Energized by debate, Obama knocks Romney on women's issues

During the second presidential debate on Tuesday night, Romney noted he had been given “whole binders full of women” when looking for candidates for his cabinet.

Funny thing is, this whole thing is a lie. Romney never met with women's group nor did he ask them for help to find women suitable for his cabinet. It turns out that it was MassGAP, a bipartisan coalition of women’s groups who had pressure Romney every year to hire women into his cabinet....

Romney body slams Obama two debates in a row. Obama has to run on his crappy record and people aren't buying his lies this time around. Mitt happens.

During the second presidential debate on Tuesday night, Romney noted he had been given “whole binders full of women” when looking for candidates for his cabinet. The awkward phrase quickly took off in social media and critics suggested the remark showed Romney had few women in his inner circle.

Romney was asked for his opinion on equal pay for women, and this is what he came up with: a total evasion of a very simple question. Why, Willard?

I think he'd like to take this one to a "quiet room" so that he can shake his Etch-a-Sketch.

Energized by debate, Obama knocks Romney on women's issues

He'd better first "knock on" his own.

Having his Secretary of State; Hillary Clinton, take one for the team in the Benghazi issue, shows exactly how Obama feels about professional women.

"I am the President, she works for me!" -Barack Obama

"We are not buying it. We know better."

Damn skippy.

@nondakure 'Romney body slams Obama'. Your image is a good one. The rednecks and slack-jaws watching pro-wrestling would probably agree with you. I doubt many professional women would.

Hmm....

notices that the economy still sucks notices that we're still involved in costly, bloody wars in the Middle East *notices we're now over 15 trillion dollars in debt

Boy, I wonder why the Democrats seem to be focusing so much on these social issues lately. Surely there couldn't be a correlation, could there?

Nandakure "Mitt happens."

Could not agree more. Mitt happens like mold happens on stale food. Or like frost happens on a cold day. Nothing self aware, focused or motivated. More like just existing, offering no intelligent input.

Obama wiped the floor with Romeny on the 16th. He had more facts on point in the first debate despite the weak perception. Biden mopped up the floor with Ryan in the VP debate.

So where does that leave us? The election is clear. You can choose "Mitt happens" or you can choose a president that is motivated, envigorated, inspired and telling the truth. Obama doesn't just happen, he gets out there and deals with reality and makes things happen.

I think he'd like to take this one to a "quiet room" so that he can shake his Etch-a-Sketch.

@ yabits: Maybe you should do a bit of research. From a related article:

When one of President Obama's debate coaches, Anita Dunn, worked at the White House, this is what she reportedly had to say about her experience there:

“This place would be in court for a hostile workplace. ... Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

"Coverage in the Washington Post and a new book by Ron Suskind has focused attention on the frustration of Obama’s female advisers. But the problem has been obvious almost since Obama took office. And while the explanations so far have blamed members of the mostly-departed boys club–Robert Gibbs, Rahm Emanuel–Obama himself is responsible for a work atmosphere that marginalizes and ignores women," wrote Time.

And Obama's own staff is mostly made up of males, who, as the Washington Free Beacon reported, get paid more than their female counterparts.

So much for the "equal pay issue."

“I’ve got to tell you, we don’t have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women ready to learn and teach in these fields right now,” he said. “And when young women graduate, they should get equal pay for equal work.”

Maybe President Obama actually should start here first.

Women paid significantly less in Obama White House than their male counterparts

All of President Barack Obama's employees may not be treated equally in the White House, as recently released financial records show that female employees earn significantly less than their male counterparts. Using the 2011 annual report of White House staff salaries that was submitted to Congress, an $11,000 difference is clear between the median female employee salary and the median male employee salary.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html

There was a woman moderator , a liberal media, who crossed the line to bail out Obama on his failure in Benghazi, Libya's crisis. Women voters that team's Obama heavily counted upon are starting to see the no-vision of blamer in chief. Many women wonders about the promise of cutting deficit in half, instead, they get the highest increase of deficit in any presidency. Obama talks about helping women and middle class, and the reality is that their incomes went down, higher gas and food prices, higher unemployment; thus asking four more years of same nonsense drama. If all these are the way to help women and middle class, soon "hope and change" will pay all the bills instead of cashes. Cheers.

The problem with town hall debate was the lack of true partuiality. ..................... If Obama gained any advantage, it was clear to the critical eye that he got a significant boost from the female moderator comments and interjections, Candy Crowley....................Perhaps this best reflects how Obama views women : to serve him.................................

All of President Barack Obama's employees may not be treated equally in the White House, as recently released financial records show that female employees earn significantly less than their male counterparts.

May not be treated equally? Certainly, any person of average intelligence could see through the speciousness of that sloppy claim.

As anyone can understand, "White House employee" is not a job title. I suspect that government employees in the White House fall under job grade categories as other civil servants (with GS- ratings). It may happen that male GS-8's outnumber female GS-6s. Would that constitute unequal treatment? It may be that women greatly outnumber men in the category of entry-level interns.

Does the article (or anyone) claim that females of a given pay grade earn less than males in the same pay grade? In a word: NO.

Republican Mitt Romney’s comment that he received “binders full of women” for cabinet jobs when he was governor of Massachusetts.

Heh, 2 women who worked with Mitt's “binders full of women" have just come out and said - not surprisingly in the slightest - he's lying about this too.

He can't even tell a bad joke without lying.

What is his problem?

From a related article: When one of President Obama's debate coaches,,,

The topic is Romney's complete inability to directly answer a simple question about equal pay for women.

If you are claiming that conditions in the Obama White House justifies Romney totally evading the question of equal pay, that's a very illogical and foolish attempt at deflection.

However, I completely understand why conservatives can't build up their candidate and are forced to attack anyone and everyone else.

I found the debate very depressing. The President of the supposedly grestesr country on Earth acting like common huckster or playground bully (actually that may be a good qualification for the job). The two of them are too alike and whoever wins will not arrest the decline of a great nation.

However, I completely understand why conservatives can't build up their candidate and are forced to attack anyone and everyone else.

I am very proud that President Obama's first bill signed when he took office was the Lilly Ledbetter "equal pay" legislation.

(See how that works?)

Heh, looking forward to yet another day of watching Mitt's hyper desperate "supporters" trying to spin yet another of Mitt's verbal screw-ups.

Face it chin-stroking conservative types - Mitt is an idiot.

Don't let the suit fool you.

However, I completely understand why conservatives can't build up their candidate and are forced to attack anyone and everyone else.

"Attack"? Is that liberal-speak for hold to the same standard?

Heh, 2 women who worked with Mitt's “binders full of women" have just come out and said - not surprisingly in the slightest - he's lying about this too.

How is Mitt lying about this?

At least one prominent Republican candidate claimed that Romney would lie about anything to get himself elected. And I suspect that the Republicans know their own best. But still, it would be good to see some additional material to support the Republican candidate's claim.

We know how Obama feels about women -- he let Hillary fall on her sword for his screw up in Libya. The last debate will certainly be interesting -- Libya debacle, snubbing the Israeli PM, bowing (more like genuflecting) to Muslims, kowtowing to the Russians over nuclear arms and the list goes on and on...

“I’ve got to tell you, we don’t have to collect a bunch of binders to find qualified, talented, driven young women ready to learn and teach in these fields right now,” he said.

