« BACK  |  PRINT

RS

FRONT PAGE CONTRIBUTOR

Herman Cain: Pro-Choice

By: Leon H. Wolf (Diary)  |  October 20th, 2011 at 09:06 AM  | 

RESIZE: AAA

UPDATE: Please read this post before continuing further.

Given the understandable concern people have over the state of the economy, it seems no one got around to asking current Republican frontrunner Herman Cain a difficult question on his views about abortion – until last night. Cain went on Piers Morgan’s show last night, and was first asked a ridiculous gotcha question about what he would do if his own granddaughter were raped. I won’t really dignify that question by covering it, because pro-choice politicians never get asked this question about extreme cases from the other end of the spectrum. Then, however, the conversation moved on to abortion more generally, and it turns out that Herman Cain is pro-choice:

No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number (abortion because of rape – LHW). So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.

. . .

No, they don’t. I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.

There’s a simple term for people who feel that abortion is personally wrong, but that the government shouldn’t do anything to prohibit it: we call those people “pro-choice.” This position is fundamentally indistinguishable from the positions taken by Mario Cuomo, John Kerry, or pretty much any other nominally Catholic Democrat you want to name.

Nobody who doesn’t work for NARAL believes abortion is a good thing; the only question that is of significance to a politician is whether you also think it should be illegal. And if you believe, as Cain allegedly does, that life begins at conception, it defies logic and common sense to say in the next breath that the government has no business making it illegal to prevent someone from taking that life. If life begins at conception, but the government has no business regulating abortion, then you must also of necessity believe that the government has no business regulating any form of homicide. Of course, no one truly believes that, which is why the formulation espoused by Cuomo, Kerry, and Cain is really just a focus-group tested way of making people feel better about the fact that you’re pro-choice.

I’ll be very interested to see if Cain attempts to walk back or qualify this position in the coming days. I had been seriously considering giving Cain a chance (I haven’t been all that interested in the 9 9 9 brouhaha since I give it 0% chance of passing Congress), but this is a dealbreaker for me. And if this really was a mistake on this part, then somehow he has gone his whole adult life without ever seriously considering the question of abortion or being aware of the standard Catholic Democrat dodge on the issue. This does not necessarily paint Cain in a good light, but it is certainly better than the alternative: that Cain believed and meant what he said, and is a pro-choice candidate.

UPDATE: Behold John Kerry in 2004. See if you can find a hair’s breadth of difference between Kerry and Cain.

“I oppose abortion, personally. I don’t like abortion. I believe life does begin at conception.”

…

I cannot tell you how deeply I respect the belief about life and when it begins. I’m a Catholic – raised a Catholic. I was an altar boy. Religion has been a huge part of my life, helped lead me through a war, leads me today.

“But I can’t take what is an article of faith for me and legislate it for someone who doesn’t share that article of faith, whether they be agnostic, atheist, Jew, Protestant, whatever. I can’t do that. But I can counsel people, I can talk reasonably about life and about responsibility.

 

Get Alerts

COMMENTS

POSTING RULES  |  LOGIN TO COMMENT  |  REGISTER TODAY
  • dskinner11

    Cain and his supporters are claiming he was only talking about rape, incest and the life of the mother.

    If that is true then his logic doesn’t make any sense because he the same justification he uses to consider rape, incest and rape okay is what liberals use to justify all of it.

    Either way, I think the important question is, who is the next great conservative hope?

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      Is it the CHILD’s fault that he or she was conceived as a result of rape? Is it the CHILD’s fault that it was conceived as a result of incest?

      Even if Cain is making that “walk-back” then it doesn’t matter. He said “life begins at conception” and therefore how that life began is ABSOLUTELY IMMATERIAL. Wtf, man! I was about 85% of the way on-board with Cain until I saw this!

      (INSERT HAIR-PULLING OR OTHER RANDOM ACT OF RAGE)

      • In The Hook

        bzip is spot on. Cain is a great story of self-reliance and he’s exactly what our party is all about from that perspective. He should be celebrated and plugged in as a cheerleader for our side. He’s great at that and he’s far less toxic than say, oh I don’t know, a certain former governor of Alaska.

        But he’s not presidential material. State senate? Sure. House of representatives? Why not? But he’s not even senatorial or gubernatorial material, much less presidential.

        This was always going to be Romney v. Perry. The real question is that now that Cain’s bubble has burst, does all the Cain love flow back to Perry or did he hurt himself too much out of the gate?

        • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

          He is simply not trustworthy. I’d rather have a hothead that I believe is honest and does what he believes is right, than to have a dishonest, flip-flap-flopping sleazebag with a history of liberal policy positions. Romney is OUR John Kerry.

          • http://online.logcabin.org/about/ suzieQ

            He has a strong pro-abortion record. He built a state health care system that uses taxpayer money to fund abortions. He helped build a federal system that does the same. It is his record on abortion that defined my feelings towards Romney. Flip-flopping on some issues I can stomach, but that is a dealbreaker.

      • cari

        Abortion after rape is giving the innocent child the death sentence for the crime of the father.

        My husband was adopted. We found out shortly after we were married, after he met his birth mother for the first time, that she had been raped by his biological father. She gave that baby boy a name and put him up for adoption without ever looking at him.

        A year later, when we had our first born, a son, we gave him the name she gave my husband, to honor her for choosing life. She was thrilled! We’ve stayed in touch, and now she has three more grandkids and a clear conscience! And the world didn’t miss out on a great guy and award-winning inner-city high school teacher like my husband.

        • Darin_H

          Thank you for sharing it.

    • Crash71234

      “The Founding Fathers got it right because of those fundamental principles: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They also got it in the right order. And you can pursue all the liberties that you want as long as you don’t infringe upon the life of anybody else. And that starts with the life of the unborn” (Herman Cain)

      http://www.catholic.org/politics/story.php?id=42959

    • streiff

      that is a garden variety dodge.

    • circlegranch

      Haven’t you been listening to the media and Brother Hannity? He says all this stuff about the candidates, Perry excluded–of course, is just petty. No worries about Cain’s kinda-sorta-riding-the-fence-on-choice thing ! Heck, he didn’t mean he’d like to electrocute illegals; well, until he went back and said maybe he wasn’t joking after all. This’ll be the same. He’ll get a little beat up for saying what he did to ol’ Piers, but then he’ll come back and say that he really did mean what he said and then our Tea Party, Evangelical, Pro-life voters will forgive somehow and he’ll hold onto first place or stay tied with Mitt. The values voters will forgive him because he’s a man of his word and he tells it straight to the folks that are tired of people saying things for political expediency. It’s all gonna work out fine!

      Michelle Bachmann says we should focus on Obama and stick to the issues (‘cept she’s skipping over the life issue, but that’s o.k.). And Newt, well, Newt says stuff like this hurts the party.

      Let’s get it together and stay on message: Romney is the nominee, Cain/Bachmann/Gingrich get just rewards down the road for their faith and loyalty to him. Perry is the nut job. He allows bad guys to get put to death, injects innocent children with deadly immunizations while their parents look on helplessly in horror. He goes down to the border at night and helps illegals across the border and gives them big Welcome to Texas gift baskets. He’s a closet Muslim. Oh, don’t get me started!!

