Yesterday, Mitt Romney and his campaign were eager, almost desperate, to work on narrowing the gender gap. The strategy was simple: argue that President Obama, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding, is really the one waging a "war on women."
Their efforts failed rather spectacularly, thanks in large part to the clumsy unpreparedness of Romney's own aides. The day offered a reminder of an often-overlooked detail: the presumptive Republican nominee is accustomed to facing weak, bumbling competitors, and Team Romney is going to have to learn quickly the differences between the minor leagues and the Big Show.
But before moving on, it's worth pausing to take a closer look at the Romney campaign's underlying argument: 92.3% of the jobs lost in the Obama era have belonged to women. The claim was debunked yesterday over and over and over and over again yesterday, but my personal favorite was Kevin Drum's takedown, because he included a chart that helped drive the point home.
Kevin Drum, Mother Jones
In case the image isn't self-explanatory, Team Romney took a look at all the job losses and gains in the American economy, starting on Jan. 1, 2009 (three weeks before President Obama was inaugurated). The Republican campaign then got creative: because male workers saw a more sudden increase in job losses at the beginning of that calendar year, Romney carefully chose the starting date for his analysis that exaggerates the results.
If he'd started on Feb. 1, 2009, to reflect Obama's first full month in office, the number for women would have been 300%, instead of 92%. The Romney campaign knows no one would believe such an absurd figure, so they manipulated the figures accordingly.
The scope of its creativity and dishonesty is almost impressive, in a shameful sort of way.
As Kevin explained, "There was a steep job loss among men right at the beginning of the recession and a slower job loss among women. So what happens if you just lop off that bit of the recession and count only the strength of the recovery since January 1, 2009? Well, men have recovered steeply and women have recovered more slowly.... Men have made up ground faster then women since January 2009, so technically that means that women have sustained the bulk of the job losses since then."
Romney's talking point is the kind of argument Americans would expect from a candidate who simply doesn't respect voters enough to be straight with them. The "92%" argument is a con masquerading as political rhetoric. That this is what Romney has been reduced to in April -- on the first day of the general-election phase of the race -- does not bode well for the kind of honesty we can expect from the GOP campaign in the fall.
There's a larger point to keep in mind -- when should the clock start when it comes to evaluating the economy under Obama? -- and I'll have more on that a little later this morning.
Leave a Comment:
Who, save us obsessive political junkies cruising teh internets, deconstructs the chicken entrails of arcane charts and figures?
The vast majority of otherwise occupied voters will favorably respond to a terse, "Romney Lies- Again! Yawn."
You could fit it on a bumper sticker.
Thinking the same thing ...Mourning Joe ....Today Show all playing that clip over and over with no pushback or analysis of the statement .
What was getting more play was the statement and apology about Ann Romney , who no one bothered to point out was in fact born with the proverbial silver spoon.
No recession has ever affected her , trust me
If a tree falls in the forest etc etc
You know watching how the lame-stream media falls all over itself in its deference to Romney reminded me of how they did the same thing with Shrub - and WE see where that got US! And after the smelling salts, I woke up with a cold chill running down my spine!
Time to get mobilized and keep another over-privileged, out-of-touch rich guy out of office!
Well then Romney should stop lying alll the damn time! Or maybe thats a Mormon thing?
@Noelle, Given the true story of Joseph Smith, I'm going with the latter...
The question in my mind is whether the 92% statistic will take votes away from Obama or just confirm the public impression that Romney is a liar and thus take votes away from him.
And, damned if NPR did not play the clip of Romney saying it is President Obama waging a war on women and giving the bogus 92% figure without ANY accompanying explanations: just he said and no facts to rebut.
Damn Librul press
So their new policy of focusing on truth is not getting a good start. Damn.
we are already used, to this ploy of the GOP, they are always making talking points with no facts behind them, and they just keep them going till people start to believe themjust like the one where they say that Obama has taken some freedoms from them and nobody will say which freedoms have been lost,that is because they haven't lost any freedoms ,and if you know of a freedom, thats been taken away please tell us what they are!
Since the Bushies took control of NPR that does stand for Naturally Pro Republican does it not?
In the natural course of events, we can expect a continuation of recent history...
Romney Lies...
Corporately Owned Media yawn... (it ain't our job to decipher the truth, our job is to report the words of Romney)
ameriKKKan sheeple (meaningful percentage) believe the lie...
Rinse, lather, repeat...
The truly sad thing is that droves of people will believe Romney's doctored statistic as the whole empirical truth and will disregard any attempt to show otherwise (using facts, of all horrible things) as just the evil liberal media spinning things in Obama's favour.
Because as we all know, facts are liberally biased in a lot of cases.
im surprised at you ,Angels aren't supposed to lie or distort the truth!
In the words of faux conservative Steven Coubert's faux lament. "Reality has a liberal bias." I know he meant it as a joke but I also think he meant it. Whenever both the conservative and the liberal take on an issue are examined in detail, it is usually the liberal view that wins out. That is why there are so many liberals in univeristies and why the media, if they do their job properly, have a liberal bias.
