Considering that the job of the president is to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution,” why would you vote for a presidential candidate who is blatantly unwilling to do that? Why is the national right to abortion more important to you than the survival of the rest of the Constitution and the long-term survival of human civilization?

It would take a particular and unlikely chain of events for Roe v. Wade to be overturned: the election of Romney, the death or resignation of a pro-Roe justice, the nomination of an anti-Roe person, the allowance by the Senate Democrats for that nominee to be confirmed, the case then coming before the Supreme Court, and every Republican-nominated justice voting as expected.

Yet, the myriad Constitutional guarantees I have referenced have been trashed for 11 years now, with no end offered by Obama or Romney. Why do you care more about the hypothetical infringement upon one right for some Americans than about the present and obvious infringement upon many other rights for potentially all people under US jurisdiction?

So apparently, Romney has not specifically said he opposes such exceptions.

Now you are doing the exact same kind of language lawyering that Cooper is. “I support exceptions” and “I support personhood amendments” are inherently contradictory statements because personhood amendments outlaw abortions in all cases.

Also, you are ignoring what I explained about how laws with “exceptions” don’t actually allow people to get them.

why does his current pro-choice stance cancel out, in your view, everything he’s doing wrong

It doesn’t. But it’s extremely important to stop people who don’t believe that women are people from gaining power. Anti-choice politicians are seeking to restrict access to abortion and have been saying that contraception is on their list for the past twelve years at least. Bodily autonomy is a basic and essential right, and that’s why we fight for it.

Your threat shows that you’re tired and you’re DESPERATE to win,

This is your second warning. It’s incredibly bad form to go to someone’s blog and leave a comment longer than their post. Now you are insulting me? One more time and you are gone.

In light of these facts, and Obama’s history of caving on critical issues as well as outright opposing explicit Constitutional rights, why does his current pro-choice stance cancel out, in your view, everything he’s doing wrong, including his indifference to the imminent threat to human civilization posed by climate change?

Your threat shows that you’re tired and you’re DESPERATE to win, so much so that you’re willing to simply eliminate dissent based on your personal assumptions and stretched interpretations.

Has Romney ever said he opposes an exception for rape, incest, or threat to the life of the woman?

As stated in the post – yes. When he said he supports personhood amendments.

Also, as explained in the linked NPR article, his spokesperson has said that he does not support a health exception. And as also stated in that article, he vetoed a law requiring that the morning after pill be made available to rape victims in Massachusetts hospitals because of the chance it could disrupt implantation. If he doesn’t support the right of a rape victim to prevent pregnancy, or to use his words, to “terminate life after conception” how could he support a rape victims right to an abortion?

A president cannot take it upon himself to illegalize abortion.

No, but he can sign bans making it more difficult, like George W Bush did with the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act. He also appoints supreme court justices.

I don’t hear any of you reminding people that overturning Roe v. Wade would merely return this question to the states rather than ban abortion nationally.

Because when 87% of counties don’t have an abortion provider and several states only have one or two clinics, every clinic counts to keep access available. I’m not going to abandon women who live in states with an anti-choice minority.

As Cooper later pointed out, Shirley Temple — I mean, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz

This is a warning. I will not tolerate remarks on my blog which attack someone based solely on their appearance. Keep it up and you will be banned.

Let’s be clear about who Wasserman-Schultz is — a congresswoman and the chairperson of the DNC who, when first asked about the so-called “scandal” regarding Rep. Weiner, dismissed it as a personal issue for him, as any reasonable person speaking off the cuff would do. But after the party establishment decided to throw Weiner under the bus, Wasserman-Schultz made the talk show rounds calling for Rep. Weiner to resign, comparing his legal picture-sending to Sen. Vitter’s illegal hiring of prostitutes and former senator John Ensign’s web of corruption. So we know that she’s lacking in credibility.

Obama supporters such as yourself and the shills on MSNBC are desperate to keep focus on the abortion issue because it is the only major one on which Obama and Romney have an *arguably* significant difference. After all, when I list some 15 key matters on which Obama and Romney are practically (if not exactly) the same, your response is always and simply, “Are they the same on abortion?”

What you all don’t want for voters to do is judge these men on their records rather than on their campaign words, or to even judge their supposed views taking into account what a president can do. A president cannot take it upon himself to illegalize abortion. You keep supporting the Senate Democrats — leave it up to them to filibuster far-right judicial nominees and anti-choice legislation. I don’t hear any of you reminding people that overturning Roe v. Wade would merely return this question to the states rather than ban abortion nationally.

As Cooper later pointed out, Shirley Temple — I mean, Debbie Wasserman-Schultz went from alleging that Romney must agree with everything in his party’s platform to pathetically trying to distance Obama from the amendment he actually requested to be inserted into the DNC platform. She also claimed this amendment was passed with a two-thirds vote. All this further deteriorates her credibility.

“Does Anderson Cooper really think there are no policy differences between the two parties? How could that be possible?”

Concluding that there is little policy difference between the *major* parties — stop pretending there are no other parties — could be possible from examining the record. That’s why Raeshill Maddow, Ed Shill, and Al Shillton devote their programs to discussing Republicans’ gaffes, polls, endorsements, etc. rather than what Obama and Romney’s actual policies are. And of course, MSNBC offers no reporting on the two other presidential nominees who are on enough state ballots to hypothetically win. THAT is what’s a great disservice to viewers.

Ever since Obama started running for president, his supporters have urged me to pick his rhetoric or their wishful thinking over his record. Frankly, I was vindicated in judging him on his record. So I judge Romney on his as well. You may support Obama, but regarding the range of issues that should be important to you, Jill Stein is the candidate who supports you.