The real War on Women

Obama touts fair pay for women, despite records showing women paid less in his own White House

At Tuesday’s Hofstra University presidential debate, President Barack Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney duked it out over pay equity for women, just as they have fought over female votes in the national polls.

While Obama made the empathetic case for his single mother and his belief in equal pay — pointing out that the first bill he signed as president was the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act — he did not address reports this year that demonstrated that his own White House pays women less than men.


According to a report published by the Free Beacon in April, the 2011 annual report on White House staff revealed that the median annual salary for female White House employees was 18 percent less than male employees — $60,000 compared to $71,000.

And in 2008, Scripps Howard syndicated columnist Deroy Murdock noted that as in Obama’s U.S. Senate office, women were paid less than men: While the average male staffer brought home $54,397, female staffers averaged $45,152.

Romney detailed his professional history, recruiting women into positions of power during his tenure as governor of Massachusetts. He further pointed out the economic suffering women have endured under Obama, including the loss of 580,000 jobs among women and 3.5 million women in poverty.

Obama talks the talk, but he doesn’t walk the walk.

BTW – The Vile Progs are going crazy today over “binders”.

Go figure.

This entry was posted in Barack Obama, Mitt Romney and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to The real War on Women

  1. carol haka says:

    I still use binders. Most companies do. So, only the illiterate idiots with no critical thinking skills would not know what he is talking about. 👿

  2. carol haka says:

    Drudge reporting Eva Longonia retweeted hateful Romney is “racist/misogynist” tweet. Well, I guess her career is over as far as I am concerned! 👿

    • mcnorman says:

      Eva is a dingbat. As a Hispanic, she makes me cringe everytime she opens her mouth. Nothing, nada upstairs.

    • angienc says:

      She wrote “racist/misogynist twat” Cause, you know, using that vulgarity to disparage another person isn’t sexist at all.

      • britgirls says:

        Erm … twat means c*nt where I come from. o.o Is she seriously calling him that? It’s bringing back memories of the “Sarah Palin is a c*nt” t-shirts.

        And how is he a racist/misogynist? HOW? By employing 50% women in his cabinet? This reminds me of the ’08 insanity … women calling Hillary a bitch for even running against BO. Then more madness … women saying McCain was “pandering” to women by inviting Palin to be his running mate. If that’s pandering I’ll take it. How else are we going to get more women in office? HOW???

  3. angienc says:

    As I wrote at John’s place the pretense that Romney had actual women in binders & not binders full of resumes is just more proof that the vile progs got *nothing* — Big Bird, dishes & binders — that’s it — that is what they think are “winning issues” for them.

    Of course, they actually think Ledbetter Act — which only extends time to file wage discrimination lawsuit (for men & women) — guarantees “equal pay,” that the US Tax Code *actually* provides “tax breaks” for companies to move jobs overseas and that high gas prices means the economy is doing well.

    No wonder they think Obama “won.”

    Also, did you hear Obama pulled all ads out of NC & VA — that’s how “great” he did in the debate. Don’t let reality interfere with your fantasies!

    • carol haka says:

      Most companies will terminate you for discussing compensation. So what did ll accomplish? Nothing for most women. It’s bullshit.

      • votermom says:

        Even if you do sue – what will happen – no one else will ever hire you.

        • Jadzia says:

          NO KIDDING. I saw myself out, so to speak, of my last law firm after being told, while pregnant, in front of A ROOM FULL OF 50 WOMEN LAWYERS who also worked at my firm, that I would not be promoted(*) because “the firm has good reasons not to promote mothers.”

          (*)After several years of basically being the rising star.

          Did I sue? No, I did not — was afraid of being blackballed, which kind of ended up happening anyway. The best, most extra special detail of the whole sordid episode is that about a week after the statute of limitations passed, one of the (childless) female partners at that firm (who at the time was still a friend, but is no more) told me that if I had sued, I woulda been rich. Thanks a lot, lady.

    • britgirls says:

      This whole binder malarkey is pitiful. Sure, it’s causing a great deal of merriment for the Obots, but if they try and share the joke with any normal person they’ll be like “Erm, so he keeps resumes in a binder. Aaaand? What’s the joke, again? I don’t get it.”

    • Erica says:

      I think this ad may fall into the realm of “don’t ask a question you don’t know the answer to.” I think perhaps repubs know who did that, and I ‘m guessing it was the WH and not Hillary. Would not be surprised if this gets pushed at the next debate.

