A binder full of women is bad enough.
But the truth is, Romney didn't even ASK for the binder.
It was supplied before he took office by women's activists.
Is there anything this guy will not take credit for?
http://blog.thephoenix.com/BLOGS/talkin … g.facebook
MM, just another lie from a man for whom lying is more natural than telling the truth. He was more than happy to exclude women from his cabinet if it were not for fear of reprisal and undesirable publicity.
Once more a liberal reporter/blogger does not report the whole story and puts a spin on it.
In 2002 Jane Swift was the Governor of Massachusetts. As a female governor, she was under fire for not hiring or appointing women to fight cabinet positions. 27 woman's groups came together to create MassGap. Their goal was to get the Governors to hire more woman into cabinet positions.
When Mitt Romney came into office in 2003 he reached out and hired more woman to cabinet positions than any governor prior or after him. From the MassGap web site:
"Between January 2002 and July 2004, 42% of the new gubernatorial appointments made by Governor Mitt Romney were women. Massachusetts was widely recognized for that achievement and MassGAP was given credit for it. In a survey by the State University of New York (SUNY), Massachusetts was ranked first in the nation in the percentage of women holding top state positions. As the Boston Globe noted at that time, “Women fill 10 of 20 top positions in Governor Mitt Romney’s administration, making the Commonwealth one of five states that come close to matching the percentage of top women appointees to the proportion of women in the overall population.”
"This accomplishment is significant. Nowhere else in Massachusetts government—not in the legislature, not in statewide offices, and not in municipal offices—are the numbers for women anywhere near as good. This fact was acknowledged by the Women’s National Republican Club, which presented Governor Romney with its 2005 Exemplary Leadership Award for his work in recruiting and promoting women to cabinet and senior-level positions in his administration."
They gave Romney an award for "Exemplary Leadership". Yea, they sound like they were not happy with Romney(sarcasm alert), Please people, time for the MSM to get a grip, do better research before they publish an article that people toss around as gospel.
I think the "binder" nonsense is just that - nonsense. I just don't see what was bad about it. My gosh, it's a figure of speech. It's called synecdoche, or you might consider it to be more an example of metonymy. We use examples of both all the time.
Hi habee, I really don't see it as 'nonsense'-it's strangely sexist and offensive-at least to me.
Such a figure of speech puts all women in some office water cooler, don't you think?
BTW, this office I have in mind specializes in binders...
@lorlie6 He was given a binder full of capable women to fill cabinet positions. That's actually what it was, a binder full of information on female applicants for cabinet positions. What did you want him to call it?
" Women’s groups were concerned about the issue even before the gubernatorial elections, so they put together binders and then gave them to Romney after he was elected."
I mean really. Saying he misrepresented that he requested the binder is fine, but trying to crucify him for calling it a binder when that is exactly what it was is just ridiculous.
I totally agree. Just how silly is this election going to get? 4 American deaths in Libya is "inconsequential," but Romney's using "binders" is huge!
It's the idiocy of the media, but these absurdities do tell stories...
I have to agree this is a storm in a teacup and a shame really since there is real evidence to argue that Romney has sexist policies, his backing of the GOP platform to make all abortion illegal even in the case of rape is a slap in the face of any woman who presumes to have rights over her own body.
Romney has bucked the platform on that issue. I agree there are some legitimate questions about Romney and equal rights, but using "binders of women" isn't one of them. Remember when Obama referred to a female reporter as "Sweetie" and brushed her off? If Romney had done that, the left would be crucifying him.
The women's GOP club gave a fellow Republican an award.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ele … _campaigns
Since we're so interested in the whole story. This was posted a few hours ago.
"Prior to the 2002 gubernatorial election, MassGAP approached the campaigns of candidates Shannon O’Brien and Mitt Romney and asked them both to commit to: (1).“Make best efforts” to ensure that the number of women in appointed state positions is proportionate to the population of women in Massachusetts; (2). Select a transition team whose composition is proportionate to the women in the Commonwealth; and (3). Meet with MassGAP representatives regularly during the appointments process. Both campaigns made a commitment to this process."
"Subsequently, however, from 2004-2006 the percentage of newly-appointed women in these senior appointed positions dropped to 25 percent."
So yea, either person who won the race would have been working with this group. And apparently once election was secured, women sort of dropped by the wayside again?
Per the MassGap web site:
"The Massachusetts Government Appointments Project (MassGAP) was founded in 2002 as a bi-partisan coalition of women’s groups whose purpose is to increase the number of women appointed by the new governor to senior-level cabinet positions, agency heads and selected authorities and commissions in the Commonwealth."
So much for being a GOP organization.
Now you can keep criticizing or look at the facts, Romney appointed the highest amount of woman to cabinet positions than anyone before or after him. Or if one truly wants to see who appoints more woman, look at Republicans and Dems. There are more Republican woman in leadership positions at all levels of government than Democrats.
