Following up on an earlier item, Mitt Romney and his campaign are so excited about accusing President Obama of waging a "war on women" that Team Romney organized a conference call this morning to push the message. Romney aides probably should have thought this through first.
"His polices have been really a war on women," Romney told FOX News Wednesday. "Over 92 percent of the jobs lost under this president were lost by women," a statistic his campaign has cited frequently this week.
But no one from his campaign, including economic and policy advisers, could offer a clear explanation of this disparity Romney has trumpeted on a press call Wednesday.... Nor could Romney's advisers say whether Romney would do anything to address it.
Making matters worse, the Huffington Post's Sam Stein asked whether Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and the campaign aides, after a painfully long delay, had no idea.
These weren't trick questions. This was, after all, a call about women's issues. It was organized by the Romney campaign, so it's not as if these staffers could say they were caught off guard by extraneous and unrelated issues. Presumably, these folks prepared for their own telephone press conference.
Romney has cited a misleading statistic, and his aides couldn't defend it. Romney has said current policies are keeping women from getting more jobs, and given three separate chances to say something coherent, his aides couldn't explain what would change if the former governor is elected president. Were they not expecting these kinds of question?
To borrow a Casey Stengel line, can't anybody here play this game?
As for the Fair Pay law, Lilly Ledbetter released a statement shortly after the Romney campaign wouldn't state the former governor's position on this.
"I was shocked and disappointed to hear that Mitt Romney is not willing to stand up for women and their families. If he is truly concerned about women in this economy, he wouldn't have to take time to 'think' about whether he supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. This Act not only ensures women have the tools to get equal pay for equal work, but it means their families will be better served also. Women earn just 77 cents to every dollar that men earn for the same job, which is why President Obama took decisive action and made this the first bill that he signed when he took office. Women should have the ability to take their bosses to court to get the same pay as their male coworkers.
"Anyone who wants to be President of the United States shouldn't have to think about whether they support pursuing every possible avenue to ensuring women get the same pay for the same work as men. Our economic security depends on it."
Eventually, after Ledbetter's statement was released to the media, the Republican campaign said a Romney administration wouldn't try to repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, but wouldn't say whether Romney supported the law itself. (Remember, the vast majority of congressional Republicans opposed the law when it passed in 2009.)
As a result of all of this dissembling, the larger story this morning is that the Romney campaign stumbled on its own initiative, allowing Obama's team to go on the offensive when Romney expected to put them on the defensive.
Welcome to the general election, Mitt. I think you'll find it's a little more difficult than going up against Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum.
Leave a Comment:
Getting the popcorn ready and settling in for the entertainment! Let the games begin.
Mitt's trying to come up with a way to be for it today and against it tomorrow. Or, against it today and for it tomorrow. It will depend upon which groups he's talking to on those days.
C'mon Mittens, just shake the etch-a-sketch.....Couldn't resist.
...the Republican campaign said a Romney administration wouldn't try to repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act
It shouldn't surprise anybody that Romney doesn't support legislation enforcing fair pay for women. This makes me wonder how he has support from any female voter.
Isn't it amazing that Republicans respond with, "We don't think the Republican party has a war on women" ... and even mentioning the word "repeal". ?
Of COURSE, they did. They think the WAR ON WOMEN is solely the made up attack of the Democrats on Religious Liberty. They haven't looked at the STATES or anything else. Church vs. Women...well the CHURCH of course. Haven't you READ the Constitution???? yeah well what about WOMEN...those pesky WOMEN.
Sunday's NON SEQUITUR by Wiley so eloquently states your point!
In sharp relief to Romney's tongue-tied aides, here is a factoid-rich report from the Obama administration's Council on Women and Girls about the initiatives the President has taken to improve women's lives. Some highlights: (I'd be interested to know how many of these Romney would be willing to admit to supporting):
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/email-files/womens_report_final_for_print.pdf
Much more in the most excellent report:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/email-files/womens_report_final_for_print.pdf
There you go again, using FACTS!
("June" sounds suspiciously female. . .)
Damn that reporter, he asked a trick question. "We will get back to you on that?"
Worst highly paid campaign staff ever. Clueless, totally clueless. Utterly unready for prime time. Their incompetence reflects badly on their candidate. Sadly the reflection is accurate. Where he a competent candidate he wouldn't stand for such incompetence.
That is not fair. We are supposed to give Mitt time enough for his people to tell him what he believes.
They will spin it as just another "gotcha question" from "lamestream media".
... though in all fairness, unlike situations where "the liberal media" has been accused of selectively editing Republican responses, in this case the silence was deafening.
