Only in so far as it removes "TAM", leaving the equation "no DJ + no California office = more money and focus for" whatever. Despite your assertion, it's a significant amount of money as far as the JREF is concerned; if Denver is correct about Randi's salary representing around 15% of any given year's revenue, and Randi's salary this year is $200k, that means cutting DJ loose frees up the equivalent of an extra 7% of the year's income. On top of this, we don't know how much of the remainder of JREF's revenue is also being redirected as part of this new strategy.
What is "traditional" (for what? A company?) isn't very relevant to JREF, which is a non-profit special interest with a non-traditional focus. It has historically not provided great breathless PR blurbs about plans and goals for the upcoming year.
The problem with assuming that DJ is being used as some sort of sacrifice, fall guy, or scapegoat, is that being a fall guy by its nature requires being blamed for something - if not unequivocally, then highly suggestively. While an argument can be made that the phraseology of "is no longer with the company" not followed by "and we wish him luck in future endeavors" certainly is suggestive of a less-than-amicable separation, it was ALSO not followed by "and the JREF wants to make clear that it doesn't condone Behavior/Statement X". Nor has JREF published figures or statements that implied there was some sort of serious problem for which DJ's subsequent firing could then be obviously seen as a corrective action. Obviously if TAM is going to continue, then DJ is not likely being canned for somehow making TAM a failure, because TAM would be getting canned along with him. Of course people can weave all kinds of webs about what DJ might have done that is the reason he was released; but the fact that the field is so completely wide-open for such speculation in my opinion makes it dubiously likely that his firing is supposed to appease an audience or send some other kind of clear message.
