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:
Romney's campaign platform is built upon the premise that the public will fall for anything. And the sad reality is that there is a significant percentage that WILL. But you can't help but question his real motives. He's insanely fraudulent, even by traditional politician standards. All you need is an internet connection to find proof that he lies incessantly. He's out of touch, but I don't think he's stupid. He contradicts reality all the time, but it seems that he simply doesn't care that he's so easily debunked. He's so locked in to the salesman approach, saying anything while compelled by the moment when a sale seems possible. The guy is so inauthentic and plastic. It's gonna be interesting to watch him be exposed & shredded over the next 7 months.
Lauren needs to go on Morning Joe and put the beady eyed bastard in his place.
I agree it is the responsibility of all to listen to what the politicians say. But I wish they all had to wear a vest that has the names of all of their supporters - money wise. I don't think they would be honest with that. I pay little attention to the Republican candidates - until the convention, which I will not watch. I will watch the debates. BUT we need to pay attention to the others running for the House and Senate - they are the ones who pass the bills we end up paying for - the President can say what he wants but the congress passes the bills. And I do not care which party they belong to - but I do care when religion gets in the way of the good of the people. It should be kept separate - religion can influence how someone lives - but that is individual. Thank heaven we live in America - we all have the right to be individuals.
This just goes to show how desperate the GOP is. They're grasping at straws because the economic issue will soon not be an issue, so what do they have left? What will they do next? I suppose when the woman issue comes to an end (because it will), they will move on to another social issue such as immigration, which brings me to the latino vote. Does the party that favors deporting illegal immigrants really expect to obtain any votes from the same people they would be affecting in the first place? Food for thought...
"Mitt Romney lies without any apparent conscience calling..."
"Mitt Romney manipulates facts to suit his narrative with no regard for context..."
"Mitt Romney uses his own weaknesses as challenges to opponents, thus falsifying the motives of another by use of accusation without basis..."
"Mitt Romney chooses his own path to success over the success of the people his policies affect..."
See -- this is how a BUSINESSMAN acts. This is NOT how a President of the United States (a country, no shareholders, just voters who by Constitutional mandate actually are the controlling interest) acts....
A vote for a person who can govern is a vote for our COUNTRY. A vote for a person who can "do business" is a vote for nothing worth a damn, after the money is taken. Period.
Obama/Biden 2012 For the People. Amen
ROMNOCCHIO, KROVE, DIRTY POLITICS AND SACRIFICE OF PEOPLE
It is with much disappointment to witness the compromise of values, ethics and civility for the highest position, yet one that has been disrespected due to hate and blatant disregard for country, office of the Presidency, majority people who voted and oath as an elected official who have no problem destroying country with the ideology that "they" must take "their" country back. They will lie, cheat and steal to get their way, “Romnocchio and the Krove,” what a pair.
Another red herring is the claim that Obama's staff underpays women. The claim lumps together everybody from "West Wing Receptionist" to "Presidential Speechwriter." If the list is broken down by position title, there is no evidence of a gender discrepancy. For example, nine people have the title of Assistant Director: male average pay is $50,000, females $50,200. There are 22 people with the title Assistant to the President, with average pay $169,500 for males, $172, 200 for females. Associate Directors, $50,405 vs. $53,553; Coordinators, $45,000 vs. $45,000; Deputy Assistants, $149,830 vs. $146,000.....etc.
Bottom line: another Republican lie. Obama staff get equal pay by gender when the positions are the same. That's gender equity.
And, by the way, the staff is 48% women.