We've heard plenty about the manufactured "war on women" from liberals. Obama's campaign has tried to ride that pony harder than anyone. Today they were harping on equal pay for women, which is interesting, because according to the 2011 annual report of White House staff, women who work for Obama make 18% less than men.
Reports the new Washington Free Beacon:
The Obama campaign on Wednesday lashed out at presumptive GOP nominee Mitt Romney for his failure to immediately endorse the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act, a controversial law enacted in 2009 that made it easier to file discrimination lawsuits.
President Obama has frequently criticized the gender pay gap, such as the one that exists in White House.
“Paycheck discrimination hurts families who lose out on badly needed income,” he said in a July 2010 statement. “And with so many families depending on women’s wages, it hurts the American economy as a whole.”
It is not known whether any female employees at the White House have filed lawsuits under the Ledbetter Act. [Peak emphasis]
Ouch. Obama has taken a great deal of criticism for the "White House Boys Club" that runs his White House.
Obama's former Communications Director Anita Dunn said of the White House: “This place would be in court for a hostile workplace…Because it actually fit all of the classic legal requirements for a genuinely hostile workplace to women.”
With an economy that 76% of Americans still think is in a recession, Obama is looking for any issue to talk about other than his own record.
Fair pay for women, President Obama? Why don't you start with your White House first. Practice what you preach.
about your claims that the War on Women is manufactured.
It’s well known that support for Rmoney and the Republicans has eroded over the past couple of months, in wake of things like Virginia’s GOP-controlled legislature attempting to pass a law forcing unnecessary pelvic exams upon women seeking abortion, Rush Limbaugh’s three-day hate fest directed at a woman who dared testify for contraception, and a whole host of other things you won’t let me post. They add up to the best sound bite the Dems have had for a long time, the War on Women.
Now, if there is no War on Women, riddle me this – what does it mean that women are reacting so negatively to these moves by the GOP? Is it because them womenfolk don’t understand politics and are easily manipulated by Democratic propaganda?
See, that’s the position you’ll be in if you deny that there is a Republican War on Women. And of course, if you admit that women are capable of reaching their own conclusions, then that means that the War on Women is real.
You guys are going to have to earn your pay spinning this one. I don’t envy you one bit.
In Obama’s US Senate office he also paid women there $6,000 less than men.
(Hot Air)
without answering the same questions I raise, you can’t conclude anything from that.
I’ll concede that – if that post is the truth (and I don’t have any real reason to take it at face value – but, for the sake of argument, we’ll say that it is), then yes, a pattern is starting to emerge. But it’s not enough to reach a conclusion.
Nice first link to the White House report, where there’s raw pay data but no analysis (nor any easy way to do it yourself), or any information showing how much experience the different employees may have. No performance review data, either.
Nice second link to a wing nutty wingnut site. Very objective. I guess World Nut Daily and Glenn Beck haven’t had time to run with this one, amirite? Heck, even they admit that their analysis was flawed (they assumed gender based on names, and say so).
What does it add up to? A Colorado Peak Politics steaming pile.
LOLOLOLOL….