Gay for Mitbot, where are you astroturfer? Got to get on this with your nonsensical jibberish comments. "In fact, Mitt Romney is an ardent feminist, and believes women are enfranchised by being required by the government to bear children . . . ."

@1: No, but he'll surely return to moderate positions on abortion once elected president as he is inherently a mainstream Republican. He is indeed a shameless, tin-eared flip flopper, appeasing his base which he has now solidified and is now reaching back for independents.

Oh but yes. Let’s man our battle stations against those evil republicans, and accept four more years of glacial economic recovery, printing money, and vilifying the rich as the better choice.

I think we can safely assume that from here on out Republican politicians will just get exponentially more evil... until one day, on live TV, one will be fucking a goat, eating a live baby, shoot their own mother in face, and sign-off by promising to abolish taxes. And air.

And they will still get elected.

Gay dude: you suck at understanding facts.
Re read prior posts noting better economic performance under Democrats. And please go the fuck away until you understand it.

@2, that is such bullshit. Seriously, how much is Crossroads paying you per comment?

He is indeed a shameless, tin-eared flip flopper, appeasing his base which he has now solidified and is now reaching back for independents.

Wow, what a glowing endorsement of your candidate! A man who can't open his mouth without lying. But since you have the same flaw, I can see why you are for him.

@2:

I'll take four more years of "glacial" economic recovery, anti-inflationary fiscal policy and vilifying the super-rich over four years of don't-tax-the-rich-and-spend economic policy (you know, what got us into this mess in the first place?), giving all the money to the rich - and offering them a dynamite cock-sucking for their trouble - any day.

Romney is clearly a greater threat than Hitler

@8, I should think so, since Hitler's been dead for a few decades.

Nice to see one of Rmoney's BUTTBoys back @2!!!!

Honoring your dead of AIDS boyfriend I see. Good for you!
You care so much and there is no evil you don't know and express.

Rmoney loves you BUTTBoy of the AIDS dead boyfriend!!!
Retribution might never know you.

I seem to recall that in North Dakota, Planned Parenthood has to periodically fly doctors in from Minnesota to do abortions because there's not a single doctor in North Dakota who's willing to. Obviously, you've got to factor in a lot of things to decide just how anti-woman a state is, but zero abortion doctors in the entire state has to be a negative.

@10: He would have been the first one to scold you. You are as low as Phelps from Westboro Baptist Church for such bizarre, and idiotic equivocations. Not to mention you have incredibly insensitive bad manners, sir!

Bush personally didn't give a damn about most of the social issues, and privately probably couldn't care less about abortion, gays, feminists, and drug use. He certainly was a major substance-abuser early on, and probably paid for an abortion or two. Romney, on the other had, is a social super-conservative who REALLY believes in his positions, which are way more draconian than most voters will ever understand.

@11 that would be South Dakota. They also have lovely anti-abortion billboards all along the highways. I was wishing I had a paintball gun the last time I had to go there. Luckily the last of the old relatives who lived there died last year, so I don't have to unwillingly visit/spend any money in that state ever again.

@12 Rmoney loves you BUTTBoy of the AIDS dead boyfriend!

Perhaps I'm part of your retribution. Have you ever watched the most wonderful film entitled "Red State"?

Think of yourself as that poor boy being wrapped in saran wrap and me as the gun. Then you'll know how much I hate you. Your dead of AIDS boyfriend should be so lucky.
That anyone, gay or lesbian, tolerates your existence among them is a testament to ignorance of you or their geniune stupidity.

@15: Calm down, have a pickle.

@16:

Or a shot-and-pickle-brine-juice....

We may need someone "like Inslee" in office, but unfortunately Inslee himself is running and will lose to McKenna because he's a lousy campaigner.

We harness the millennial generation—the people who are now between the ages of 18-30. Those 76 million people are larger than the baby boomers and by 2020 they’ll be the largest part of the voting population. 76 Million? That doesn't sound right. Or maybe she includes those who are not yet 18 but will be in 2020, in which case it could work.