      Focus, people, focus. Let’s not make the assumption that a man running for president must be held accountable for his words. Get back to basics which is culling Perry from the herd so the rest can get plenty of positive press.

      There’s no time to fuss with petty issues, Brother.

      • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

        I think the quibble with Perry’s immigration issue is completely legitimate. The argument that you have to turn the magnets off and build a fence is a good one.

        That being said, I can overlook one or two disagreements on this type of policy. I can’t overlook something like what Cain just said.

    • eabjr

      based on Herman’s OTHER answers to the SAME question, his clear position is pro-life, no exceptions—but when pressed he is simply saying that in response to the LIBERAL mindset that “of course the one raped would want to abort”…that that is not for anyone else to say…i.e. if the family wants to keep the child why do you have a problem with that to the point of enforcing it by law..
      This continual attacking Cain with the inability to both understand simple conversations and that he has no problem admitting so called “gaffes”…when other candidates NEVER do…is the reason why we just may end up nomination the either of the two biggest charlatan/ gaffe masters on that stage…we just don call it that because they never acknowledge stuff and are “electable”…so SAD…

    • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

      Here’s the transcript:

      MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?

      CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —

      MORGAN: No circumstances?

      CAIN: No circumstances.

      MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.

      CAIN: They qualify but —

      MORGAN: Rape and incest.

      CAIN: Rape and incest.

      Cain is specifically rejecting exceptions to anti-abortion laws that other candidates have put forth allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest.

      So Morgan asks whether Cain would want his daughters to RAISE a child born out of rape and incest as their own. Cain replies that’s a decision for the family to make. That’s where the disengenuous who are trying to bring Cain down leap into action, making it seem like the question was whether Cain would want them to carry the baby to term:

      MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.

      CAIN: Ask the tricky question.

      MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?

      CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?

      MORGAN: Why?

      CAIN: You’re mixing —

      MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.

      CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.

      See, out of context it seems like Cain is saying that government shouldn’t make the decision to keep or abort the baby. But that’s NOT what Morgan asked. It seems that may be what Morgan MEANT to ask, but Cain corrects him that he’s mixing up issues.

      • Kyle-MI

        It looks like Morgan is making the assumption that if the mother doesn’t raise the child then the only alternative is abortion. While Cain’s answer is about whether the mother keeps the child or puts it up for adoption.

        Doesn’t look to me like there is anything to disqualify Cain on the basis on his attitude toward abortion. This is just miscommunication, not an indication of a prochoice issue.

        • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

          If you watch the video you’ll notice that Morgan continually cuts off Cain in mid-sentence and redirects the conversation before Cain has had a chance to make his entire point.

          Cain doesn’t insist on finishing his original point, but rather let’s the conversation get redirected. That’s a mistake on Cain’s part. He has got to fix that if he wants to keep his message straight, as interveriwers will continue to use this to against him.

          Morgan does this not only during the abortion part, but on the previous part where they are talking about gay issues.

        • powertothepeople

          Cain is referring to adoption, not abortion. We should have known that since the government has long been in the business for forcing mothers to keep their children and not allow them to put the child up for adoption.

          Are you folks serious? His statement is nothing more than the normal democrat answer which is, ” I do not personally support abortion but I feel it is wrong for the government to dictate whether or not a mother can murder her child.” That is pro choice and Cain made a pro choice comment preceded by his own so called ” I hate abortion” excuse.

          I have seen some moronic defenses of all the candidates by their supporters, but this adoption excuse takes the cake.

          • avagreen

            The government does not get involved in whether or not someone is to “raise” their children.

            Obviously, Cain was referring to abortion.

      • wonkish1

        Back down to Bachmann territory of less than 7%.

        But since you provided the transcript it looks like the notion that Cain is pro choice is pretty inaccurate.

        • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

          and accuse Cain of being pro-choice?

          And then somehow forget to attack Romney on the issue.

          And when Romeny does get attacked on the issue (and looks like he’s finally getting some though questions) Bachmann will break in, redirect the conversation, and put out the fire, saving Romney.

          • txindependent

            And then Romney will get a free pass even though he is more pro-choice.

      • trpeacocke

        Didn’t you get the Hotair/Corner/romneyshill memo?

        You’re not supposed to look at what Cain actually said. You’re not supposed to look at his platform. You’re just supposed to take his words out of context and make him look silly.

        After all, there’s no one more consistent than an unprincipled republican zelig willing to say and do anything to become the nominee. We would never want a real human being in the white house. Such a person might actually…do something.

      • runner12

        correct. I say this as someone who leans towards Perry. It is not 100% clear that Cain was speaking of abortion. Morgan was firing different questions rapidly and Cain very well could have been speaking of adoption. That does not mean that it is not a problem for Cain. I think it was a terrible gaffe.

        But up to this point, Cain has been solidly pro-life and I find it hard to believe that he would flip-flop now. I might also point out that someone who is trying to pander to others does not answer the question prior to the abortion question the way that he did. He took a very unpopular view on that issue accotding to the secular world. Why would he be squishy on abortion?

        That being said, I do think that Leon raises some important questions. We need to do some digging into Cain’s statements since that is our primary metric for vetting him. He definitely neecs to clarify what he was referring to. Until then, there will be speculation (justifiably so) on what is viewpoints really are.

      • mspector

        Morgan’s question was “If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?” And Cain correctly pointed out that Morgan was mixing up two things: (a) do you agree that abortion is a valid choice in the event of pregnancy caused by rape? and (b) would you want her to bring that baby up (i.e., no abortion!) as her own?

        It was the latter question that Cain answered.

        And in general, conservatives have to realize something: the problem with principles is that they sometimes conflict and you have to take stands that reconcile them. Cain consistently makes it clear that certain things involve personal moral decisions, he knows where he stands as to those decisions, but he does not think government should be legislating and enforcing morality. Granted, the abortion issue blurs some of those lines: abortion involves killing a being that has done no wrong (unlike the death penalty), and in a state like California can be done simply because the mother wants it done, which is obscene.

        • trpeacocke

          Why is the redstate comments section the only place where we can find this context? The establishment republican media is working even harder than the libs to distort this man’s words and assail his character. I’m not a cainiac, I have no association with his camp, but this sort of BS from our professional center-right-left-up-down pundits makes me want to contribute money to his campaign and to volunteer for him. If an ordinary, decent human being and skilled manager who personifies american values doesn’t stand a chance in the public sphere, and won’t even get fair treatment by people who call themselves conservatives, we’re doomed. We’re forever going to be stuck with grinning empty suits like obama and romney, who keep giving out taxpayer money to whatever interest group happens to have contributed most to their campaign. Does anyone honestly think that Romney would have done anything constructive about the credit crisis? About farm subsidies? Our ridiculous foreign involvements? If you’re not ready to say fearlessly “the government doesn’t owe you a damn thing!” you can’t possibly be resonnsible with public funds. So far, only one candidate has been willing to do that.

          • http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

            n/t

          • ajshea

            This kind of distortion and misleading headline with disregard to the context is the hit-journalism of the left. Conservatives should not stoop to this kind of yellow journalism.

