Truth of the matter is that when Romney took office, women made up 42% of the "important staff" which is something I don't think he should shy away from. That's a great number. Sure it was down to 25% by the end of his term, but you can't necessarily blame Romney for the mass exodus of ladies... right?
Here are a few of my favorite memes based off that binders line:
I get what Romney was trying to say during this debate moment, so I don't hold it against him that it may have come out a bit awkward on the spot during a debate watched by 65 million people while vying for the most powerful position on planet Earth. I don't need every sentence to come out like poetry, but what shouldn't be lost in all of this internet attention is the question asked.
The L.A. Times has a good article breaking down this entire moment for both candidates:
Let's start with the question:
In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72% of what their male counterparts earn?Very good question, because, let's face it, it feels like bullshit that we can't figure out something this simple. The article states:
...Their responses were surprisingly condescending.
They each immediately and very noticeably went personal, as if the word "females" triggered some deeply embedded Skinnerian word association response — "Women like personal stories," you could almost hear their handlers whisper. "Tell them a personal story."
For Obama:
Obama, with two daughters and the formidable Michelle as his wife, clearly thought this was an easy out. He loosened up, took his time. He was, as he reminded everyone for the 7 millionth time, the son of a single mother who put herself through school, raised by a grandmother who, though discriminated against in the workplace, never complained "because that generation didn't complain."
As if this were a good thing, not complaining. Which, and we must beckon for the fact-checker here, I'm fairly certain some of them did, including Betty Friedan, who was a contemporary of Obama's grandmother, as was the late great Bella Abzug, only they called it "protest."
Obama then pointed out that he had supported the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, after Ledbetter lost her pay equity case in front of the Supreme Court.
"So we fixed that," the president said. Et voila, pay equity all around! Instead of discussing how, say, that act might work for real women, he decided to turn a question about equal pay into an opportunity for him to point out his support for legal abortion and insurance coverage of contraceptives.
Because clearly any mention of women must prompt a discussion of abortion and contraception, and legal abortion and covered contraception should, somehow, make up for women not getting paid enough. (Memo to American management: Next time a man asks for a raise, just hand him a box of condoms.) He summed up with his go-to argument of the night: He would ensure that everyone gets an education. Because we all know that women with college degrees are never discriminated against in the workplace.
So yeah, looking back at Obama's response, that's kind of a train wreck of avoidance. And obviously I posted the meat of Romney's response at the top of this article. His binder statements struck me in the same way people proving they are not racist because some of their best friends are minorities. Fair pay for women? Of course I support that. Look how much I enjoyed hiring women as governor! Beyond that, from the L.A. Time article again:
...He also allowed his female chief of staff to go home at 5 o'clock every day so she could make dinner for her young children.
Because if you want to hire women, you have to be flexible enough to let them bring home the bacon and then fry it up in a pan.
During the debate, that part about allowing the Chief of Staff to go home and cook dinner was what jumped out at me, but I didn't consider it at the moment because I was following the rest of Romney's response. Ms. Mary McNamara, who wrote this oft-quoted L.A. Times piece, critiques that moment perfectly.
Now, even beyond all of that, another point of interest from the Binder segment came after the debate itself. From the Huffington Post:
After the debate, after Romney stated his love for equal pay, Romney Campaign Advisor Ed Gillespe talked about how Romney felt about the Lilly Ledbetter Act:
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."
Truth of the matter is that Romney never actually came out in favor of or against the bill (not sure why), and when his campaign was asked directly by the Huffington Post on a conference call with the press, the campaign simply said "We'll get back to you." Obama specifically mentioned that during the debate. So maybe this was the Romney campaign finally getting back to someone on that question.
That's obviously not the case, so poor Ed Gillespie had to roll himself out again to clarify his clarification:
Hours after this story was published, the Romney campaign sent a statement from Gillespie walking back the comments he had made the night before.
“I was wrong when I said last night Governor Romney opposed the Lily Ledbetter act," the statement read. "He never weighed in on it. As President, he would not seek to repeal it.”
So a retraction on the clarification. Why is this such a big deal? Two reasons, first is the general vibe of why doesn't a presidential campaign have its shit together? Seems like you want to know where you stand on something from the start just so you have a position to build on as things come up. Seems like you would want to know what your candidate said before addressing what your candidate said.
Second, and this is a point that's been making the rounds for a while, it's infuriating that Romney is allowed to say one thing to an audience only to have his campaign "clarify" his actual positions as the exact opposite.
I know that clip is long, but it's worth watching through because the beginning establishes the Romney campaign's history of lying, and at around the six-minute mark, goes into the heart of the matter... the pattern of saying one thing and having staff say the opposite later. While the Binder correction may not be the strongest or most blatant example of this behavior, it's the thing everyone is paying attention to at the moment. It's an accessible way to get everyone on board with Romney's particular method of weaseling around positions or the truth.
Between Romney's "State and later Correct" and Ryan's inability to own up to his own marathon times, I think we have a ticket that clearly doesn't have the stones to run the country.
Edit: The Romney campaign tried to respond to this Binder Meme and just failed:
This sucks... the Romney campaign sucks at the internet.
No comments:
Post a Comment