Mitt Romney 'Binders Full Of Women' Claim Misleads

He is a Compleat Republican.

I think he's trying to compensate for something.

Being that's he's a total Richard.

mittnocchio is a liar and apparently has a poor grasp of reality.

42 to 27.6 in just a few years...and he couldn't find qualified women to replace them or to take positions that men left during that time?

Same ol', same ol'...

How many statements has he walked back or changed since this campaign began?

Gotta read between the lines on this one.

I know whenever I have recruited for a position it was always STACKS of resumes. The process is something like:

1) Skim the resumes. Separate into different piles based on the first review. The majority will never be pursued.

2) Read the resumes in detail and create a pile of candidates you want to pursue.

3) Do interviews, reference checks, etc.

4) For the winning applicant, but the resume in the employee file.

I don't see how a binder helps, but maybe they put the resumes from the short list into a binder for Romney's review.

Or maybe it was more extensive. Maybe they required 10 years of tax returns for each candidate ad created a separate binder for each candidate.

But seriously, I'm pretty sure he chose that word half-carefully. Any finished product I ever sent to the feds or a partner or a chief had to be meticulously indexed, punched, divided and bound. It almost seems to be some sort of a ritual in law and government.

Romney has always "had a guy" for that (and in his case, it just might always have been an actual guy, not a gal). He was above mere resumes. He got reports. In binders.

"The guy" is the person who oversees the process, has the resumes collected, reviewed, and checked. The various documents are assembled into a report on a finalist candidate, with of course an all-important executive summary, and those are collected and bound and presented to the boss with some solemnity, because it's always nearly late and it's always someone beneath the guy's ass if there's a typo or an error or a mis-collation.

I think Romney chose the word because it highlights to his own importance, which is far more important than "people," especially "women."

Sorry, I've been reading Wonkette a lot lately. It makes me snide.

I'm afraid I don't know or understand China well enough to know if their own fine porcelain ceilings have been broken yet. I rather doubt it, considering their heavy overall preference for male children.

My better half wants to ask a question of Mitt and his wife, one that I think cuts straight to the bone: "have you ever changed a diaper?" But if I were asking, I'd bring along a doll and a diaper, so he can demonstrate.

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

I missed the two important punchlines!

1) Romney didn't ask for the study.

2) Romney didn't read them. The number of women in state government declined under him.

Serves me right for taking a single sentence that came out of that snake's mouth as plausible.

Women don't use Google, do they? They have their husbands (or servants) do that for them, right?

so progressive as to request "binders of women" to hire

Wonder if that was what Mitt was thinking about. We KNOW he wasn't thinking about women executives, because, hey! Women can't be executives! They have to get home to make dinner!

...what a despicable dick...

Motivated by anything other than politics.

it pretty much runs in the red by the time he strings 2 words together, but that little diddy SCREAMED fricken bullshit.

Can we force-feed fact checks to our right-wing buddies ? Everybody grab a righty and shove it down their throat or something?

We're all making dinner and picking up our kids from school--who has time to fact-check the bishop? And why would we even doubt him? Father knows best, after all! (Are my pearls straight?)
off

Loved your 'pearls straight' line - was raised by a worked-two-jobs widowed Mom, with three little kids, who always thought the June Cleaver pearls & dressed up for dinner at home was too phony.

and created the binders in the first place so he would have no excuse not to appoint women to appropriate positions.

Time to three-hole punch him into the circular file.

In front of a global audience, he could not control his own mouth and tell the truth. He had to inflate himself far beyond what the facts support.

It does not matter much (nor does he matter much anymore) why he is compelled to tell self-aggrandizing lies. What will prove most intyeresting is the follow-up with the people who created the so-called "binders full of women" and their telling of the true history of this tale.

What a freakin' moran he is.

He talked about hiring women.

That wasn't the question. Nearly every business hires women.

DID HE PAY THE WOMEN HE HIRED THE SAME SALARY THAT HE DID THE MEN IN EQUIVALENT POSITIONS?

He never said either way.

However, we now get from one of his advisors that he wouldn't have signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act in 2009 if he were President.

Thus, one can surmise that he didn't pay women equally, and doesn't support equal pay.

Mitt Romney’s campaign just can’t figure out whether he supports equal pay for women or not. When asked last April about Romney’s view on the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which restored equal pay rights the Roberts Court cut back in 2007, Romney’s campaign responded with an awkward six second silence followed by a promise to “get back” with an answer to the question. The campaign never answered whether Romney supports the law, merely stating that he is “not looking to change current law.” That is, of course, until last night, when Romney’s senior adviser Ed Gillespie said that Romney “was opposed to it at the time” and would not have signed the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. And that admission lasted all of a few hours. Gillespie now claims that Romney “never weighed in on it.”