Not that I have a bias in any way, shape, or form.
"when should the clock start when it comes to evaluating the economy under Obama?"
When Obama finally manages to dig us out of the hole left by the GOP AND he gets a fillibuster-proof house and senate. Only then do we have any hope of seeing what could have been under a progressive administration. Although I would have to say, given what he has to work with, I'm impressed. And given Rachel's fine reporting on Rethug governance in Michigan and Wisconsin, the day will never come when I will ever again vote for a GOP candidate for anything including janitor.
OMG. Yes yes yes, 1000 times yes to this comment!!
I agree, I have always tried to not have a straight democrat ticket when I vote because I have tried to be open minded and balanced but after 2010 and all the trick the Republicans are playing to change voting rights and attacking women and contraception and all that crap, I have zero faith in that party, they are all insane
On Dianne Sawyer last night the reporter pushed back on Romney's claim saying politifact called it mostly false. Yet both Mourning Joe and the Today Show repeat the claim as true? I guess some networks are more truthful than others.
Here's the Politifact findings: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/apr/10/mitt-romney/romney-campaign-says-women-were-hit-hard-job-losse/
Doesn't any claim like that need to be substantiated? For example, what sectors did these job losses come from? My guess is the public sector and under any proposals I have heard Mr. Romney state, there isn't any inclusion in adding public sector jobs...rather reducing them.
This would be for private AND public sector jobs...the public sector refers to government jobs, which republicans are for reducing and which Obama has reduced.
Public-sector jobs have taken a beating in the past couple of years. Among teachers, most of them seem to be women, so that's one area where women would lose a higher percentage of jobs. Same for the healthcare field.
It would be interesting to see a chart that shows job losses by sex in different job sectors.
My question, I saw those 40 something professional women on the stage behind Romney for his ridiculous numbers on job losses for women - even Fox news didn't believe him. But here is my real question: where were the women who are , factory workers, cafeteria workers, checkout clerks at walmart, nurses, policewomen, fire fighters, students, retirees still working because their 401K funds fell flat at the end of the Bush presidency?
It's great to have so many professional women pursuing their careers, but most women in the work force are struggling to raise a family and put in their 40 plus hours a week to buy the groceries, pay the rent, etc. Let's give them some attention too.
Lots of job losses were women in the public sector due to GOP blocking of Obama sponsored aid to states. So, Romney is claiming Obama is to be blamed for female-heavy lay offs caused by the GOP. Par for the course.
No kidding. The economy is a hugely complex machine, and it responds to many, many influences. Policies of the Obama administration are only one part of the story. What about the policies of two dozen Republican governors, working in lockstep to derail the recovery efforts and using extreme measures to ensure that President Obama is defeated in 2012? Or should we conveniently disregard that bloc (or should I say "block"?) when the goal is to heap all the blame on the President?
I agree
So, following Romney to the logical conclusion of what he's flinging, women should vote for him - exactly why? So that they can experience 100% job losses? Because candidate Romney has been 100% wrong on economic policy, and when he was governor, compared to his peers, he came in close to last on job creation.
page 1 of GOP play book has always been... If you are a _________, you accuse the Dems of it first.
how do they get away with this? it makes my blood boil every time I see one of these false commercials. I hope people are smart enough to realize that OBama needs another term in office to get things corrected after Bush screwed us all.
Ask NBC, NPR etc., the mainstream media giants who are unquestioningly swallowing this whole. I bet they have a hundred answers. None of which hold water.
GOP Blocking, I love it, I thought I coined that phrase!
Ah so I see. A woman losing her job is more important than:
-A woman being able to serve in combat (which is a job, btw)
-A woman being able to have safe access to abortion (the doctors who provide these and their support staff are also jobs/employers, btw)
-A woman being paid equally at whatever job she has (since you know having a job doesn't matter if you're not getting paid at said job)
-A woman who doesn't make enough to support her family having access to WIC or food stamps (the consumerism from food stamps and WIC creates jobs, btw) (and since if she starves to death she won't exactly be able to work)
-A woman having the ability to actually work (employers being allowed to deny women employment on the basis of disability, health and pregnancy, marital status, sexuality, gender identity, age, political affiliation, religious affiliation, etc.) (since, ya know, a woman has to actually be allowed to work in order for anything else to matter)
-A woman having access to pap smears and mammogram screenings (since a dead or severely sick woman can't exactly work, now can she?) (the people who provide this healthcare also provide jobs, btw)
-A woman having access to health insurance that treats her equally w/ coverage (such as maternity care) and doesn't charge her more (since, ya know, if she can't go to the doctor and gets sick or dies that doesn't exactly help her w/ a job) (providing this insurance, btw, creates jobs)
-A woman being investigated and potentially prosecuted for having a miscarriage (since, ya know, felons have such an easy time getting a job)
-A woman being denied the right to marry (in the case of lesbians) (since, ya know, the marriage industry creates jobs AND married women are more likely to make more money, suffer from less health problems, and be more productive in the workforce)
Gee, seems even if we take the jobs, jobs, jobs angle Mittens still fails
@ Bob Geo, I love the term GOP blocking! I thought I coined the phrase, but I guess it is obviously a thing.
