The best of 'binders of women' -

The best of ‘binders of women’

Twitter replies to Romney reply feature Big Bird, Texts from Hillary and McKayla Maroney


The best of ‘binders of women’

‘Can’t we find women women that are also qualified?’ As Mitt Romney explained last night, he asked that question when he was governor of Massachusetts. The answer? Binders of women:

Storified by Maclean’s Magazine · Wed, Oct 17 2012 03:06:19

Here’s Romney’s reply to a townhall question on pay equity:
Mitt Romney recounts his "binder" of women anecdotecnn
Mitt Romney still won’t say whether he’d stand up for equal pay, but he did tell us he has “binders full of women.” http://OFA.BO/LMVWmZBarack Obama
A sampling of response from the Twitterverse: 
“Mmmmmmmm. Binders” – Bill Clinton. #bindersfullofwomen Bird
Sadly, my binders are full of clones, not women. #debatesDarth Vader
Big bird holds that binder full of women akass
When I was a bachelor I had a ‘little black book’ ~ not to be outdone, #Romney had binders full of women before age of Droid and iPhone. arman walker
My favourite pic so far following Romney’s Binders full of women gaffe: Bradley
Binders full of women cost 77 cents, while binders full of men cost $1.Ryan Teague Beckwith
RT @Romneys_Binder: Even Tobias and Gob have their own binders. Dennis
RT @owillis: romney binders now at peak meme Graham
DAMN! Why did I reveal my Binders Full of Women? This great truth of my faith was to remain secret Olbermann
RT @Romneys_Binder: My Women In Binders policy is already being greeted with open arms in the international community. Dominowski
BREAKING NEWS: #ZZTop releases new single: Binders Full of Women. #BindersFullofWomen #FOK @KeithOlbermann @BillMaher Pizza
Hefner’s got more binders full of women
Mitt Romney’s fumbling attempt to appeal to women> patronising & out of touch> "binders full of women"
At tonight’s debate, Mitt Romney said he had "binders full of women." We found one: Democrats
“@Romneys_Binder: This is one (of the 73) binders of women that I have.”—lmaooooorasheedanicholson
Binders full of women? #mckaylaisnotimpressed #debate #prezd2012 Belinsky
I wish I had binders full of women.Joel
"Binders full of women", as seen by Hillary Clinton Brès
The funniest "Binder" joke I’ve seen lmao!! #debates

Filed under:

The best of ‘binders of women’

  1. So this is your reaction to Romney’s comments about asking for and receiving “binders full of women”, applicants for top government jobs while he was Governor.

    All the time Maclean’s becomes more like the trash that is most of the rest of the media.

    • No, this is Macleans’ reaction to the social media response to Romney’s comments.

      • Seems to me there’s a lot of social media reactions out there, and for some reason Maclean’s chose this one, so this is just one more social media reaction.

        • It’s a big issue, and an important one. He’s lost the vote of a lot of women. I noticed it right away, thought it was patronizing and sexist, but didn’t realize it would take off like a grass fire in Southern Alberta in August.

    • OK: More substantively, what do make of his assertion that a better economy will address gender inequalities in the workforce? Seems like a stretch for even the most fervent proponents of trickle down economics to me (trickle down social justice?). Using his logic, the disparity between pay for men and women ought to have fluctuated in step with historic economic boom and bust times. To my knowledge, that has never been the case. And so his response (to me) amounted largely to “I don’t care.” In that context, it’s not fully unfair to suggest the binders comment was more a Freudian type slip, and less a poorly (and humourously) worded phrase that has been taken completely out of context.

      • Well, trickle down government is no better than trickle down economics. Asserting quotas, like they are proposing in the EU ( ), is simply wrong.

        I don’t believe that it’s government’s job to dictate top-down solutions to cultural problems. That’s a progressive left viewpoint. Eliminating discrimination is fine, as they did with the civil rights laws, and as they do with all sorts of different groups today. We have laws against discrimination. But going beyond that and dictating how many whites, blacks, women, men, handicapped, midgets, gay, lesbian, and transgendered people must exist in every workplace is absurd, or to dictate what they are paid.

