Posted on 10/17/2012 7:33:18 AM PDT by RochesterNYconservative
I want to preface by saying I am voting for Mitt Romney and I thought the debate moderated by Candy Crowley was horrendously bad. I think she was even worst than Martha Raddatz, if that was possible.
But one statement Romney said that bothered me during the debate. A feminazi asked a loaded question about how men make more than women (a falsehood for the most part).
Gov. Romney said that when he first became Governor, he looked at a stack of potential cabinet members and complained that they were all men. He then directed his chief of staff to find more women.
If I was a potential cabinet member, who campaigned for you, supported and donated to your campaign, and was QUALIFIED to do the job I applied for, and my resume was sent to the circular file because I was a man, I would be fuming!
Romney, I understand, was only trying to aticulate he would be fair to women as president, as he was trying to downplay a fake "war on women," but I found the treatment of those potential cabinet members unfair because their gender should not have mattered. Finding a good cabinet should not be an affirmative action game.
I agree, it should not be a factor, but when building a governing cabinet, factors enter other than just who sent a resume. As governor, a team of all white men would be a political liability. I doubt Romney turned down the best candidates, but simply wanted to expand the pool to choose from. If no women applied, no women would be selected. By adding women (in fact, binders of women :) ) I am sure he only considered those qualified.
I agree with your premise, though. Gender, color, etc should not even be a factor when selecting people for a position.
yea, that whole argument is ridiculous. If a woman doesn’t ask for more money she won’t get more money it’s as simple as that. I don’t know how much the people around me make but if I’m satisfied with what I make then it’s on me if they are actually making more than me and I can get more if I just push the boss a little. It’s called negotiating. Many people just take the first offer that is given and that’s fine but I always try to do better. Who knows, maybe I can be making even more than I am now but if I’m not willing to ask and push I’ll never really know. This isn’t about being a man or a woman in my opinion. Also, in his answer he mentioned that the women couldn’t stay past five because they had to get him. Well, I can say that I have stayed in the office, many a nights, WELL past 5. It’s called for sometimes and the people willing to do it will be compensated accordingly (as long as they are willing to push a little). Of course if Mitt tries to explain that in a debate the President and the media will demagogue it and try to make it seem like he’s anti women so I can look past it. There are a million things I don’t agree with Mitt about. I personally don’t think he’s very conservative but I’d rather he be the next President
To your point, though: yes, it was a loaded question - certainly not one from an "uncommitted" voter (one of these days, the GOP needs to refuse these 'road game/hostile crowd' events). And your take is obviously correct. But Mitt needed to diffuse the question and move on. It means nothing in the grand scheme.
When Romney was talking about his quest to fill the cabinet with qualified women and how he had his team scour the universe to find them I looked at my wife and said “See how hard it is to find qualified women?”. She hit me.
hahah, You should see the MSNBC focus group. Crissy was all over that and tried to get the women who supported Mitt to disavow him because of this question. One women said, well, first we need to get jobs before we can worry about the salary. FYI (5-3 for Romney in the MSNBC Focus group but hey, Obama had his best debate ever hahaha)
ROTFL
What bothered me was him telling the voters hussein was right about everything. He followed up with how he wasn’t but what’s going to stick is “he is right” in the voters’ minds. It was very McCain “we don’t have to be afraid of Obama.”
A point if I may...
All of the talk about “qualifications” is one part of the equation, but how many men can bring the perspective of a woman to a given issue?
C’mon guys, you know that we think differently and to dismiss that as a needed element is to me really missing the whole point. If Colleges wanted to strictly be known as “academic pillars” they would only admit Chinese or Asian students. Case closed
America is a nation of disparate views and needs, and to out of hand dismiss the participation of women with a voice that understands how THEY see things is being disingenuous.
Walk a mile in this scenario: A cabinet of ALL WOMEN
How many guys would pitch a fit and say what do YOU know about being a man!
Like it or not the good Lord made us different in nature and to take the tack of hiding behind “qualifications” in representing both genders is gonna make you look bad
JMHO
When you correct for career choice, years in the career, hours on the job, and career interruptions, and a number of other reasonable non-gender factors that drive pay, women make MORE then men.
An all woman cabinet? Lord help us! And I say that with all due respect... There is no such thing as equality and there never will be. Men understand that fact and act accordingly.
“Finding a good cabinet should not be an affirmative action game.”
You’re right. The cabinet positions should be the gov’s choice of qualified applicants, even if they’re all male.
The same if it’s a woman in an elected position. She should be able to have an all female staff if that’s what she wants.
However, you know the question was a gotcha. Romney answered well, considering.
He’s trying to win an election and the left is looking for anything they could use to turn the screws.
I just wish he would destroy the Clinton myth by correctly pointing out there was no true surplus under Clinton...it was disproved numerous times. I have a feeling he won’t attack Bill Clinton because I believe the Clintons want to stomp the Obamas after the entire Benghazi situation led to Hillary being thrown under the bus.
Politicians pander. It’s in their nature.
Romney is far from perfect.
I don’t agree. Men and women are very different. Women sitting around a table where policy is being discussed completely changes the tone of discussion. In an age where women did not vote, it was a different story. but today more of them vote than men. Their point of view must make its way into the conversation directly.
Well, it could be argued that Sarah Palin was an “affirmative action “ choice, and ironically, the liberals have tried to make that case. Indeed, her resume was less than Kaye Bailey Hutchison, and many other male politicians. But as a candidate she had far less to offer than Palin, and of course, Palin experience in office was more extensive than Obama’s. I admire Romney’s outreach beyond the “usual suspects.”
Sarah Palin has proven herself successful over and over again with help from nothing but the sheer determination she’s gifted with from the Lord. In addition to her own accomplishments, she’s worked side by side with Todd to help him make a living in his fishing business.
So I’m curious, how was she an affirmative action pick?
Romney had a great answer to the question. Very few jobs in government requires more than 40 hours. Same goes for most private sector white collar jobs. If you can’t get it done, time was wastes during the day.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.