            LHW, I notice that you left out the key statement Cain made at the start, “I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here?s why…”

            And you make no attempt to explain the supposed dichotomy between that statement and what you accuse Cain of saying.

  • wbf

    This is what the vetting process is all about.

    • ajshea

      This reads like a hit piece. If you only read the article and not the transcript, or watch the piece yourself, you would never know that Cain says at the very start of the discussion, “I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances.”

  • bzip

    I don’t even know why we bring up Cain anymore. The master gaffee machine, worse the Biden gaffe machine.

    Between Cain’s electric fence, GITMO hostage release, the 999 pizza special, now the pro-choice flap which only shows what an inexperienced person (who has never held office) can do. Sure, we all love Cain he is a nice guy great at working up the base but that is it.

    The guy needs to go home and get some experience in office, a lower level office before running for thre highest office in the land.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    Boy, this really ruined my entire week. I absolutely cannot support someone in a GOP primary who is pro-choice, as apparently Mr. Cain is.

    It is absolutely FUNDAMENTAL that the government has a COMPELLING INTEREST AND ROLE IN PROTECTING HUMAN LIFE. If that life starts at conception, then the government ABSOLUTELY should be telling people they can’t unilaterally terminate that life.

    I’m sorry but was he really confused? He first started by saying, “No abortion under any circumstances” and then goes right into a whole pro-choice diatribe.

    I’ll give him one opportunity to revise and extend his remarks and if he doesn’t get it right, that’s it for me. I’ll have to settle for Perry.

    • Green_Lantern

      Way to go for ruining it for me, Wolf!

      But seriously, this is a deal breaker for me. I will give him one more opportunity to walk it back. Hopefully this is just interview inexperience and seeing the big “CNN” letters.

      How hard can it be to tell yourself “Say what I believe, say what I believe” before an interview?

    • ronlsb

      I, too, like Herman, but vowed years ago to never vote for a pro-choice politician. He needs to clear this up ASAP and even then I’m not sure I can trust him now. At least Perry has been consistent on this issue.

  • In The Hook

    To it being Romney v. Perry.

    Did anyone really doubt that Cain would self-destruct in an even more spectacular way than Bachmann? Oh Tim, why did you run such a terrible, terrible campaign?

  • APA Guy

    “The government shouldn?t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.”

    Not even when it protects unborn children from being slaughtered?

    Sorry…I might have believed that he would tweak 9-9-9 to make it better, but there is no spinning from this statement. If he is pro-abortion, he isn’t my candidate…period.

  • Crash71234

    10/17/11

    ?What about abortion? You want to overturn Roe v. Wade. Could you support or condone abortion under any exceptions at all?? Gregory asked Cain.

    ?I believe in life from conception, and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances,? Cain responded. ?Not for rape and incest because if you look at, you look at rape and incest, the, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options. If it?s the life of the mother, that family?s going to have to make that decision.?

    http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/17/herman-cain-presses-no-compromise-pro-life-view-on-abortion/

    • streiff

      in his candidacy.

    • mspector

      Because it is bad law and is based on a totally flawed premise, i.e., that there is a federal constitutional right to privacy. But to do that, the SCOTUS must first reverse Griswold v Connecticut, the case that declared that right.

      If you eliminate the federal right to privacy then the matter naturally returns to the domain of state legislation and there is no federal bar to a state criminalizing abortion in whole or in part. Which is where the abortion issue, as well as issues such as gay marriage, should be decided.

  • the_invisible_hand

    Going out on a limb and assuming that you disagree with all the candidates about an issue or two, the question becomes which issue disqualifies a canddiate when you disagree with them about it.

    IMO, abortion should not be that issue. A president’s position on abortion is inconsequential except as a purity issue. The President cannot pass an amendment defining life and banning abortion.

    It seems to me that Perry on immigration or Romney on healthcare is much more troubling than Cain on abortion. Not to mention that Romney demonstrates how easy it is to SAY you are against abortion simply because you know you must.

    • bzip

      Hmm, can’t face that Cain is toast. It’s not just pro-choice but Cain’s flip-floping, GITMO prisoners to be released, a disastrous 999 pizza plan, inexperienced never held a elected office, gaffes and more gaffes Cain would surely ensure a second term of Obama in the end.

    • Joshua Persons

      At this point in our nation, the office of President is the second most important office in the nation with regards to the abortion question, because the President controls appointments to the most important one: that of the Supreme Court.

      • the_invisible_hand

        But there is no way of knowing how they will rule or if they will get a chance to rule on abortion. People thought Justice Souter and Justice Kennedy would be pro-life.

        And there are legal scholars and judges that are pro-choice, but believe the choice jurisprudence is terrible and should be overruled.

        Also, there are pro-life scholars and judges that believe the Roe/Casey opinions are wrong, but that they are settled law.

        Furthermore, overruling Roe/Casey does not abolish abortion. It just sends it to the states where plenty of states will make it legal.

        Given all of this, why should I make pro-life the litmus test for a President? Picking Supreme Court justices will not outlaw abortion. Nor is it clear that the justices selected will be pro-life or even if they are they might not overrule precedent.

        If you want all abortion illegal in all 50 states, the Supreme Court is not your hope. The constitutional amendment process is your hope. The President can’t do much for that.

        • Joshua Persons

          Too pessimistic: Kennedy and Souter were appointed in the aftermath of the Bork debacle. Every other Republican-appointed justice of the past 30 years has been reliably pro-life. Furthermore, I understand that overruling Roe/Casey doesn’t abolish abortion, but throwing the power back to the states is a BIG DEAL. There are many states that will outlaw abortion the minute they have the power to do so.

          Too optimistic: I would support a constitutional amendment abolishing abortion. I understand and sympathize with that as the endgame, but it’s not at all politically feasible anytime soon.

          The Supreme Court is the battleground right now. We as conservatives have a clear path to victory in this battle. It’s not the whole war, and it’s certainly not the end, but it’s the best hill to take right now, both tactically and strategically. And this path goes right through the Oval Office. We need a president that is pro-life — preferably due to the morality of the issue, but I’ll accept either an amoral legal basis or even political expediency if I have to.

    • gator_hoo

      That has committed 400 million dollars of state funds to placing Texas Rangers on the border to help secure it?

    • streiff

      at RedState. It always has been and as long as the current Directors of the site are in place it will remain as such.

      It is hard to see in-state tuition or a mandate to buy insurance on the same plene as 1 million babies, nearly one in five pregnancies, killed in utero each year.

      • kcdude

        Rick Perry from RS support because the state director of RickPerry.org was quoted as saying thatt Perry is pro-life with exceptions for rape incest and life of the mother?

        I hope not because I want to continue to see discussion about Perry and Cain here.

        And for the record, I am pro-life.

    • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

      On that, I agree with the Red State editors.

      I’ve posted later in this thread why I believe the portrayal of Cain in this video is not correct. Cain has always been not just pro-life, but anti-abortion.

      If that wasn’t true, I would never have supported him.