PS. believe you lost that bet we made about the Jets V Bills week one.
Did you change your screen name?
Incredible article, MM. I found this segment particularly enlightening:
"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."
Oh wait...hmmm...what's this I see?
Mitt Romney’s second-in-command when he was governor of Massachusetts and a coalition of women's groups rallied Wednesday behind the Republican presidential nominee in the face of a rapidly expanding Internet phenomenon poking fun at his "binders full of women."
"The supporters said Romney, indeed, asked for and received binders with names of potential female candidates for high-level posts -- backing up his claim in Tuesday night's debate that as governor he had reached out to women's groups because he was dissatisfied with the mostly male applicants for jobs in his administration."
So not only were they actual binders, but he did actually request them. Odd...hmmm.
Really? A governor appointing someone to a cabinet post to be in charge of a department within the state making over 6 figures a year and you want me to believe he did not care who he appointed? Come on man. If he did not care he would have made them Czars.
I know that was the opinion of the liberal writer, but if there was any truth to it the woman's group MassGap never would have been pleased with Romney and the appointments. Instead they praised him.
Trying to make something out of nothing. If Romney would have said portfolio instead of binder, would it have made a difference?
No. It would not have made no difference whatsoever!!
The point is, he was OFFERED he did not SEEK OUT those binders.
Having a good record in hiring women to his cabinet was not something he did voluntarily. It is something he PLEDGED to do when pushed by MassGAP.
His opponent in the gubernatorial race actually signed the pledge first.
To resurrect a phrase from now ancient campaign history: "You didn't build that!"
Mischaracterizing his own actions and motives in appointing high level, highly paid cabinet members -- yet another telling example of Romney desperately painting himself in the color he thinks a voter segment wants to see. Not unlike painting his face farmworker orange for his interview with Latino media.
Even if it is true, he still hired them! I think it is so pathetic that obama is so desperate, he will try to make a mountain out of a mole hill at every turn. He is the most vicious candidate for any office I have ever witnessed and I have seen a bunch.
George Bush for all his faults, he had a far more diverse administration than Bill Clinton.
The Dems try to make out the Republicans as all around bigots, when the real truth is the Dems and liberals are far more bigoted. Look at it closely and you will see the truth. Even women are standing up and saying that they think the accusations about Romney dissing women is a crock.
Haha, what was our bet? I remember making one, I just don't remember what the terms were.
This fact was acknowledged by the Women’s National Republican Club....
Obama called you an illegal as well then. Completely off topic though.
So the binder of resumes of capable, available women was compiled by MassGAP BEFORE Romney took office. Both candidates were asked to sign a pledge to increase hiring of women. Romney won the election.
So AFTER Romney became governor he asked for the binder which he had been offered BEFORE the election.
The idea to elevate the number of women in government was not his.
It was MassGAP's.
In addition to misrepresenting his own actions and motives, his answer did not address what was asked:
1. He was asked about the issue of equal pay for women.
2. He did not address equal pay for women, or pay at all.
Yes, he should have. That's a legitimate concern. Does it concern you that women in the Obama admin make less than the men there, on average? I'm trying to find out how much women in Romney's admin made.
How much women in either man's cabinet make is not the point here.
The question asked was about what the candidates will do about equal pay for women OUT HERE.
Neither one can hire all the women in America for their cabinet.
I don't really care how many women Romney had on his executive team at Bain or the 2002 Olympics, either.
I want to know if he supports legislation for OTHER EMPLOYERS to pay women the same as men for doing the same job.
It frustrates me in the extreme to have the original question IGNORED.
Perhaps it's relevant to count up how many HIGH LEVEL women each man has APPOINTED. Perhaps that is an accurate metaphor for this issue. I'm not seeing it, however. It's like micodissecting the attack on the Benghazi consulate. There's a much broader and more complex issue that needs to be talked about.
Rome is burning while we fiddle around with distractions!
I responded a couple of posts up. I agree that Romney should answer those questions. I have no problem, however, with his use of the word "binder," as some on the left do. I'm not saying you do, but it has become a "big deal" when more important issues regarding women should be what's being discussed.
Sorry Habee. I thought I read your posts completely.
You and I are saying the same thing.
Binders is the meme of the day. Last time it was Big Bird. Before that the 47%.
By Monday binders will be empty () and we'll be distracting ourselves with something else.
Is the binders comment representative of Romney's position on women's equality?
I guess it's representative of one fact: If you do not clearly and truthfully (as fact-checkable) set out your own policy on an issue, one will be duly assigned to you by tweeters.
Amazing how we sometimes think alike, huh, even though we differ on our politics. You remind me so much of my lib best friend! I told her the other day I had an HP pal who reminded me a lot of her.