Of course Obama also collects binders full of women, and blacks, and hispanics, and homosexuals, etc. It's called Affirmative Action - and Obama is all for collecting information on peoples demographic differences and other differences in order to discriminate against one group in favor of others. Romney's pandering to women by going along the affirmative action line to fill seats in his cabinet was his worst moment in the debate by far. Otherwise I thought he did great! - despite the fact that it was obviously two against one.

Gallup has came out with some interesting numbers on the status of the election the day after the debate: http://www.gallup.com/poll/157817/election-2012-likely-voters-trial-heat-obama-romney.aspx

And the fact that the main thing people take from this is Mitt's slightly mangled syntax and vocabulary is also too sad. Surely not the basis to judge fitness to govern.

But was Ann Romney in Mitt's “binders full of women"?

Or were Mitt's “binders full of women" used so he could have a quick perve while working passionately to bring the state of Mass. to its knees?

I doubt Hillary Clinton was in a “binder full of women" when president Obama offered his former arch enemy a top job in his administration.

With Mitt, it probably would have been binders, binders and more binders.

Romney's pandering to women by going along the affirmative action line to fill seats in his cabinet was his worst moment in the debate by far. Otherwise I thought he did great!

That's a bit like saying, "Aside from that, Mrs. Lincoln, did you enjoy the play?"

The funniest part is that Romney was asked how he felt about women achieving equal pay for equal work, and he chose to avoid the question AND pander.

Certainly, any person of average intelligence could see through the speciousness of that sloppy claim.

An "average person" that didn't see through the speciousness of it all.

The gender differential has been noticed outside of the White walls, and Dee Dee Myers- the first female press secretary who worked under the Clinton administration- feels it is not doing Mr Obama's team any favors.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2128513/Women-paid-significantly-Obama-White-House-male-counterparts.html

Yahits -

"In response to a question about equal pay for women during the presidential debate Tuesday night, Republican nominee Mitt Romney boasted that as governor of Massachusetts, he was so frustrated by the lack of qualified female candidates for positions in his cabinet that he sent women’s groups out to actively recruit them. “I went to a number of women's groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks?' and they brought us whole binders full of women,” he said. Romney’s account of that story is false, according to two women who led an effort in 2002 to recruit female candidates to high-level appointed positions in Massachusetts. MassGAP,...."

More: duddubdub.huffingtonpost.com/mobileweb/2012/10/17/romney-binders-full-of-women_n_1974092.html?icid=hp_front_top_art

Who gets the binder full of women when Romney loses?

Me, me, pick me.

More proof that Romney is in a bubble of the rich out of touch guy. He would screw up the US economy just like his buddy bush did.

Sushi: "working passionately tp bring the state of Mass. to its knees"

Massachusetts is on its knees, is it? Ha ha, lol.

"He ( Romney would screw up the US economy"

Compare his record in Massachusetts and Obama's record, and then come back here and admit how wrong you are.

The gender differential has been noticed outside of the White walls, and Dee Dee Myers- the first female press secretary who worked under the Clinton administration -- feels it is not doing Mr Obama's team any favors.

When did Dee Dee Myers express this feeling?

The mendacious Republican noise machine makes it sound like this is a current observation of hers. If, however, she made the observation three years ago -- in President Obama's first year of office -- the honest thing to do would be to get her perspective on how things have changed or improved. The dishonest thing to do would be to take an opinion expressed years ago and make it imply that it reflects current conditions in the White House.

But that's just how Repubilcans seem to operate: Half-truths, innuendoes and outright lies in the service of liars.

Romney does not even have the support of his own party! Please, he has no shot of winning. You can hold on to your scraps of hope though, if you like.

These questions of equality in the workplace are such a non-issue at the presidential level and yet another distraction from the major financial issues that the country should be dealing with I don't even know why the left is harping on it. That they obviously don't care how dumb it looks is a statement in itself - looking dumb is a better position than being responsible for the ever expanding list of broken promises, failures, debt and corruption.

All that is even a blip on my radar is that now that the Lilly Leddbetter law has been passed, Romney has no plans to get rid of it.

Romney’s account of that story is false, according to two women who led an effort in 2002 to recruit female candidates to high-level appointed positions in Massachusetts. MassGAP,...."

Thank you, SushiSake.

It appears that the Republican candidate's assessment of Romney as a man who'd say anything to get elected is proving accurate.

Romney’s account of that story is false, according to two women who led an effort in 2002 to recruit female candidates to high-level appointed positions in Massachusetts. MassGAP,...."

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.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/17/massgap-responds-to-mitt-romney-on-women-appointees/

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.

Yes Romney has created 1,000 jobs for women in the last year... as cooks in his 100 houses.

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.

Yet, from the very same Washington Post article: "The nonpartisan Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus says in a statement that it instigated the process of bringing more women into state government before Romney took office — and that Romney fell off in appointing women to senior positions later in his term.

Romney made it appear that HE was the one who instigated the process. Read the transcripts of the debate. He looked around and saw all these men and asked, "Hey, why can't we get more women?"

The truth reveals that it wasn't that way AT ALL.

When will either one debate a real issue?

More women in America are unemployed today then on the day Obama took office. This is just another shiny object being dangled in front of voters as "The One" desparately tries to deflect his miserable economic record of the past 3 1/2 years.

RR

yabitsOct. 18, 2012 - 10:03AM JST : I am very proud that President Obama's first bill signed when he took office was the Lilly Ledbetter "equal pay" legislation.

Explain why the women who works for Obama get paid less than their male counterpart?

Explain why the women who works for Obama get paid less than their male counterpart?

No one has presented any evidence that this is case.

We have established that Mitt Romney was lying when he claimed that he initiated the hiring of women in Massachusetts when he was governor. I don't see how specious and unfounded claims of unequal pay in the Obama White House absolves Willard of his lying.

yabitsOct. 18, 2012 - 12:01PM JST Explain why the women who works for Obama get paid less than their male counterpart? No one has presented any evidence that this is case.

According to the Washington Time. Obama's record on paying women White House aides not stellar @ http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/inside-politics/2012/oct/17/obamas-record-mixed-hiring-women/

When all White House employees are considered, the Obama administration's record dims a bit further. Female employees earn a median salary of $60,000, roughly 18 percent less than men, whose median salary is $71,000.

According to the Washington Time. Obama's record on paying women White House aides not stellar

The Washington Times has not presented any evidence about the breakdown of the categories and pay grades of the positions. They have presented no evidence that a male in a given pay grade is paid more than a female in the same pay grade. They simply seem to make the assumption that everyone who works in the White House is in the same pay grade -- something that anyone with average intelligence would suspect is simply not the case.

What is a fact is that Mitt Romney lied when he claimed that he initiated the hiring of women in Massachusetts when he was governor. I don't see how specious and unfounded claims of unequal pay in the Obama White House absolves Willard of his lying.

If the women working in the Obama White House don't make comparable wage it is not an issue for a progressive party member because those ladies must understand that sacrifices are a necessary.

No real "progressive" would make such a case.

What is likely the issue is that a much higher percentage of entry-level White House interns are female, and that would skew the median income of all females when taken as a group.

The fact is that the greatest "women's issue" is unemployment. The others frankly are unimportant and will not have much influence on the election. Abortion, public payment for contraception, etc., are not game changers.

The candidate who can help get businesses moving and hiring is the one who should win.

While not an American and not living there, it is undeniable that American has a serious influence on the world.

My main concern is how can anyone really be interested in electing someone who wants to try and rewind social progress several hundred years.

@sail

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.

Did you even read the whole article? You should read the whole article instead of just cherry picking picking quotes.