    • ronlsb

      Think about it. The ONLY person who can help bring about an end to the slaughter of millions of unborn children is first and foremost the President. Why? Because he determines the judges on the Supreme Court and in our system they alone can overthrow Roe v Wade. So ask yourself, if you’re trying to pick the one issue that is a dealbreaker, what is most important. Hindering illegal immigration, government healthcare, or slowing/stopping the slaughter of over a million babies each year. If the answer is not the latter, perhaps you ought to reexamine your moral compass.

      • renl57

        All overturning Roe v. Wade does, is return the issue back to the states, each of which can then decide for themselves. That’s how things were before the Roe v. Wade ruling.

        It will be a cold day in hell when lefty states like VT and MA ban abortion.

        To ban abortion nationwide would require a Constitutional Amendment.

      • the_invisible_hand

        That needs to be understood up front. Assuming a President could pick SCOTUS nominees that he/she KNEW would vote to overrule the Roe and its progeny (which is pretty much impossible given how we confirm these cats), that still does not outlaw abortion. It would become a state issue and plenty of states would legalize abortion and people from states where it was illegal would travel to the states where it was legal meaning that very few abortions would be prevented.

        The way to outlaw abortion is the constitutional amendment process, of which, the President has little influence.

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      To me, being pro-choice is a fundamental reflection on someone’s character. If you are “for” killing innocent babies (or “against” making said conduct illegal) then you have no business leading anyone about anything.

      Sorry, but yes, the pro-life thing is a litmus test, it is a basic and fundamental measure of someone’s character. ESPECIALLY the age-old line about being “personally” against abortion but not thinking the gov’t should prohibit it.

      • the_invisible_hand

        This election just seems too important to me for us to disqualify conservatives on fiscal issues because of a personal position on abortion.

        As I said above, there is not much that can be done by the President on abortion. (the SCOTUS position does not hold water when evaluated). The President has a great deal of influence over our economy (e.g., BHO).

    • avagreen

      **

      • streiff

        I’d think that would be a more productive use of your time than trying to engage in a threadjack.

        • avagreen

          I’m a supporter of him, good grief.
          **

      • gekster

        abortion, Perry and immigration would be a threadjack.

  • czs

    Otherwise, I think we are all going to believe you guys have thrown in for Perry.

    This diary is just sad.

    Cain is speaking about cases of rape and incest, where he believes abortion is wrong but not something that should be criminalized. For ‘birth control’ abortions, he believes states should be able to criminalize the procedure.

    I agree with this position. It is a pretty mainstream Republican position. You may not agree, and I certainly understand the argument to criminalize in all cases. But putting up the deceitful headline that Cain is pro-choice is just pathetic.

    I am really beginning to lose respect for this place.

    • Crash71234

      What has happened to this site?

      • bzip

        Perhaps you could ask all the other sites to take it off and not discuss it;

        http://hotair.com/headlines/archives/2011/10/19/video-so-what-im-saying-is-it-ultimately-gets-down-to-a-choice-that-that-family-or-that-mother-has-to-make/

        http://www.mediaite.com/tv/herman-cain-tells-piers-morgan-that-he-is-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        …..no…text….

    • streiff

      Leon is an editor.

      To be a front pager at Red State you have to be unambiguously pro-life.

      You are free to support abortion. As a site, we don’t endorse pro-abort candidates.

      • powertothepeople

        is why I have absolute respect for the site, its editors, and its leadership. Abortion has been our genocide and I respect the fact the site has a conviction with no equivocations and demands it staff believe the same on this very important matter.

        Kudos!

      • czs

        He’s clearly talking about the case of rape, not abortion generally. I do not mind some of you supporting Perry, but you ought not to put up deceitful headlines about other candidates.

        Just out of curiosity, is it actually policy that you have to oppose rape/incest exclusions in abortion laws to be a front pager at RedState?

        • streiff

          or against it. It is pretty much binary. How the baby was conceived has no bearing at all on that child’s right to be born.

          • czs

            But is there any presidential candidate in the race that supports it?

            If Perry, Gingrich, etc. say they support the rape/incest exceptions, are you going to post headlines that they are pro-choice?

          • streiff

            where Gingrich and Perry stand. The post is engendered by Cain introducing new information. If you’ll read down thread you’ll find that as recently as a couple of weeks ago he was against the rape/incest exceptions.

          • czs

            http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/is-rick-perry-completely-pro-life-debate-swirls-around-rape-incest-exceptio/

          • Aaron Gardner

            Nice try though.

          • streiff

            don’t try to threadjack this one

          • avagreen

            .**

            This isn’t a issue about conception. It’s an issue about killing babies. Period.
            And,yes, I would ask that question and expect any answer of any candidate.

    • dvdmsr

      Since when are the editors of a website or newspaper expected to be neutral. I come to this site because I like and respect their opinions as much as I respect their willingness to tolerate opposing views on their turf.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        I’ve been a member of this site since early 2008, I’ve seen people come and go with the BLAM stick, or the BANHAMMER…

        This site is very tolerant, as long as the opposing views are respectful.

        The Editors are quite thoughtful in their responses, and are willing to put themselves out there in a very open way, that other sites are not. I mean where do you see Editors and Authors directly engaging in the commentary?

        There are well meaning candi-bots and some are just clueless… In either case they will do well to remember that discussions are just that, if something was put on the front page here by an Editor… its likely very worthy of discussion.

    • gator_hoo

      I will say that the “statistical incidence” line suggests that he is, but then he walks it back some, and says it’s not government’s place to get involved in “social decisions” which suggests that he is talking about “social issues”. He also agrees with Morgan that his view is not a mainstream view, which as you acknowledge, a rape and incest excerption is a fairly mainstream view.

      I think he is probably trying to gin up something similar to what Daniels was trying to gin up when he called for a truce on social issues. In other words, Do. Not. Want.

    • APA Guy

      I would think a regard for the lives of the unborn would be a core value for any conservative candidate. There is no wiggle room on this issue…you either value the lives of unborn children or you don’t.

    • APA Guy

      I would think a regard for the lives of the unborn would be a core value for any conservative candidate. There is no wiggle room on this issue…you either value the lives of unborn children or you don’t.

    • txindependent

      And it was clear what Cain said. It shouldn’t be ignored.

      I don’t personally think it should be a litmus test for president, but if that’s the policy of the board, I understand.

    • defenseconservative

      It’s clear that Wolf is lying. Cain was talking only about cases of rape and incest. The vast majority of Americans agree with him on that. Fewer people say otherwise than there are people saying that 9/11 was an inside job.

      • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

        1st Mr. Wolf wasn’t lying, he’s calling into question Mr. Cain’s commitment to the Pro-Life cause as a politician.

        Clearly his position is not acceptable to the Pro-Life cause, even if you’re suggesting that a “majority of Americans agree with him on” the instances of rape or incest…

        Even if there are a “majority” it doesn’t make it right, to which I’d like to see some evidence on that claim from you…

        Abortion is an evil practice. It destroys life. It destroys more than just the innocent life that was aborted even in cases of rape or incest. If as you suggest the Majority of Americans are “ok” with this… then look what abortion has done to our society. If you are right, then our society is morally bankrupt, what does that say about candidates that would prefer moral bankruptcy than standing up and telling people THIS IS WRONG.