  4. DM says:

    The most important thing in this election, besides getting rid of Obama, is to get rid of the obots. I voted for McCain for that reason. Now I’m voting for Romney because he’s a better candidate, but I would vote Republican just to get rid of those vile people.

    • britgirls says:

      And to rein in the press. Have the press EVER been this much in the tank for a candidate? I only became a citizen in 2004, so I didn’t pay much attention to US politics before that.

      • DM says:

        I agree. I just don’t know how the press can be changed, other than not buying newspapers or watching the cable news. It’s not going to happen. I wrote a short email to a reporter at La Times because his analysis of the debate concluded, without question, that Obama was the big winner for women due to the Lilly Ledbetter Act. I made these points: The act did not fix the problem of unequal pay between men and women. And that he knew it. I also pointed that he could not speak as a woman (the reporter is male), and that even if he was a woman, he could not speak for all women. Finally I said you should have said that only time will tell if Obama or Romney made his case to women.

        His response was one word: “Touche” 🙂

        • britgirls says:

          Love it! I think Romney made the stronger case to women. But as you say … we’ll have to wait and see.

    • angienc says:


    • bluestate says:


  5. westcoaster says:

    are they “bound” women? I’d love to be in Romney’s binder. At least I’d have a chance at getting a job.

    • Lulu says:

      This is some kind of sexual connotation that they can’t stay away from. Same for the tea party inside jokes. It is one step above poopy jokes. Juvenile, prurient, and nonsensical and they are absolutely obsessed with this stuff. It is an attempt to be hip with their vast subculture knowledge that the old fuddy-duddy doesn’t understand they think. We understand and think they are childish.

    • DM says:

      Obots have tiny minds, like Beavis and Butthead with words like “wood”

  6. wmcb says:

    This was my favorite moment from the debate. Mitt calmly laying out BO’s economic fail:

  7. Happened upon this on Twitter – rather funny
    Dogs Against Romney ‏@Grrr_Romney

    .@MittRomney left the debate and immediately ripped Candy Crowley’s page out of his binder full of women. #debates #binderfullofwomen

  8. angienc says:

    Oh, btw, guy who asked question on Libya that Obama didn’t answer? Obama told him after debate that he did delay calling it a terrorist attack to make sure his “intel was right” — um why didn’t he say this at the debate, why are people saying Romney was “wrong” or that hte point was debatable & why is the *big* story today BINDERS?

    President Obama, though, wasn’t done with Kerry Ladka. “After the debate, the president came over to me and spent about two minutes with me privately,” says the 61-year-old Ladka, who works at Global Telecom Supply in Mineola, N.Y. According to Ladka, Obama gave him ”more information about why he delayed calling the attack a terorist attack.” For background, Obama did apparently lump Benghazi into a reference to “acts of terror” in a Sept. 12 Rose Garden address. However, he spent about two weeks holding off on using the full “terrorist” designation. The rationale for the delay, Obama explained to Ladka, was to make sure that the “intelligence he was acting on was real intelligence and not disinformation,” recalls Ladka.

    • swanspirit says:

      Ladka is going to be on GRETA tonight , Obama just cannot resist sneaking around behind peoples backs . What a complete scum sucking slime eating excuse for a human being .

    • DM says:

      The private answer is b.s. and that’s why he didn’t say it. It was not necessary to wait two weeks to call the Benghazi event a terror attack. Eight days after the attack, the WH publicly told congress it was a terror attack. Obama is full of sh*t.

      • DM says:

        Obama doesn’t want the Republicans to use the image of him saying that Benghazi was a terrorist attack. Obama has never said that the Benghazi attack was a terrorist attack.

      • angienc says:

        Oh, of course it’s BS but why say one thing in front of everyone — in fact, get all INDIGNANT at Romney over it & calling for Candy to “read the transcript” and then “Can you say that again, Candy?” (which she did) and then *privately* say something else to that guy? He should have at least kept the same lie going for the night! It just shows his only point was to try to get Romney to STFU about Libya — and all the Dem spinners are out today saying that Romney was “wrong” blah, blah, blah. On Megyn Kelly’s show it was kind of funny seeing them realize that *if* Obama had actually called it a terrorist attack in Rose Garden on 9/12 then that made sending Susan Rice out to all those Sunday news shows even *worse.*

    • lorac1 says:

      Hmmm I wonder why he didn’t use that same “wait and see” attitude when he and his minions were appearing everywhere saying the violence was due to a video…..