Same artice:

Following the election, MassGAP formed committees for each cabinet post in the administration and began the process of recruiting, interviewing, and vetting women applicants. Those committees selected top applicants for each position and presented this information to the administration for follow-up interviews and consideration for appointment.

Romney cabinet did NOT proactively go out and look for women as Romney implied and mislead people into thinking. They were approached and pressured by MassGAP to hire women.

Prior to the 2002 election, women comprised approximately 30 percent of appointed senior-level positions in Massachusetts government. By 2004, 42 percent of the new appointments made by the Romney administration were women. Subsequently, however, from 2004-2006 the percentage of newly-appointed women in these senior appointed positions dropped to 25 percent.

So apparently, he hired some women to get MassGAP off their back. And as soon as they were out of MassGAP's radar, they fired or got rid of them. Romney -keeping it classy, Bain Capital style.

What is likely the issue is that a much higher percentage of entry-level White House interns are female, and that would skew the median income of all females when taken as a group.

Which obviously means that Obama has set up a pretty darn severe glass ceiling for the women that work for him to try and breakthrough, as the top end of his highly paid staff is all Male dominated.

@NZ2011. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "rewinding" social progress? I haven't heard anything like that by either candidate.

Did you even read the whole article?

Yes.

Romney cabinet did NOT proactively go out and look for women as Romney implied and mislead people into thinking.

According to article he did and MassGap was part of the entire mix.

“During the transition, he reached out to his business contacts, he reached out to the folks who had worked on the campaign through the transition to ask for their recommendations, and he also reached out to the Massachusetts Women’s Political Caucus that had been out there reaching out to women’s organizations on a bipartisan basis,” Healey said. “So he had a number of sources that he drew on, and the now-famous binders that came up in the debate last night were ones that were provided through the Massachusetts Women’s political caucus as part of the MassGap project.”

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/election-2012/wp/2012/10/17/massgap-responds-to-mitt-romney-on-women-appointees/

@sail

According to article he did and MassGap was part of the entire mix

MassGAP is not a part of the "whole mix". MassGAP is an independent non-partisan organization. They were NOT a part of the Romney staff or cabinet.

Secondly, you are not quoting the article or even someone from MassGAP. You are quoting Kerry Healey. Kerry Kealey was Romney's Lieutenant Governor (a republican Lieutenant Governor) hence a part of the Romney cabinet, which makes her statement on how things were allegedly done a bit questionable.

The quotes that I provided from the same article are quotes from MassGAP's EXACT statement.

@Sail

Also, just to add to my statement above, its not like Romney's cabinet and MassGap worked hand in hand to get women on his staff, nor did Romney's cabinet approach MassGap to help -as he implied. MassGAP has had the said "binder full of women" prepared well before Romney was elected governor, and MassGAP was preparing to give the binder to WHOEVER was elected governor.

SO, Romney did diddley squat to get women on board. It was all MassGap's pressure, and constant pressure throughout Romney's term as governor, that got women those jobs. Romney taking credit for something he didn't do....AGAIN!

@VRWC

@NZ2011. Can you elaborate on what you mean by "rewinding" social progress? I haven't heard anything like that by either candidate.

Because you haven't been paying attention

Romney's archaic 18th century stances :

-Overthrow R v. W -although now he says its okay in the case of rape, incest and mother's health.

-defund "Planned Parenthood"

-against insurance companies providing contraception for women

-believes that medical providers have the right to refuse medical care if it goes against their PERSONAL beliefs

-doesn't believe that men and women of equal skills should get equal pay

-wants to repeal Obamacare -but at times he says he might keep parts of it.

shall I go on? There's a lot more that's even more archaic

@Mirai

Sorry, to debunk you Again....as usual, but you are totally wrong. Just got done watching CNN and they just proved that Romney did hire a lot of women, whether his first or second term is NOT the issue, the issue is, did he hire women, YES, did he do a lot for women, YES. Also, I highly doubt that Romney would ever have a woman take the fall of some president event in order to save his position like some other people would have and has done.

You are quoting Kerry Healey. Kerry Kealey was Romney's Lieutenant Governor (a republican Lieutenant Governor) hence a part of the Romney cabinet,

Just for your information, Kerry Healey wasn't elected as LT. Governor, the second most powerful position in the State. She was appointed by Governor Romney for the position.

Sorry, to debunk you Again....as usual, but you are totally wrong. Just got done watching CNN and they just proved that Romney did hire a lot of women, whether his first or second term is NOT the issue, the issue is, did he hire women, YES, did he do a lot for women, YES. Also, I highly doubt that Romney would ever have a woman take the fall of some president event in order to save his position like some other people would have and has done.

Did I say he DIDN'T hire women? I don't think I did. Don't put words in my mouth bass. I said that he DID NOT proactively go out and SEEK help to find women for his cabinet as he implied. The "binder full of women" wasn't his, nor was it provided by his staff. He didn't even ask for it (AS HE IMPLIED). It was given (forced) upon him by MassGAP. If it wasn't for MassGAP, he wouldn't have had the number of women he had working (which he admitted).

@sail

Just for your information, Kerry Healey wasn't elected as LT. Governor, the second most powerful position in the State. She was appointed by Governor Romney for the position.

And?.... This only further proves my point that her word is on what was done to select the staff is questionable. A hand-picked representative is like to agree with you than disagree with you even if you say is a complete lie.

Did I say he DIDN'T hire women? I don't think I did. Don't put words in my mouth bass. I said that he DID NOT proactively go out and SEEK help to find women for his cabinet as he implied.

Same thing, different connotation.

Readers, please do stop bickering. Focus your comments on the story and not at each other.

This only further proves my point that her word is on what was done to select the staff is questionable.

Why would this be questionable? It's obvious he appointed her and its obvious he tasked her with bringing other women on-board as senior staff when he was Governor. He directed this effort not anyone else and she did from what I can an admiral job of finding qualified women to fullfill the Senior Staff positions.

Or as I posted earlier:

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.

MassGap may have provided the resumes (binders), but it was Romney that made sure they didn't get stuck on the shelf someplace and that they were never looked at. He used those binders instead and tasked his second in command to be in charge of the vetting process and then he hired the women candidates that he thought were the best fit for the job.

This apparently is suppose to be some sort of a bad thing, I quess that he needs to chastised for.

But he has binders full of women . . .

Romney has not let his wife work even one day. Good Mormon wife needs to be stay at home type it seems.

Serrano . . .

Compare his record in Massachusetts and Obama's record, and then come back here and admit how wrong you are.

MA was dead last in job creation in the country under the Romboid. You mean that record? He took the state from 37th to 50th, dead last. Jobs in China went up no doubt as the Bain company encouraged that.

Didn't we already have one of these frat boy idiots in the White House? I am talking about Bush. True, Romney is much smarter in many ways that Bush.

Still, you have to love Romney. I want him in the White house but only for the ensuing jokes.

Binder full of women. AND The governor made adjustments to work hours because women need to go home and make dinner... Funny stuff.

He's more comfortable talking about his own money than real people. Even then he is an idiot. "I donate large sums of my money to charity." And, he thinks that is the same as paying taxes. It only makes sense if you are Mitt.

Ryan doesn't make these kinds of stupid mistakes. I like him, but he just seems too conservative with his support for abortion only in cases of "legitimate rape" and danger to the mother. What happened with Roe v. Wade? Apparently, it is not the law of the land in the eyes of these 1950's style conservatives.

Get with the 21st century already.

