Binders better than Blinders….

I am a little bit horrified that out of the most recent US Presidential debate the thing that scored the most buzz was Mitt Romneys “binders full of women” remark. Equally fantastic is the ridiculous and dishonest directions the internet is going with this. The following is my rebuttal of some of the case by case lies and idiocy.

One thing I saw showed Hillary using a smartphone with a heading of “Mitt still uses binders”? Well yeah Hill when he was Governor binders were still all the rage. Not unlike your Whitewater,commodities trades and Vince Foster papers were at one time bound in a binder. Well right up until you started shredding everything.

There was another set up in ad form featuring Hugh Hefner of Playboy fame/infamy that reads; “Binders full of women? Sure I have hundreds…” Clearly this one is meant to paint Romney as some misogynist shit bag. OMG the left use Hef to do that…they enlist him as an ally. Irony?

Anyway you slice this the Left look like a bunch of fucking retards.

Ever see a model portfolio back in the day? How about one you can buy right now?

Is Obamas kill list on an I-Pad….hint NO! (click it and see NYT image.two guys with BINDERS OH NOES!)

Contrary to your admiration of Al Gore and Barack Obama much of government still runs via a steady supply of #2 pencils and Skillcraft pens,black,ink. so the though that Gov. Romney was going to have bios on candidates in some USB,HDMI,Star Trek form is lunacy.

Now let’s look at some of the blinders:

Economy: We’re not in recovery.

Libya: Hillary under the bus. Arab Spring still tenuous at best. the new strategy of stepping back and allowing regional issues to roll out unchecked is no better than heavy-handed gringoism. Leading from behind is NOT AN OPTION.

Fast and Furious: People question Clintons continued employment. I don’t get that one. How Eric Holder is still employed and protected by this Administration is beyond me.

The Left is wearing blinders on all these matters and more and should be ashamed of themselves. We should all be ashamed though if we were at all moved by the “binders” buzz.



  1. Alfie says:

    I imagine it is out there somewhere but if not here goes…..At least Romney got a good deal at Staples for those binders. How much are we paying for the blinders?

  2. Rutherford says:

    Alfie, hate to remind you but Holder was exonerated of any wrong doing on F&F so that’s a dead issue despite Mitt bringing it up during the debate.

    The “binders” thing has two pieces, one trivial, one not so trivial. The trivial part is the awkwardness of the phrase “binders full of women”. “Binders full of women’s resumes” might have sounded better. But Mitt is known for odd phraseology (“aircraft”, “sport”). I chalk that up to his Mormonism. I suspect it’s a bit like the Amish who speak stilted English.

    The not so trivial part is that Mitt told a white lie. He did not solicit “binders of women” but was instead presented with them by MASSGAP, a group looking for employment of women …. a group which was going to petition Mitt OR his opponent, whoever won the election, to hire more women.

    What flummoxes me is that Mitt could have told the story straight and still turned it to his advantage. Why did he have to fudge on the facts?

    While we’re on the subject of the debate, I have a less political question for you Alfie. Why is Mitt so anal about debate protocol? In at least three or four debates so far (including both Presidential) he has fussed with the moderator about who gets to speak when. It looks incredibly childish.

  3. Alfie says:

    Rutherford the binders and MASSGAP works but they were by no means the end all of Romneys searching. I also remind you of Romneys LT Gov. Kerry Healey.
    Also the initial faux outrage from your side on this was wording. It only after the fact they go looking for people to say something else and cloud the truth.
    As for your closer. I don’t know what to tell you. the guy plays by the rules. Accepts that there are rules and expects others to obey them. I don’t know what to tell you other than lets see if 2016 Romney is afforded the incumbent bonus time that on a bipartisan level has been pointed out this cycle.

  4. Alfie says:

    Regards anything resembling exoneration…the public has the final say on that. As I’ve said before. I don’t get the “Fire Hillary” stuff. I am shocked she’s accepted it so fully and that is because a) I don’t think she deserves 100% and b) I’m shocked she has shown that much character. Yeah I don’t like her or think too highly of her.
    On the flip side I cannot see how Holder is still employed and if Obama is reelected the guy must be booted to show something of Obama actually getting it right.