  9. HELENK says:

    when I was a working mother, I would have loved to have a boss like Romney. I can remember when companies would not hire you if you had kids. They felt that phone calls from home and taking off due to childhood illnesses would detract you from your work.
    Some companies would not hire women of childbearing age. Afraid it would cost them to train you and then you would get pregnant and leave.
    Things have changed some for women, but there is still a lot to be changed. Equal pay for equal work is still NOT a reality for many women.
    You know I do think that Romney would give women a better shot at getting the ERA passed than any president has so far

  10. DM says:

    I visit an obot website, and when things are going well for Obama, they get into a frenzy. After the debate last night, the comments were subdued. They were happy to see Obama coming out fighting, but that was it. The fact that the obots are making fun of the binder tells the story, imho.

  11. ME says:

    There is a WP poll on who won the debate.

  12. yttik says:

    I love that tweet, something to the effect of, “I’d rather be in Mitt’s binder than under Obama’s bus.”

    Amen to that!

  13. those obots just have juvenile minds. They can’t get past their crotches…………

  14. Here’s what Romney’s Lt. Gov said about the Binders of Women:

    • Romney’s record on women is impressive. Instead of pressing him on abortion, the women’s groups should be pressing him on appointing a gender neutral cabinet if he’s elected just like he did in MA. Just goes to show you that the women’s groups aren’t serious about women gaining power—–only about their reproductive systems. What a ridiculous idea that they are prowomen. They aren’t……

  15. Underwhelmed says:

    The Obots et al are terrified on this issue because when (please! please!) Romney takes office, and appoints people to positions, the truth of his hiring practices (gender/ethnicity neutral) will be on display under the spotlight, and no amount of lying bullshit will be able to unring that bell. You’ll have a re-run of the first debate. The lies only work when they’re the only information people have on which to base their opinions.

    • Underwhelmed says:

      Although perhaps gender/ethnicity neutral isn’t the term I mean? When it’s clear he hires on expertise and talent, and that just so coincides with a broad range of people, many of whom will happen to be female/not-white and, most importantly, sane, pragmatic and not ideological?

  16. HELENK says:

    Romney did not need a rock band and free booze to get this crowd in Virginia

    • carol haka says:

      Just like 60k showing up to see Palin no free alcohol or food. Obama had to feed everyone and booze em up.

    • yttik says:

      That’s a good analogy in that cartoon! The President needed to hit a home run, but he didn’t, he hit a bunt. That’s not a bad strategy, but it works a lot better if you’ve actually got some runners on base.

  17. HELENK says:

    they really do look silly don’t they

    think about it
    a woman lost her job. her husband has been unemployed for month, do these fools really think this woman gives a damn about binders?

    were there resumes in the binder??? did some one get a job through the resume in the binder??

  18. Didn’t I call it or what? At 7:00 this morning on this very blog I said:

    This [Candy’s Libya interjection/Obama’s lie] will be the top news stories of the day in the morning. But TPM, WaPo, and various other hit-job outfits will try to bury it with stories about “the binder.” Bet.

    • DM says:

      I just saw an animation video at No Quarter. It shows CNN reporters talking about the expensive shoes Romney is wearing at a rally, while on the other split screen are demonstrations in the M.E.

  19. DM says:

    I like SurveyUSA polls. For an incumbent president to be at 45% is bad news, imho. 9% of the voters are undecided and I expect those voters to break for Romney.

    3 Weeks Till Votes Are Counted, Hours Before 2nd Presidential Debate Begins, Early Voters Give Obama An Edge in Ohio:
    In an election for President of the United States in Ohio today, 10/16/12, Barack Obama edges Mitt Romney 45% to 42%, according to a SurveyUSA poll conducted for WCMH-TV in Columbus. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll one week ago, Obama is flat at 45%, Romney is down 2 points, from 44% to 42%.

    Obama’s entire advantage comes from those Ohioans who tell SurveyUSA they have already voted. Among early voters, Obama leads 57% to 38%. Among Ohioans who are likely to vote, but who have not yet done so, the contest is tied, 43% to 43%. When the two groups are proportionally blended, Obama leads by the 3 points reported here. Compared to an identical SurveyUSA poll one week ago, women are stable, but Obama picks up a couple of points among men. The gender gap today is 13 points. Both Obama and Romney lost support among Independents week-on-week. Romney declined 3 points, from 44% to 41%. Obama declined 2 points, from 35% to 33%. Obama gained ground week-on-week among middle-income voters. In greater Columbus, the contest is absolutely unchanged: 47% to 41% Obama last week; 47% to 41% Obama this week.

Comments are closed.