        See why this discussion is important?

        • renl57

          If the issue is whether a President Cain would appoint pro-life judges to the Supreme Court, then it should be a simple matter to get clarification from the Cain campaign on that.

          What a President Cain *personally* thinks about the practice is not the issue and should never be the issue.

          We don’t elect Presidents to be moral scolds, telling the American people that they should act this way or that way. We had enough of that with Jimmy Carter. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a President to be America’s Moral Prophet.

          Abortion is a question of legality and constitutionality. And that’s the question that Cain should be asked about.

          • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

            If Cain personally believes that abortion is wrong, then he should stick to his guns, and come right out and say so. What kind of cognitive dissonance is required to suggest as he did that “government” shouldn’t be involved in the decision, but its perfectly fine for government to continue being involved in the decision because as President he wouldn’t necessarily make it a “directive” to change those laws?

            That’s precisely why people have no trust concerning Romney…

            This is definitely going backwards on Cain’s part.

      • streiff

        at the conclusion that Leon is lying, though I’d be amiss if I didn’t advise you that making such a statement is a very poor evolutionary strategy, because abortion is abortion.

        • oldbird77

          But it’s pretty clear that Mr. Wolf sheered off the context of the statement.. Seems to me that the interview question and answer were sloppy. Title to the post should have a question mark at the end of it and the body should perhaps be less accusatory and instead call for more information from the candidate. I would personally never vote for a pro-choice candidate so having this cleared up is important to me. At the same time, I’m happy to read criticism of the content and message of candidates but the tone of the attacks on Cain from Redstate editors is off-putting.

    • mspector

      Piers Morgan is a sloppy interviewer. He obviously wanted to pin Cain down on abortion in the event of pregnancy caused by rape, but ended up asking whether Cain would want his granddaughter to raise the baby as her own which is a question about adoption, not abortion.

  • aggie91

    As a young boy my father told me the true record of a man will be borne out in his actions, not in his words. If we look at the past actions of all these politicians we should not be surprised by what we get after the election is over. Personally I throw out ANY candidate without public experience simply because I can’t get a feel for how he will govern.

    Romney is a known quantity. Has a track record and is unacceptably a big government liberal… (according to his track record)

    Cain is an unknown quantity. Thank God he made the mistake of telling me he is Pro-Choice. But it wouldn’t really matter because he has no track record of governance that allows me to determine how he would lead after an election.

    Perry is a known quantity. He has a record of governing a HUGE state and with few exceptions is a solid conservative on and off the record. Sure he has made a few misteps, only to later admit his error (how refreshing).

    If we as Americans think that conservative policies are the medicine for what currently infects our Republic then why are we even considering someone like Romney or Cain? I must be simply to dense to understand how Cain or Romney could fix anything with conservative principles. They wouldn’t know an honest conservative solution even if it bite them in the a$$. Just look at their track record.

  • nativetexan41

    my candidate , I have been waiting to see if he would fall in the polls. If this hurts him, then he can be Mitt’s VP since they like each other so much. This is what the Republican establishment are predicting happen. Do not like Mitt.
    He supported Romney in the 2008 election.
    I have supported Perry from the beginimg and will vote for him.

  • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

    that you have to question what is going on here.

    Cain declaring himself pro-choice would be a turn around of such epic proportions, it would be like he suddenly came out in favor of ObamaCare. A change of position so big, that you just can’t imaging it happening.

    This is the part of the transcript in question.

    ??MORGAN: …If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?


    CAIN: You?re mixing two things here, Piers?

    Mixing what two things: abortion and who would raise the baby (adoption is an option Morgan nerver mentions).


    MORGAN: Why?


    CAIN: You?re mixing ?


    MORGAN: That?s what it comes down to.


    CAIN: No, it comes down to it?s not the government?s role or anybody else?s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidence, you?re not talking about that big a number. So what I?m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn?t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.??

    Again, what decision are we talking about? There decision Cain seems to be addressing is who will raise the baby.

    Cain seems focused on the fact that Morgan has mixed two ideas in his question. One about abortion, and another about forcing a woman to raise a child they don’t want.

    It is a confusing segment, not doubt. But the idea that Herman Cain is pro-choce is just too at odds with his previous positions. This is a guy, after all, that has stood up and said abortion shouldn’t even be legal in the case of rape or incest, because the child is still not at fault.

    I know we live in the gotcha age of journalism, but throwing a candidates entire history of being adamantly not just pro-life, but anti-abortion out the window because of one quick exchange seems a lttle too gotcha.

    BTW

    Cain’s very stron anti-abortion statements over the years I listened to him on the radio is one of the reasons I was one of his early supporters. The portrayal of Cain being made of Cain in this article is totally at odds with his past history.

    Herman Cain is what I call a 10th amendment pro-lifer. He wants to turn over Roe v. Wade and return the issue to the states. He believes the federal government should not be involved one way or the other. And that abortion should be outlawed at the state level.

    I know that isn’t a popular positon with a lot of pro-lifers, who believe abortion should be handled at the federal level. And he has gotten in trouble with some pro-lifers in the past saying the federal government should stay out of it.

    • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

      Cain made this statement just two days ago:

      ?I believe in life from conception, and I do not agree with abortion under any circumstances,? Cain responded. ?Not for rape and incest because if you look at, you look at rape and incest, the, the percentage of those instances is so miniscule that there are other options. If it?s the life of the mother, that family?s going to have to make that decision.?

      Pressed on the life of the mother exception, Cain stuck to his answer, saying, ?That family is going to have to make that decision.?

      http://www.lifenews.com/2011/10/17/herman-cain-presses-no-compromise-pro-life-view-on-abortion/

      This has been Cains position for years. I can attest I have been hearing him say this exact same thing on his radio show for years.

      • streiff

        from a couple of days ago contradicting the quote from yesterday doesn’t make a real strong case that Cain is a serious candidate.

        • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

          Cain was focused on the “who will raise the child” part of the question in the first quote. It that’s the case, the are actually quite consistent.

          I’ll be interested in hearing Eric Erickson’s take on this. An editor on Red State, he’s know Cain for a long time.

          I seriously doubt he’s going to say Cain has suddenly become pro-choice.

          • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

            I re-listened to this clip. I can’t see how your position makes sense. And believe me, I was VERY much supportive of Cain until this. Nobody EVER raised adoption as a question, and then Cain’s campaign said he was talking about incest and rape. Adoption was never a part of this discussion.

            He was talking about abortion, just see with your own eyes and listen with your ears. I don’t know why he said it, but he did. It is still unbelievable to me.

          • http://nerds4cain.com Brookhaven

            Go read it.

            Cain starts of saying he is opposed to abortion even in the case of rape or incest (btw, which other pro-life candidates go so far as to say that).

            Then Morgan says he’s going to ask a “tricky question”.

            The tricky question: if your daughter was raped, would you force them to raise the child.

            That’s the question he’s responding to. Would you force a rape victim to raise the child?

          • streiff

            he is clearly talking about abortion in the case of rape and incest, not adoption.

