Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

I wonder where Romney's binder full of women was...

Posted by   + Show Post

by on Nov. 30, 2012 at 11:18 AM
Replies (21-27):
29again
by Gold Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 1:00 AM

LOL!  I agree with that particular example.  He was physically unable to do the job, imo, and should not even have been on the ballot!  In any other field, there is pretty much forced retirement after a certain age, or physical dis-ability is present.  Not so in politics. 

But by the same token, I don't think that new-to-the-job representatives should be named committee heads.  I do believe that there should be some kind of experience needed before anyone is named head of a committee.

Quoting Sisteract:

Really?

Would you have wanted the 100 year old Strom T. as the committee head? He physically could not hold up his own head, at the end [not his fault he was re-elected]

Time and place for everything and seniority does not always equate with top notch or up-to-date knowledge and skills.

Quoting 29again:

And wouldn't seniority on a committee be a good thing?  I would not want to be on a committee where the chair(wo)man had no idea of what was going on.  And as a citizen, I don't want leaders who don't know what is going on, either.  Experience should be important in this arena.... right?  Or should we have a quota, instead, where experience and knowledge is irrelevant?

Quoting NWP:


NWP
by Guerilla Girl on Dec. 1, 2012 at 8:34 AM

Fair enough. I think Sister gave you a good example of what I mean when seniority is not something that should be used as a large priority when appointing committee members.

 Just being a congress member for a longer time means nothing when it comes to contributing to specific knowledge areas such as committees. New members bring with them new backgrounds and experiences, some of which can make them more qualified than folks who have just held their time.

I can give another example: Todd Akin was appointed to the Science Committee by the GOP. This man didn't even have the basic understanding of the basic biology of how a female body worked.

It would be interesting to see how the GOP reached its decision to place this group in their leadership positions. It seems as if they haven't done any real introspection or looked at how they can represent themselves better to other groups they wish to bring into the tent. Folks are paying close attention to this now to see it plays out. So far, it seems nothing has changed.

Quoting poietes:

I am not arguing, Im asking a question I have no opinion until I know who else was up for the job. But since you dont know either and would rather judge on a simple picture then I guess this conversation is over. I dont believe in some one getting the job simply by what their gender or skin colir is. I am honestly courious on who else wanted the positions.

Quoting NWP:

I am not going to argue with you about it. This is how the GOP chooses to represent itself. IMO this is a good thing for the Democrats. The GOP continues to be a party that is excludes women and minority voices.

Hey, I certainly hope they keep it up. It will help the Dems take the House too.

Quoting poietes:

Again, who was up for the position that was as or more qualified for the positions being awarded? Should we throw freshmen in that have no clue? Or should we just give it to the woman because she was a woman? But then again I dont know any names of other people who wanted the position so again I can not judge what the motivation was.



Quoting NWP:

Seniority was a big factor. And because the GOP has only recently cracked the door open to a few minorities and women, they are lower on the seniority pool.

I used to work for a state institution where priority was given to seniority for promotions.

There sure were some old idiot supervisors in that place.

Quoting poietes:

Before I make an opinion, who was up for the jobs that was as or more qualified? Or are we just supposed to see the list and atomaticly pitch a fit?




New World Peace

Simmeringhearts
by on Dec. 1, 2012 at 8:50 AM
1 mom liked this

Well, it is a good thing that the democrats are busy worrying about this. It is not like we have our taxes going up in a few weeks.

poietes
by Member on Dec. 1, 2012 at 9:13 AM
I'll just say one more thing and I done. But you are ok with our president picking an old white guy who is also a gaff prone idiot as our vp? Like I said the person they pick is not always the most qualified for the job but when its the other side you are ok with it.

Quoting NWP:

Fair enough. I think Sister gave you a good example of what I mean when seniority is not something that should be used as a large priority when appointing committee members.

 Just being a congress member for a longer time means nothing when it comes to contributing to specific knowledge areas such as committees. New
members bring with them new backgrounds and experiences, some of which
can make them more qualified than folks who have just held their time.

I can give another example: Todd Akin was appointed to the Science Committee by the GOP. This man didn't even have the basic understanding of the basic biology of how a female body worked.

It would be interesting to see how the GOP reached its decision to place this group in their leadership positions. It seems as if they haven't done any real introspection or looked at how they can represent themselves better to other groups they wish to bring into the tent. Folks are paying close attention to this now to see it plays out. So far, it seems nothing has changed.