No matter how badly the conservative base despises the man, the Republican Party is stuck with Mitt Romney. Establishment power has trumped grassroots agitation in the GOP, and it may prove costly in the end. Because now Romney not only has to soothe the right-wing and the Tea Party, both afraid that Mitt will finally revert to his moderate roots when facing Obama, but he must also improve what has become a a truly awful image among ordinary voters. Romney faces a balancing act unlike any we've ever seen in presidential politics. http://www.sunstateactivist.org
Once again its a simple math problem.
Here are the BLS.GOV stats
Men (all +20 years old)
Increase in unemployment under Bush, 3,558,000
Decrease in unemployment under Obama, 198,000
Women (all +20 years old)
Increase in unemployment under Bush, 2,146,000
Increase in unemployment under Obama, 931,000
So its absolutely true that under Obama, unemployed women has continued to increase and at the same time that unemployed men has actually decreased under Obama.
As for the ratio. Women are now 46% of the total unemployed population. In Jan 2001 it was 47%, and in Jan 2009 it was only 42%. So it might be true in the rapid loss of jobs during 2007 & 2008, Men lost more jobs faster and now the economy is shifting to meet the same ratio that was true in 2001.
In Men, the peak unemployment month under Bush was his last month in office, for Obama it was Oct 2009 at 8,259,000 and has since gone down by 2,208,000. Under Bush the lowest number of unemployed Men was Jan 2001 and never went below that number again, increasing by 1 million in his first term and 2.5 million more in his second term.
In Women the peak unemployment month Nov 2010 at 5,832,000 and has since decreased by 656,000. For Bush, Women's unemployment increased by 752,000 in his first term and by another 1,394,000 in his second term.
So Unemployment for Women has increased by 22% under Obama but has decreased by 3% for men.
In the case of Bush Women's unemployment increased by 94% and for Men by 137%.
So if you look at the delta of increase/decrease in employment under Obama for Women the peak was more than a year later and the recovery is still about one year from now but by simple math, there are less unemployed Women than Men.
Final conclusion if you compare Bush's first term performance for Women's unemployment, from Jan 2001 to Mar 2004 (or the same time period as Obama in his first term) Women's unemployment increased by 1,120,000, but under Obama was 931,000 - so Bush was still worse in his first term and much worse in the second term for Women's unemployment than Obama, even in the face of the worst economic crisis of the last 60 years.
So there are the FACTS.
Great post. I think Team Romney needs some help with their math. I calculate the 931,000 women jobs lost under Obama at 82% not 92%.
Stop being all mathy... Math facts are pesky annoyances to the Romney fans.
I've quoted facts (unemployment insurance rates for MA businesses) to Republicans I'm related to, and was told that I was entitled to my opinion, but they they had their own opinion on how much the state charged.
That is what is really wrong with discourse in today's politics.
Truthiness is not enough, there are facts at hand.
Romney and his staff are the new "Not Ready For Prime Time Players".
I may start watching SNL again!
Obviously, they do, too.
I find this year's campaign to be one of the most amusing, yet least imaginative and interesting, of the many I have watched. You have a President who can't run on his domestic record. Instead, he runs on trumped up charges of women, income inequality, and lofty themes of "investment" and "energy independence". Meanwhile ignoring the deficit and debt. One could argue he might run on his foreign policy, but that's not interesting. No mention of entitlements, no mention of unpopular healthcare, and no "hope and change".
Meanwhile, the Republicans just might be through with no win social issues, and we'll see if a meaningful offence can be mounted. But, they, too, must talk specifically about the debt and deficit. Social issues will work themselves out through elections.
The debt and deficit are two separate, but related issues. Except for the President nobody seems willing to talk about a balanced approach to either. After WW II we reduced our debt by reducing the size of the military and maintaining high tax rates. According to Paul Ryan both reducing the military and increasing tax revenues are off the table. That leaves "entitlement spending." One of the entitlements targeted is Social Security, which is actually fully funded for the forseeable future and easily fixed. Another is Medicare. What does Medicare do? It pays for the medical bills incurred by our seniors, and disabled, people who can't otherwise secure health insurance. What is the Republican solution? Force seniors and the disabled to buy non-existant health insurance. Sweet. The image of millions of elderly and disabled dying in their homes is really appealing. The third big entitlement targeted is medicaid. Medicaid is used to pay for the care provided poor people. More importantly it is used to pay for the nursing home care of middle class seniors. Are you jazzed by the idea of great grandma moving into your home? If so you will love the Ryan medicaid plan.
Nobody is willing to give up a thing. Life in tribal America.
