Way back in April, Mitt Romney and his campaign team were eager to push a very dumb argument: that President Obama has waged a "war on women," and organized a conference call with reporters to push the story. It didn't go well.
The Huffington Post's Sam Stein asked whether Romney supports the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, and aides wouldn't answer. Romney surrogates defended the candidate, but the surrogates voted against the Fair Pay law. Eventually, the campaign issued a statement saying Romney wouldn't repeal the Ledbetter law, but refused to state an opinion on its merit.
Last night, after the issue was raised in the debate, the dissembling became almost comical. Kerry Healey, Romney's former lieutenant governor, was asked about the law, and insisted that Romney shouldn't even have to answer: "Saying 'will you sign this, would you support that,' this is just a campaign tactic." Apparently, Healey forgot what office Romney is seeking.
It took six months to get an answer, but we now finally have a position:
Had Mitt Romney been president in 2009, he would not have signed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act into law, a top adviser to the Republican nominee told The Huffington Post Tuesday night.
Now that the law has been passed, Romney has no plans to get rid of it, that adviser, Ed Gillespie, added. But Romney didn't support it while it made its way through Congress.
"The governor would not repeal the Lilly Ledbetter Act," said Gillespie, following Tuesday night's presidential debate. "He was opposed to it at the time. He would not repeal it."
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act was a no-brainer, which passed Congress with bipartisan support. But if Romney had been president, the bill would have died.
The gender gap that's benefited the president for months has closed dramatically over the last week or so. There's ample reason to believe, after last night, the gap is poised to make a comeback.
