Sometimes I think I’m a woman trapped in a man’s body. Well, not exactly his body; maybe his mind. I say that because the older I get the less I understand how some dopey women overreact to things said or done by a man.
Last week was a perfect example. Of course I watched the Presidential debate on Monday and enjoyed every minute of it. I liked the confrontational aspect of the debate and the aggressiveness of both candidates. I don’t like flatliners. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen President Obama speak and have called him just that… a flatfliner. He didn’t come across as one during the most recent debate.
So it came as a shock to me after the debate, that some of the women pundits were turned off by the demeanor of the candidates. I, on the other hand, found it refreshing. I enjoyed the battle to see who wins the Alpha Male spot. We got to hear about their core beliefs. Reading off of a teleprompter just isn’t the same. (Of course, I already knew President Obama’s core belief system before the 2008 election when he said he believed in income redistribution and big government – that’s why I didn’t vote for him then and won’t vote for him now.)
But the comment which has apparently caused the biggest stir is Mitt Romney’s reference to the “binders” full of women applicants he received while Governor in an attempt to find qualified women candidates to work in his administration. Right after the debate, I saw headlines on my news feed regarding “binders” but didn’t have the time to find out what the brouhaha was all about until I watched the O’Reilly Factor and discovered that some women were actually “offended” and “disturbed” and found the comment “unnerving.”
Listen to the segment yourself.
The desperation on the left is really showing. They must be sweating about some recent polls showing Mitt Romney leading President Obama. After listening twice to the comments on the Factor (I DVR the show every night), I still, for the life of me, can’t figure out why anyone would be offended by the word “binders.” It’s all nonsense.
I have no idea how resumes/credentials/CVs are handled in politics, but it seems perfectly reasonable if you’re going to compile several, why wouldn’t you put them in binders so they can be easily reviewed? If you’re going to have hard copies of documents, do you really want all that paper flying around or would you rather have it compiled neatly in a “binder”?
Were these kookaloonie women, like Erica Payne, reading something into it that I’m not getting? Maybe a little bondage entered into their psyche? Really, what am I missing here? As far as I’m concerned, these women have far too much time on their hands.
As one political analyst recently noted, it seems that these outraged women are just shills for the liberal left. I hope they were as outraged, disturbed and unnerved when Bill Maher, a $1 million contributor to President Obama’s campaign, called Sarah Palin “a dumb twat” and “a cunt” and Michelle Bachmann a “bimbo” or when Keith Olbermann called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick on it” or when President Clinton was engaging in extracurricular activities in the Oval Office with a 22-year intern?
I don’t get it, but if you do, God bless you.