As far as Obama throwing Clinton under a bus, I am willing to bet that Clinton said that herself, and Obama stepped up to claim responsibility. She has enough character and leadership to do that on her own without someone telling her to do so.

Now everyone is saying Obama made her do it without a shred of evidence to the effect. It points to Romney's campaign and supporters being desperate to the point of continually trumping up facts where non exist.

Here's to another (and better) Clinton in the White House after Obama!!!

And, he thinks that is the same as paying taxes. It only makes sense if you are Mitt.

@ viking68: Actually, it is the Dems who have a history of "I gave my taxes so I don't need to give to charity" rhetoric than Mitt. Pull up the tax records of Joe Biden, Clintons and others, and you will see that they give far less than Romney. I understand that they don't give millions since they may not have it, but as you people who are fond of saying that the rich are only paying a small percentage in taxes, Biden's amount of charitable donations equates to about 1.4% of his gross income ($5,540 donated out of an income of $379,000), while Romney gave $4 million which was about 19% of his income.

So I guess Joe Biden gives new meaning to the 99 percent versus the one percent. Joe Biden keeps the 99 percent, he gives away the one percent.

@Bass

Same thing, different connotation.

Its not the same thing. If Romney had proactively sought to hire women before MassGap got to them, MassGap wouldn't have bothered, and Romney could have touted a pro-women stance all day long without opposition from anyone. Its the fact that MassGap had to twist his arm to get him to hire women because he obviously thought that they weren't of any value that makes him look bad (in addition to the countless anti-women positions he holds).

But for him to say that it was his idea to bring women onto his staff is an absolute lie and MassGap has called him out for that.

@sail

Quote from Wikipedia:

She served from 2003 to 2007 with Governor Mitt Romney. She serves as Foreign Policy Coordinator and Special Advisor on the Romney for President Campaign.

Do you get why her statements might be questionable now?? She's also Romney's campaign adviser. She's not going to say anything that contradicts what Romney says (that is of course unless it conflict with the positions his donors hold)

MassGap may have provided the resumes (binders), but it was Romney that made sure they didn't get stuck on the shelf someplace and that they were never looked at. He used those binders instead and tasked his second in command to be in charge of the vetting process and then he hired the women candidates that he thought were the best fit for the job.

You need to read to read that article again carefully, as well as other articles on this subject matter, because most of them imply that Romney wasn't into this AT ALL. It took massive pressure on the part of MassGAP to get any action from Romney. Addtionally, towards the end of his term, less than 25% of his staff were women. MassGap only complimented him for his women count for 2004 when he had 42% women on his staff (and that's only because Massgap was constantly involved)

whether his first or second term is NOT the issue

Do you not know your candidate at all? Romney only served one term. He did not seek a second term because he wanted to run for president after a terrible term.

Mirai-san,

Its the fact that MassGap had to twist his arm to get him to hire women because he obviously thought that they weren't of any value that makes him look bad

There is absolutely nothing to back that up. Nobody had ever heard of MassGap or what they were all about except maybe in Massachussetts itself. I also doubt that even there most Massachussetts citizens had never heard of them either, except for those that were really interested in womans issues and in politics in general. To attribute that this is some sort of all powerful interest group that forced that good old boy male Romney to hire women is just not realistic. They are nothing more than a special interest group among many with a specific agenda and Romney just happened to support their interests and he did a good job at it by the way.

Speaking of jobs, interesting that we are discussing Romney vetting and hiring people as opposed to Obama's record on actually getting people back to work.

I am very proud that President Obama's first bill signed when he took office was the Lilly Ledbetter "equal pay" legislation.

@ yabits: If this was the first thing that he did and you are proud of it, then why was it even a question to be asked at the debate? If it is law for equal pay, then why is it still an issue that needed to be asked.

As far as Obama throwing Clinton under a bus, I am willing to bet that Clinton said that herself, and Obama stepped up to claim responsibility. She has enough character and leadership to do that on her own without someone telling her to do so.

She works for the President.

He didn't throw her under the bus, he hid behind her.

He showed zero leadership. Not presidential, and certainly not respectful of his Secretary of State, who happens to be a woman.

Can you honestly say, you could imagine this same scenario ever occurring between George W, Bush, and Condoleezza Rice?

And the important topic du jour is book binders.

The dishonest thing to do would be to take an opinion expressed years ago and make it imply that it reflects current conditions in the White House.

Except when it actually does reflect the current conditions in the Whitehouse from 2008.

Obama only talks good game on gender pay equity

Obama's commitment to federally mandated pay equity stretches from the Rockies to Wall Street and beyond. And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/opinion/article/Obama-only-talks-good-game-on-gender-pay-equity-1284942.php

@sail

There is absolutely nothing to back that up. Nobody had ever heard of MassGap or what they were all about except maybe in Massachussetts itself

wrong again Bob!

Quote from David S. Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix:

Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything. None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.

Doesn't sound like someone who's looking out for women's interests. Sounds more like someone who's doing something just to satisfy a campaign pledge to MassGap

To attribute that this is some sort of all powerful interest group that forced that good old boy male Romney to hire women is just not realistic. They are nothing more than a special interest group among many with a specific agenda and Romney just happened to support their interests and he did a good job at it by the way.

MassGAP is not a special interest group. They are an association of MANY women's groups. Their sole purpose is to have women appointed to senior position in the Massachusetts governors office. They are non partisan and non-profit so they stand to gain nothing out of this.

And yes, they can make life hell for politicians by calling them out for not being an equal opportunity employer, especially when they campaigned and pledged on equality like Mitt Romney did in 2002 and now.

Speaking of jobs, interesting that we are discussing Romney vetting and hiring people as opposed to Obama's record on actually getting people back to work

7.8% and falling...nuff said.

@Alphaape

why was it even a question to be asked at the debate? If it is law for equal pay, then why is it still an issue that needed to be asked.

Did you even watch the debate? I don't understand why you're asking this...

Miria-san,

Quote from David S. Bernstein of the Boston Phoenix:

Your source has some real serious "Romney" issues. I went to his blog site and he can't be taken seriously on this at all. You don't put a "meme" generator photo of Romney wearing a silly hat to start your stories.

http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkingpolitics/archive/2012/10/16/mind-the-binder.aspx

None of the issues raised in this pointless debate are going to matter after Romney loses next month.

@Sail

And yet it seems to have eluded his Senate office. Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

Wrong again Bob!

The group, Legistorm that the author, Deroy Murdock cited in his article, has totally disavowed his false claims. Although, Legistorm did post salaries of government staff, it does not say what these staff members do or what their occupations are. So for all we know, Murdock could have been comparing the salaries of department heads to janitors.

You should really do better job researching, especially if you're going to cherry pick statistics off the web.

Source: http://www.legistorm.com/blog/obama-s-alleged-pay-gap.html

Alphaape

There is a difference between paying taxes and contributing to charity. How can you equate one with the other?

One is required by law (unless you are one of those in the tea party who think taxation is unconstitutional), and the other charity is a matter of choice. Well, obligation in the case of Romney's religion, Mormonism.

Are you imposing a religious obligation on us by comparing everyone's charitable contributions? Mitt is a better man because he gives a larger percentage of his income to charity? Biden is a bad man because he only gave 1%. He has a distorted point of view and it shows in his inability to relate to people and constant inane statements.

Giving or not giving to charity is not the point. The point is claiming you have paid taxes when you haven't and having such a distorted view of reality to think it is the same.

By the way, Romney touted how he takes all deductions allowed by law and doesn't pay anymore or any less tax that is required by law.