          • ajshea

            Unbiased journalism, or at least journalism attempting to be unbiased, would have mentioned Cain’s statement at the beginning of the interview,

            “I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances.”

            A journalist trying to present the whole picture would have mentioned that statement and then explained why they thought Cain walked that back later in the interview.

            Its clear to me that Cain is answering the question about “would you want your daughter or grand-daughter to raise a child of rape?”

            You’re free to interpret it otherwise, but its flat-out wrong to fail to mention his absolute statement against abortion and explain why what he later says is nullified. Not to do so qualifies as a hit-piece or yellow journalism in my book.

          • streiff

            of the interview.

          • ajshea

            My point is, the part of what Cain says that is not convenient to the narrative of this article, that Cain is pro-choice, is ignored. That’s not how responsible journalists act.

            Its irresponsible not to address it, and unbecoming of true conservatives.

        • Vaughn Harold

          obvious that Cain was talking about whether to raise the bady in his family or place it up for adoption.

          Granted Leon and yourself, streiff, have defiantly showed us all how attacks are going to come against Cain for not being the polished politician like Romney or Perry. I personally don’t see this as a down side, Cain is a normal American businessman, not a politician. Does he have to improve on these avenues that he lets others attach him? Sure he does, but I think he handles explaining these attaches very well, which opens doors to further put out the conservative message.

          • streiff

            he’s clearly talking about abortion in the case of rape.

            The presidency isn’t a job for a “normal” anyone. “Normal” people don’t seek that position.

            Between the idiocy of the 9-9-9 plan and this it is hard to see why anyone considers him a real candidate.

          • Kyle-MI

            Morgan’s questions was over complicated. It should have been two questions, one about abortion for rape and one about what to do with the child. Morgan makes an assumption like all pro-abortion people that no woman would ever give birth to a child of rape. He does not even consider adoption. He never mentions adoption.

            Cain from his thought process and background only hears the question as being about adoption verses raising the child. He though he had already made his view about rape abortion already clear so he assumed the key part of the question was about the “raising”.

            Unless you can find any other evidence beyond this part of the interview, you have to assume that this was a misunderstanding not a change in position. From his other answer and what others have said about his position on abortion, the evidence points to a misunderstanding.

          • streiff

            not make excuses for him. This isn’t a missed communication or him speaking in parables. He changes his position on the subject.

          • izoneguy

            Didn’t anyone tell him running for President is not a multiple choice test?

          • Kyle-MI

            beside this one mixed up question during one interview? You are hearing what you want to hear. You have jumped to conclusions without considering all the evidence. You and the diary author have not done due diligence on this issue.

          • ajshea

            I expect Cain to thoroughly refute this in public at his next opportunity. See his tweet below.

          • streiff

            and tweet in the same sentence

          • ajshea

            . /

          • streiff

            Cain has had several Romneyesque stances on abortion and we really aren’t sure what, if anything “100% pro life” means as it is okay to have an abortion for rape, incest, and health of the mother. And the government has no business in the process.

            That isn’t “pro-life” that is Mario Cuomo

          • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

            pro-life statements he has made, but given his gaffe-a-day-like rambling, who knows. I suspect that I won’t be leaning to Cain or any of them w/i 36 hours, will return to issues op-eds until next September and prepare to hold nose and vote against Obama and settle as we all have since 1984.

            You were right, Cain was not ready for primetime.

          • Vaughn Harold

            neither Romney or Perry can’t connect with normal Americans as well as Cain can.

            I agree that the 9% national sales tax isn’t going to fly, but to call the plan idiotic is just plain wrong. This nation needs an overhaul within our government and all Romney & Perry are proposing is status quo politics. Sorry, but status quo politics isn’t going to get a Republician elected to the White House.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Saying that Perry is proposing status quo politics just shows you to be incredibly ignorant of his positions.

            There is nothing status quo about pushing for a flat tax.

          • Vaughn Harold

            anything that makes me think that he is nothing but a status quo politician. That’s his fault for not being prepared to articulate his vision in the debates. It’s obvious that Cain knows and believes in his vision. Perry has got to have the same energy or he’s dead in the water.

          • Aaron Gardner

            Seriously, look at what he is proposing. Or don’t. But don’t make a broad claim that you can’t back up in reality.

          • Vaughn Harold

            between Perry & Romney in this weeks debate. He may have great proposals, but he’s not getting them sold.

            By the way, I know that he is better than what we are seeing.

          • izoneguy

            Unless he backtracks on that vision of the day.

            Cain acts like the boss and thinks the voters are his employees.

            Sorry Pizza Man it does not work that way.

            Kinky for Perry

            Kinky Friedman once ran against Rick Perry for the Texas governorship. So would the singer and writer vote for him for president? Hell, yes! The world?s most famous Jewish cowboy on why he wants to live in Rick Perry?s America.

          • Vaughn Harold

            clarifing comments that are being taken out of context and used to attack him. I understand this is his biggest problem, and if he can’t get it under control he will history.

          • Vaughn Harold

            which you are not the normal American. That’s not an insult, it’s praise, and it’s also the truth.

            Again, I hope Perry can get his act together, I prefer him to Romney, but he has got to show more confidence that he is the right leader for this country.

    • txindependent

      was doing what politicians do and telling the independents on CNN what they want to hear. It almost seems necessary that politicians have to pander these days.

    • txindependent

      was doing what politicians do and telling the independents on CNN what they want to hear. It almost seems necessary that politicians have to pander these days.

      • http://www.nighttwister.com NightTwister

        If he is one, then he’s the least experienced, and with plans that change almost daily.

        No thanks.

    • rightwingmom52

      It would be the same as if I suddenly became pro-choice. Just isn’t going to happen. Folks can spin thist however they want to target Cain. I have confidence in who he is and what he believes.

      No doubt this is an instance where an experienced politician would be more adept at handling the gotchas or making sure his position was clear, but I don’t believe for one minute he’s changed his position.

  • sunshinek67

    Sad~

  • paulplantowin

    has a lot of people in his corner so far, in part, because he is not a politician. He is not inexperienced in life, or success, or leadership skills. He IS inexperienced in handling BigMedia tricksters. They lay traps for him, and some get him.
    I do not believe he is ‘pro-choice’ in the usual sense of the term. He is against abortion on demand, period.
    I also do not believe Perry is a racist because of a rock.
    The totality of a person’s life tells more than a poor response to trick questions.
    However, Cain really needs to get much better at handling these enemy interviews quickly or his credibility as President material will be eroded beyond any possibility of repair.
    I am certain Herman is not really pro-choice. I’m not so sure he can handle the pressure of this public scrutiny of every unforced error.

    • clintonformccain

      I do not believe he is ?pro-choice? in the usual sense of the term. He is against abortion on demand, period.

      That’s not what I heard. I heard him quite clearly say that it is the mother’s and family’s decision and that the government has no business being a part of that position. If that’s not a pro-choice position, I don’t know what is….

    • izoneguy

      Cain has had a parade of gaffes.
      I don’t need to list them all here.
      And you can bet Cain will just keep the hits coming.

      Sounds like Cain needs to dust of his microphone
      and get back to his radio show.

