Romney Lied about "Binders full of women"

[jsteele]

You really can't trust a word that comes out of Romney's mouth:

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

Here is what Romney said during last night's debate:

"I went to a number of women's groups and said, "Can you help us find folks," and they brought us whole binders full of women."

Here is the truth:

"What actually happened was that in 2002 -- prior to the election, not even knowing yet whether it would be a Republican or Democratic administration -- a bipartisan group of women in Massachusetts formed MassGAP to address the problem of few women in senior leadership positions in state government. There were more than 40 organizations involved with the Massachusetts Women's Political Caucus (also bipartisan) as the lead sponsor.

"They did the research and put together the binder full of women qualified for all the different cabinet positions, agency heads, and authorities and commissions. They presented this binder to Governor Romney when he was elected."

So, Romney didn't got to the women's groups, but those groups came to him. And, how did all of this work out for the women:

"Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration..."

[Anonymous]

Thanks for posting this. The Phoenix is a good source for Massachusetts politics. This story is representative of Romney's passive "leadership" style. All of the things he has taken credit for in Massachusetts were either Democratic initiatives that he signed off on, or the work of local advocacy groups that he went along with because he had no ideas of his own.

[Anonymous]

It drove me crazy to hear him take credit for schools -- as if he had anything to do with it. (it would likewise be ridiculous for OMalley to take credit for schools in 2016)

[Anonymous]

At this point I'd be more shocked if he said something that was honest

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:At this point I'd be more shocked if he said something that was honest

Maybe that's the October surprise that's coming!

[Anonymous]

Oh I think we've heard plenty from "Honest Mitt" -- you just have to hide a camera at a fundraising event to get the truth out of him.

[Anonymous]

thanks for posting this and hoping the media will expose this lie as well.

[Anonymous]

i guess this is the most important issue, never mind the last 4 years of fail

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i guess this is the most important issue, never mind the last 4 years of fail

Women are important. And in that respect, Obama hasn't failed at all.

[Anonymous]

There are more women in poverty today than when Obama took office. Obama has no response to that FACT and no specific plan to address that FACT. He is no champion of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are more women in poverty today than when Obama took office. Obama has no response to that FACT and no specific plan to address that FACT. He is no champion of women.

He did a better job than the Republicans did and would've done, and would do in the next 4 years and the bottom line is that most people understand that.

[Anonymous]

He did a better job than the Republicans did and would've done, and would do in the next 4 years and the bottom line is that most people understand that.

How, exactly?? You're so keen on pressing Romney for specifics (which he has provided, but not to your liking), but are just as keen to let Obama slide on the specifics. How did he do a better job for women? How will he do a better job in the next 4 years? People need to ask Obama those questions before they ever can understand your bottom line. I understand that you WANT him to be better and to have a plan, but the reality is that he isn't and doesn't. He is not a champion of women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are more women in poverty today than when Obama took office. Obama has no response to that FACT and no specific plan to address that FACT. He is no champion of women.

Of course he does. Do you understand poverty at all? Do you understand that it's caused by multiple issues, all of which Obama has addressed or tried to? That the Republicans in Congress have a record high number of filibusters of any legislation that may help low-income individuals and families? So he's been limited in some respects with what he wants to do. If the Republicans cared about women specifically, or Americans at all, they would have tried to work collaboratively with the Democrats to produce some true change over the past four years. Instead, they've made it their single goal to ensure Obama serves only one term.

But Obama has done a lot. ObamaCare will help lower-income individuals build and maintain wealth by not spending every dime they have on health care. It increases the income levels that are eligible for Medicaid. It prohibits discrimination due to pregnancy. When women have regular access to health care, they are healthier and can work more productively. He wants women to have access to contraception, which gives them control over family planning. He allowed states to choose whether welfare should have a work requirement -- depending on the state, this can be a HUGE help to women with small children in the home. He's supported early childhood education programs. And family tax credits that are a significant help to single mothers, since many families are headed by moms. He cares about equal pay for equal work (Lily Ledbetter). And he's pro-choice.

What has Romney said about women? No forced contraception coverage for certain employers. Defunding Planned Parenthood. Not supporting Lily Ledbetter. He's anti-choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There are more women in poverty today than when Obama took office. Obama has no response to that FACT and no specific plan to address that FACT. He is no champion of women.

Actually, one thing they did was urge more people in this situation to take advantage of food stamps, which for some reason seems to offend people like you.

Poverty and income inequality are lagging indicators of policies that predate Obama's ascension to office. It's like a freighter -- it won't turn on a dime, and it takes more than 4 years for policies to have a beneficial effect. In the meanwhile, it makes sense to patch the safety net before you cast out the lines.

[Anonymous]

The Ryan budget embodies the Republican approach of cutting poverty programs to give tax cuts to the rich. If that's what you think the country needs then go ahead and vote for him.