The Binder is a lie.

[Tricky]

So the issue is that Romney didn't have to go out to the women's groups, they came to him?

Wow, yes, I can see this is a crucial issue.

You don't think that there is a signicant difference between somone who proactively tries to reach out to women versus someone who knuckles under (a little bit) to women's pressure groups? Do you think women will see it in the same casual, dismissive light as you?

 

[PhreePhly]

I also like the final analysis form the OP's link:

Third, note that in Romney's story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn't know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, no. The lie is that the women's group went out prior to the election and compiled a list of people to present to whomever won the election. In last night's debate, Mitt said:



He made it sound like it was all his idea, and that the binder of women was created at his behest. That's just false. That's just a lie. That's just Mitt Romney.

Exactly. Romney wants credit for what MassGAP did.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You don't think that there is a signicant difference between somone who proactively tries to reach out to women versus someone who knuckles under (a little bit) to women's pressure groups? Do you think women will see it in the same casual, dismissive light as you?

Especially when Romney is someone who said, "if we're going to have women in the workforce" during last night's presidential debate. Whatever he was trying to say aside, he pretended that a question about equal pay for women was about a question that has been settled for at least 90 years now.

 

[Tricky]

Especially when Romney is someone who said, "if we're going to have women in the workforce" during last night's presidential debate. Whatever he was trying to say aside, he pretended that a question about equal pay for women was about a question that has been settled for at least 90 years now.

But really, he didn't answer the question at all. He instead told an anecdote about hiring a handful of women, although fewer than either his predecessor or his successor, and he lied about how it happened. The question was:

"In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?"

Obama told about how he signed the Lily Ledbetter act, which does address the inquality of pay for women. Nothing Romney said remotely addressed that, even if it had been true.

 

[Ladewig]

But really, he didn't answer the question at all. He instead told an anecdote about hiring a handful of women, although fewer than either his predecessor or his successor, and he lied about how it happened. The question was:

"In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?"

Heck, he didn't even assert that he paid the female cabinet members the same salary as the male cabinet members.


...........

Debates would be much cooler if they were run like courtrooms.

Romney tells a story. "Objection. Non-responsive. Move that the answer be stricken from the record. Once again, Mr. Romney. In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?"

Oh, and do the same kind of stuff to B. Obama, as well.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

But really, he didn't answer the question at all. He instead told an anecdote about hiring a handful of women, although fewer than either his predecessor or his successor, and he lied about how it happened. The question was:

"In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?"

Obama told about how he signed the Lily Ledbetter act, which does address the inquality of pay for women. Nothing Romney said remotely addressed that, even if it had been true.

Exactly. The question was about equal pay, not about the question of whether or not women will ever participate in the workforce (a question settled a long time ago).

But all of his language was offensive. A friend on FB just posted this:

So I was at my office building and I noticed there was not a single black anywhere to be found.

So I asked my board? "Where's all the dark meat?? Don't we have any blacks that are qualified to work here?"

So I got a notebook full of blacks and I started hiring them, because I am very racially open minded.

[SMILE]

Nope - can't see how that would be offensive at all.

To which I added: "I recognize that if you're going to have black people in the workforce, sometimes they're going to have to be more flexible."

 

[Brainster]

A slightly better site than the one listed in the OP.

But he didn't hire that many of them, and not for the more important jobs.


So Romney's condescending little anecdote, which wouldn't affect any significant number of women anyway, isn't even true. Much like the majority of what he says.

Can we agree that the "binders" were in fact binders?

In an interview with National Review Wednesday, Romney’s former lieutenant governor said the Republican searched for women appointees beyond the ones recommended by the MassGAP project. But she confirmed that the “binders” in question came from MassGAP.

Oh, and it turns out that in 2006 they were quite happy with Romney's appointments:

MassGAP applauded Romney in 2006 for increasing female appointments to state government. “I think he put more terrific women into high-level jobs because of our project,” chairwoman Liz Levin said.

 

[Tricky]

A slightly better site than the one listed in the OP.

But he didn't hire that many of them, and not for the more important jobs.


So Romney's condescending little anecdote, which wouldn't affect any significant number of women anyway, isn't even true. Much like the majority of what he says.

Can we agree that the "binders" were in fact binders?

LOL. Yes, I'll grant you that.

Oh, and it turns out that in 2006 they were quite happy with Romney's appointments:

MassGAP applauded Romney in 2006 for increasing female appointments to state government. “I think he put more terrific women into high-level jobs because of our project,” chairwoman Liz Levin said.

To me, that sound like MassGAP is pleased that they got Romney to put more women into his cabinet than he would have if left to his own devices. It doesn't sound at all like they think Romney would have done it on his own.

 

[Brainster]

"In what new ways to you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?"

LOL! If either Obama or Romney answered that question honestly, it would go something like this: "I don't know where you got that ridiculous statistic from but it's complete nonsense. Candy, do you accept 28% less than your male counterparts at CNN?"

 

[Brainster]

To me, that sound like MassGAP is pleased that they got Romney to put more women into his cabinet than he would have if left to his own devices. It doesn't sound at all like they think Romney would have done it on his own.

Regardless of how you parse it, the statement certainly does undermine this claim of yours:

But he didn't hire that many of them, and not for the more important jobs.

 

[Unabogie]

LOL! If either Obama or Romney answered that question honestly, it would go something like this: "I don't know where you got that ridiculous statistic from but it's complete nonsense. Candy, do you accept 28% less than your male counterparts at CNN?"

The fact that Candy Crowley doesn't make less than Wolf Blitzer (if that's even true) somehow negates the reality for the rest of the country? Or do you have statistics that show that women make just as much as men do?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

LOL! If either Obama or Romney answered that question honestly, it would go something like this: "I don't know where you got that ridiculous statistic from but it's complete nonsense. Candy, do you accept 28% less than your male counterparts at CNN?"

No, I think we'd all understand that talking about pay inequity saying women make 72% of what men do means we're comparing averages, not any particular individuals. And of course, changing the question of equal pay to a question of employment or not (what anyone might accept) is dodging the issue.

 

[A'isha]

LOL! If either Obama or Romney answered that question honestly, it would go something like this: "I don't know where you got that ridiculous statistic from but it's complete nonsense. Candy, do you accept 28% less than your male counterparts at CNN?"

Yes, Brainster, as long as you can find at least one woman who doesn't make less than her male counterparts do, the whole problem can be completely ignored.

 

[BenBurch]

A woman's place is in her binder, obviously.

 

[Brainster]

Yes, Brainster, as long as you can find at least one woman who doesn't make less than her male counterparts do, the whole problem can be completely ignored.

So ANTPogo, do you really believe that women on average, with comparable jobs and comparable skills and experience, make 72% of what their male counterparts make?

I mean, this is a skeptics' forum, right?

 

[Ziggurat]

 

[DavidJames]

And Republicans really don't understand why they can't get a majority of the women's vote. Really, they just can't seem to figure it out.

 

[marplots]

If the qualified applicants you have are men, why would you go out looking for women?

Is there something about having a penis that makes someone less qualified?

 

[BenBurch]

So ANTPogo, do you really believe that women on average, with comparable jobs and comparable skills and experience, make 72% of what their male counterparts make?

I mean, this is a skeptics' forum, right?

I really do believe it is pretty bad, but not that bad;

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1983185,00.html

As long as it isn't 100% we have a huge problem.