Quoting poietes:

I am not arguing, Im asking a question I have no opinion until I know who else was up for the job. But since you dont know either and would rather judge on a simple picture then I guess this conversation is over. I dont believe in some one getting the job simply by what their gender or skin colir is. I am honestly courious on who else wanted the positions.



Quoting NWP:

I am not going to argue with you about it. This is how the GOP chooses to represent itself. IMO this is a good thing for the Democrats. The GOP continues to be a party that is excludes women and minority voices.

Hey, I certainly hope they keep it up. It will help the Dems take the House too.

Quoting poietes:

Again, who was up for the position that was as or more qualified for the positions being awarded? Should we throw freshmen in that have no clue? Or should we just give it to the woman because she was a woman? But then again I dont know any names of other people who wanted the position so again I can not judge what the motivation was.





Quoting NWP:

Seniority was a big factor. And because the GOP has only recently cracked the door open to a few minorities and women, they are lower on the seniority pool.

I used to work for a state institution where priority was given to seniority for promotions.

There sure were some old idiot supervisors in that place.

Quoting poietes:

Before I make an opinion, who was up for the jobs that was as or more qualified? Or are we just supposed to see the list and atomaticly pitch a fit?




Posted on the NEW CafeMom Mobile
NWP
by Guerilla Girl on Dec. 1, 2012 at 3:09 PM

That is your opinion of our VP. IMO he is a better VP than the one from the previous administration by a million times. And if you want to talk about Biden or the VP's, then we should make it another post because it is OT here.

That said, VP's are elected along with a president by the people, even if they are originally chosen by the POTUS candidate as a bit of a package deal.

I would make an argument that Romney's choice of Ryan as a VP is one of the things that cost him with women and minorities, same as this panel of chairMEN.

Had he, or for that matter McCain, had chosen Condi Rice (a more moderate and experienced member of the GOP, Palin was too far to the right of most women and minorities in our country and too inexperienced), our lineages of presidents might have looked different.

Quoting poietes:

I'll just say one more thing and I done. But you are ok with our president picking an old white guy who is also a gaff prone idiot as our vp? Like I said the person they pick is not always the most qualified for the job but when its the other side you are ok with it.

Quoting NWP:

Fair enough. I think Sister gave you a good example of what I mean when seniority is not something that should be used as a large priority when appointing committee members.

 Just being a congress member for a longer time means nothing when it comes to contributing to specific knowledge areas such as committees. New
members bring with them new backgrounds and experiences, some of which
can make them more qualified than folks who have just held their time.

I can give another example: Todd Akin was appointed to the Science Committee by the GOP. This man didn't even have the basic understanding of the basic biology of how a female body worked.

It would be interesting to see how the GOP reached its decision to place this group in their leadership positions. It seems as if they haven't done any real introspection or looked at how they can represent themselves better to other groups they wish to bring into the tent. Folks are paying close attention to this now to see it plays out. So far, it seems nothing has changed.

Quoting poietes:

I am not arguing, Im asking a question I have no opinion until I know who else was up for the job. But since you dont know either and would rather judge on a simple picture then I guess this conversation is over. I dont believe in some one getting the job simply by what their gender or skin colir is. I am honestly courious on who else wanted the positions.



Quoting NWP:

I am not going to argue with you about it. This is how the GOP chooses to represent itself. IMO this is a good thing for the Democrats. The GOP continues to be a party that is excludes women and minority voices.

Hey, I certainly hope they keep it up. It will help the Dems take the House too.

Quoting poietes:

Again, who was up for the position that was as or more qualified for the positions being awarded? Should we throw freshmen in that have no clue? Or should we just give it to the woman because she was a woman? But then again I dont know any names of other people who wanted the position so again I can not judge what the motivation was.





Quoting NWP:

Seniority was a big factor. And because the GOP has only recently cracked the door open to a few minorities and women, they are lower on the seniority pool.

I used to work for a state institution where priority was given to seniority for promotions.

There sure were some old idiot supervisors in that place.

Quoting poietes:

Before I make an opinion, who was up for the jobs that was as or more qualified? Or are we just supposed to see the list and atomaticly pitch a fit?





New World Peace

deriksmom
by Member on Dec. 2, 2012 at 1:42 AM

romney isnt in ofice so we ont need his "binder" and he had a lot of women in office. and if you knew the truth about the ones working for obama you'd know the are trated like 2nd class people

JustCJ
by on Dec. 2, 2012 at 11:16 AM
1 mom liked this

It would appear to me that you ladies hate men. Or at least don't think very highly of them...that they are somehow not as capable as women. White men at least.


Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)