AEIdeas

The public policy blog of the American Enterprise Institute

Subscribe to the blog

Discussion: (22 comments)

  1. re: hiding

    how much “hiding” and “lying” went on
    with these Secretaries?

    George P. Shultz
    Madeleine Albright
    Colin Powell
    Condoleezza Rice

    DId Bush “hide” behind Powell on WMD?
    Did Bush “hide” or “throw under the Bus” terrorist attacks
    that occurred when Condoleezer was State?
    What was Shultz doing when people under Reagan were playing with Iran Contra?

    what the “binder” comment shows is how Romney views women as if he had to be told there were qualified women existed.

    And of course he’d also deal with Women the way the extreme right has advocated on health care.

    How a women defends Romney and attacks Obama is interesting to me.

    1. MacDaddyWatch

      Did Obama hide behind Clinton and Rice when he sent the latter out to spend the day in front of TV cameras and lie to the American people, not admitting that it was a terrorist attack?

      1. re: “hiding”

        was that after Reagan lied about Iran Contra and Bush tried to top it with WMD?

        did you complain about those “lies” and “hiding”?

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair

        1. I think it was after Bigfoot crapped in your Cheerios Larry

          1. re: bigfoot

            you mean Ollie North and Poindexter and Reagan saying ” I was out of the loop”

            or Bush saying ” the security folks screwed up”?

            I think you boys are messed up big time.

            you know things are bad when folks like you have double standards where one guy gets a pass and the other does not.

            that’s zealotry at it’s worst.

          2. Ya, Larry that is precisely what I meant- the Bigfoot part I mean.

          3. bigfoot? LORD!

            :-)

  2. give me freedom

    Again LarryG, you totally miss the whole point of what the author was trying to say. Then you spew more meaningless blather that had nothing to do with what she was saying.

    She is saying that she is a “Person” and wants to be treated like a “Person”. She doesn’t need special treatment because of her sex.

    1. re: ” She is saying that she is a “Person” and wants to be treated like a “Person”. She doesn’t need special treatment because of her sex”

      even with the history of their treatment in jobs and gender?

      What impression did you get from Romney about equal treatment of women as job candidates for his administration?

      Did he really need to get those “binders” if he seriously believed he could look for qualified candidates regardless of sex?

      do you think he was thinking women are the same as men when he said “Binders of qualified people”?

      1. give me freedom

        “even with the history of their treatment in jobs and gender?”

        Yes, she says she wants to be treated the same. Not worse or better than men. The same. She finds it insulting when people think that she needs to be treated differently just because of her sex. Whether that special treatment is because of some percieved or actual mistreatment of her sex in the past has nothing to do with it. She won’t accept being treated worse because of her sex but she also does not want to have “special” treatment because of her sex. It is a very simple concept. We are all equal, so treat us all equal.

        As for “binders” meme that you go on and on about, read the excerpt from the transcript. It is clear that he made a concerted effort to fill his cabinet with qualified women. They went to womens group to get help finding qualified women and he said that they gave him binders full of women. Obviously, binders full of resumes from woman. That’s how you start a search to fill a position, you review the resumes of qualified people to narrow down your search in order to interview the best candidates. Perhaps he could have stated that clearer but to get upset about his comment that he got binders full of women, as if he had his people shove all these women into binders, is just stupid. What should be important is that a study showed he ended up with more senior women in his cabinet than any other state cabinet.

        “CROWLEY: Governor Romney, pay equity for women?

        ROMNEY: Thank you. And important topic, and one which I learned a great deal about, particularly as I was serving as governor of my state, because I had the chance to pull together a cabinet and all the applicants seemed to be men.

        And I — and I went to my staff, and I said, “How come all the people for these jobs are — are all men.” They said, “Well, these are the people that have the qualifications.” And I said, “Well, gosh, can’t we — can’t we find some — some women that are also qualified?”

        ROMNEY: And — and so we — we took a concerted effort to go out and find women who had backgrounds that could be qualified to become members of our cabinet.

        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.

        I was proud of the fact that after I staffed my Cabinet and my senior staff, that the University of New York in Albany did a survey of all 50 states, and concluded that mine had more women in senior leadership positions than any other state in America.”

        1. ” he made a concerted effort to fill his cabinet with qualified women.”

          but you just said women were opposed to that.

          right?

          why did Romney do that instead of hiring with no gender “binders”?

          1. give me freedom

            Again you miss the point and come out with more nonsense.

            He said that at first it seemed that all applicants were men. So he took steps to find qualified women applicants as well.

            Because of his effort to find qualified women applicants as well he ended up with more women in senior positions than any other state.

            What he did was he made an effort to give equal opportunity to woman because he saw that most of the applicants were men to begin with. There is no indication that the women he hired were less qualified than the men. It shows no gender bias. What is shows is a smart governor who saw that there is likely a lot of qualified people that were not applying for postions in his cabinet and he took steps to get binders full of resumes from those people.