However, Romney decided a 12% tax rate looked bad, so he didn't claim a number of charitable deductions because of the perception that he is a rich guy getting richer off of Bush's tax policies, and the so called loop hole for carried interest.

His investment funds used some very dubious methods to supposedly convert management income (taxed at ordinary rates) to capital gains (taxed at very low rates). There was a story in the NY Time the first week of October discussing these practices.

I went to his blog site and he can't be taken seriously on this at all. You don't put a "meme" generator photo of Romney wearing a silly hat to start your stories.

Sure but its okay for well known right wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh to do it. As long as its conservative, its okay!

Heh, conservatives pretending to champion women's rights.

I guess it's more touching than the shameless attempts at politicizing dead Americans in Libya.

Oh, and Pamelot, thanks for the "Nobody puts Hillary in a Binder". I'm sure Mrs Clinton is touched.

Pamelot, The important topic of the day is Romney making another statement showing he is out of touch. I know it happens every day, so we should just move on and ignore the binders full of women thing.

Actually, I want to see SNL now. It will be funny....

Also, look for women dressing up as a binder for Halloween.

"Sure but its okay for well known right wing bloggers like Michelle Malkin and Rush Limbaugh to do it."

Nah, even Sail has called out the Rush for the screaming fool he is. The way it should be.

I'm trying to figure out what's more offensive - 

Mitt Romney when he's belittling women,

Mitt Romney when he's belittling the 47%,

or Mitt Romney when he's belittling the unemployed.

It's tough.

But while I applaud conservatives for exercising their right to vote, I've yet to hear any conservative on any media forum admit they actually like Mitt Romney.

I'm willing to bet not a single conservative poster on JT likes Romney.

It's more "like" in the same way as you can "like" a total stranger on FB - totally fake, contrived and false.

Sad...but par for the course for this cycle's conservatives.

This election cycle we're seeing something completely unprecedented:

Not only is the GOP presidential candidate selling a soul he doesn't have, but his "supporters" are having to sell their own souls to "like" him.

Mitt's a practicing Mormon - formerly a Mormon priest (!) - all the Christians out there are forced to sell their souls to support him.

Mitt's been all over the place on virtually every major issue - conservatives are forced to pretend they support Mitt despite not knowing what major position he'll have pivoted or backtracked on by breakfast tomorrow.

Mitt's firmly anti-women and anti-women's rights -  conservative women have no choice but to "support" a man who'd much rather see them subservient to their husbands, stripped of their right to choose, and in the kitchen or bedroom 24/7.

The list goes on.

At least as a proud Global Liberal, I can hold my head up and say I support the wildly successful former Community Organizer Barack HUSSEIN Obama without knowing I'm lying to myself.

Can't say the same for my conservative friends. :-)

Did you even watch the debate? I don't understand why you're asking this...

@ Mirai: Yes I watched the debate and that is why I asked. If Obama signed into law legislation that says women should be paid equal, then the fact that it is not being upheld is not an issue for a Presidental candidate but for the courts to apply justice.

If he can't get the law enforced while the President, then I shudder to think what will happen when the full effect of Obamacare starts up. Nowhere have I heard or Romney even mentioning that he would repeal that law, so why is this being brought up is the question that should be asked of the person who brought it up. Nowhere has it been a campaign issue.

"binders full of women"

Romney clearly misspoke on this one. He clearly meant "bind women to the 19th century."

Tee hee!

If that's the only retort you can muster Pamelot, there's no wonder you're only slightly trailing Bass in the the election thumbs-down-athon.

To think Hillary would take on anything to damage her chances taking over after Barack Obama in 2016 is as laughable as it is to see hardcore conservatives suddenly championing women's rights....

....and especially as the Binders gaffe unfolds:

http://edition.cnn.com/2012/10/17/opinion/cardona-binders-women/index.html

@Sushi. @Mirai

Mitt's firmly anti-women and anti-women's rights - conservative women have no choice but to "support" a man who'd much rather see them subservient to their husbands, stripped of their right to choose, and in the kitchen or bedroom 24/7.

So then I guess, both Romney and Obama have a problem with women it seems, especially Anita Dunn.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2038386/Obamas-White-House-hostile-environment-women-treated-like-meat.html

"More women in America are unemployed now than the day Obama took office"

So? This is clearly Bush's and the Republicans' fault! Sheesh!

With the fat moderateress being firmly part of the team Obama (as predicted), it is no wonder that Obama felt slightly more comfortable. She kept feeding him democrat talking points, and consistently cut Romney short when he tried to respond.

I am not even upset by this media bias any more; it is simply part of the landscape.

But even though, I doubt that Obama could convince anybody except his fanatical followers who have made up their mind anyway.

Hilarious to see Romney's clueless lackeys continue to lie to themselves that they actually "like" their candidate (note how they NEVER say they actually do, because - hey - they just don't) while offering hollow "support" for the man.

It's pretty clear their hatred for America, their passion to kneecap the middle class (bizarrely, that's themselves and their families), and their ardent belief in fairytale gods and bung economics is blinding them to what their country really needs.

It's pretty clear their hatred for America, their passion to kneecap the middle class (bizarrely, that's themselves and their families), and their ardent belief in fairytale gods and bung economics is blinding them to what their country really needs.

A new President?

A point missed: Romney dodged the question of whether he would've supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Completely dodged it.

Here's what happened. Ms. Ledbetter had worked at a B.F. Goodrich tire plant for years and had risen to a supervisory role. After said years of employment she discovered that she was getting paid less than similarly situated male employees. When confronted about it, Goodrich effectively shrugged its corporate shoulders. A lawsuit ensued. Ms. Ledbetter won the case and a jury awarded her backpay. Goodrich appealed to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals and it reversed the jury's decision. The U.S. Supreme Court upheld the 11th Circuit reversal. The grounds for reversal (in sum): even though there was no doubt that Ms. Ledbetter had been discriminated against for years, and even though she didn't even know about the pay disparity for years and years (American employees don't discuss their salaries as openly as Japanese do), the 11th Circuit and Supreme Courts held that she had to file her lawsuit within 180 days from the date of the first act of discrimination (which was years before), not from the date of discovery of the pay discrimination. A cynical, anti-employee, anti-woman ruling if ever there was one.

This happened during George W. Bush's Administration. Congress passed a bill that would effectively reverse the Supreme Court and make it clear law (too late for Lilly, of course) that the "window" to file an equal pay lawsuit first opens on the date of discovering the discrimination, not from the date of the first act of discrimination (which, like in Lilly's case, could go on for years undetected). Bush refused to sign the bill into law.

Within 24 hours of being sworn into office (maybe the same day, I'd have to double check), President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, righting a great injustice perpetrated by the U.S. Supreme Court against virtually every American (particularly women) who receives a paycheck.

So, the question to Romney: do you support / would you have supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act? Romney ducked the question and went off on his weird and creepy "binders full of women" tangent.

Mea culpa: 2 errors on my part. After double checking I see that President Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law on January 29, 2009, about eight days after when I said he did in my just-posted comment. Also, it was Goodyear, not Goodrich. This makes no substantive difference, but I like to be accurate.

I think it's hilarious that the man says he can fix the economy and save social security doesn't even know where his own pension money is invested.

"I think it's hilarious that the man says he can fix the economy and save social security doesn't even know where his own pension money is invested."

As opposed to he candidate that has refused at all costs to come clean about his own dubious tax affairs and tax haven paper-trail?

