Mitt Romney's "Binders Full of Women" lie:
According to the Boston Phoenix's David S. Bernstein, the "Binders Full of Women" story isn't even true, as presented by Romney. More details:
First of all, according to MassGAP and MWPC, Romney did appoint 14 women out of his first 33 senior-level appointments, which is a reasonably impressive 42 percent. However, as I have reported before, those were almost all to head departments and agencies that he didn’t care about — and in some cases, that he quite specifically wanted to not really do anything.
None of the senior positions Romney cared about — budget, business development, etc. — went to women.
Secondly, a UMass-Boston study found that the percentage of senior-level appointed positions held by women actually declined throughout the Romney administration, from 30.0% prior to his taking office, to 29.7% in July 2004, to 27.6% near the end of his term in November 2006. (It then began rapidly rising when Deval Patrick took office.)
Third, note that in Romney’s story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn’t know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?
President Obama clearly won the debate last night, keeping Willard on the defensive and correcting his blatant lies, with help from Candy Crowley's fact-checking. Willard didn't get away with fabrications and lies this time:
"Presidential debate moderator Candy Crowley fact checked Mitt Romney after the Republican presidential candidate charged that President Obama failed to call the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi an "act of terror."
More than an hour into the debate, an undecided voter in the town hall forum asked the president about the recent attack in Libya that killed Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three additional Americans.
When Romney responded to the question, he charged that it took Obama days to call the Benghazi attack an act of terror. Obama called the incident an "act of terror" during his remarks on September 12, just one day after the tragedy.
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America." --HuffPost
"Obama clearly prepared for his Libya response. Romney makes a dumb mistake: Obama says he spoke in the Rose Garden after the attack and called it an act of terror. Romney says "no you didn't." Obama says "get the transcript." Crowley says "he did." THE AUDIENCE APPLAUDS CROWLEY LIVE FACT-CHECKING ROMNEY. Like, twice. They applaud twice. Romney stutters through the rest of his response, and it doesn't matter what he says: He just got f*****g destroyed. By the audience, basically." --Andrew Sullivan's blog
Another lie by Willard:
Romney said that Obama quadrupled regulations on small businesses. Here's what Bloomberg has found:
Obama’s White House has approved fewer regulations than his predecessor George W. Bush at this same point in their tenures, and the estimated costs of those rules haven’t reached the annual peak set in fiscal 1992 under Bush’s father, according to government data reviewed by Bloomberg News. The average annual cost to businesses under Obama is higher than under his predecessors, the Bloomberg review shows. The increase is estimated to total as little as $100 million or as much as $4.1 billion, or at most three one-hundredths of a percent of the total economy.
Another:
“And coal, coal production is not up; coal jobs are not up.” 1,500 coal jobs have been created under Obama.
Another:
I put out a five-point plan that gets America 12 million new jobs in four years and rising take-home pay.” The Washington Post’s in-house fact checker tore Romney’s claim that he will create 12 million jobs to shreds. The Post wrote that the “‘new math’” in Romney’s plan “doesn’t add up.” In awarding the claim four Pinocchios — the most untrue possible rating, the Post expressed incredulity at the fact Romney would personally stand behind such a flawed, baseless claim.
Another:
“And the president’s right in terms of the additional oil production, but none of it came on federal land. As a matter of fact, oil production is down 14 percent this year on federal land, and gas production was down 9 percent.” 14 percent is a one-year number. “Overall, oil production on federal land under Obama is up from 566 million barrels in 2008 to 626 million barrels in 2011, a 10.6 percent increase.” Compared to the last three years of President Bush, there have been 241 million more barrels of oil produced from public lands in the first three years of Obama."
Sleazy Mitt:
"In his closing statement, Mr. Romney said he "served as a pastor" in his church for 10 years. This was intentionally misleading. It was a way of saying "See, we Mormons are just like you - we have pastors, and I was one." The LDS church does not have clergy, only lay leaders. It does not use the title "pastor" or "minister." It uses "bishop" to indicate a lay leader with designated spiritual responsibilities. Stake president is the leader of a group of wards, which are local congregations. None of these positions require formal theological education nor are the people in them "ordained" for vocational ministry as are Catholic priests or Protestant pastors. In the LDS, a bishop or stake president is chosen for a period of time and none of them work as vocational clergy.
Mr. Romney left the impression - intentionally - that he worked for 10 years as pastor of a local church. I would think many LDS members were troubled by the remark, as they do not, ever, use the term "pastor."