        For the most part women don’t need help these days. 60% of university grads are women. There are more women doctors, lawyers and more women than men in most high-paying professional groups. The exception would be engineers and computer programmers and that has never had anything to do with anything other than differences in preferences. Unemployment is also higher amongst men.

        Anyway, my main point is this: asking a conservative that question is already assuming everyone’s a progressive. It’s a loaded question.

        The debate was full of loaded questions. Assume the liberal viewpoint and then ask the candidates how to achieve the liberal objective based on the liberal viewpoint. That’s what you get when you host a debate on a liberal TV network.

        It’s like asking a liberal how to ensure victory for your military to achieve democracy and human rights should a war take place in the middle east.

        You’re asserting of course that everyone agrees that getting involved in such a war is a good thing, much like equal pay for women. Nobody wants to lose a war, or see the end of democracy or human rights, and nobody wants women to be discriminated against.

        Then, you assume that your own side’s viewpoint on the matter is a given, that another war in the middle east may occur again due to a noble cause pursued by the government (for human rights reasons like in Libya or Syria, or eliminating a thread like in Iraq or Iran), or that the USA should get involved should a war break out between other parties. Similarly, you might assume that government must do something to eliminate inequalities, whether inequalities of income, inequalities of hiring, inequalities of access to contraception, inequalities of whatever hobby horse you’re on that month.

        Meanwhile, you complete ignore the other side’s starting point. You ignore the fact that many liberals believe in non-intervention in the middle east. You ignore the fact that conservatives in general don’t believe it’s government’s job to eliminate inequalities of outcome, such as the number of women employed and what they are paid.

        Conservatives believe in equality of opportunities. They want jobs. They don’t want to control how many women are taking those jobs as opposed to men.

        So my answer is this: it’s not the president’s job to decide what people are being paid. That doesn’t mean he does not care. It’s not the president’s job to eliminate inequalities, and to ask him how is assuming that he’s a liberal. It’s like asking an anti-war activist how to win the war in Afghanistan.

        Then as soon as he starts explaining his position, you declare him to be waging a war on women, or you declare him to be a supporter of the Taliban.

        Romney gave an answer that did not say outright the conservative position, because you can’t say that outright, because you want to make the point that you believe in women’s rights at the same time. If he said that outright, then people like you would come out and say he does not care about women. In fact, this is one of the Democrats main talking points: conservatives hate women and want to take away women’s rights, when in reality conservatives are saying that forcing all health plans across the country to provide free contraceptives has nothing to do with women’s rights, but it has everything to do with denying people their freedom of religion.

        • You’re missing the point…it is not the number of jobs, but how much they get paid for these jobs, and how much more, particularly in the US, this income disparity affects women because of the current safety net structure that exists in the US.

          • No, you missed my point entirely. But I’ve explained it well enough and I don’t intend to repeat it.

        • Thank you for the detailed response. You’ve read an awful lot into my personal politics and perspectives – most of it wrong. Ask me what I think, if you want to know, but don’t use me as some sort of liberal-progressive straw man. Goodness knows, there’s enough knee-jerk lefties around here to do that with, if you really must.

          But if I can parse your ramble, it’s that the entire world is so anti-conservative that poor Mitt could not possibly speak his mind on such issues. That might be true, but it certainly confirms suspicions that modern neo-cons are more interested in power than in honestly in stating their goals.

          Finally, you never addressed his central assertion that an improved economy will automatically address issues of gender inequality in the workforce. I happen to agree with you that sociocultural engineering is generally a bad idea. Will you agree with me that Romney’s solution to the issue is dumb?

          • Well, I’m not sure where in my response I assumed anything about you.
            I said the question was inappropriate because it starts from a liberal viewpoint, intended to make people think conservatives are waging a war on women, as is the Democrat platform.
            In your comment, you claimed his response was equivalent to saying “I don’t care”. That’s exactly what a liberal would like you to say. I explained in my comment how the question is intended to make people say that Romney is saying “I don’t care”. I explained how it’s not true, and it achieves this perception by assuming the liberal viewpoint to ask the question in the first place.