Wait a minute. PBO has proposed more than $4 trillion in cuts to deal w/ the debt and deficit and has passed several measures that have reduced the debt and deficit like the Affordable Care Act. Secondly energy independence, war on women, and income inequality are all domestic issues. If the POTUS cannot run on his domestic record why would he be bringing up domestic issues then? This accusation makes no sense. His foreign policy isn't interesting?! Tell that to the veterans who have returned from Iraq and for the ones who are going to return from Afghanistan in 2 more years. Tell that to Bin Laden- o wait you can't, because he's dead. Yes killing the most wanted man in modern US history is uninteresting. Are you bleeping kidding me?!
Lastly if the GOP does not want people to think they are waging a war on women then why do they keep passing so many anti-abortion bills, anti-contraception bills, and bills allowing for discrimination in the work place against women? Why do they advocate for women not being allowed equal place in combat? These are the things that get Republicans labeled as having a war on women. If Republicans don't want to be labeled this way then they should stop implementing these policies. I am getting sick and tired of Republicans whining about how everyone else has to be responsible all the while obfuscating or completely skirting their own responsibility. Either man up and take accountability for the things you do or shut up when people complain about the things you do. That's called "maturity."
Ron, the image of our disabled and elderly dying in their homes for lack of medicare would be disturbing if our disabled and elderly were able to afford their homes.
It will be more disturbing to see these people dying on the streets because they couldn't afford their rent, and were turned out of their homes.
Mouzer: The book is open on the ACA reducing the budget. We won't know for years, regardless of OMB estimates. By domestic issues, I did not mean social. I even said I hope they're behind us. I mean financial, such as budgetary, energy independence, and regulation. You might defend the Pres, but why is he not speaking of them. Income inequality - what is it and what's the solution? Let's say before I retired I earned $1 million annually as a financial advisor. Let's further say the average disposal income is $32,000. If I were to pay a tax of 30%, I would have disposal income of $700,000. How do we equalize? Foreign policy is not a determinant in presidential elections. I even said the Pres could run on his.
But the POTUS has been speaking on these issues. He just got finished meeting at an energy summit and a global finances summit. Sighs. And he just recently talked about how he wanted to consolidate more than 8 federal agencies into 1 agency to reduce regulatory burdens. And he talks about the budget all the goddamn time. This is another instance, Tom, where you are selectively listening to statements by the POTUS. He talks about these problems all the time. The thing that you're not comprehending is that budgetary problems require that income inequality be addressed. You cannot have a situation in which 1% of the nation carries more than 80% of the wealth while paying less than 50% of the taxes. That just creates more debt. And no the book is not open on the ACA reducing the debt. The CBO and several other independent organizations have scored it and found that it will save us hundreds of billions of dollars per year. TRMS just had a blog about this. Sigh. You are also exaggerating how taxes work. A 30% income tax does not equate to meaning that if you make a million dollars a year that you will automatically be left w/ $700,000. That's not the way that taxes work. The 30% works off of your net income.
Over 92 percent of the jobs lost under this president were lost by women
First the job creators came for the men and I didn't speak out...
Now I let Mitt Romney speak for me?
Here is the Deal with Mittens, he did his undergrad at BYU a wholly LDS centered institution. Now a BA in English from BYU, does not now, and probably didnt require PoliSci 1. It does require Now and may have then, required: PoliSci 310 Theories of American Politics. Here is the Course Outcome statement from BYU :
Course Outcomes
Understand important theoretical traditions in the study of (American) politics.
Craft your own effective and insightful argument using clear and engaging prose that is analytically sound.
Apply theories of politics to explain current practices in American Politics.
So, Assuming that Mitt did his English BA and core requirements and some basket weaving to fuffil his electives, we can infer that despite having been a state Governor, he probably doesnt 'Know' the first thing about American Political Institutions, the Constitution or any depth in American Colonial, or Revolutionary history.
Short Verision: My 16 year old with an AP in US History and US Gov't could probabaly out debate him on American Politics.
Compare that with President Obama, BA in PoliSci from Columbia, JD from Harvard, Con Law Lecturer @ U of Chicago. PoliSci Geek and History Buff.
Hands Down, even if he were a moderate GOP, I would still vote for Barack Obama.
Mittens is toast.
I just hope GWB keeps trying to help. The GOP must think his recent speech was going to be helpful. Of course he could have thought it was a good idea on his own. If so, we won't see him again before the election,if they can muzzle him.
That was a little bit of awesome, wasn't it?
perhaps men are preferred over women by employers, sounds like another form of descrimination.
because the moment Willard opens his mouth about this..
they will hang Scott Walker on him.
you're going up against professionals now, Willard...
and NOBODY at the Prudential Building in Chicago is playing with you
The whole problem is that in the LDS and Mitts world view, wimmens is supposed to be stayin' home takin' care of the babies and be ready at the door with the pipe and slippers when dad comes home from work.