      • eabjr

        based on Herman?s OTHER answers to the SAME question, his clear position is pro-life, no exceptions?but when pressed he is simply saying that in response to the LIBERAL mindset that ?of course the one raped would want to abort??that that is not for anyone else to say?i.e. if the family wants to keep the child why do you have a problem with that, even to the point of enforcing it by law..
        This continual attacking Cain with the inability to both understand simple conversations and to searchlight any apparent ?gaffe? (and he has no problem admitting so called ?gaffes?)?when other candidates NEVER do?is the reason why we just may end up nomination the either of the TWO BIGGEST CHARLATAN ?MIS-SPEAKERS? on that stage (Romney/Perry)?we just don call it that because they never acknowledge stuff and are ?electable??SO SAD?

        • izoneguy

          CHARLATAN ?MIS-SPEAKER? ?

          Cain is a virtual gaffe machine.
          You cannot figure out what the man is really about.
          Cain is for Cain.

          He is following in the tradition of Romney.
          He will say anything to get elected.
          The problem is – what he has been saying has been pretty dumb.

  • clintonformccain

    He knows exactly what he’s doing. He’s making a iron-clad no-exceptions personal disapproval of abortion knowing full well that most people will then make the leap that he could never be pro-choice from a political/governing standpoint. At least Kerry and the others are honest enough to state their belief in political/governing pro-choice policies and not leave a false impression by stopping after the “personally opposed” part.

    • Scope

      but wouldn’t push his personal opinions off on anyone else. There is no question that Christie is pro-choice.

  • eabjr

    based on Herman?s OTHER answers to the SAME question, his clear position is pro-life, no exceptions?but when pressed he is simply saying that in response to the LIBERAL mindset that ?of course the one raped would want to abort??that that is not for anyone else to say?i.e. if the family wants to keep the child why do you have a problem with that, even to the point of enforcing it by law..
    This continual attacking Cain with the inability to both understand simple conversations and to searchlight any apparent “gaffe” (and he has no problem admitting so called ?gaffes?)?when other candidates NEVER do?is the reason why we just may end up nomination the either of the TWO BIGGEST CHARLATAN “MIS-SPEAKERS” on that stage (Romney/Perry)?we just don call it that because they never acknowledge stuff and are ?electable??SO SAD?

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      It speaks for itself. It is clearly a pro-choice statement. If he wants to walk it back and say he misspoke, he better do it ASAP.

      • ajshea

        .

  • dorf

    One thing I can say about Cain is that I would trust him in the end to make the right decision, or at the very least be completely honest on his poistion, or as he educated himself why he holds such a position.

    The problem is this is for the Presidency and if you haven’t nailed down you basic principles and positions, then you just look like’s it amatuer hour.

    What I hope Cain was trying to say was that it is not the federal government’s role to make law pertaining to juridiction of the state’s police power. In that Row- V. Wade should be overturned and the issue of abortion should go back to the states. Each state then can make the choice through the state government what laws the people of that state wish to live under. If one state wants to make illegal ALL abortions it can do that. If another wants to just include incest they can do that…. etc.. It is none of the federal government’s business to be making these laws. This was the position Cain should have taken, and maybe it was the position he held but again fail to articulate. If that is the case it bothers me that candidates run for office that don’t crystalize their positions on issues. When I see stuff like this I worry because to me its a problem with principles, in that you don’t have a base to work from, and therefore you are just shooting from the hip.

    • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

      Man, truly, if you have to “hope” that a presidential candidate means one thing when he actually says something else…. that should be the end of the line for their candidacy right there. Isn’t that what we got with Obama?

    • mspector

      Question #1: Do you believe that a woman should have the right to have an abortion in cases pregnancy due to rape or incest, or where the pregnancy puts the mother’s life in danger?

      Question#2: Do you believe that a woman who has a baby that is the result of rape or incest should be compelled to raise that baby as her own?

      I believe Herman’s answer to both questions would be “no”, with the second answer qualified to emphasize that this really is a personal, family issue. Which is what he said on the interview. And as to the first, he would say (as I think is proper) that the issue is not properly the province of the federal government (or do we oppose an intrusive federal government except where the intrusion favors something we like?)

      As to how to deal with the legalities, so long as a “Constitutional right to privacy” remains part of federal jurisprudence there is no way to reverse Roe. SCOTUS first has to reverse Griswold with its “right to privacy” found in “auras” and “emanations” in the Bill of Rights.

      And if you cannot trust the states themselves to make proper decisions, why do you oppose the federal government making decisions for the states?

      Adhering to principle does not always lead to desired results, but that’s the inherent problem in adhering to principle at all.

  • txindependent

    Then he will appoint the correct Supreme Court justices. Other than that there is not much a president can do about existing laws. And frankly they won’t as long as a majority of constituents agree with the status quo.

    • clintonformccain

      that he would appoint pro-life justices.

      • renl57

        He was asked if he was *personally* pro-choice or pro-life.

        Before we decide whether Cain is a viable candidate, don’t you think we should ask him about the Supreme Court first?

  • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

    If a baby’s life must be protected with no exceptions of any kind, then doesn’t that mean that the life of the mother is reduced to being an involuntary incubator for nine months – no more than a brood slave – regardless of whether she wants the role or not? Whether due to rape, incest, economic circumstances or she just doesn’t want to be fat during bikini season, by elevating the baby above the vessel bearing it, aren’t the rigidly extreme pro-life folks stating that women are worthless beyond their facility in carrying life?

    It has been said that in merely debating a “woman’s right to choose” – an awful, dishonest euphemism – someone is being forgetten (i.e. the baby), but isn’t demanding that every baby conceived must be born not only forgetting, but actively enslaving women in service to the protection of life? “Sorry, toots, but the baby comes first. Deal with it.”

    Good luck selling that to the electorate at large. With an economy in ruins and the very survival of the Republic hanging in the balance depending on the results of the next election, for a fatwa to be sworn against any Obama opponent over a position that effectively turns the majority of the American population into potential brood slaves is madness.

    • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

      Check out this Jezebel story about Mitt Romney allegedly attempting to prevent a woman from having an abortion in order to treat life-threatening blood clots: http://jezebel.com/5851050/the-curious-case-of-mitt-romney-an-abortion-and-eliza-dushkus-mom

      Yes, Jezebel, like just about all Gawker network blogs, is a hard-Left outfit with nothing but bile and hatred for non-liberals, BUT they represent a sizable faction of people for whom the rigid extreme pro-life position of “all babies must be born; no exceptions” is a total deal breaker.

      I’m not suggesting pandering to the mushy middle and pro-death radicals, but to reduce this thorny issue to a simplistic Manichean, “either you are for killing babies or against it. It is pretty much binary. How the baby was conceived has no bearing at all on that child?s right to be born,” as streiff put it perfectly fulfills the liberal smear that conservatives are anti-woman fetus worshipers.

      • streiff

        This is really a very simple issue. It isn’t one that we are going to debate on this thread, however.

    • streiff

      can be uncomfortable to those who believe in nothing beyond self gratification.

      Again, if you are all hot to see babies killed this probably isn’t the best site for you to visit.