The Fix:
WINNERS
* President Obama: It was a near-certainty that the incumbent would improve on his mystifying bad first debate performance. And, he did. But he also did more than that. After coming out a little too hot — Obama seemed to be on the wrong side of the angry/passionate divide in the first 15 minutes — he moderated his tone to the sober/serious yet forceful persona that he needed in this debate. Debates are about moments — the moments that get replayed again and again the after-action analysis — and President Obama had three: 1) his line about how his pension wasn’t as big as Romney’s 2) winning, against all odds, the scrap about the Benghazi attack (with an assist from moderator Candy Crowley) and 3) his strong close in which he used Romney’s “47 percent” comments as a cudgel to beat up his rival. Obama’s performance wasn’t flawless and he didn’t score a clean win as Romney did in the first debate. But, he was the better performer this time around.
LOSERS
* Mitt Romney: The Republican nominee absolutely had his moments in this debate. He was excellent when laying out the case for why we aren’t better off than we were four years ago and for why his record as a jobs creator was far superior to president Obama’s. But, as we noted above, these debates are about moments. And Romney thought he had one when it came to what President Obama said on the day after the Libya attacks. But, in trying to catch the incumbent in what he thought was a clear mistake, Romney was hoisted with his own petard by Crowley in what will be the single most memorable (and replayed) interaction of the debate. Yes, we are aware that there is considerable controversy already over whether what Crowley said regarding Obama’s statement was right/accurate but remember that the average viewer simply isn’t going to read everything ever written about the subject to get to the bottom of it. (If you, gentle reader, want to get to the bottom of it, you should read this amazing piece by the Post’s Fact Checker.) They are going to watch the debate and think: “Obama looked strong there, Romney looked like he didn’t have his facts straight.” Allowing Obama to win — or come damn close to it — on what should have been his weak spot in the debate was a miss by Romney. And, he was clearly jarred by how the Libya fight turned out; he didn’t regain his footing for 10 minutes or so afterwards.
Biggest, most hilarious, over-the-top, lying-his-privileged, comes-from-wealthy wealth arse line of the night:
Mitt Romney: “Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business.”
cnn debate poll: 46% obama; 39% romney
— @jcpolls via web
CBS News Instant Poll: Obama edges Romney in second debate (CBS News) http://t.co/...— @OpinionToday via web
Colorado voters give Obama a 48/44 victory in the debate- more importantly 58/36 among independents. Sample is R+3
— @ppppolls via web
28 comments:
Your post would be more credible if you fact-checked Obama's lies as well. I won't bore you with them here but simple googling will give you both sides.
So if Obama called it a terrorist attack the next day (he did not), although he obliquely mentioned "act of terror" and then proceeded for the next two weeks to avoid the T-Word, pining the attack instead on angry mobs that got out of hand. In his UN speech, he did not mention terrorism, but he did mention the video something like six times.
But more importantly, VP Biden in his debate flatly stated "we didn't know." This directly contradicts the President.
Who is right, Biden or Obama? Can't be both.
Not unexpected that Obama was declared the winner by the MSM. He did perform better in this debate, must have been because it was at sea level.
Crowley did a very good job supporting the president the problem is she was wrong in her statement about Obama saying the Bengazi strike was a terrorist act.
What he said was "No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for,"
Never called the Bengazi attack an act of terror.
"The information, the best information and the best assessment we have today is that in fact this was not a preplanned, premeditated attack"
Crowley made her point and did her damage but to say Obama was truthful or was a clear winner is not accurate.
I think the Winners and Losers section of your article is a good partial summary of the debate. The President fought back, and that was critical for him. He is well suited to the town hall setting and was very good in relating to the audience and questions. His performance was way up over the first debate.
I think Romney's performance level was similar to the first debate. If it were a boxing match I would give the President the edge in a decision, as the President landed more punches over the length of the debate.
If there were eleven questions I would score seven rounds for Obama at 10/9. Two rounds two tied at 10/10. And two rounds 10/8 in favor of Romney. That would give Obama a 107 to 103 decision.
The 10/8 rounds for Romney are the result of the most damaging punches, which may be longer lasting, and came as he listed the Presidents record. In one round Obama was asked by an audience member who had voted for him in 2008, why he should vote for him in 2012. Obama answered as best he could. Something like (not a quote) The promises I made, I kept. The ones I haven't kept weren't for a lack of trying. And the ones not done will be completed in my second term. Fair enough.
But Romney landed big blows with a lengthy list of the Presidents record and and shared his view on why the voter is not better off after four years. Agree with the list or not, it was the best part of the debate for Romney; which he repeated a second time later in another round. Both times the President sat quietly, did little to fight back and was rocked. I would score those rounds 10-8 for Romney.
