Quantcast
Opinion

Jay Evensen: Mitt Romney's 'binders full of women' remark just another meme-stream distraction

Comments

Return To Article
  • atl134 Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 1:45 p.m.

    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?

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 1:53 p.m.

    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.

  • Moderate Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 2:15 p.m.

    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.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 2:26 p.m.

    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.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 2:40 p.m.

    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.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 3:04 p.m.

    JWB
    Kaysville, UT

    No 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 knowing about.

  • JWB Kaysville, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 3:31 p.m.

    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.

  • CHS 85 Sandy, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 3:32 p.m.

    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...

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 4:29 p.m.

    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...

  • one old man Ogden, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 4:53 p.m.

    I heard a whole lot of distortion and outright lies from Mitt last night. Are those "memes?"

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 5:29 p.m.

    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.

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 6:46 p.m.

    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 attitude.

  • spring street SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 7:51 p.m.

    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.

  • guspine Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 9:12 p.m.

    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.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    Oct. 17, 2012 9:35 p.m.

    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......

  • Bebyebe UUU, UT
    Oct. 17, 2012 9:43 p.m.

    'Binders full of women'. Comedians are going to have a field day.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 18, 2012 6:22 a.m.

    A non-issue. Much more important things to discuss.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 18, 2012 8:45 a.m.

    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.

  • GZE SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 8:47 a.m.

    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?

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 9:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Craig Clark Boulder, CO
    Oct. 18, 2012 9:23 a.m.

    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?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 18, 2012 9:34 a.m.

    "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.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 10:07 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 18, 2012 10:55 a.m.

    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 find
    even 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 partisan rhetoric.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 11:37 a.m.

    @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.

  • George Bronx, NY
    Oct. 18, 2012 12:03 p.m.

    @j Thomas
    Now who is rewriting history j?

  • JoeBlow Far East USA, SC
    Oct. 18, 2012 12:20 p.m.

    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?

  • BigRich Orem, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 12:47 p.m.

    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.

  • Ying Fah Provo, UT
    Oct. 18, 2012 10:30 p.m.

    Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah

    So, 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.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 8:21 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Oct. 19, 2012 8:36 a.m.

    @ 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 "meme-stream distraction".

  • Furry1993 Ogden, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 9:42 a.m.

    to Mike Richards 8:36 a.m. Oct. 19, 2012

    I 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, apparently thinks.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 10:10 a.m.

    @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?

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 10:17 a.m.

    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.

  • L White Springville, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 11:32 a.m.

    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.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 11:48 a.m.

    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 due
    That 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.

  • DSB Cedar Hills, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 12:07 p.m.

    @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 spin.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 12:21 p.m.

    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.

  • metisophia Ogden, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    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.

  • VIDAR Murray, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 12:33 p.m.

    DSB
    Cedar Hills, UT

    Reagan'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.

  • LetsDebate PLEASANT GROVE, UT
    Oct. 19, 2012 9:16 p.m.

    @VIDAR - yeah, you already spun it that way once. Doesn't change the facts of how budgets are created and spent in Washington.