Heh, if I had half as much money as even Obama has, I wouldn't worry about my pension.

Letsbengoshi

For accuracies sake.

A point missed: Romney dodged the question of whether he would've supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Completely dodged it.

He wasn't asked if he would have supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. 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?

His answer focused on what he did to rectify inequalities in the workplace for women while he was Governor and actual examples of it. The Lilly Ledbetter act was never mentioned in her question. President Obama brought it up as the question went to him first so that he could crow about it ( talk about one softball question for the President).

Sail - "A new President?"

Argh! Sail, you ruined it!

My above post was carefully crafted as a rhetorical flourish to inspire thought but not demand answers.

Your answer was like turning on the lights mid way through a children’s movie. :-)

The funny thing about that is, Obama said that his pension is NOT as big as Romney, but still Obama is in the 1%. I'm sure Obama has his own stash somewhere. lol

To think Hillary would take on anything to damage her chances taking over after Barack Obama in 2016 is as laughable as it is to see hardcore conservatives suddenly championing women's rights....

Hillary took a hit for the team. She has a 70% approval rating, and she has stated that she would only serve one term as Sec State. So if Obama wins, whe will not be there for the next 4 years. By saying it was her fault, she took the hit for the Obama team, and yet she is not resigning her position but will leave when she said. The Dem powers that be will reward her for her loyalty in 2016.

The funny thing about that is, Obama said that his pension is NOT as big as Romney, but still Obama is in the 1%. I'm sure Obama has his own stash somewhere. lol

Obama will get about 190,000 a year for life whenever he leaves office. Don't forget he will also be eligible for the state of IL pension too. When Romney was Gov of MA, he took no salary, so he will not get a pension. Romney is reported to have at $87 million in his IRA accounts. Good for him. I keep hearing from all of the DOD infomercials from the AFN network that we should all "Choose to Save" and put money away for retirement. I guess Romney was able to do that, and I hope that some day I can be in that same position.

Obama only talks good game on gender pay equity

He signed the Ledbetter Act as the first piece of legislation that crossed his desk. That's far more than just talk.

Compensation figures for his legislative staff reveal that Obama pays women just 83 cents for every dollar his men make.

That specious claim is from September of 2008, long before then-Senator Obama was in the White House. It is specious because there is no attempt to clarify or breakout the various levels, from intern to senior staff. No one has provided any evidence of pay discrimination -- ie: unequal pay for equal work in the Obama White House.

His answer focused on what he did to rectify inequalities in the workplace for women while he was Governor and actual examples of it.

For accuracy's sake: Moderator Candy Crowley turned to Romney and asked: "Pay equity for women?" (the focus of the Ledbetter bill.) Nowhere in Romney's answer did he discuss "inequalities in the workplace." In fact, Romney started his answer by claiming it was an "important topic" to him, and one which he "learned a great deal about." His response from that point had nothing to do with pay equity. (His campaign has never released any formal statement on whether or not he supports pay equity in principle, and he dodged the question yet again.)

Romney then went on to concoct the preposterous lie of how "[He] went to a number of women’s groups and said, 'Can you help us find folks,' and they brought us whole binders full of women."

To any listener, Romney was making it sound like he was the one taking the initiative. That is completely untrue. Prior to the race that led to Romney's election as governor, it was the "women's groups" that came to both candidates seeking to get their commitment on getting more qualified women into state government -- and had the lists already in hand.

So Romney was lying throughout -- first by failing to articulate any of the things he himself claimed to have "learned a great deal about" on the specific issue on which he was asked: Pay equity. And then on the matter of misleading listeners by claiming that getting the lists of suitable women candidates was done as a result of his initiative.

I guess Romney was able to do that, and I hope that some day I can be in that same position.

I feel confident that Romney would claim he wants all Americans to be in the top 1%.

Not to mention the Obama's are already looking for houses in Hawaii. Heard that they found a mansion about 35 million price tag and as you said, once he's not president, he will make so much money, book deals, public speaking both domestic and international, that means, they will be paying a lot of taxes as well.

He signed the Ledbetter Act as the first piece of legislation that crossed his desk. That's far more than just talk.

@ yabits: Once again I ask, if it is law, then why is it a campaign issue? Romney has not stated that he plans to repeal it. Once again, the Dems try to "smoke and mirror" people from the real issue, Obama's failure to deliver what he promised.

“And when young women graduate, they should get equal pay for equal work.”

Ah, but the problem becomes that when these young women graduate, if Obama is still President they will not be able to find work.

Obama wiped the floor with Romeny on the 16th. He had more facts on point in the first debate despite the weak perception. Biden mopped up the floor with Ryan in the VP debate.

You seem to be alone in your perception of this. Good luck with that. You liberals love polls, and your own (from the liberal media) don't jibe with the picture you're trying to paint. Makes you guys nervous, doesn't it? And I don't care if Biden wins every debate - that creepy old guy is just too out there to ever become President.

So where does that leave us? The election is clear. You can choose "Mitt happens" or you can choose a president that is motivated, envigorated, inspired and telling the truth. Obama doesn't just happen, he gets out there and deals with reality and makes things happen.

Ha! So what exactly has he made happen in these past four years? Except forcing bad legislation and crappy foreign policy decisions?

The topic is Romney's complete inability to directly answer a simple question about equal pay for women.

If you are claiming that conditions in the Obama White House justifies Romney totally evading the question of equal pay, that's a very illogical and foolish attempt at deflection.

No, the topic of the article is the President using a debate answer to promote himself as being the better candidate for women in the workplace. If there are articles written by insiders that indeed show that the President promotes no such atmosphere in his own shop, then I think they are more than pertinent. It's just that anything that shows your candidate in a poor light is not to be permitted in the liberal world of argument.

Heh, looking forward to yet another day of watching Mitt's hyper desperate "supporters" trying to spin yet another of Mitt's verbal screw-ups.

Face it chin-stroking conservative types - Mitt is an idiot.

Funny how that works; if your candidate says something stupid - and he certainly has - it is just a misinterpretation and no big deal. If the other side says it, they are an idiot. Interesting that everyone is paying so much attention to the binder comment, but not as much focus on the fact that Mitt was actually correct, and the Prez didn't call the Benghazi thing a terrorist attack - but the liberal cow of a moderator screwed that up. They've been quite clever in deflecting away from that - but it shall still bite them in the end (literally and figuratively).

Mitt is an idiot. Hmm. That 'idiot' managed to run a business and make more money than you ever could in ten lifetimes. Shade better than being a community organizer I should think. Apparently unless your a liberal that is.

I doubt Hillary Clinton was in a “binder full of women" when president Obama offered his former arch enemy a top job in his administration.

As homely as she is, I doubt it as well. Uugh - it's time to go back to the makeup. Sushe you seem to be obsessed with the binder thing, which apparently the libs are trying to make into much ado about nothing. Sounds more to me like the desperate attempts to deflect away from the fact that your boy has nothing new to present. Four years of failure will be followed by four more years of failure if Obama is elected. We can call that a binder full of BS.

Romney does not even have the support of his own party!

Explain to me exactly how you come to this brilliant conclusion. I think most Republicans would rather see Maxwell the Geico pig become president that Obama.

Explain why the women who works for Obama get paid less than their male counterpart?

No one has presented any evidence that this is case.

Actually I believe it's public information that you can look up.

