According to one of his campaign advisers Romney opposed the Lily Ledbetter act
when it was being debated and his debate answer suggested that women need
flexible schedules so they can do things like go home and make dinner. Why
can't men make their own darn sammiches?
The Obama campaign tactics will do anything with a benign statement and make it
a diversionary tactic to take away any looking at his dismal record and
performance in the past almost 4 years.He had rhetoric and learned
it well as Americans helped pay for his college education. He was persuasive in
getting Hillary Clinton to stop running for President in 2008. He may have even
promised her the Secretary of State job. He didn't want her as a
Vice-President and he now has a great VP for the past 4 years and potentially
for the next 4 years. He can't show proof in the pudding so he
will bring up 47 percent and other such topics as women in binders.He won't answer the tough questions such as Libya, Fast and Furious,
economic mirror shining but will go on television and stage to tout great jokes
and smile with his friends in Hollywood.His family has taken
extravagant vacations all around the world not like common folk.He
has thrown Mrs. Clinton under the bus along with the Ambassador to the United
Nations over this Libya issue.He is amazing and Michelle is proud.
Mitt Romney tossed a lot of shiny objects last night. "Everyone gets a tax
cut, while we increase spending, balance the budget, and bring down the
deficit." That object is so shiny, it blinds us to the logic which shows it
doesn't add up.
JWB said: "The Obama campaign tactics will do anything with a benign
statement and make it a diversionary tactic to take away any looking at his
dismal record and performance in the past almost 4 years."Maybe,
but as usual you provide no evidence. The democrats didn't use a misquote
as their central theme at the convention either.Birth
Certificate?Christian or Muslim?"He won't answer the
tough questions such as Libya" You mean like last night when he
schooled mitt on Libya?"His family has taken extravagant
vacations?"Presidents aren't allowed to vacation? ...and he
isn't even approaching GW's record."He has thrown Mrs.
Clinton under the bus " Wrong again it was her choice and last night in the
debate he said it's on him or were you only listening when mitt was
spinning?JWB you've been busy today apologising for mitt's
lack luster performance, it must be hard blaming everyone but mitt.
Funny that Jay chose a Mitt Romney lie [aka, Factcheckers] about the binder
story.Woman's Rights advocates have been putting these
"binders" together for years.Gov. Romney was given his
"binder" Day-One in office -- NOT the other way around as he claims.That said, That was the OLD Mitt Romney - Woman's
Rights, Pro-Choice, Romneycare, Contraception Romney ...before the Tea-Party morphed him into the fake Romney.
JWBKaysville, UTNo one needs to spin anything. Mitts
biggest nemesis is Mitt. All an opponent has to do is put him in a room,
ask him hard questions, record the answers, and then play them back later.And if you can record him when he does not know he is being recorded, the real
elitist mitt comes out. You know; The one he does not want us common po folks
I know it is hard to live in Utah Valley and especially Happy Valley with the
good people that surround the area and know your vote is going to count as
everyone there votes Republican as in Davis county.It can be
depressing to know that what you believe that most of the neighbors don't
agree with. Utah needs some balancing in their political process but to vote
for a President who has shown his colors in a different way than is portrayed in
the press and media is a shame.Nixon liked the power of his office
and unfortunately didn't stay the whole time his second term as his power
was not appropriate. His "friends" helped take him down and some paid
the price with a term in confinement, as it was in some military base. We
don't need to go through even two years more to have that type of future.
Okay - it has now been a full day since the debate. Mr. Romney has had a full
day to tell the world his plan to deal with pay inequality. So what
is the plan? Is it the same as his list of exemptions and deductions he'll
remove? All I hear is crickets chirping...
JWB said: "I know it is hard to live in Utah Valley and especially Happy
Valley with the good people that surround the area and know your vote is going
to count as everyone there votes Republican as in Davis county.It can be
depressing to know that what you believe that most of the neighbors don't
agree with." Not at all, being part of a herd has never been my
thing.Funny thing is most people whom disagree with my political
leanings are quite naive of politics in general. Right wing emails filled
with birther and socialist nonsense are there only knowledge of the
candidates.Most reasonable people after finding out that they are
forwarding complete "Malarky" are embarrassed. Some will never
face the facts and blame the media, or anyone but the person lying to them,
these are fans of the master disinformation specialists rush, sean, glenn ect...
I heard a whole lot of distortion and outright lies from Mitt last night. Are
Candidates get stuck with these things, right or wrong. Except sarah palin. She
may not have said she could see russia from her house, but she did utter some
incredibly unintelligent things.