The truth, however, is that we do not have to wonder about what Romney’s view on equal pay for women is. We do not even have to wait for his campaign to reveal Romney’s unspoken view on this issue, because the question can be answered in just one picture. This one:



That’s Justice Samuel Alito, the author of the Ledbetter opinion stripping many women of their right to equal pay for equal work. When asked how he would select his Supreme Court appointments if elected president, Romney named Alito, along with Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia and Thomas, as his models. All four of Romney’s model justices voted against Lilly Ledbetter and against equal pay for women.

Romney’s promise to place more Alitos on the Supreme Court matters much more than his claim that he is not currently interested in enacting anti-woman legislation. Indeed, it would matter even more than if Romney affirmatively promised to sign pro-woman legislation if elected president. Here is why:

Federal law requires many employees who face pay discrimination to meet a very brief deadline—often as short as six months—or else they lose their ability to challenge their employer’s unlawful actions. The flip side of this, however, is that this clock starts anew every time an employee receives a lower paycheck than her or his coworkers due to unlawful discrimination. As a unanimous Supreme Court explained in its 1986 decision in Bazemore v. Friday, “ach week’s paycheck that delivers less to than to a similarly situated white is a wrong actionable” under federal law. Because gender discrimination is banned by the same law that prohibits race discrimination, Bazemore’s holding also benefited women.

Or, at least, it did until Justice Alito got his hands on it. Alito’s majority opinion in Ledbetter established that, if a woman’s employer makes a decision early in her career that undermines her earning power for decades, the woman must challenge that decision almost immediately or her rights are lost—and they are lost even if she did not discover she was a victim of pay discrimination until years later. Notably, in reaching this decision, the 5-4 majority relied heavily on a 1989 decision, Lorance v. AT&T Technologies, even though Lorance was overruled by an Act of Congress in 1991.

http://thinkprogress.org/

long for the Congress to agree with her and for the President to sign the LL Act.

Mr. Romney, you are a religious man. You have given a ton of money to the Mormon church (at least that is your claim). I am wondering what your church's position is on personal integrity, on not lying to people.

Mr. Romney, the Mormon version of life after death is that if you have been good enough you might qualify to be the higher power of your own special planet somewhere out there in the universe. When you reflect on your own life, your business dealings, your political activites, do you feel you will qualify for your own planet? Does giving money to the church help you qualify for your own planet? Or, have you given up and decided to just go for top level power here on earth?

Mr. Romney, by your example, you are teaching your children and grandchildren that lying is acceptable and potentially useful. Are you comfortable being this kind of parent and grandparent?

nm

"Binders full of women." (I love you, Mitt. You are the best opponent ever. (By "best" of course, I mean stupidest.))

See, he supposedly had to ask women's groups for a list of competent women because he didn't know any and none of the men on his staff knew any. That's my takeaway from that crazy stupid story.

because this guy could be an even bigger bungler.

He didn't meet any women working at Bain, or in the companies he destroyed, who would be fit to be in his cabinet? He had to ask outside groups to go find him some? He does live in the same century as the rest of us, right?

especially when offering a (relatively) low paying government job that will likely end in 4 years.

but also to replace the women who left, once people's attention was turned elsewhere (see other DU threads that document this).

He obviously was able to attract men with those salaries, so I am not buying salaries as the reason that women were not in the pool from the start.

I don't recall him finding a whole lot of men OR women who went from very high salaries in the business world to working for him as governor. Maybe it's because of the salaries, maybe it's because people who had already worked with him didn't want to do it unless they were very well paid for it.

You are making excuses for him that do not make sense.

There are a lot of PEOPLE (men and women) in the business world, but Romney only interacted, worked with, or knew a relatively small percentage of them. Those people were likely pretty well paid. Romney don't strike me as the kind of guy who is on a first name basis with the new interns or even the facilities or IT manager.

No, I can't think of any WOMEN he hired from that circle. I also can't think of any MEN he hired from THAT circle. If he even offered any of them a job, the PEOPLE (again, men and women) probably didn't want to take a pay cut for the "pleasure" of working with him in a temporary job.

You are suggesting he didn't hire or didn't know any qualified women from Bain. I'm saying he didn't seem to hire much of ANYONE from Bain, regardless of gender, when he was governor.

n/t