            Your assumption is sexist because you are assuming that in order to get women into those positions he had to give them special treatment. You basically said that there were not as qualified as the men. Your sexist biase shows through with that comment.

          2. ” He said that at first it seemed that all applicants were men. So he took steps to find qualified women applicants as well. ”

            ” What is shows is a smart governor who saw that there is likely a lot of qualified people that were not applying for postions in his cabinet and he took steps ”

            don’t you guys call this “gender discrimination” when liberal do it?

            what would you NOT just seek out the best qualified regardless of gender?

            isn’t that what you advocate?

          3. give me freedom

            “don’t you guys call this “gender discrimination” when liberal do it?

            what would you NOT just seek out the best qualified regardless of gender?”

            There is no evidence of gender discrimination at all. This is a smart manager that saw that all he had were male applicants for those positions and so he made an effort to find qualified women applicants as well. Then he chose his staff from the larger group of applicants.

            Dem. or Rep., that seems smart to me. Your sexist bias comes through again because you are now saying that in order to have that many women in his cabinet he had to give them special treatment since of course there couldn’t have been that many qualified women.

            So now you are hammering him for trying to give women equal opportunity?

          4. ” So now you are hammering him for trying to give women equal opportunity?”

            no. I’m saying it’s hypocritical to be opposed to gender-based affirmative action policies but then not seek out any/all regardless of gender.

            When you make the distinction of gender are you not saying that gender is one of the criteria?

            A true blue free-market guy would not make gender distinctions in recruiting and hiring.

            He’d seek the best qualified even if it ended up with no women if you were a principled adherent of the free-market.

            right?

            do you think he sent his people out to get a “binder” of men?

            I just think this reeks of hypocrisy.

            do you think Romney supports Affirmative Action to ensure “diversity”?

  3. MacDaddyWatch

    Wasn’t there something on Obama’s web site, since removed, that effectively told women that they should “vote with their body parts?” That’s a paraphrase, but its close.

    What the heII is that supposed to mean? That democrats think of women as being nothing but voting vaglnas?

    What an vulgar insult. Talk about a war on women.

    1. As I recall Obama was working on the Lily Ledbetter issue and the right wing was covering it’s ears and humming nah nah nah.. Romney too!

      Romney seeks out “binders” of women is opposed to affirmative action and equal pay.

      what more do you need to know?

  4. LarryG,

    In looking for qualified people, the governor recognized that he did not know enough people to adequately reflect the pool of talent in his state. He therefore solicited suggestions from third parties in an effort to survey a broader swath of the population. He could have fallen back on nepotism and just gave the jobs to women he already knew. Instead he sought the best qualified people. So how about you acknowledge that he did what pretty much any devout liberal would have wanted him to do and stop with the feigned indignation.

    1. re: ” he did not know enough people to adequately reflect the pool of talent in his state. ”

      does he personally need to know? Can’t he just tell the search group to find the best candidates?

      If he asked for binders of Men, what would that indicate?

      Does he personally know the qualifications of ANYONE regardless of gender?

      Clearly, he was thinking in terms of the perceived diversity (or not) of his cabinet and staff and he wanted it to look “right” – regardless of who had the “best” qualifications.

      that’s hypocritical. Ether you don’t believe in affirmative action and it’s purpose or you do – and you conduct yourself per your stated principles.

      this is more shape-shifting and etchasketching.

      What are the real principles of this man?

      His wife says as a person he is pro-life but as a gov he governed pro-choice.

      How can you appeal directly to BOTH pro-life and pro-choice constituencies without being disingenuous and hypocritical?

      this is the “binders” problem. Who is he? Is he in favor of affirmative action type actions or not?

  5. MacDaddyWatch

    DO YOU REMEMBER…

    …all the way back to the 2008 campaign when Obama approached a female reporter and he called her “SWEETIE?”

    “SWEETIE” Not “sugar,” not “honey,” but “SWEETIE.”

    And no, I do not recall any friendly pat on her butt when the interview was over.

    1. re: ” DO YOU REMEMBER?”

      yes. I remember Obama’s POLICIES towards women even more than what he says and it’s pretty clear he supports them in equal pay, equal rights and access to contraception and abortion and Romney is, if anything, more talk, questionable talk and little of actually walking the walk.

      You either are forthright of your views of women in your speech AND your actual policies or you are not and Romney is clearly a shape-shifter on that issue also.

      You just don’t know WHERE he REALLY stands.

      and as Obama says – when you’re not clear in what you advocate, it’s usually not good news.

      1. MacDaddyWatch

        “SWEETIE”:

        Does anyone remember the advice give on the Obama campaign site that was just removed?

        “Vote with your body parts.” Really…like breasts, vaglnas and their uterus? That’s how democrats view women. That’s all dems think about women.

        Their war is a war of gutter, vulgarity.

Comments are closed.

Sort By:

Refine Content:

Scholar

Additional Keywords:

Refine Results

or to save searches.

Open
Refine Content