Mitt Romney's attitude concerning women is basically anti-women. His views
during the Republican primary morphed and shifted because he had to please the
extreme wing of his party. Now as he tries to move somewhat into the middle,
his "acquiring resumes" is not sufficient when he basically believes a
woman's place should be in the home taking care of all the babies she will
have to bear since she will not be allowed to have control of her own body.Mad Men meet Mitt Romney. Both from the same era with the same
I think it was a pretty humorous miss speak but thats all it was and
conservatives getting all riled up over it is only making the feeding frenzy
worse. Smile its almost over.
you are so wrong, Jay. As Freud said, it's the little revelations that tell
you what a man is made of. "Binders full of women" is Romney's
unconscious way of expressing that all human beings are to him are "human
resources," "ASSETS," the businessman's way of seeing people as
things. "Binders full of women" tells you pretty much all you need to
know about Romney.
From the article: "And not the slightest step had been taken toward a
substantive discussion of pay equity."From a Yahoo article about
the debate: "Before answering the question, Romney had been reminded that
women earn about 72 percent what their male counterparts do—and his
response was to say, “Exactly! That’s why, given half a chance, I
hire women!”"Romney is the one that was showing shiny
objects and distracting from the question - not to mention his story is a
misrepresentation of the facts....and when he did appoint women it
was to cabinet positions that were a little less than important....but, hey! Let's get distracted by Jay's shiny ball......
'Binders full of women'. Comedians are going to have a field day.
A non-issue. Much more important things to discuss.
Liberals want to distract. They want us to ignore the real problems as they
force-feed us their nonsense. The question was about equal pay for equal work.
Romney told us how he solved the problem. It was an actual solution that took
into account the additional responsibilities that most women have outside the
workplace. Because he had a solution, the liberals immediately mocked him.
They had no solution. He had a solution.Romney showed how he would
reduce the deficit while lowering tax rates by INCREASING the number of people
who pay taxes. That was not what liberals wanted to hear. They are too busy
telling us to go on welfare, to become part of the problem, to demand that some
"rich guy" pay their welfare checks.Each time a valid and
workable solution is offered, liberals go on the offensive to destroy that
solution. They don't want things to work. They want us to look to
Washington and to use government's trickle-down programs.Look
at the polls. Americans are rejecting the liberal theme. Americans can see
through their smoke and mirrors.
This morning I was listening to the radio on the way to work and the airways
were full of anti-affirmative action rhetoric in anticipation of the upcoming
Supreme Court case.So, if Republicans are so opposed to affirmative
action, why do you all consider it commendable for Governor Romney to insist his
cabinet be 50 percent female? Contridiction much?
Hiring qualified women is not "affirmative action". Hiring qualified
men is not "affirmative action". Hiring someone who is unqualified
because he/she is part of a under-represented group is "affirmative
action". No business can survive if it is required to hire unqualified
people when qualified people are available. Romney asked about
qualified women. He asked what needed to be done so that qualified women could
have those good paying jobs. He asked what changes had to be made so that
qualified women could feed their families and handle their financial
responsibilities. Nothing in his remarks referred to hiring anyone, man or
woman, who was unqualified for the position.
Good column, Mr. Ivensen.The questioner wanted to know what Romney
would do to rectify pay inequities for women who make 72% of what men make.
Romney either couldn't or wouldn't answer that straightforward
question. THAT should have been the headline. Instead we go "binders full of
women."Is the news media to blame? Well, let's take a look.
Romney's "binders full of women" comment went viral on social media
immediately following the debate. From there, it's hard to tell whether it
was the Obama campaign or the news media who followed the lead set by folks like
you and I posting online.So who's to blame?
"Romney showed how he would reduce the deficit while lowering tax rates by
INCREASING the number of people who pay taxes."Uh, no. He told
us it would happen. Far cry from SHOWING us how it would happen.We
have seen evidence that if you lower the top tax rate from 90% to 70% that it
works. (kennedy)We have seen evidence that if you lower the top tax rate
from 70% to 50% that it works. (reagan)BUT,We did not
see that it works if you lower the top tax rate from 39% to 35%. (bush)SO,I, for one don't think that lowering the top tax rate
from 35% to 28% is the answer.To me, it sounds like Romney is
playing to the ideological base which will insure that the - the rich will
get richer- the middle class and the poor will get poorer- and the
deficit will grow larger.
@ Joe,Giving someone $30,000 from the treasury costs taxpayers
$30,000. Giving someone a job that allows him to make $30,000 saves the
taxpayers the $30,000 paid in welfare and it allows that person to pay income
taxes back into the treasury. At the least, it has saved the government $30,000
in welfare payments. Do that 20,000,000 times and you've saved the
government $600,000,000,000 ($600 billion).But some liberals want to
keep those people on welfare and raise $60,000,000,000 ($60 billion) by taxing
the rich guy. It's clear that they failed elementary math.That's what Mr. Evensen is writing about: you seem to be deflecting the
truth by pretending that your fluff is substantive.
Mr Thompson,Lowering tax rates has not been shown to increase jobs.
