Not just a highly mockable moment: another Romney lie.
I have such a tin ear I missed the most mockable Romney moment of the evening. What I wouldn’t have known, even had I picked up on it, is that it was another lie. The “binders” weren’t gathered at Romney’s request, and women were mostly shunted into minor jobs or agencies that Romney wanted to abolish.
Author: Mark Kleiman
Professor of Public Policy at the NYU Marron Institute for Urban Management and editor of the Journal of Drug Policy Analysis. Teaches about the methods of policy analysis about drug abuse control and crime control policy, working out the implications of two principles: that swift and certain sanctions don't have to be severe to be effective, and that well-designed threats usually don't have to be carried out.
Drugs and Drug Policy: What Everyone Needs to Know (with Jonathan Caulkins and Angela Hawken)
When Brute Force Fails: How to Have Less Crime and Less Punishment (Princeton, 2009; named one of the "books of the year" by The Economist
Against Excess: Drug Policy for Results (Basic, 1993)
Marijuana: Costs of Abuse, Costs of Control (Greenwood, 1989)
View all posts by Mark Kleiman
24 thoughts on ““Binders full of women””
Funny thing is, I was washing dishes when Romney said that. So I missed it, too.
Don’t miss The Tumblr, which had a half-dozen snarky images posted during the debate.
My favorite so far is â€œIf you liked it you shoulda put three rings on it (binder full of Single Ladies)â€
Also: “Lord Of Three Rings”, though the implementation of the joke could be better.
How odd. European binders have two or four rings.
What a wonderful endorsement of affirmative action by the Governnor.
But on one of the focus groups of “undecided” voters, several women pointed out that they were leaning toward Romney because they liked how he had women on his cabinet.
I &(!t you not.
When Pres Obmam talked about Sec. Clinton, did they think he meant Bill?
And here I was thinking “he’s going for personal anecdotes so he won’t be caught lying.”
It does say something about Mitt that he can’t be objective about his own political life. Any other ex-governor would have memorized anecdotes from his tenure to add a humanizing touch, Reagan, Carter and Clinton for example, but Mitt is such a narcissist that his mental image is of supplicant women bearing petitions to the king.
At the time I read the transcript it just seemed weird; now it appears sick and twisted. Lord of Ring indeed.
I read transcripts and avoid the Hunger Games atmosphere of televised debates and speeches. I have not seen this lie mentioned yet but in his first response Mitt promised to increase Pell Grants.
Right after the pleasantries in paragraph six: “I want to make sure we keep our Pell grant program growing.”
Opps! Kleinman did catch it! I plead missing the wave in his account of the tsunami of Mitt lies.
“the tsunami of Mitt’s lies.” is the whole trouble. Who can keep up? After a while you gotta throw up your hands and just say “WHATEVER”.
But “The tsunami of Mitt’s lies.” is just right. Thank you.
maybe it’s an old Mormon research technique, for when they really *were* looking for multiple women.
Mitt is getting into legendary territory: “Every word a lie, even ‘the’ and ‘and.'”
There’s also the Hollywood version: “Hello,” he lied.
Would you believe him if he said “I’m lying?”
Only if he were a Cretan.
There are so many ways to go with this that I’m paralyzed.
What if he were a cretin?
That’s one road you could take.
That whole answer was brimfull of fail. He said that in MittTopia, with low unemployment, employers would be “so anxious to get good workers they’re going to be anxious to hire women.” Wow. Employers would be so desperate, they’d even hire women! Maybe if they got even more desperate, they might hire black people.
But, of course, they wouldn’t have to pay those women as much as they pay men. And the women would have to go home at 5 to cook dinner for their men. Luckily no male worker ever has to worry about family responsibilities. Good to know no women want to do jobs that have long hours.
The binder story reminded me of the Romney-paid-for-college-for-a-pair-of-a-car-accident-victims story Ryan told in his debate. If something bad happens to you, be it an incapcitating accident or the slow burn of discrimination, AND you happen to be in Fairy Godfather Romney’s sights, Hey, no problem! He’ll solve it all.
The idea that we might need solutions that reach everyone in need, not just the few people whose paths cross with Romney’s, is not even on the radar.
Check out his new ad with three of those women from the binders.
Notice what (GOP party hack) Beth Lindstrom says? “He said, ‘We need to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves. Single mothers or women who are trying to get back to work.'”
What a condescending putz. A single woman is by definition someone who is taking care of herself and at least one other person. If Obama said this, he would — rightly for once — be accused of fostering dependency. But of course Obama wants to help people who need help, which is a very different thing.
This is the same sentiment as “I’ll never convince them that they should take responsibility and care for their lives,” except this time Team Romney doesn’t realize that they’re being insulting.
All of which distracts us from the fact that the question was not about the glass ceiling but about gender-based pay disparity. His complete discarding of that issue in his response tells us that he believes this is not an issue worth addressing.
BTW, anyone else think it was brave of her to ask such a question on national TV with, you know, her boss likely tuning in? I don’t know for a fact that it was brave, but one wonders.
I just heard a bit of the question. Did the person asking say that she herself was paid less than a man at her workplace for the same or equivalent work? She may have been asking in general, since it’s a good issue that has been addressed by recent legislation, against Republican opposition. If she herself is equally paid, it’s not a brave question, but still a good one.
She didn’t say so in her question. If she knows for a fact that her pay is on par then I agree there’s not much bravery there. But given the culture in most work environments, she probably doesn’t know and it would be highly taboo to ask. In that case it could make for a really awkward meeting the next time she faces her boss. On the other hand, asking on national TV could provide the perfect cover. What journalist would ignore her if she lost her job unexpectedly? But it’s still a big risk I think.
Comments are closed.