According to Michael Kinsley, the controversy over Willard Romney’s former foreign policy spokesman, Richard Grenell, who is gay and got forced out by anti-gay conservatives, “is the first big flub of the general election campaign.” Undoubtedly, just one of many, many more to come, as you’ll see below.

Romney’s “well-oiled machine” got a little squeaky with that episode. So much for all that businessman acumen and efficiency he was supposed to bring to the presidential race. Think Progress:

If Romney campaign can’t stand up to a bigoted special interest on personnel issues — for what they clearly thought was the best man for the job — how could a Romney administration be expected to make the politically tough decisions needed to successfully govern the country?

Kinsley:

Why did Romney appoint him in the first place if he was going to hang the guy out to dry as soon as there was any criticism? (And there never was much.) If you’re going to be a bigot, at least be smart about it. [...]

[T]his episode does make you wonder about Romney’s guts. He portrays himself (and probably thinks of himself) as a hard-nosed businessman, ready to make the tough decisions that professional politicians won’t. … [H]as he stopped to ask himself how he will manage to fill a Romney administration if he excludes all gay men (and women?) from the candidate pool?

As Michael Kinsley so rightly points out, if you’re going to change your mind on issues, “you should (a) be prepared to admit it and (b) be prepared to explain it.

Then we have Mitt’s ridiculous comments criticizing President Obama for daring to express some pride in the demise of Osama bin Laden (He was ultimately responsible for it, after all. He gave the orders. SEAL Team Six didn’t get bored one day and decide to pounce on their own).

Other than the blatant hypocrisy of accusing the president of politicizing by the candidate who was politicizing, other than the fact that it is an election year so politicizing a victory (as opposed to a horrific attack that took American lives) kinda makes sense, Mitt has been outright lying, not to mention unfairly ridiculing a former president.

An L.A. Times editorial nails Willard for “laughably minimizing the significance of Obama’s success in authorizing the operation that ended the terrorist’s life” among other things:

More offensive, however, is the suggestion that Obama’s foreign policy has been characterized by a return to Democratic timidity in the use of American force abroad, as exemplified in the Republican mind by Carter. That’s not only unfair to Carter, it’s plainly false about Obama, who has increased U.S. forces in Afghanistan, sharply stepped up drone attacks in Afghanistan and Pakistan, authorized the killing of Al Qaeda leaders, supported the overthrow of Moammar Kadafi in Libya and approved covert actions in Somalia and Yemen. National security analyst Peter Bergen described Obama in the New York Times as “one of the most militarily aggressive presidents in decades.” Indeed, his aggressiveness has caused some Obama supporters to worry about an excessive reliance on force, even if it’s failed to impress Romney.

If supporters are worried about the president’s reliance on force, just imagine electing Mitt “Attack Iran” Romney commander in chief. Now, that would be one colossal “flub”.

Added: Here’s his “biggest fib”.