Those on the right spout it like it is an accepted fact.Of course it is better for people to have jobs than welfare. You can not
findeven one Democrat who disagrees.It is either dishonest or
ignorance to believe that ANYONE wants to "keep those people on
welfare"The question is how do we fix it. My
"fluff" is far more "substantive" than your spouting of an
unproven party ideology along with your inflammatory, factually inaccurate
@Joe,Rewriting history is not the way to prove a point. Sixteen
million jobs were created under Reagan AFTER tax rates were lowered AND revenues
to the government increased.It's not "theory".
It's a proven fact. It works. Sixteen million Americans got a job when
Reagan was President. There are 23 million Americans who need a job
today. You want to take away the capital that is necessary to build the
businesses that will hire those people. You want to give them a handout from
the government, i.e., you would rather see them on welfare than allow them to
work. You may think that you're not saying that, but if you take away the
seed capital, you force those people to stay on welfare. No businessman can
ever risk capital that he doesn't have. No businessman can hire employees
when the government has taken his working capital. It is impossible.
@j ThomasNow who is rewriting history j?
Mr Thompson,If you read my post, I did not rewrite history. I acknowledged that Reagans tax reduction DID in fact create jobs.Reagans tax rates went from 70% to 50% then for a short time of his
tenure, to 28%.BUT, his 28% tax bracket started at $30,000 in todays
dollars.Todays top tax rate is 35%, but starts at $388,000.Reagans tax rates were SIGNIFICANTLY higher than they are today.So, the million dollar question is this.Why, now, do the tax rates
have to be lower then they were under Reagan when 16 million jobs were created.
Why are his rates no longer good enough?
The difference for me is Obama and Biden blatantly lie. ABC has reported that
Biden was not, as he said in the debate, one of eight people to meet in the Oval
Office with President Reagan. He said, "I was there. I was there with Tip
O'Neil." He was never there. Obama said "not true" when
Romney pointed out that Obama had cut permits for oil and gas on federal lands
by 50%. The ABC and FOX have verified that this is exactly what he's done.
Now a binder is the issue? The administration never uses binders? They know
everyone (like the 6,000 foreign appointments Obama mentioned) they appoint?
Time to wake up people and see things as they really are. These are only two
examples among many.
Mike Richards South Jordan, UtahSo, Mike, where do you stand on the
Lily Ledbetter Act? And, yes, I know it's not in the Constitution.Romney had the "binders" put into his hands by women's
groups in Massachusetts wanting more women in high-level positions. He did not
solicit them. They were given to both candidates running for governor according
to his opponent, Shannon O'Brien.The question then arises: How
does a woman obtain the administrative experience for these high-level positions
when attitudes are they women should have babies and stay at home? Certain
segments discriminate against women who do not choose that path and, instead,
choose to have a career. This is an old attitude, sexist by it's very
nature, but is an attitude that Mitt Romney was taught and what he carried
forward in his everyday life's experience.Ask yourself, has
Romney ever had to deal with a woman CEO of a major corporation? I don't
know, but I think he would be extremely uncomfortable. His world has been
masculine from the get go. The famous picture of Romney and associates with
money in their pockets doesn't show a woman.
Some keep saying that a top rate of 28% did not increase job growth, but at the
same time they admit that under Reagan, 16.1 million new jobs were created. Are
we to suppose that as soon as the tax rate hit 28% that all job growth stopped?
Just what happened during the last two years of Reagan's
Presidency? In 1986, the unemployment rate was 7%. In 1987, it went DOWN to
6.2%. In 1988, it went DOWN to 5.5% and in 1989 it was at 5.3%. It looks
suspiciously like job growth was taking place with the tax rates at 28%.Next, they tell us that a small business making $388,000 profit a year
deserves to be taxed at a higher rate that you or me. Why? Those making
$388,000 a year are much better able to create jobs than those making $30,000 a
year. It takes capital and lots of it to build a business.Romney has
created thousands of jobs. He knows what it takes. Obama doesn't.Liberals throwing chaff in the wind to distract is what Jay was writing about.
@ Ying Fah,I'm flattered that you decided to attack me, but
contrary to your assumption, I was not part of the Presidential debate.You made two comments about Mitt Romney. Neither dealt with the facts. Both
tried to smear him, who is "really" is and what he stands for. If you
want to debate, debate the facts, not your idea of what the facts should be. As
he told Mr. Obama, "You're entitled, Mr. President, as the president to
your own airplane and your own house, but not to your own facts,"; You are
not entitled to your own facts.Your posts are condescending to
women. You have decided what they should do and how they should be treated.