Ah, dang it, didn't mark the quote properly...I hope it becomes clear what I mean.

1. ROMNEY CAN'T OVERTURN ROE V. WADE.

Only the Supreme Court, or Congress via legislation, which could then be deemed unconstitutional because of Roe v. Wade (or not, thus affirming the legislation and effectively overturning Roe v. Wade) can do that.

2. ROMNEY CAN'T DEFUND PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

Congress could cut off federal funding, or Romney could veto any budget with Planned Parenthood in it that didn't have a supermajority, but Congress holds the pursestrings, not the president.

3. OVERTURNING ROE V WADE DOESN'T OUTLAW ABORTION.

All it does is eliminate federal protection for the medical procedure. So, Texas will outlaw it, and Washington won't...which is effectively what we have today anyway, so why do you care?

4. THE PERSONHOOD AMENDMENT IS WHAT ROMNEY NEEDS TO DO TO PANDER TO THE EXTREME RIGHT.

Only a congressman can propose a constitutional amendment, and that proposed amendment must pass both houses of congress by a 2/3 supermajority. The last amendment to pass, the 27th, was the one where congress gets to give themselves pay raises in the same term in which they serve. Tough vote for those guys and gals, I guess...or not.

There is no way in hell the personhood amendment would pass congress, but regardless, ROMNEY HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ANY OF THIS SHIT!!! NEITHER DOES OBAMA!!!

READ THE FUCKING CONSTITUTION, FOR CHRIST'S SAKE.

MalcolmXY: While it's true that Romney cannot do those things, a Romney-stacked conservative supreme court will drag us backwards on those very issues. Having the public discourse shift so far backwards will give a huge amount of clout to all the mouth-breathing red-staters.

@22. There's no way in hell that someone would get votes in the GOP primary in 2012 saying there should be reduced access to birth control, but Santorum happened.

@22 - Oh MalcolmXY, you're still here blathering?

So here's the deal, Rmoney can't do any of that by himself, correct, just like Congress can't do any of that by itself either. But it's not just one man when a President is elected, it's his entire administration and, as we saw with Bush 2, that administration can do a ton of shit to make things infinitely more difficult. That doesn't even count Supreme Court noms or a lapdog Congress.

Also, you're saying abortion is currently illegal in Texas? Interesting, I thought Roe v Wade protected against that which is why it's so important that it not be overturned via a stacked supreme court or a lapdog congress with a republican administration.

So yeah, you're talking out your ass again. I know sputtering out the word "Constitution!" makes you feel like a big boy, but there's a much bigger picture than just that document in the running of our country. Hence why people get freaked out over the prospect of Rmoney being president.

Alternative article title: "The Stranger and NARAL Preaches to the Choir"

@23, @24, @26

We winning a lot of important Supreme Court Decisions with Obama chosen justices?

What does it matter if a case loses 7-2 instead of 5-4? It's not as if they replay the close ones.

AND, READ THE CONSTITUTION - CONGRESS CAN, IN FACT, DO THINGS BY THEMSELVES (like pass a constitutional amendment and override a veto).

It's really hard to debate with people who have no clue either how government effectively works, nor how it is legally supposed to work.

Constituitonal Amendments initiated by the Congess require state ratification so that's not really by themselves. I will concede the veto override, but a much higher bar for passage is set for the veto (much like the amendment!).

As for the court being "7-2" and thinking that's the same as what we have now, you're insane for multiple reasons that we've already established. Tool.

@29

Name a would-be amendment to the constitution passed by congress that didn't make it through the ratification process by the states.

I suppose they need a scribe as well, but I didn't really think it important to mention that.

And, seriously, please tell me how a 5-4 loss is better than a 7-2 loss. I'm confused.

@31 As I recall the Equal Rights Amendment was passed by Congress and never made it through the States. That was back in the 70's and 80 ' s.