Category: Yglesias Award Nominee

Many readers are pushing back against our implied defense of Chait's defense of Romney:

"Binders full of women" was not an awkward phrasing the way "You didn't build that" was really just an awkward phrasing. It was the sentiment behind the whole exchange that is offensive: In response to a question about pay equity (which he never answered), Romney talks about how, in 2002(!), after many years in private equity, he or his senior staff didn't know a single qualified woman who could have held a senior position, and had to conduct an extensive search for one? And then implied that women need to go home by 5pm to get back in the kitchen for their kids? What if women OR men need to go home at 5pm for some other reason? Workplace flexibility isn't a "women" specific issue, and the entire awkward answer had nothing to do with the question he was asked, which was about pay equity.

Another:

Romney was in Boston, possibly Ground Zero for the entire country and maybe even the world for highly-educated and highly-accomplished professional women. You can’t go anywhere around here without bumping into a female PhD, MD, JD, or MBA.  The idea that neither he nor his staff knew ANYONE who was female and qualified in Massachusetts is just mind-boggling.

I don’t think he would have done it maliciously or with a conscious intent to discriminate. I do think that his worldview, influenced by a very conservative religion when it comes to gender roles as well as his conservative politics, creates enormous blind spots.

Another:

But I have to believe you are aware of the story behind those binders – you posted it on the Dish yesterday, didn't you?  You posted about how Romney only had those "binders of women" because MassGAP pressed them on him.  He was not actively seeking qualified women to be part of his administration, this had not been a concern of his at Bain, odds are the thought never would have occurred to him independently.

So I am confused by the Yglesias nominee.  It is out of sync with everything else you have posted.

An Yglesias Award is for writing something that might not be on message for your particular cause or candidate. So Chait qualifies. And what he was saying is that the phrase "binders full of women" was a gaffe that is not worth the attention that other subjects deserve. The issue of Romney's views of women and policy with particular interest to women is a separate matter. And I agree with my readers on that. I just felt the meme was a little strained after a day of fun.

Chait finally says what needs to be said about those “binders” fixating Piers Morgan.

"I am committed to conservatism: I am more conservative on social issues than is the norm in the Pacific Northwest. I believe interpretations of our Constitution should preserve the original intent of our Founding Fathers. And my worldview is grounded in Catholic faith tradition. It is for these reasons that I support Washington’s gay marriage law. Although gay marriage is usually perceived as a liberal position, I actually see this law as being consistent with conservatism, especially when viewed within its root: 'to save, guard, protect,'" – Kent Hickey, president of Seattle Prep, the city's Jesuit high school since 1891.

(Hat tip: Dan Savage)

"Mitt's window to turn the economic debate around is [Wednesday.] And his alleged supporters just shit on it. An abysmally selfish and stupid event," – Alex Castellanos, on the racist Drudge-Hannity-Carlson gambit.

"I am endorsing Amendment 64 not despite my conservative beliefs, but because of them. Throughout my career in public policy and in public office, I have fought to reform or eliminate wasteful and ineffective government programs. There is no government program or policy I can think of that has failed in such a unique way as marijuana prohibition," – former congressman Tom Tancredo (R-CO)

“Now that [the ending of Don't Ask, Don't Tell is] done, we should not reverse it. I think that would be a step in the wrong direction because people have already disclosed themselves. I think this issue is past us. It’s done. And I think we need to move on," – Paul Ryan.

“This week I called [the Romney campaign] incompetent, but only because I was being polite. I really meant “rolling calamity.” A lot of people weighed in, in I suppose expected ways: “Glad you said this,” “Mad you said this.” But, some surprises. No one that I know of defended the campaign or argued “you’re missing some of its quiet excellence,” – Peggy Noonan.

"The logic of Romney’s fundraising has seemed, for some time, slightly crazy. He’s raising money so he can pile it in at the end, with ads. But at the end will they make much difference? Obama is said to have used a lot of his money early on, to paint a portrait of Romney as Thurston Howell III, as David Brooks put it. That was a gamble on Obama’s part: spend it now, pull ahead in the battlegrounds, once we pull ahead more money will come in because money follows winners, not losers.

If I’m seeing things right, that strategy is paying off. Romney’s staff used to brag they had a lower burn rate, they were saving it up. For what? For the moment when Americans would rather poke out their eyeballs and stomp on the goo than listen to another ad?" – Peggy Noonan.

“The overall impression of Romney at this event is of someone who overheard some conservative cocktail chatter and maybe read a conservative blog or two, and is thoughtlessly repeating back what he heard and read,” – Rich Lowry.

“[I]t is possible that conservatives only retroactively realized that Bill Clinton wasn’t the boogeyman they thought he was. This also doesn’t ring true, but let’s assume that it is the case. Supposing these conservatives were wrong about Clinton in the 1990s — isn’t it  fair to wonder if it they might also be wrong about Obama today? (Will this pattern continue? Is it absurd to think we might live to see the day when we are talking about how moderate President Obama was — and how this President Julian Castro is the real socialist?)

As I implied on “Reliable Sources,” the more likely scenario is that, while Bill Clinton was a liberal, many conservatives also engaged in demagoguery when Clinton was president. That sort of conservative prestidigitation may work on people who have no memory of the 1990s. But it also raises some questions about the intellectual honesty of some conservative pundits,” – Matt Lewis.