Romney has stated views opposite from yours. He has stated views opposite from
Mr. Obama. Look at Obama's attitude towards and treatment of Hillary
Clinton.Jay Evensen was so right in his description of
to Mike Richards 8:36 a.m. Oct. 19, 2012I read the message posted by
Ying Fah. There is nothing in it that is condescening to women. It, in fact,
states the exact conditions with which women have had to deal. I also saw the
comments about Romney. Ying Fah’s comments (especially the one about ho
the resumes were collected for the binders) were and are accurate. You are the
one who is not entitled to change the facts, despite the fact that you are
trying to do so.Romney is the one who is condescending to women.
He, by his words, apparently believes that women are commodities who can be put
into a binder and stored until they are wanted or needed. We aren’t. A
woman’s resume can be put in a binder. A woman is a free individual who
is not to be stored or kept (in a binder or anywhere else) for anyone’s
wishes. That is contrary to what Romney, from the implication of his words,
@Furry1993 - Romney's former Lt. Governor, a female, verified that Romney
did indeed solicit qualified women to fill high-level positions, instead of just
filling the positions with men who were originally submitted. I guess
that's a bad thing to you, simply because their resumes were delivered in a
binder. Personally, I think a person must have a diagnosable
psychosis to think "binders full of women" is a negative comment toward
women by Romney. Really, potentially certifiably insane. Of all the
manufactured outrages of all time, this one has to be the absolute most
irrational.By the way Furry - Romney was given "binders full of
women" by a WOMEN'S GROUP! If you're going to castigate someone
for storing or keeping women in binders for anyone's wishes, shouldn't
you be castigating the women's groups who put the binders together?
I don't suspect there's any point in attempting to debate this issue.
Anyone who is pathologically and deludedly biased enough to make this an issue
can't possibly be capable of rational debate. It's the most shallow,
least significant, worst political distraction of all time, and serves only to
expose laughingstock partisans worthy of the highest ridicule.
It's amusing to see how the left has missed the full point of Jay
Evensen's column and that they have proven him right. Look at how many
have personally attacked other members of the forum! Look at how many have
failed to substantiate anything that they posted! Look at how many have
resorted to near slander to vilify anyone who had a differing viewpoint!Thank you Jay Evensen for writing a column that clearly showed that some
people are so focused on nonsense that they have stopped thinking.
There are quite a few responses concerning Reagan creating jobs. What we must
not forget however is that in lowering the tax rates, he also started the
current deficit problem.He ran up the national debt, like no president
ever had, even war time presidents.It is a lot harder to stay on budget,
it requires sacrifice, and you cannot buy everything you want.Reagan just
took a big old credit card, with no limit, and ran it up.If you gave me a
credit card with no limit, I for a while could live quite well, I would be
happy, I would feel like things were a lot better, I would go out and spend lots
of money, and create a lot of jobs.But then the credit card would come
dueThat is where we are now, our spending has gotten out of control, it is
hard to wean everyone both the rich and poor off of all the handouts.What
Reagan did; was save his generation, by selling out all the generations that
followed into debt.
@Vidar - very typical slant by a Reagan opponent on the results of his policies.
Reagan championed the lower tax rates, so they are certainly on him. What
resulted was record high revenues, so that's on him as well. The spending of that money was the responsibility of Congress and Senate,
which was run by Democrats. Democrat and Republican congresses have always
championed spending money, so that's on them. If there is more revenue,
they find ways to spend it, and predict the coffers will always grow, so they
spend into deficits as well. Reagan, who worked across the aisle
very diligently with Tip O'Neil, signed the budgets given to him by
Congress, in a good faith effort at bipartisanship because Congress had worked
with him to lower the tax rates, generally against their political philosophy.
Although is was naive of Reagan to believe congress would exercise any fiscal
restraint whatsoever, the budgets were certainly created by Democrat
congresses.So, they worked together to increase revenue, which can
be credited to Reagan, and they worked together to spend us into oblivion, which
was certainly the child of Congress.But nice try on the anti-Reagan
When delivered "binders full of qualified women," Romney clearly should
have thrown them back in the face of the women's group who delivered them
and screamed "How dare you deliver this to me in binders!! How could you
demean women by putting them in binders?!?" The pettiness has
truly hit a level of insanity that is inconceivable to any rational person. That
Obama supporters would suffer the embarrassment of raising this ridiculous
matter is only evidence of a horribly desperate campaign status.
Unfortunately, "binders of women" is just one more expression used by
Romney this year to show his real colors and attitudes toward women, the
"47%", London, allies, enemies, and the list goes on. How can we
actually support a man who appears to be so clueless? I can't.
DSBCedar Hills, UTReagan's adminstration lowered the tax
rates. Mostly for the superwealthy, then spent more money then any president
before him.He tripled the deficit.He started the deficit problem our
country is in now.he forged a bunch of IOU's with the unborns
signature.He sold out future generations to save his.
@VIDAR - yeah, you already spun it that way once. Doesn't change the facts
of how budgets are created and spent in Washington.