To think Hillary would take on anything to damage her chances taking over after Barack Obama in 2016

I seem to remember Hillary was leading the way when the issue of Abu Ghrab was a hot topic, demanding that VP Cheney be held accountable for it and that he should resign, over a few photos and abuse of prisoners. Now we have Hillary, who had an Ambassador and 3 others killed on her watch, and there is not one shred of tough talk like she used against Cheney, nor do we see her willing to step down even after she wanted Cheney to do so.

A bunch of slick talking politicans, who only have their own self interests on their minds and not those of the American people, or the people that work for them.

My main concern is how can anyone really be interested in electing someone who wants to try and rewind social progress several hundred years.

Well the problem here is that you likely read the liberal press and come to the erroneous conclusion that a Republican presidential candidate has any desire to reverse social progress. The average liberal will define the average conservative as be 'stupid, racist and backwards' which of course is total BS promoted by their self-righteous hypocrisy that they are somehow more enlightened and smarter than everyone else. And if you don't agree with them then you must be a knuckle-dragger. In truth they hold the same stupidities, racism and class-ism issues that all Americans have to varying degrees. They over-compensate for this by deriding the rest of us with their ill-placed feelings of superiority. Pay no attention - research and think for yourself and don't believe everything that you read.

Not to mention the Obama's are already looking for houses in Hawaii. Heard that they found a mansion about 35 million price tag

Oh yeah? Who are you listening to where you are "hearing" these things?

The more important question is: Will you keep listening to them and repeating their unfounded claims after this one is proven wrong? (I'd bet on Yes.)

Once again I ask, if it is law, then why is it a campaign issue?

It is a campaign issue because prospective voters like the questioner still care about it, knowing that it still impacts millions of women.

As for why unequal pay exists as a real issue despite the Ledbetter bill, that would require educating you on the bill's points and limitations. Prior to that, it would cause me to wonder if you aren't perfectly capable of educating yourself on them. I believe you are, so why not give that a try?

But he has binders full of women . . .

Romney has not let his wife work even one day. Good Mormon wife needs to be stay at home type it seems.

Pointless comment (per usual) and should be deleted as such. About as relevant as me saying that slick Willie Clinton had a binder full of women too - under his desk (both binder and women). But again, pointless except to make stupid jabs.

Again I will say much ado about nothing - which proves that liberals are just desperate to have some sort of attack talking point. Yes, your guy came out swinging in the debate, and polls show he moderately won. But he won on the stupidity of American voters clamping on to stupid things like 'binders full of women' rather than the substance which matters most. Obama smartly played the angry cop (reference to 'good cop/bad cop' if that doesn't make sense) and got in some jabs of indignant rage to take away from his shortcoming. But the shortcomings are still there, so now we have endless debate here on a comment about 'binders full of women'. Big Bird backfired last time, so this is as good as you can do this time? I think that says, well binders full.

"Heeeeeeyyyyyyyyy. Weal-thy Laaaaaaadiieeeees"

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6830834/mitt-romney-style-gangnam-style-parody

Anyhoooos, when it comes to the ladies, Willard ain't doin' so hot. So sad.

'Cause that fact is the reason why Obama is winning.

"'Cause that fact is the reason why Obama is winning."

It's clearly causing desperation in some religious camps.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57535071/billy-grahams-organization-removes-mormonism-from-its-list-of-cults/?tag=cbsnewsHardNewsFDArea;fdmodule

Heh, Magic Duds for all!

Very interesting look at the place Obama is going to speak on Election Night. The place he picked is a far cry from 2008. There is an aerial picture of the place and how hard it is to get to...basically only walking, Taxi or car. No trains or buses suitable for a large crowd.

http://hillbuzz.org/daily-doom-antidote-solid-proof-obama-is-planning-a-concession-speech-event-for-november-6th-election-night-10182012-10182012

Obama already bought a place in Hawaii (just Google it) -- guess he doesn't want his kids involved in any driveby shootings in Chicago. Or more to the point, Michelle won't be able to wear her sleeveless dresses that often in Chicago -- it will be nice to have a First Lady again who doesn't dress like she's headed out to a pick up bar all the time...

"Obama is in the 1%"

Nah... he can't be... why, he's one of us, ain't he?

At the Iowa campaign rally, Obama also hammered Romney for wanting to cut funding to Planned Parenthood, a women’s health organization.

Planned Parenthood is funded by tax payers. At the same time, Planned Parenthood gives money to Obama's re-election campaign.

Obama: Women 'Rely' on Planned Parenthood for Mammograms; FDA: No They Don't @ http://cnsnews.com/news/article/obama-women-rely-planned-parenthood-mammograms-fda-no-they-dont

During Tuesday's second presidential debate, President Barack Obama said that women "rely" on Planned Parenthood for mammograms, but, according to the Food and Drug Administration, no Planned Parenthood facility in the United States is licensed to do mammograms.

As for why unequal pay exists as a real issue despite the Ledbetter bill, that would require educating you on the bill's points and limitations. Prior to that, it would cause me to wonder if you aren't perfectly capable of educating yourself on them. I believe you are, so why not give that a try?

@ yabits: I would suggest that you and your fellow progressives at MSNBC get up to speed on the law. Romney senior advisor in an interview on MSNBC with Andrea Mitchell stated that it was clear that there were pay inequality issues, and cited MSNBC who she says pays their male employees more than their female employees. Mitchell agreed with Comstock that this was the case.

Of course you know afterwards MSNBC had to come out with a statement to clarify Mitchell's comments. As I said, this is just some issue that should get worked out in the courts, since it is now law and Romney is not trying to repeal it. How about discussing how we are going to get outselves out of the fiscal mess we are in and the failed policies of the current administration.

If that's the only retort you can muster Pamelot, there's no wonder you're only slightly trailing Bass in the the election thumbs-down-athon.

Liberals are the majority here-but more dumb doesn't make smart, less...

Oh, and Pamelot, thanks for the "Nobody puts Hillary in a Binder". I'm sure Mrs Clinton is touched.

I don't now, or did I ever "stand" for Hillary.

I am against this administration, and she is part of it. I resent all this talk of "women's right's", when the issue is people's rights.

The right to pursue happiness, and prosperity. THAT is being eroded, and it's time the perpetrators of this great hoax; this administration, were shown the door.

As for why unequal pay exists as a real issue despite the Ledbetter bill, that would require educating you on the bill's points and limitations. Prior to that, it would cause me to wonder if you aren't perfectly capable of educating yourself on them. I believe you are, so why not give that a try?

@ yabits: I guess I am not alone in being just some dumb "mouth breather" on this issue. I think we should start with the USTA and the US Open. If as you are saying equal pay for men and women for equal work, then why is it that the men have to play 5 sets, and the women only ply 3 sets. If we are all supposed to be equal and pay should be equal, then shouldn't the men play 3 or the women step up to 5 and the winners get the same amount.

Obama already bought a place in Hawaii (just Google it)

When I Google it, the search only returns right-wing, lunatic-fringe sites.

Nowhere in Romney's answer did he discuss "inequalities in the workplace."

I guess he was talking about the weather here instead.

Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible. My chief of staff, for instance, had two kids that were still in school. She said, I can't be here until 7:00 or 8:00 at night. I need to be able to get home at 5:00 so I can be there for — making dinner for my kids and being with them when they get home from school. So we said, fine, let's have a flexible schedule so you can have hours that work for you.

During Tuesday's second presidential debate, President Barack Obama said that women "rely" on Planned Parenthood for mammograms, but, according to the Food and Drug Administration, no Planned Parenthood facility in the United States is licensed to do mammograms.

