Can you imagine if he had said “binders full of African Americans” or “binders full of Jews”?
It’s basically the left grasping at any straw, no matter how ridiculous, to right their sinking ship.
It sounds pretty funny.
You kind of expect a politician to take credit for a good idea whenever it falls in their laps. I guess you can say if you give him a binder full of women('s names and resumes) he’ll hire them.
No one ever gave me a binder full of women('s names.) 
Unless there is something unintentionally S&M about it, in which case I don’t go for that kinky stuff, governor.
Given the source, well, yeah, I could.
Well, that’s because you didn’t have the foresight to hire Arthur Fonzarelli as your chief of staff.
You’re still not grasping this. The left is laughing at him.
That says it all.
“Binders full of blacks” would be gold.
I guess this ‘outrage’ comes from the same mythical place where we all see Obama as a ‘messiah’.
It’s the left laughing because the image it invokes is funny and lends itself well to internet memes. As has already been mentioned in this thread, half the jokes are at Bill Clinton’s expense, and the left for the most part loves Bill Clinton.
Even if Romney hadn’t used that particular phrase, people would be criticizing him for the sexist nature of his remarks. “Binders full of women” is partly driven by that criticism but it has also become a meme apart from that.
It was what he said afterwards. In his world women and ONLY women need to be concerned with balancing childcare and housework when holding down a job. Because women and ONLY women do childcare and housework. Whereas men like him need not concern their important brains with such unimportant matters.
Screw him and the pig he rode in on.
Hey, hey! HEY! What did any pig ever do to you?
And, good God, how would you ever get a turn a screwing Mitt… he seems to be doing himself 24/7.
Does Revtim want to be in Mitten’s binder 
Even Honey Boo Boo Child has turned against Mitt. So, that’s it. He’s done for.
There was no outrage. There was some laughter over a weird turn of phrase, and then there was analysis of the claim: what Romney had said was not really true and it suggested a somewhat weird view of women in government.
There’s outrage, if you want to call it that, over the sexism implied by the remark, but I wouldn’t call that “grasping at straws” unless you don’t see anything bad or worrisome about the prospect of someone who acts on sexist attitudes being inaugurated as President of the United States in 2013.
It stands out because it is such an odd image, in so many ways. He stands out because he is so odd as to think in those odd ways. It resonates and has caught on so because it plays exactly into the narrative of him as an out of touch sexist old school 0.01%er who thinks of most women as unqualified compared to their male counterparts, whose first job is managing the home, and who are just part of the number set leading to more profit in any case. The converse of how Obama’s “You didn’t build that …” was able to be taken from its context to find wide play, because it also met a narrative that was already being sold about him by the other side. The difference being that the context in the Obama case reveals that it was meant in a different way whereas the context in Romney’s case illustrates the depth of his being out of touch with the equal pay for equal work and more generally women in the workforce issue. And that he has a mere passing acquaintance with this thing called truth. (They might nod to each other in the hallway. But that’s it. They certainly don’t sit at the same table.)
It’s just a Mormon thing.
It also was completely unresponsive to the question which was about pay equity. Obama: I signed the Lily Ledbetter Act; Romney: I got a binder full of women.
And then, you’ve got someone else saying even more stupid and ignorant stuff about women and “women’s issues”.
[QUOTE=Huffington Post]
At a private fundraiser in Naples, Fla., on Thursday, Republican vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan mocked the so-called “war on women.”
“Now it’s a war on women; tomorrow it’s going to be a war on left-handed Irishmen or something like that,” Ryan told the crowd of donors, according to Shushanna Walshe of ABC News.
[/QUOTE]
Showing that I wasn’t so far off with my ridiculous Dutch albino comment - you simply cannot dismiss half of the population of the country you want to run. This guy is comparing “women” to “left-handed Irishmen” as though they were equal in importance and in number. My mind boggles.
[QUOTE=Huffington Post]
Rich Beeson, political director for Mitt Romney’s campaign, echoed Ryan’s sentiment in an interview with ABC7 News on Thursday, calling women’s reproductive rights and equal pay “small things” that are not important to voters.
“Barack Obama four years ago said, ‘If you don’t have something to talk about on the issues you talk about the small things,’” Beeson said in response to a question about women’s issues. “And that’s what we’re seeing from the Obama campaign … They don’t have an issue to run on, they dont have an agenda for the next term, so they want to talk about the small things and distract America from the important things of restoring and strengthening the middle class and putting America back to work.”
[/QUOTE]
So, women’s issues are “small things” to this campaign. Equal pay, contraception, abortion rights. Those are all small things that don’t *really *matter to anyone. Right?
What you’re seeing here is another case of Republicans trying to “create their own reality”. They think that if they refer to those things as “small things” often enough people will start to believe that they actually are “small things” as opposed to the big things they really are.