Romney needs to be specific on equality. I'm an economic voter this go-round, but that's still important to me, and it's extremely important to many American women.
Nice of you to say. I think we both see things more alike than differently.
If we agreed 100% on everything we'd never learn, would we?
My #1 is healthcare, because I'm involved in what's happening on the ground here in my region, not to mention my own family.
Appealing the ACA would be disastrous.
#2 is education. I see that as the lynchpin in a complex fabric of both economic and social issues. The dumbing down of America has far-reaching consequences.
To paraphrase Sarah Palin, "Don't retreat -- retrain!"
Philosophically I care about pay equality. But realistically, if there are no JOBS, then how much women get paid vs. how much men get paid is pretty moot, isn't it?
Neither one is making anything!
No matter what, this campaign will leave a bad taste in my mouth, as I know it will many people's.
But just think. 2016 is just around the corner. Clinton/Huntsman has a nice ring to it!
Butting in here, MM and Habee
Philosophically I care about pay equality. But realistically, if there are no JOBS, then how much women get paid vs. how much men get paid is pretty moot, isn't it?
Not really. Lessons from history teach us that when jobs are scarce the consequences for women are more than far reaching. I'm thinking of dilution here, World wars 1 and 11. When all the troops are brought home form Afghanistan and Iraq (and I'm not forgetting that there are a large number of female troops, too) jobs for women are going to become even harder to obtain.
If we give up the ghost now, in terms of equal pay, because of the shortage of jobs then not only are we making a rod for our own backs but we're inviting the large tax dodging, outsourcing corps to screw men, too. Because let's face it, if they can take on women for a fraction of the cost, they can drive down the wages for men, too.
And not forgetting that there are loads of lone mothers out there,(I'm one)
When the wages for women bottom out, lots of kids suffer. I see the fight for equal pay as important as it ever was, scarcity of jobs or not.
Excellent points, Hollie.
Given the concerted effort by the new GOP to bust unions, I can't imagine Lily Ledbetter is high on their agenda. I think Romney's dodging of this question speaks volumes.
Do you support equal pay for women?
Let me tell you about all the women I appointed to my cabinet!
We're talking about a party that believes businesses should be free to hire who they want, where they want, and pay them what they want. Free of restrictions and regulations.
If you don't like it, too bad. You're lazy and a whiner. Why can't you work 3 part-time minimum wage jobs?
When they get their way, bye bye minimum wage.
Follow the money...Technology replaced many workers in manufacturing. When they ran out of technology, the next front was and continues to be the wage. Romney's crowd will continue to outsource until the next technology is created to even eliminate the Chinese workers. A world run by robots!
Romney should have mentioned that Obama pays some women on his staff less that men performing the same jobs.
No one seems to be mentioning the fact that Romney did not answer the question. He was asked about how he would "rectify the inequalities in the workplace" for women not how many he hired, Hiring binders full of women doesn't mean he did anything to change the inequalities that women face in the workplace.
Were there really binders? The woman's group when Romney was Governor, have come forward to say they asked Romney to "endore their bill" to hire more women. So it wasn't his idea at all but he signed the bill. Did more women get hired and at equal pay? You decide.
He avoided answering the question with a hokey BS story but ywt "Romney did initially follow through on his promise to appoint more women to top positions-- 14 out of 33 of his appointments during his first two years in office were women--however, from 2004-2006 the percentage of newly-appointed women in these senior appointed positions dropped to 25 percent." - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/1 … 74092.html
by Xenonlit 11 years ago
He is clearly a pathological and habitual liar. He has poor control over his explosive temper. He giggles when confronted about disturbing behavior he has done in the past. Who is stupid enough to vote for a man who has poor self control, an explosive temper, and is unable to tell the truth....
by John Coviello 11 years ago
Mitt Romney Has a 20 Point Lead in South Carolina. Is the GOPNomination Over? I thought that Romney would take New Hampshire, then lose some southern states, and leave the door open for someone else to come from behind. But it's now looking like Romney will roll to a GOP...
by Grace Marguerite Williams 11 years ago
To those who are going to vote for Mitt Romney, what are the pressing issues which draw you to him? Why do you believe that Mr. Romney is going to make a better president than our current President Barack Obama? Do you believe that Mr. Romney will make this country's...
by Sheila 9 years ago
Should Romney run for President again in 2016? Why or why not? Who should be his running mate?
by Audrey Selig 9 years ago
Do you think Mitt Romney could beat Hilary Clinton for president in next election? Explain.Romney may try another run at presidency.
by Thomas Byers 11 years ago
What do you think about Mitt Romney being the first president in U.S. History to have millions stashed in offshore Tax Havens. You know I saw this tonight and it really bothers me that we keep letting people like this run for the US President. I'll tell you right up front that I don't support the...
Copyright © 2023 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|