            “it’s that the entire world is so anti-conservative that poor Mitt could not possibly speak his mind on such issues.”

            You accuse me of assuming things about you, and then immediately after you say that about me? Pot calling kettle black. But to address your assertion anyway… look at how long it took me to explain my position. I took that long because that’s how long it takes. Do you really think Romney could have repeated my position. all 1000 words, in the middle of an oral, timed debate? Secondly, I don’t believe the world is anti-conservative. In fact, I think the conservative has the better chance of winning that election.

            No, an improved economy will not address issues of gender inequality. But it would help. It is not a solution, but it would at least offer a small measure. Why do I say this? Because discrimination is worst in situations where demand outstrips supply. It’s when jobs are scarce that people will devise schemes to exclude others and improve their own chances. It’s when the economy is poor, and companies are struggling, when people will step over each other (eg promote discrimation, lie, cheat, denigrate women, etc) to get the only promotion available.
            So I would say that Romney is (a) not intending to solve the “problem” because he’s not a liberal and conservatives don’t believe in creating equality of outcomes and
            (b) what he said is therefore not intended to be a solution to a liberal objective, conservatives don’t pursue liberal objectives (the objective of having the US president decide what peoples’ incomes should be), and
            (c) therefore it’s not dumb at all, especially considering the fact that it would have an impact, albeit a small one, so even though he would not want to achieve a liberal objective, he is pointing that his conservative policy would have an impact on that liberal objective anyway.

            When I put it that way, his response looks quite brilliant.

          • You win. I’m a knee-jerk liberal, it seems. And I never even knew it. I hope there’s a secret handshake or something…

            As for pots and kettles, you wrote in the previous post: “Romney gave an answer that did not say outright the conservative position, because you can’t say that outright, because you want to make the point that you believe in women’s rights at the same time. If he said that outright, then people like you would come out and say he does not care about women.”

            So ya, I was correct in paraphrasing your claim to read that Mitt could not speak the “truth”, in that the world would jump all over him for it.

            And that is nowhere near the same thing as you assuming things about my stance on the Middle East (for example), as you freely (and to my bafflement) did in the previous post.

            Anyway, I’ll bow out here. I fear that further exchanges between us will expose me to the cold reality that I’m a Marxist or something. There’s only so much self awareness I can take in one day.

          • I don’t know why you are being somewhat antagonistic. I never called you a knee-jerk liberal. In fact, I have not tried to assume anything about you.
            As for the conservative position, or at least the position I expressed, anything longer than a few soundbites is suicide in a debate. So that is what I meant when I said he could not speak his true position.

            The opposition will seize and distort messages that are not simple, direct and completely positive from beginning to end. That’s generally the case in politics, but especially in debates.

            Nor did I make any insinuations about your position on the middle east, war, or anything. That was an analogy, an example, to explain what I was talking about. It was the same concept I was describing, but flipped, assuming a conservative viewpoint when asking a question that makes it a loaded question to a liberal.
            I have no idea why you are assuming anything else. It’s an analogy. An example. Meant to illustrate. Not once have I tried to make any comment or insinuation about your own position on such matters. But you keep repeating that I do.
            In the examples, in a phrase like “assume your own side is a given”, the “you” is not “you, Sean”. It’s “you” as in this is how you assume a given viewpoint to ask a loaded question. If you asked a question about cooking, and I explained how to make something, and I said “you add a dash of salt, you put it in the oven”, all of those “you”s are not me talking about you, Sean. It’s me explaining a recipe. I don’t give a hog’s ass about whether you, Sean, use salt or not. It’s a recipe. It’s common usage of the pronoun “you”. But now I’ve used another analogy so God knows what conclusions you will come to this time.

            And I’m trying my hardest, while you keep on making insinuations. So I give up.

