UPDATED Responding to a criticism...

(UPDATED 10-20-12: See the end of the article.)

I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend something I wrote, and I chose to do it here rather than to take up Facebook space. Anyway, it was here on this blog that I allegedly let my own prejudices unfairly color my objectivity. Funny...I don't think I ever claimed to have any objectivity. But here's my response...

Last night I posted my feelings on the debate. This morning I find out that the country (most of it, anyway) agrees with me. Yay for me.

Not everyone agrees, though, and not many locally (this may be a blue state but this is a very red county). One friend of mine, a staunch conservative,  asked me how I could possible think Obama won. My response was, "How could I not?" To me it seemed blindingly obvious. Pressed to say why, I said (among other things) that Romney's answers seemed a bit evasive.

This seemed to anger my friend even more. He defended his position ("No, he was not evasive!") and I further cited an example of Romney answering a question and not coming anywhere near to answering what had been asked. My friend's response to this was to flat out deny that this had happened. I have to ask, were we watching the same debate?

Judging a political debate is a subjective thing. People tend to view a debate based (at least in part) on their feelings for/against a particular candidate. We can't possibly judge a debate without at least acknowledging our own personal feelings and biases. But I do recall the question in question, and I hold to my position that it indeed did happen, and happened in the way I said.

Here's what happened in the debate. A young woman in the audience stood up to ask a question about women in the workplace, and the actual question, as best as I can recall, was this:

"In what new ways do you intend to rectify employment inequality in the workplace?"

(I should note that I am relying on my own memory for this quote. Please allow for brain damage.)

Romney's response was to launch into a story about how, back when he was Governor of Massachusetts, he had noticed that all of the candidates given him for important positions in his government were men, and launched an extensive search for qualified women to fill cabinet positions. (This is where the now famous "binder full of women" quote originated.) All well and good...but it didn't have anything to do with the question asked.

(There are indications that the "binders" story was inaccurate. It appears that the famous binders were actually prepared a year earlier by a group of women responding to the lack of women in prominent government positions. Was Mitt lying? Well, exaggerating would be a more polite way of saying it, but it appears that Romney was being disingenuous. Again.)

OK, that's my memory of what happened, and you can believe me or not. But a quick Google search on "binders full of women" turned up plenty of support for my position. Here's one source, from The Guardian (UK):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/17/romney-binders-full-of-women

Beyond that, you can do your own damn research (though I must say that most of the pages referenced in said search were about Mitt's comment going viral, and you'll have to wade through a bunch of these).

OK, I've defended myself. Can I have lunch now?

The Blues Viking

The opinions here expressed are mine and if you don’t like them you can get your own damn blog.

(UPDATE 10-20-12: My faulty memory was a bit...well, faulty. I looked up the question asked, and here it is [according to The Daily Beast]: “In what new ways do you intend to rectify the inequalities in the workplace, specifically regarding females making only 72 percent of what their male counterparts earn?” Well, I got the gist of it... BV)