This makes my blood boil as well, when it comes to President Obama and statements he makes, everyone and there mother must fact check it. As for Morning Joe, I don't understand why he has a show on MSNBC, he needs to fly over to Fox News. I've been watching this political scene for a while and very rarely do I see the media attack the GOP as much as they check the President, but when its said and done, the media gives Obama a free pass. Go figure.
It's the responsiblity of anyone who wants to be informed to fact check, because everyone in politics has their own agenda to pass. That responsibility is even more important when it's about a candidate who's beliefs you disagree with.
That said, I have a great deal of trust in the president. Because he operates from the knowledge that many of his supporters will stop being his supporters if he lies to them.
Mitt Romney does not operate from this place of thinking. He, and the GOP at large, seem to be under the impression that people are stupid. That the vast majority of American's don't care enough to check what Romney, or any of them say, and will simply take it at face value as the unassailable truth.
Which is increasingly becoming NOT the case.
Before Rush Limbaugh I didn't really pay attention to politics, but in the past couple of months, I have been listening and educating myself on many of the social issues that the Republican party is trying to push through, while operating under the banner of smaller government, and fiscal responsibility. And the GOP disturbs me.
The degree to which they are lying to accomplish or hide their goals from the American people is at the least immoral. Provably, but only if you're willing to look at what they're doing, and what they want to do, and what they're accomplishing, and NOT what they're saying.
Really dating myself here. We need an Alfred E Newman-Mad Magazine style picture of the Mittster saying "What? Me Lie?"
@ogrover--as one of the few people here old enough to get the joke, I agree--"What? Me Lie?"
The key thing is that the honest number of total jobs lost is the *area under the two curves*, and not the difference between an arbitrary starting and beginning point. Remember your Calculus 1 course :) The most important thing is that Democratic biggies start calling "liar", loudly, as I argue here: http://therepublicon.blogspot.com/2012/04/why-calling-liar-is-critical-to.html
Being a federal employee, I have a lot of experience with various pictoral representation of statistics...and how I can make numbers say just about anything. Point 1: on a graph like the one used, the top line generally depicts the predominant trend (greater value), and since the title of the Y axis is "Jobs Lost" and the red line on top is labeled "Men", kinda looks like men have lost more jobs that women. Point 2: if the Republican position is that government cannot create jobs, then how can they support the assertion that the government can destroy jobs? Point 3: Seeing as how President Obama's base is largely female and African American, it makes little sense that he would allow his base to take the brunt of this recession in the shorts. After all, African American unemployment is almost twice the national average. Point 4: If the Republicans really want to bolster their point, perhaps they should provide a break-down by industry. I believe construction is among the industries most affected by this recession, so...since it is an industry still dominated by men, would it not follow that men actually have lost more jobs, which is kinda what the graph shows? Point 5: Are the Republicans implying that President Obama actually laid off/fired all these women himself? I point you to the historical fact that, following WW II, unemployment for women surged as men came back from war and employers decided that men needed the jobs more because they had families to support. Is it possible that employers who have been sipping the "I want Obama to fail" kool-aid may in fact be intentionally and artificially supressing the job and financial markets in order to prevent the economy from recovering and hence causing Mr. Obama to "fail"? It would not be unfounded: take the case of the banks. The banks said they were not lending money because they had no money to lend, so the government gave them money to lend (remember the Stimulus?), and all they did was turn the money over several times, pay back the government, and pocket the earnings...to be given away in the form of executive bonuses. What a bunch of putzes.
How is Mitt going to dodge everything he has done, doing, gonna do in the general election debates!
I'll give you a hint: He'll lie his arse off
Why exactly is Romney putting the blame on the Obama Administration (regardless of the actual number of job losses for women)? In my own personal experience, there is still an unjust treatment toward women in the work place that has nothing to do with a government administration; rather the still prominent good ol' boy administration in corporate America is to blame. Women lose their jobs first.
But what you don't understand is that even though Romney lies and bungles he is still white and therefore better, in the simple minds of many voters, than Obama or any person of color. This isn't about who tells the truth and who is the better man. For many in the regular population it is all about the color of the candidate's skin. Those of us who live in the middle of the country with just ordinary folks as neighbors know this for a fact, the rest of the country some how believes that there is no racial prejudice in the United States, certainly not enough to get Romney elected and I say "bullpucky" to that notion.
Ironically, I believe it is the most prejudiced people who believe that prejudice no longer exists and will therefore vote for Romney--but not because he's white!!!
Romney lies because he thinks of people as ignorant peasants.
Figures lie and liars figure...