            So f**k it, I give up, if you think I’m calling you a marxist then so be it. You ask me questions, I answer them, then you misrepresent my answer, so either I cannot explain my ideas well enough, or you’re way too damn sensitive to be commenting on the internet, one or the other.

          • Gee, I take it you’re not female.

        • I’m not sure I understand why legislating against discrimination in hiring is acceptable and is the government’s job, but legislating against discrimination in pay is outside of the role of gov’t.

          Both are about equalization of opportunity. The opportunity to make a certain amount of money for equivalent employment.

          • Because there is a difference between opportunities and outcomes. Your salary is not an opportunity. Your commission is not an opportunity. Your fees are not an opportunity. Your prices are not opportunities.

            You can twist the word opportunity all you like, as in the “opportunity to make a certain amount of money”. Your comment is a semantic argument, not an actual rebuttal. I should probably sue because I’ve been denied the opportunity to be a billionaire. What discrimination! Call Obama!

            Whatever word I choose, you’ll twist the meaning of the word – good for you. Heck, you could probably figure out a way to call a banana an opportunity. A banana is an opportunity for a taste experience. A shoe is an opportunity for mobility. A spider is an opportunity for a nature experience. Thwim is an opportunity to be bedazzled by intellect.

            Since all of those are opportunities, by your argument they should all be legislated. Bananas, spiders and access to Thwim for everyone, or you can have your day in court! Thanks Obama.

            Everyone knows the difference between opportunities and outcomes except you.

          • Please note the “equivalent employment” part. That’s important.
            And while I agree that on an individual level, differences in pay amount are individual problems, when it gets to the point that there’s a statistically significant difference, you can’t conclude that people all have the same opportunity, the same way you couldn’t conclude that all people had the same opportunity to get a job, just some people (who happened to be black) were worse at doing so.

            How is “having a job” not an outcome, and worthy of protection from discrimination, but “being paid the same for that job” an outcome and as such not worthy.

            Honestly, I don’t care which side you prefer as a conservative.. that’s your business. But at least don’t be a hypocrite about it.

          • I’ve properly explained that there is a line to draw, and I’ve taken your idea to extremes (bananas and spiders) to prove to you that a line must be drawn somewhere. You can’t call everything an opportunity, nor is everything discrimination.
            I know of no job anywhere where two people get paid the same just because the title is the same. No two mechanics are the same, no two lawyers are the same, no two secretaries are the same, no two factory workers are the same. What you get paid is an outcome, it is not an opportunity. You don’t get paid based on your job title. Payment is not an opportunity. It’s simply not, and there is nothing hypocritical in saying that payment is not an opportunity, it’s an outcome that results from all kinds of things: your effort, time, experience, knowledge, skills, education, responsibilities, and most importantly, the results you deliver, and the results delivered by the business as a while. Yes, also there may be things like discrimination, patronage, corruption, who knows what else, and yes, sometimes these things can be systemic. But your insistence that there is no difference between job opportunities and job payment is a gross exaggeration. It’s ridiculous. There is absolutely nothing hypocritical about noting these differences and taking a different position on each because of the differences.

            Now, I’ve explained my position on systemic discrimination in a series of detailed comments that are each longer than any comment you have ever written before. So I will not do it again, regardless of how many times you repeat that you fail to understand.

          • And.. again.. if you were talking individual jobs, or differences between two particular jobs, you’d have a point. The same as you would if you insisted that nobody can force an employer to hire any particular individual.

            But we’re not talking about individual differences in pay, or in hiring. We’re talking about systemic differences. Differences that are statistically significant. As a woman, you simply *DO NOT* have an equal opportunity to make the same amount as a man. Just like how as a black person, you did not have an equal opportunity to get hired.

            The hypocrisy is in saying, “Well this systemic problem of hiring based on colour is different from this other systemic problem of payment based on gender.” That’s total crap.

            You’ve explained your position, I’ll agree. You have yet to explain how it’s internally consistent other than by simple assertion.

