Binders of Women!

First, let me respond to the following comment to my recent blog:

"You should have listened a little longer, Crowley apologized for her misleading statement about Obama's rose garden speech. Romney was not incorrect. Remember Obama spent two weeks saying the burning/killing at the U.S. Embassy was caused by a video (let's not forget his appearance at the U.N.)or his commercial apologizing to the Muslim world on Pakistani t.v. What remains is whether Hillary was thrown under the bus or she threw Obama under the bus with her statement. I'm surprised you would support someone of his character."

To the Crowley reference, I saw her on the View today (yes, I'm embarrassed to be caught watching the View) and she made no such apology.  She said, and I paraphrase, that Obama and Romney were arguing semantics--i.e, did Obama use the term "act of terrorism" in the Rose Garden (he did and Romney said he didn't--foot in mouth) and she wanted them both to move on to the act itself, and not get stuck on the semantics.  She did not apologize, and she further stated, I paraphrase again, "we each have our own perceptions and there's nothing I can do about it."

But I don't care how the murders happened--they happened. ( I care a lot more about the 3,000 people who were killed on 9/11, when the Republicans were in power, and look where that got us).  Also, let's respect the father of the ambassador who was murdered and who asked that we stop with the political posturing over his son's death.  So, let's!

More important, for the person commenting.  The most infamous fallacy in logic when I was in school is the loaded question, i.e.: "have you stop beating your wife," which leaves the person  being questioned in the peculiar position of giving  a yes or no answer.  So, let me assert that the question, "I'm surprised you would support someone of his character" is just such a fallacy. I'm perfectly happy with Obama's character, although I'd prefer if he had a more assertive personality, mainly in pushing policies to the left rather than trying to find Republican cooperation.  I've suspected for years that he's a closet Republican. The liar last night, and whenever he debates, and a man of no character, so far as I can discern, is Mitt Romney. Far too many incidents to mention, so I'll focus on the funniest one from last night: his binders of women.

Mitt Romney stated clearly that when he became governor, he wanted more women in his cabinet and he went to women's groups asking for binders of qualified women.  Today we learn that a group of women in Massachusetts before Romney won the election put together a list of women qualified to be in the governor's cabinet (not for Romney but for whichever man was elected), and that after Romney was elected they presented him with the list--Romney's binders.  Romney made no effort to find women, and isn't it surprising that he didn't know any women from his long business career that he could have brought into his cabinet.  Really!

More important though is that he came up with his "binders" in a question about his support of equal pay for equal work (the Lilly Ledbetter law), which has nothing to do with cabinet officers but with women toiling in a Walmart stock room getting paid less than the men doing the same job.  He has yet to say he supports equal pay for equal work, and worse, in the dark of night when he was the governor of Massachusetts, he dissolved by executive decree the Massachusetts law that enforced equal pay.  Governor Patrick reinstated it.

Romney will do or say anything to get a vote.  A despicable man, a bully (demonstrated again the night of the debate), a liar, a man without principles, and I'm surprised that you (my commentator) would support him.  I continue to find it interesting this absolute hatred of Obama by so many when he's so nondescript. What is it about him that evokes such hatred?  Curious and Curiouser!