennsylvania has been on the precipice of scumbag “blue” for a long time. The city parasites have continued to infest the suburbs, and there has been a huge influx of New York City garbage into Bucks County, where they fled to escape the disaster they voted themselves up north.
Like Carville once said, “Pennsylvania is Philadelphia at one end, Pittsburgh at the other end, and Alabama in between.” It’s all about turnout, and it takes a lot of turnout by the normal people in flyover country to defeat the Democrat fraud and union mobilization efforts in Philly.
Yes - she signed on last month.
And into the Lehigh Valley region (Easton, Bethlehem and Allentown) once I-78 was completed.
There went the neighborhood.
I don’t have a problem with it unless his position is used as a platform to advance and promote the gay agenda.
I’m just fine with this.
“Big tents” are meant to include conservatives of all stripes (not Rinos).
I trust Fred to hire the right guy.
And while a few fringe loonies (who will still vote for Fred anyway if nominated) might “worry” about it, the likelihood is that this makes Fred less frightening to moderate voters, like gays who can now set the gay political fears aside, and vote their wallets (or handbags.)
As crazy at this may sound, he seems to push social conservatives over more moderate or liberal ones, and even though he is gay, seems to push hard against the gay agenda.
Bill Clinton made a referance to him, and another gay republican operative when he referred to them as "self hating" and a few other slurs.
I'm trying to remember the name of the other gay operative he was referring to, but that one lives in NYS, and made it a personal mission to stop Hillary, and had a history of working for Helms.
Robert Traynham being gay is no big deal.
OTOH, I’ll keep my fingers crossed on this one.
Robert Traynham was with Fred’s entourage when Fred visited New Hampshire last week. He did not act or dress “gay”. From what I saw, he’s a competent, hard-working fellow.
http://www.cheyney.edu/pages/index.asp?p=213
The Bush-Cheney campaign had hired him, too:
http://rothenbergpoliticalreport.blogspot.com/2007/05/gop-back-to-square-one.html
“Bush received 11 percent of the black vote in 2004, up 2 points from 2000, and it wasn’t by accident. The Bush-Cheney campaign hired Robert Traynham, a high-level black staffer on Capitol Hill, as a senior adviser.”
In fact, few have more influence on policy than those who author the message.
I have thought all along that Santorum would make a fantastic running mate or member of the cabinet.
His job will be to schedule Thompson for press conferences & working with the media and such. He's not going to write any of Thompson's speeches or have influence on his policies.
He's been working with the GOP since the early 90s. If it was OK then, why the big deal now?
It's not. It's behind the scenes stuff (no pun intended). Doing the phone calls, scheduling, & making the rounds with the MSM.
I never made any comment about the quality of his choice. I simply pointed out a fact.
However, now that you mention it, the pick is one more clue as a conservative observes Fred Thompson and puts the pieces together.
Not only did Santorum lose, he lost big. And if this guy was responsible for his campaign, it’s no recommendation. It was a dumb campaign with nasty, sarcastic ads on Santorum’s part that turned off the voters at the outset. Santorum never got any traction at all. He tried every issue he could come up with including, at the end, dire warnings that sounded like Churchill in the 30s. Nothing worked. Casey barely campaigned and fumbled in the debates but still won, I think by about 20 percentage points.
Why do you say that? Santorum is still pretty young, and he has several more Presidential election cycles of which he can take advantage.
I was concerned at first, but if JimRob is okay with it, that’s good enough for me.
I haven't seen any problems from Cheney's daughter. There are folks who don't like Cheney, and never will; doesn't matter at bit about his family.
If Santorum didn’t have a problem with this man being homosexual, I don’t see why voters who might support Fred Thompson would.
In a very short time, you will see if we will get a true conservative on economic and social issues, or whether we get George W. Bush again for four, maybe eight years.
I hadn’t heard of this guy before, but certainly Santorum was not someone who had any interest in gay rights. I have friends and colleagues in my field who happen to be homosexual. I don’t admire that aspect of their lives, but I’m not going to refuse to speak to them because of it.
In the past I have hired one or two people who were lesbian or homosexual, because they were best qualified for the jobs in question, and because they were not committed to gay activism.
If this guy is good at his job and is not a gay activist, then I don’t see that it’s really relevant.
If a gay or lesbian was the most qualified applicant for a position. I’d hire them over an underqualified straight person any day.
you have outed yourself as a real class act. congrats.
Who are you pulling for?
I don’t see that this is a big deal. I trust Fred.
What I Want to Know!
Is Where The Hell! Is Thompson! Its July 4th,I’m Still Waiting!
I support Fred. But let’s be careful with the “trust” thing. That’s all we’ve heard for the last seven years.
I don’t see it as evidence of anything. The guy worked for Santorum. How do we know he’s not the most qualified for the job and his homosexuality has nothing to do with his appointment?
Everyone else is either a mental case or a liberal or is not electable.
Thompson can be the next Reagan, just puzzled by his hiring a homosexual to be his press spokesman.
If the guy has an adviser role and is not the voice of the White House in a Thompson Administration that would be the best for all concerned.
Yeah, I think it’ll be just fine. Go Fred!
“He’s been working with the GOP since the early 90s. If it was OK then, why the big deal now?”
Because it looks bad. Even if this man is not an activist, it looks bad. For Senator Thompson to look correct to the base (moral conservatives) he needs to avoid anything that makes him look two faced. Rudy’s homophilic attitudes make him unacceptable (along with being a baby killer and gun grabber). Senator Thompson must avoid ANY appearance that he approves of the homosexual lifestyle. His appeal to and excitment generated in the base will go down the tube quickly if he isn’t a little more circumspect in whom serves on his staff. Just as in the military, once exposed as a homosexual, you are no longer suitable for service. The same is true of a presidential candidate’s staff - if the candidate wants to appear to be a full fledged conservative. Otherwise, his will just be another “also-ran.”
It just is a plain stupid move. There are plenty of other personnel out there that can serve - without homosexual tendencies.
There's a good argument to be made that the "gay agenda" is actually harmful to homosexuals.
Well, in Thompson's case, that would be Thompson, so no worries there. :)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.