      • Though, I don’t think it was an “I don’t care” response…I took it more as a poor attempt to deflect the question posed (i.e. wage gap) by saying that he made every attempt to hire women in his office. Of course, he just didn’t pay them the same :).

        • Perhaps “I don’t care” is too unfair a way to frame it. Maybe, “I don’t think government can or should do anything about it.” would be a more apt interpretation.

    • What IS your problem? A) He talked about women in “binders” which I suspect is the way potential wives are presented in the Mormon church; and B) he was lying – there were no binders except the one brought to him by a women’s group in Mass. when they realized how few women are in government there. !!!

    • How true. Wish the media could “maturely” talk about the real issues in this election. Yes… the white house has a problem paying women equal money. You would only know this if you watch FOX news. They consistently turn everything around and lie and lie… Obama is flat out lying about the Embassy killings. You know darned well if Bush had done that the media would be camped out in front of the white house insisting he “fess up”. Obama continued to insist that the “video” was responsible. He even had the guy who made it arrested. How long will the American public put up with being laughed at by the middle east terror gangs? Did you see the Hilary apology video? She sounds either mentally challenged or like she is speaking to 2-year-olds. Its freaking embarrassing.

      • “You would only know this if you watch FOX news.” Heh heh. Thanks for that.

  2. What strikes me is how completely pissed Romney looks in that photo. Not just stressed, but mad. His eyes are slightly red, mouth is compressed, he is angry. Doesn’t handle pressure well at all. Fragile, would not be able to handle Presidency.

    • Oh no, if you watched the debate it was Obama that could barely contain his anger throughout the entire thing…

  3. Binders…Big Bird…Clean-dishes-gate…

    Jesus Christ, I thought you had to be Canadian to endure an election campaign this stupid.

    • Jeb Bush had no business letting that hurricane get past Florida either.

      You can clearly see how the chemtrails from Katrina generated by that secret weather machine in Cheney’s basement pushed those airplanes into the WTC with the innocent terrorists kidnapped by Richard Nixon’s alien clone from the Roswell crash while Ronald Reagan planted the thermite explosives in black helicopters during area 51 time travel experiments filming Bed Time for Bonzo with the help of Romney’s father…

      “The Twoof is out there on the X-Files”

  4. Lost in all of this incredible bullshit about binders…Obama’s White House pays women 18% less than men.

    The White House is an “Old Boys” club, and President Obama has a woman problem

    Women in the Obama administration feel ignored and sidelined

    “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace,” former White House communications director Anita Dunn is quoted as saying. “Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”

    But hey…Binders! Filled with women! Sounds awful. Can’t argue with that!

    • Obama is just an empty chair with a teleprompter like Clint Eastwood said he is.

    • Very good post. Not that you will hear this in the mainstream media.

  5. I am still waiting for the day when Democrats stop politicking by division. They call groups of people “the black vote”, “the Hispanic vote”, the “women vote”, I am a conservative. I don’t need taxpayers to fund my reproductive choices and I don’t need taxpayers to ensure I get well paid for my work. I get paid well because I work hard and have been educated and developed talent that benefits my employer. And this is the true answer to all of this. Personally I think the left is so desperate that they are resorting to making fun of little catch phrases like “big bird” and “binders” because they have no original ideas to present to the public to define themselves. What poverty of thought. Its quite sad actually. Obama is a class divider. If you work hard you will be successful and you don’t need Obama’s hand outs to do so… anybody want an Obama-phone?

    • The Obama phones probably have his picture on the front so you can be grateful to Obama for each and every phone call.

  6. Shorter Hillary Clinton

    “For the love of God, quit with the binders nonsense, you’re killing us!”

    • John, do you think it’s a coincidence that:
      1.Bill Clinton says “The economy is not fixed. Obama knows it.”
      In fact, if you listen to everything he says it sounds worse.

      2. Hilary Clinton meanwhile trashes the Obama campaign’s “Republican war on women” theme, as linked by you above.

      This is just after Obama and the rest tried to toss Hilary under the bus over the Libya attacks.