  5. Rutherford says:

    The funny part is that Obama performed so poorly in round 1 that most folks were shocked to find he had more speaking time than Romney.

    Your point about Romney’s Lt. Gov points to another problem with Mitt …. namely that he sucks at defending himself. Regardless of what you think of the auto bailout, Obama has sold this as a plus in places like Michigan and Ohio. So why would Mitt go there knowing he doesn’t have a winning hand on that point? Same thing with his bringing up the 100% at the end of the debate. That’s not a winner for him …. and it set Obama up to close the debate with that nasty smelling 47% stuff.

    I’m telling you Alfie, if Mitt gets elected he better be one helluva better Prez than he is a politician.

  6. Raji says:

    It’s hard to fathom that the most recent concern about Romney’s statements during the last debate involves “Women” and the word “Binders”. Just how desperate have we gotten to disassociate ourselves from the word “Folders” to feel that “Binders is a demeaning word? Have we really gotten that poorly educated that we don’t understand that these two words are almost synonymous with each other. I know I’m just pounding sand, but I’m really tired of the ignorants in this political world!

  7. Rutherford says:

    Raji, he could have said “folders of women” and it wouldn’t have been much better. He simply needed to say “binders of women’s resumes” and there would have been no issue. Some women and Phil-Donahue-type men are very sensitive to what they perceive as the objectification of women. Women were not in his benders. Their CV’s were.

    It didn’t help to learn later that the entire story was a distortion.

  8. Alfie says:

    Rutherford you damn well know that a handful of people grabbed onto this silly thing and tried to play it. It shows those people as pathetic. As for the alleged distortion…believe what you want but it isn’t out of the realm of possibilities that there is more than one entity in all of fucking Massachusetts that also served as a resource for Romney well intentioned attempts to diversify.

  9. Rutherford says:

    Alfie, in all honesty as I watched the debate and he said “binders of women”, I turned to my wife and said “what?” I wasn’t offended. I just found it an incredibly awkward turn of phrase and as I’ve remarked before, this is not new for Mitt. I agree that with all the important issues that came up in the debate, “binders” is the last thing we should be focusing on. But you well know liberals are making this as much a fight about Mitt’s image as they are about his policies. In addition, because he is a well known flip-flopper, any deviation from the straight factual story will be amplified by his opponents.

  10. Rutherford says:

    What puzzles the crap out of me is that a good number of Mitt’s distortions are unnecessary. Mitt could have said “I wanted to diversify my administration and as luck would have it a group called MASSGAP had given me and my opponent a list of qualified women’s names.” BAM! Totally true, totally factual, and he still comes out looking good. I just don’t understand why he bends the truth when he doesn’t need to.

  11. Alfie says:

    On a lighter note have you seen,heard or read anything from the Al Smith Dinner event in NYC? The two took and gave each a good roasting and (obviously) I’ve enjoyed some of Romneys self deprecating humor. Classy.

  12. Rutherford says:

    Yeah the Al Smith dinner was a hoot. I liked Mitt’s preparing for the debate by refraining from alcohol for 65 years. 🙂 I also got a kick out of Barack mournfully saying “I wish I could use my middle name.”

  13. Raji says:

    Just posted the best comments over at Rutherford’s from the Al Smith dinner.

  14. bridget says:

    Okay, let me explain this one to you:

    By proactively finding qualified women to hire, Romney did away with the “need” for affirmative action preferences. He showed that we don’t need a leg up; we just might need someone to work harder to put our resumes in front of the people making hiring decisions.

    By saying that he wanted to make his workplace working-mom friendly, he destroyed the notion that being pro-life is anti-woman, that we think life ends after birth, that we don’t do anything for parenting women.

    It’s the same way they screamed and hollered and lost control over their bowels when Sarah Palin came onto the national stage. They have no use for empowered women or the men who proactively hire talented women and minorities. None.

Comments are closed.