Honestly most of these politicians' statements are taken out of context; in addition, Gov. Romney was being honest. How many VCs in Silicon Valley fund an equal amount of men and women; how many startups have an equal amount of men and women in leadership positions; how many venture and angel investors are male and how many are women?

I believe in calling a spade a spade, but this is a straw-man attack; however popular it may be to make the argument, this whole answer reeks of exactly what's wrong in modern political commentary -- focusing on gaffes and misstatements instead of fundamental issues. Do we really think it's Gov. Romney's fault that there were not more qualified women or that his staff had not previously presented them to him?

The proper response would be continuing to focus time, energy, and money on solutions to problems; not just grabbing the megaphone and complaining with a louder voice.

Yes, it's Romney's fault. He was in business for 25 years but didn't have enough women in his network to hire women for his cabinet?

Also, he didn't ask for the "binders full of women"; here's the real story.

From 1977-2002, in America, that sounds about accurate. Does Zuck not have enough folks in his network from Harvard and SV to hire women on his board or in his executive leadership team? I think you'd be hard pressed to find any silicon valley startup with an equal representation of women in their company or in their executive leadership (for a startup, say, greater than a dozen folks). We don't go and blame those entrepreneurs for not hiring more women.

I think that argument is a classic non-sequitir.

He has worked in business for 25 years, ergo, he should have enough women in his network to hire for his cabinet. I would suspect that the percentage of women in President Obama's executive office is similar to the percentage of women in Gov. Romney's leadership while Gov. of Massachusetts.

I find it hard to believe that the MO senator believes rape is "legitimate." What seems more plausible, using occ.'s razor, is that he accurately described -- if even using a poor choice of words-- that some women falsely accuse men of raping them; which is unsurprising, because people falsely accuse other people all the time -- it certainly doesn't take away from the gravity of the situation; nevertheless, context is critical.

Ironically enough, the women from the story are actually doing something about it by researching and tracking down candidates and presenting them to the Governor -- they are the model for success and advancing and progressing the mission forward.

70% of Obama's appointees were women or minorities; women appointments include both Supreme Court justices and one third of his cabinet positions.

By contrast, between 2004 and 2006, women made up just 25 percent of Romney's 64 new appointments, a percentage that was lower than when he was elected. In other words, Romney reversed the trends of progress.

What's bad about the Missouri Senator defining "legitimate rape" is because he's doing so to define the cases under which to keep abortion legal. For all other cases of pregnancy, he wants to outlaw abortion. That context makes it even worse; he's trying to create a legal definition for the purposes of eliminating women's right to choose. That's the gist of the legislation he and Paul Ryan tried to pass.

Abortion is a non-issue for House/Senate; if the law changes, it'll be at the Supreme Court level. Timing a presidential victory to concede with Supreme Court justices retiring is exceedingly difficult, of course. Which is they are seven of the most powerful folks in the country. I don't foresee abortion becoming illegal in this country anytime soon; although it is strange how people break down abortion into different areas. Incredibly strange.

Women or minorities. How many were women?

I just don't understand how folks on the left claim moral superiority over Romney over his gaffe when one of the most liberal/progressive areas in the country -- Silicon Valley/SF Bay area -- is no different with their tech companies.

33% women, a significant improvement over George W. Bush. Still room for improvement, too.

The Supreme Court is nine people not seven. Or were you referring to the two who will retire in the next four years? If they are replaced with Romney appointees then Roe v Wade will be challenged and significantly reduced.

You've seen the following from Daily Kos, right?

9. Right. Misspoke.

Abortion, I'm saying, is a non-issue for republican policymakers. What I believe happens is that Republican policymakers feign interest in things like abortion, contraception, rape, and other women-related issues, because like it or not *many* conservative women agree with them on their positions.

They aren't and don't plan on convincing pro-women's rights folks to supper their initiatives; they just need to convince the religious right that they care about social issues so that they can enact their economic policy.

Do we really honestly believe that the Koch brothers or Gov. Romney genuinely care about women's rights more than they do about control of the economy, (de)regulation, neo-conservative military industrial complex?

It's like guns rights; the mental image of a Romney or Bush hunting is farcical one; however, they will ride that train hard in order to get votes.

I'm not saying it's a *non*-issue, what I'm saying is that many of the policymakers are making this stuff into a big issue because many of their constituents agree with them.

It's the nature of politics to use anything (especially social issues) to get support so other policies can be pushed through.

The Kochs and Romney care only about money. All other policies were designed to serve that master.