      This is also just after Romney bridged the gap with Obama.

      It looks like it’s torpedoes away. They’ve decided to let ‘er rip!

      • Nope. Don’t think it’s a coincidence at all. And Barry knows it.

        I’m pretty sure Bill went on in that speech to make a good case for Obama; but Clinton’s a savvy enough guy to know that someone was going to make a tasty soundbite out of the first part of what he was saying. He knew exactly what he was doing. The part about Obama wanting to cry? Pure gold.

        There’s a new poll that has Romney up 4 in Pennsylvania(!). Obama’s team have conceded Florida, Virginia, and North Carolina, and one of the pollsters have stopped polling those states because he’s already called all 3 of them for Romney. If Romney takes all of those + Pennsylvania, he’s at 270. Obama made another horrible gaffe tonight on John Stewart (called the death of 4 Americans in Benghazi “not optimal”).

        It’s over. It’s so over it’s not even funny. Obama’s literally talking about “binders” on his campaign stops as a desperate attempt to shore up the #ladyparts vote. It’s a joke. He’s got nothing left to say.

        The only thing that saves Obama now is electoral fraud, of which I’m certain there will be an attempt.

        • I agree, I think both Clintons were savvy enough to offer up those comments to stick it to Obama with those soundbites.
          I’m not as confident as you that it’s over. It still looks close in most polling. Gallup appears to be an outlier, the others are showing a closer race. I’d need to see one other poll in the same territory as Gallup for me to believe it.

          I doubt Pennsylvania can be won by Romney. It’s probably an outlier that poll. Also, I agree that Florida, NC and Virgina are over. So it’s down to a few states, the so-called Obama firewall. In fact, it’s down to Ohio, Iowa, and Nevada, from what I can tell.

          But yeah, I agree, the current Obama campaign tactics are an embarrassment, from big bird, to binders, to non-optimal assassinations. It’s a good litmus test to see which media outlets are in the tank for Obama – any outlet that starts talking about binders or Big Bird is exposing themselves as a Democratic campaign office. And of course that includes Maclean’s.

          • OK…even if he doesn’t win Penn…

            Here’s the current state of the map. Romney leads for the first time. Give Romney Florida, Virginia, and Colorado (currently leading in all 3), and he’s at 257. They are tied in Ohio, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, and within the margin of error in Pennsylvania. Obama just deployed a surrogate to Minnesota, which isn’t even a toss up state yet.

            Romney has all the momentum. No one who has been over 50% in Gallup in mid October or later has ever lost. This former Dem strategist even says that if Gallup is right, it’s over.

          • I agree, that if Gallup is right, it’s over. But Gallup has been wrong before.

            According to Nate Silver of the NY Times (yes, I know, it’s the NY Times, but there’s nothing wrong with evaluating his commentary), Gallup overestimated Obama’s win by 4 points in 2008, and in 2010 Gallup oversestimated the Republican win in the House vote by 8 points.

            I agree that Romney is ahead in Fl, Va, Col. I think he’s also ahead in NH. I think he is about 1 pt behind in Ohio. And I think he’s a few points behind in Wisconsin. I think he’s 1 or 2 points behind in Nevada and Iowa. I think he has no chance in Pennsylvania.
            Excluding Gallup the national polls show a tie. I think Romney needs to win the national vote by 1.5 points to win the electoral vote.
            But yes, he has all the momentum, so I think he needs to come through with just 1 or 2 more points, which he may do if trends continue.

            One more thing that’s interesting: suppose my estimates are correct except for NH, and suppose Obama wins Ohio in addition to NH. If Romney wins Nevada and Iowa it’s an electoral college tie! Apparently the House must vote for President to break a tie, while the Senate votes for the VP. So Romney would win the presidency. The Senate would install a figurehead VP that Romney would ignore for 4 years while installing his own VP.

            So, I guess in summary that I give Romney about a 50% chance with the numbers as is. I give him about 70% based on my gut he’ll do about a point or two better than the numbers as is. For me it’s still too close to call.