Nice de-bunk, skipbeat.

it will be nice to have a First Lady again who doesn't dress like she's headed out to a pick up bar all the time...

Classy. How did you come to think this would be the perfect thread to insert that asinine comment?

For the easily confused....

Women Rely on Planned Parenthood for Critical Breast Health Care. Period.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rachel-b-fleischer/planned-parenthood-breast-health-screenings_b_1980951.html

I guess he was talking about the weather here instead. (Now, one of the reasons I was able to get so many good women to be part of that team was because of our recruiting effort, but number two, because I recognized that if you're going to have women in the workforce, that sometimes they need to be more flexible.)

The question was about "equal pay." That is what any listener can take when the moderator turned to Romney and asked, "Equal pay for women?"

Let's put aside for the moment the fascinating conclusion you reached that a flexible work schedule somehow equates to "workplace equality." Many conservatives I know would claim that allowing some workers to leave early while others stay later is not an equal situation. Romney refused to answer the question, especially after he started his response by claiming it was an "important" issue to him.

It's interesting the forms that his lie about his purported efforts took. Above, he claims that it was he who did the recruiting. We all know that is false.

Furthermore, I believe that most women rightfully suspect that Romney would endorse a flex-schedule for women who were going home to cook meals for the husband and kids, but he would not be so tolerant to women workers who might have a commitment such as volunteering at a Planned Parenthood center -- or any other types of things he personally disapproves of. In short, the man can't help but be condescending as well as lacking honesty.

Nice de-bunk, skipbeat.

It always fascinates me how so many conservative-types can hate truth so much and claim to "love America" too. Unless, that is, their professed love for their country is just another delusion or lie.

That hundreds of thousands of American women rely on Planned Parenthood services for mammograms and cervical cancer screenings does not mean that the Planned Parenthood office has to provide them. Any more than getting a prescription from my doctor somehow disqualifies him because he's not mixing up the medicine in his office.

Mammograms and other medical procedures require a referral from a primary care physician -- and that is the service that Planned Parenthood provides, and which so many thousands of American women depend upon.

Some "de-bunk." That some women would fall for it is actually quite embarrassing.

gcbelOct. 19, 2012 - 07:45PM JST : For the easily confused....Women Rely on Planned Parenthood for Critical Breast Health Care. Period.

Starting 2014 Obama's Affordable Health Care Act require everyone to buy health insurance. That cover breast screening and contraceptives.

yabitsOct. 19, 2012 - 09:41PM JST : Some "de-bunk." That some women would fall for it is actually quite embarrassing.

Yes, some women would agree with you. Whereas, some women would disagree with you. Planned Parenthood is not the only place where women can get free services such as abortion and contraceptives etc. The idea that without Planned Parenthood women would not get free abortions and contraceptives etc. will cause women to not have access to women healthcare is false if they don't have money. Because there are organizations that offer free mammograms, breast screening, and cervical screening which varies from one state to another.

Cancer Services Program - Community Programs List @ http://www.health.ny.gov/diseases/cancer/services/partnerships/

To be connected to free breast, cervical, colorectal cancer screening, diagnostic, treatment and support services in your community please call the number listed or our toll free number 1-866-442-CANCER (1-866-442-226237)

YW Women’s Health @ http://www.ywcadallas.org/programs/womens-health.asp

We offer free mammograms to women who qualify. We partner with many clinics throughout Dallas and Collin County and we can even provide transportation to your appointment if needed.

Binders full of women? What did he mean by that?

The republicans are anti-women, that is 100% clear. Voted down equal rights effort years ago and would do the same today cause it would "not be good for the economy" which means the republican paymasters, Koch and others, do not want to pay women what they are worth.

Like every other issue the Romboid and his sidekick "Mr fake photo op" are posing to try and fool Americans. Just like bush junior did in 2000 with his compassionate conservatism. Pure propaganda. Anyone who votes for them is clueless and is by that vote condemning the USA to failure.

zurcroniumOct. 20, 2012 - 08:37AM JST : The republicans are anti-women, that is 100% clear. Voted down equal rights effort years ago and would do the same today cause it would "not be good for the economy" which means the republican paymasters, Koch and others, do not want to pay women what they are worth.

How are republicans anti-women when some women are republicans? The idea that "republicans are anti-women. that is 100% clear" is false.

Do liberal employers pay the women who work for them equally? If they do then you have a solid argument.

The question was about "equal pay."

It was a two part question.

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

Obama went first on the the question.

Romney went second and he addressed the first part of the question with his personal experience.

Candy Crowely helpfully jump in for Obama after that.

MR. CROWLEY: Mr. President, why don't you get in on this quickly, please?

And allowed Obama to further talk about the Lily Ledbetter act.

She then DID NOT allow Romney to respond.

MS. CROWLEY: I want to move us along here to Susan Katz, who has a question.

Do liberal employers pay the women who work for them equally? If they do then you have a solid argument

@ skipthebeat: To answer your question, no they don't. I brought up in an earlier post on how the liberal icon MSNBC doesn't pay their female employees equally to which Andrea MItchell agreed in an on air interview, only to have her statements "clarified." Now, MSNBC's Morning Joe co-host admits tat she is happy to work for a company that pays her less than her co-host. Scarborough makes a cool $4 million per year, while Brzezinski's salary is half as much, coming in at $2 million per year. It's more than a bit odd that she would play down the problems at MSNBC now, After all, her public dispute with MSNBC about pay equity has been well known. In fact, she's made it herself on her own show saying:

"We make less than our male counterparts," said Brzezinski last year. "I found out on this show that I made a lot less than Joe. 14 times less."

Brzezinski says she almost left MSNBC over the pay disparity problem. And she wrote a book about overcoming gender discrimination in the workplace (though, again, she still reportedly makes half as much as her male counterpart).

But in an election year, perhaps playing down pay disparity at a liberal institution by extension makes liberal politicians look better. And Brzezinski's preference for Obama is beyond well established.

As usual,liberals love to say Do as I say, not as I do. .

Starting 2014 Obama's Affordable Health Care Act require everyone to buy health insurance. That cover breast screening and contraceptives.

I guess I should've spelled it out. The point was that the "de-bunk" gotcha was nothing of the sort. I refer you to the link you didn't read or yabits's 9:41 post.

Thank you for your support of PPACA, but you do realize that Romney's stated position is that he is going to repeal "Obamacare"? Romney supported the Blunt Amendment. He would end Federal aid to PPFA . He would most certainly propose Supreme Court judges that'd overturn Roe v. Wade.

And, one would expect, Romney would support Republican initiatives to pass state legislation designed to eliminate abortion. (e.g., Republican law that'd force closure of sole abortion clinic in Mississippi; Virginia law that would have reuired abortion seekd to undergo AND PAY for a medically unnecessary vaginal probe, etc.)

gcbelOct. 20, 2012 - 06:07PM JST : Thank you for your support of PPACA, but you do realize that Romney's stated position is that he is going to repeal "Obamacare"? Romney supported the Blunt Amendment. He would end Federal aid to PPFA . He would most certainly propose Supreme Court judges that'd overturn Roe v. Wade. And, one would expect, Romney would support Republican initiatives to pass state legislation designed to eliminate abortion. (e.g., Republican law that'd force closure of sole abortion clinic in Mississippi; Virginia law that would have reuired abortion seekd to undergo AND PAY for a medically unnecessary vaginal probe, etc.)

The SC is not going to overturn Roe v. Wade and Obamacare. The SC have shown that regardless of what the people vote the SC have overturn the people vote.

Woman rock!