A lot has been said about the Libya round; the word terror in the Rose Garden, it's context, what was said by the Administration over the next two weeks, Romney walking into an upper cut when Crowley accurately or inaccurately fact checked him, what has still not been discussed and what never be discussed.
While it looked like Obama won the round on the spot I called it a draw. Too much semantics (is is), too much moderator and too much variation in context. The round serves to prolong the attention on Libya (not good for the President). Tie round.
And another question. Why did President Obama send Ambassador Rice out to the Sunday talk shows to tell everyone it was not terrorism? Why did VP Biden say they didn't know?
This shows a poor leader and a chaotic administration.
Candy Crowley, afterwards on CNN, said of Romney's statement about the Benghazi attack...
"So he was right in the main, I just think that he picked the wrong word."
So after Candy Crowley admitted she was not correct, are you going to keep this post up or are you going to admit that Obama lied and Romney told the truth.
skudrunner, you obviously don't know how to read. This is what Mr. Obama said one day after the Libyan attack on the consulate:
"No acts of terror will ever shake the resolve of this great nation, alter that character, or eclipse the light of the values that we stand for," Obama said in the Rose Garden. "Today we mourn four more Americans who represent the very best of the United States of America."
You have no intellectual credibility if you and the conservatives are saying Crowley was wrong over semantics. What don't you understand about Mr. Obama's words that characterized the attack as "act of terror."
You guys really, really, really show symptoms of derangement when you quibble over semantics like that.
SF: "And another question. Why did President Obama send Ambassador Rice out to the Sunday talk shows to tell everyone it was not terrorism? Why did VP Biden say they didn't know?"
SF, you answered your own question.
skudrunner: "...but to say Obama was truthful or was a clear winner is not accurate."
Go look in the mirror and keep repeating that.
KP, I can always count on you to give us a fair and balanced comment. And that is meant sincerely; it is NOT a snark. You really have the gift of seeing both sides.
With Romney's wealth of business
experience, he surely would have
long before outsourced US diplomatic security to China...
Simply put, KP makes some very good observations. Without a doubt Obama was vastly improved over his prior performance. Romney was on par with the first outing.
Fact checking both Obama and Romney statements will reveal, as Silver sad, stretches or untruths by both. No surprise as this is politics.
Bottom line in my opinion the debate was a draw, nothing more. Which is likely why the polls I am looking at have Romney ahead by as much as 6%.
One more to go and then the all important election. It continues to get more interesting by the week.
This must be the crying room for delusional Mitt supporters
@BB-Idaho That's funny. But what isn't funny is that the Obama Administration outsourced the security in Benghazi to an inexperienced firm in the UK, Wales to be specific.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/9607958/British-firm-secured-Benghazi-consulate-contract-with-little-experience.html
"Hempstead, NY. If one listens to the spinners, pundits and pollsters tonight, one is likely to hear that President Obama won his second debate with former governor Mitt Romney. Nothing could be further from the truth. The president did not win, did not have the upper hand, did not edge Mitt Romney out.
No, President Obama engaged in a slaughter worthy of the best parts of the Old Testament. He didn't just win. He demolished him. He did everything but pull his head off and shit down his neck. He handed him his ass on plate. He put him on the ropes and beat him to a shapeless pulp. He mopped the floor with him. He opened a whole six-pack of Whoop-Ass and made Romney drink every fucking one of them. He beat him like a red-headed stepchild. He mortalized him. He ripped him a new one. He kicked him right in the nuts.
But he did it so presidentially."
"skudrunner said...
So after Candy Crowley admitted she was not correct, are you going to keep this post up or are you going to admit that Obama lied and Romney told the truth."
We can always count on you, skudrunner, to always be wrong, and to come here and spread your misinformation.
UPDATE: On Wednesday, Crowley responded to conservative critics who said she "backtracked" on her Libya fact check.
During an interview with Soledad O'Brien, Crowley firmly stated that she did not backtrack on her fact check.
source
@BB-Idaho That's funny. But what isn't funny is that the Obama Administration outsourced the security in Benghazi to an inexperienced firm in the UK, Wales to be specific.
------------------
Now let's not forget who started privatizing these functions.
Remember the name, Rumsfeld?
Mr. Dead Ender himself.
Maybe State thought they were getting ex Special Air Services personnel. They'd pound Allen West's butt to hamburger, eh Silver.
Anyway, it's as if you guys never heard the phrase "fog of war". Takes a while for the matter to firm up. Now continue with your nit picking about "act of terror" versus "terrorism" and let me know how a set of the first doesn't contain the second.
For RN:
Reuters:
Voters say that President Barack Obama performed better than Republican rival Mitt Romney by a substantial margin in their second debate, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.