All of his wimmens. The more money you have, the more wimmens you can afford.
How exactly can 92% of the jobs lost belong to women when women were the least likely individuals to be fired (remember they called it a mancession) and women comprise a smaller workforce than that of men? Does anyone know where he's getting that statistic from?
His ...er..., heart.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/xx_factor/2012/04/10/war_on_women_sharon_day_s_attempt_to_reframe_with_job_growth_fails_.html
I didn't read the other TRMS article before posting this. Bleh.
You know where Romney gets his statistics from - the same place he gets everything else - that place where's he's got his head stuck! Must be hell thinking the world is only brown!!!
For REAL statistics about what has been happening see Steve's post above or go to this link:
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2011/07/06/two-years-of-economic-recovery-women-lose-jobs-men-find-them/
PEW is independent and doesn't favor either party and it has a nice graph and explanation that actually shows what has happened during President Obama's administration.
Romney thinks his I'm rubber your glue strategy is going to work.There are to many skeletons in his I'm a"severe consertive"closet that tell the truth of what he's all about this go round.So many lies, he ca'nt remember what position he took.But President Obama remember's.I cant wait to see ad's featuring him and Karl Rove together to show we will just be getting another Bush,and more failed policies.I cant wait to see photos of factories he closed when at Bain Capital.I cant wait to hear more about his tax dodging off shore accounts.I cant wait to hear him saying he will get rid of Planned Parenthood.Of course he will try to walk it back,but he cant hide his past and Pres.Obama wont let voters forget it.
I wonder if Romney and those who surround him really understand the impact of digital video and various social media sites? A candidate could pull this off much more easily in the 1970s or 1980s, and that's kind of the era in which Mitt is stuck. (For example, his views about Russia being our biggest enemy.)
It's much harder to lie and flip-flop on issues when it takes someone 30 seconds to post your past statements on You Tube.
Obama's campaign team has been following Romney's every move since day one. They probably have at least three scathing responses for each and every talking point no matter which side Romney takes, flip or flop. Really the only stand he takes is flipping on the flop. These presidential debates are going to be more entertainment than any Superbowl ever.
While Romney tries to figure out what a "severe conservative" is, does he understand that supporting Equal Pay for Equal Work should be a NO-BRAINER. How do you screw up something so easy?!? He truly is a woeful candidate!
I bet the Romney staffers don't even know what the Ledbetter Act is. Remember that this is a prep-school candidate probably with a prep-school staff--mainly young men who have grown up in families where it is likely Mom didn't work out side the home and they had maids and cooks and nannies who worked for them. Talk about out of touch with working people--even more out of touch with working women.
Romney starts his campaign to try and get back the women's vote with ANOTHER FREAKIN' LIE???
What is WRONG WITH HIM? This guy isn't smart enough to be clueless; this has fallen right down into utter stupidity!
Quoting Bay Buchanan is about as smart as a cheating husband telling his wife…
"It's all in your head".
Next he'll be crying 'crocodile Boehner' tears, and telling us
1. "How Sorry He Is",
2. "That He "Never Loved Anyone Else",
3. "That he'll change his "flip-flopping" ways",
4. "And Never Cheat On Us Again"…
Right 'after' that last Planned Parenthood Clinic is closed.
It is obvious this guy has the habit of BUYING WHATEVER HE WANTS…
However, unlike the little women on the right…
ROMNEY CANNOT LIE TO GET MY VOTE
ANYMORE THAN HE CAN BUY MY VOTE
Here's a bumper sticker for him.
"IF HE AIN'T LYING HE'S BUYING…"ROMNEY"
HE'S THE "THING" THAT GOES BETTER WITH KOCH"
Romney has not grasped the concept that the White House is not his for the taking just because he is privileged. Also, he assumes all voters are rubes and can be easily fooled by ambiguity and double talk. Everything Romney thinks about the election process is based on faulty premises. Unless Romney has an epiphany real soon, he is going to get sliced and diced by Obama when the real campaign gets underway.
Standing by with popcorn and a beer...
It was pretty interesting that Pres. Obama ordered the use of force in taking out the 3 Somali pirates who had seized the captain of the Bainbridge on 4-14-09. That was a foreign affair with a successful outcome
that was definitely not "ho hum".
Re: Foreign Affairs. Early in Obama's presidency, 4-14-09, he ordered the use of force in successfully taking out the 3 Somali pirates who seized the Bainbridge Captain. This was definitely not a "ho hum" incident.
Highlights why nominees for President NEED recent congress positions - or they have to do a lot more homework than any of the recent nominees have done. I always thought Sarah Palin was the dumb one - but it seems its any of them - all of them.
When are Democrats going to start calling out Republicans for the Fascists they really are?