Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:38 AM

Mitt Romney Adviser On Lilly Ledbetter Act: 'He Was Opposed To It At The Time'

Source: Huffington Post

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- Had Mitt Romney been president in 2009, he would not have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, a top adviser to the Republican nominee told The Huffington Post Tuesday night.

Now that the law has been passed, Romney has no plans to get rid of it, that adviser, Ed Gillespie, added. But Romney didn't support it while it made its way through Congress.

"The governor would not repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Act," said Gillespie, following Tuesday night's presidential debate. "He was opposed to it at the time. He would not repeal it."

The statement from Gillespie is the furthest that the Romney campaign has gone in detailing the candidate's position on the law, which allows women greater opportunity to sue over pay inequity at the workplace. Previously, the governor's campaign has said that he would not repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which was the first bill President Barack Obama signed into law, while leaving unanswered whether or not he would have signed it had he been president at the time.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/17/mitt-romney-lilly-ledbetter_n_1973446.html

9 replies, 3103 views

Reply to this thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

9 replies	Author	Time	Post
Mitt Romney Adviser On Lilly Ledbetter Act: 'He Was Opposed To It At The Time' (Original post)	highplainsdem	Oct 2012	OP
and he also has no plans to reverse roe v wade. I say if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell	still_one	Oct 2012	#1
is Gillespie turning R$ turncoat? Either that or he just put his foot in it	wordpix	Oct 2012	#2
Limited Hang-out	formercia	Oct 2012	#5
no, no, no, no,,, no, no, no	AnnaLee	Oct 2012	#3
Mit Rmoney unable to speak for himself???	IllinoisBirdWatcher	Oct 2012	#4
Given the fact that Gillespie said Mittens was "opposed to it at the time" and	Liberalynn	Oct 2012	#6
The reporter said that question was "previously" left unanswered. Meaning it's now been answered.	highplainsdem	Oct 2012	#8
That's what I get for skimming	Liberalynn	Oct 2012	#9
I would have liked to see Mitt faced with this direct question:	RiverStone	Oct 2012	#7

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:41 AM

still_one (31,072 posts)

1. and he also has no plans to reverse roe v wade. I say if you believe that, I have a bridge to sell

you

Reply to this post

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:43 AM

wordpix (12,475 posts)

2. is Gillespie turning R$ turncoat? Either that or he just put his foot in it

Reply to this post

Response to wordpix (Reply #2)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:55 AM

formercia (18,123 posts)

5. Limited Hang-out

Just Propaganda to deflect attention from Mitt's real agenda.

Reply to this post

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:48 AM

AnnaLee (303 posts)

3. no, no, no, no,,, no, no, no

You answer questions yourself during the debate.

Reply to this post

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 10:52 AM

IllinoisBirdWatcher (349 posts)

4. Mit Rmoney unable to speak for himself???

When given a direct question, Rmoney is incapable of answering.

Only after, in the less public spin room, does the truth come out that Rmoney was against equal pay for women and would not have signed the bill.

How convenient.

Reply to this post

Response to highplainsdem (Original post)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 11:03 AM

Liberalynn (5,547 posts)

6. Given the fact that Gillespie said Mittens was "opposed to it at the time" and

"he did not support it while it made its way through Congress," I think the question of whether he would have signed it, if he were President, has been answered. He WOULD NOT have signed it. What's with the reporter saying it was "left unanswered?"

Reply to this post

Response to Liberalynn (Reply #6)

Wed Oct 17, 2012, 02:57 PM

highplainsdem (11,110 posts)