Forty-eight percent of registered voters gave the victory to Obama, while 33 percent say Romney prevailed in the Tuesday debate, the online poll found.
The poll reflects the broad consensus of debate observers who said Obama's forceful approach gave him the upper hand over Romney, who was widely seen as the victor in their first matchup on October 3.
Don't believe pundits who are working the rope lines trying to portray the debate as a tie. It wasn't.
Obama gave comments on the Bengazi attack. He wasn't speaking about some other subject. He called it an act of terror.
The president got more seconds to speak
The MSN is biased towards the president
The polls are fixed, by liberals
The cry of losers
It's always something besides the poor performance of their lying candidate.
Dear Lord,
They really are that dumb. From a conservative's blog:
"At the beginning of his speech the President condemns the attack calling it "outrageous" and "shocking". Then a few lines later he goes on to call the attack "senseless" and "brutal". Then later on his speech Obama talks about the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. It is after this part of the speech when he states "acts of terror". Nowhere in his speech did he specifically label the attack on Benghazi as an act of terror. It is not far off that one make an inference and conclude that when he stated "acts of terror" he was including the attack on Benghazi in that generalized statement since in his speech he was talking about the attack on Benghazi.
But Obama did not specifically call out the Benghazi attack as "terrorism" or "an act of terror". Obama used the words "acts of terror" in a lawyerly weasel kind of way giving himself wiggle room so later on he could either claim yes I did call the Benghazi attack an act of terror if it did turn out to be a terrorist attack or deny it if the attack didn't turn out to be an act of terrorism. I would call this political CYA."
And I would call the person who wrote that pile of horseshit nuts.
Third, note that in Romney’s story as he tells it, this man who had led and consulted for businesses for 25 years didn’t know any qualified women, or know where to find any qualified women. So what does that say?
Could this be because he had been in the business world so long and turned to politics, that he was possibly looking for some women who had business as well as political experience?
I know when I was in corporate, even though I knew a lot of people, that didn't mean the people I knew were necessarily qualified for the jobs I wanted to fill, therefore, I had to send out feelers, so to speak.
So Crowley backtracked the didn't, is she related to Kerry?
Obama on the view and when asked if this was an act of terror, he didn't say it was. He made a generalize statement in the Rose Garden but did not call this attack an act of terror.
The issue over the binder statement is truly pathetic. What do you keep resumes in, binder, file, cabinet.
I find it disconcerting that Obama has attacked Iran and the MSM is not reporting it, at least according to bumbles.
“How many of you know someone who served in Iraq or Iran?” Biden asked the audience.
In reply, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid raised his hand.
“How many of you know someone who has been injured or lost in Iraq or Iran?” Biden asked again. “Well, let me tell you something. We owe … these families more than we can ever pay them.”
He is a heartbeat away from the presidency.
Re: Romney's "Binders full of women" answer in the debate...
Romney was in Boston, possibly Ground Zero for the entire country and maybe even the world for highly-educated and highly-accomplished professional women. You can’t go anywhere around here without bumping into a female PhD, MD, JD, or MBA. The idea that neither he nor his staff knew ANYONE who was female and qualified in Massachusetts is just mind-boggling.
For Romney to consider a woman qualified, she would have to be a man.
Cynthia,
Agreed.
One would have to be purposely avoiding highly educated women to not know, or meet one.
"... I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business.” Mitt Romney
Well, what business did Obama ever start, or run for that matter? Oh yeah, almost forgot, Community Organizer. Whoo-Ahh.
Guess that explains the increase in food stamp usage and over all government dependency huh?
hut two three four...
The president is not a CEO and the government should not be run like a business.
The increase in food stamps (and other help programs) was brought on by Bush's economic collapse, which left 15 million unemployed.
Typical Republiscum. Blame Obama for Bush's destruction of America
"Well, what business did Obama ever start, or run for that matter? Oh yeah, almost forgot, Community Organizer. Whoo-Ahh."
Running a business is no qualification for being president. Herbert Hoover was a businessman, remember how that worked out for our country?
Harry Truman was one of our greatest, and he was a failure at business.
George W. Bush was an MBA president, and he left a disaster for his successor to clean up.
Community organizer? That's exactly what the Christian right's hero, Jesus Christ, was.
Pam, I think people were surprised that a man of Mr. Romney's experience in business and connection in corporate America would have to have an outside group give him names of qualified women for his cabinet.
Massachusetts is a magnet for powerful, successful business women.
Nice to see you here.
And powering its various affairs will be the dual core Nvidia Tegra 2.
9 is also razor thin with the same great features as the galaxy tab 10.
3GHz Nvidia Tegra 3 quad-core processor plus
1GB of RAM.
Post a Comment