    • renl57

      Speaking only for myself:

      If my girlfriend were raped and impregnated by an assailant, I couldn’t live with myself if I insisted that she had to bear the assailant’s child.

      I would tell her that I would respect whatever decision she makes.

    • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

      nt

      • http://www.examiner.com/x-1597-Charlotte-Law--Politics-Examiner Mike gamecock DeVine

        only a life of the mother exception but certainly understand the rape exception.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      Aren?t the rigidly extreme pro-life folks stating that women are worthless beyond their facility in carrying life?

      We deem it a badge of honor to choose life… we RESPECT womankind for their abilities far beyond the “incubation of life” as you put it… but rather, we put a very HIGH value on that capability, as Life would cease to exist if it weren’t for the Woman’s ability to make personal sacrifices, and to shed blood for the birth of a child. It is quite a distinguishable advantage in the physiology of a woman when it comes to the purpose of life.

      You speak of “enslaving”… are all pregnancies “enslaving” or just the ones in matters of incest and rape?

      Maybe you should speak to some women that have lived through those situations and have chosen life over abortion, see how they feel when it comes to being “enslaved” as you state.

      This debate isn’t about “selling” anything to the electorate… This is a moral issue. Candidate can either choose to espouse the Pro-Life stance, or they can choose Pro-Choice… there are no neutral positions here, anything in-between shows either an arrogance, or an ignorance regarding the facts of abortion, and the alternatives to abortion for all circumstances.

      • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

        I’m sorry, streiff, but you are illustrating perfectly the rigidly dogmatic extreme pro-life stance that is impossible to retail to anyone but those in the same rigidly dogmatic extreme pro-life camp.

        It’s all nice to refuse to debate the issue, but in doing so you’ve precisely illustrated my point: The rigidly dogmatic extreme pro-life faction views women of child-bearing age to be nothing more than walking incubators. Period. End of line.

        How depressing. How are conservatives supposed to refudiate the liberal smears when you are perfectly content to embody them? Why can’t you at least cop to your view that the rights of the unborn supersede the rights of the born and that any woman who finds herself pregnant for whatever reason – carelessness (no contraception used), accident (contraceptive failure), rape or incest (self-explanatory) – is obligated to carry her pregnancy to term, no ifs, ands, or buts? It would be an extreme view to many, but rather than hide behind the babies, why not admit what protecting those babies requires?

        I’m shocked at how blinkered some of these comments are. It’s clear that the usual “rape, incest, life of mother” exceptions are a small fraction being used to justify the 99% (or whatever percentage) of abortions that are elective for whatever reason (i.e. can’t afford, don’t want, etc.) But a rigid stance of, “You let a man in you and these are the consequences of your choices,” is staggering in its cruelty. I’m guessing that every one of you posting is male. Yikes. Way to be the ugliest stereotype of conservatives possible.

        Is it wrong for the unborn to be casually tossed away because the mother can’t be troubled with carrying it to term? Absolutely! BUT..,and this is the point that almost everyone refuses to step up to…the only solution to protecting unborn life is to commandeer the bodies of the women those babies are residing in. A woman’s right to control her body – the basis which the pro-death side uses in their argument – is being sacrificed in the name of what again? To protect life? What about the mother’s life? If some poor 16-year-old girl is raped by her mom’s boyfriend and knocked up, how is it anything but monstrous cruelty to tell her, “Sorry that you’re going to have to go through 280 days of reminders of that night when he forced himself upon you, but the preciousness of that innocent baby requires that you just cope with it.”

        BTW, I’m not trying to change the views of the rigid militant extremist pro-life people here. I’m just asking that they step up and admit that the result of their radical pro-life views is that the woman’s life is nothing more than to be a brood mare. Until we have the means of transplanting fetuses from the conceptual host to a surrogate or mechanical substitute, it would be nice if the ugly business of enslaving women to carry children they don’t want was admitted to.

        Just admit it: The unborn are more valuable than the women they’re in.

        How hard is it for those who believe as much in their rhetoric to explicate this in so many words? Don’t dance around the subject and mumble about how the choice is simple and not worthy of debate. JUST ADMIT IT!

        • streiff

          discussion off this post. It is totally irrelevant to the story which is not about your views on abortion but rather Herman Cain’s evolving views.

          Got it?

          • mujituve

            “I CAN’T HEAR YOU, I CAN’T HEAR YOU”

          • Aaron Gardner

            Just saying.

          • acat

            This should be fun to watch.

            (splat)

            Mew

          • streiff

            I’ve been on this site for 7 1/2 years, and a moderator for 7 of that. There isn’t a single new or interesting argument brought up in that comment though I think a lot of teenagers think it is cute to use “brood mare” as it represents a new word to them.

            We have a policy against threadjacks which should be really obvious to anyone who has ever read a blog. Users have the capability to create diaries on things that interest them,. They don’t have the ability to discuss what they want to on someone else’s story.

            Now that you have the explanation, hit the contact button, promise to kiss my butt at high noon and give me an hour to draw a crowd, and you can come back.

    • justsayitlikeitis

      in the extreme pro-lifers’ zeal they claim it is the same as homicide, but homicide doesn’t involve life INSIDE another’s body. it is not black and white. it is a complex issue of whether women have autonomy oveer their own bodies. that is NOT equivalent to homicide and no amount of spinning will make them exactly the same. to make abortion illegal by the government says that a woman does not have autonomy. does it end with abortion of other aspects of government saying you must do x, y, or z. contrary to many claims here and elsewhere, extreme black and white positions are not the mainstream, not that it matters per se, but it illustrates that this is a complex issue. do all situations of compassion go out the window? for extreme pro-lifers it would seem so. many will claim that they are simply against abortion on demand, but who gets to decide this should these become illegal? do you want every woman who has an abortion prove to the state that it is for other reasons? what if the state said no? talk about big brother here. and if it is completely illegal as some hope, is every fall down a flight of stairs that end up in a spontaneous abortion giving the government cause to “investigate” her intentions since other choices weren’t available, or how about the desparate teen who uses a pair of scissors to try to abort her fetus sent to jail for her desperation? these are not part of a moral world i want to live in. if you truly want less abortions be against it, but it cannot be legislated. i find no contradiction in herman cain’s response and if that means i am a 10th amendment whatever, fine.

      • mspector

        The common law definition of “homicide” was “death of a human being caused by another”, and at common law a fetus was not a “human being” until it had “quickened”, i.e., was a life sustainable outside of the womb.

        California’s homicide statute (Penal Code187) was changed to read “death of a human being, or a fetus” after a case in which a man savagely beat his girlfriend in order to get rid of the fetus, but his conviction was reversed because California still went by the common law rule.

        So under PC 187 it was murder to cause the death of a fetus. Then came the Therapeutic Abortion Act and the statute was again amended to exclude deaths of a fetus by procedures under that act, then procedures by a qualified medical practitioner, and ultimately to abortions done simply because the mother wanted it.

        So California demonstrates the schizophrenia: a fetus is a life worthy of legal protection unless the mother doesn’t want to protect it. I am still waiting for anyone to point to any other situation in which causing the death of a human life is excused on the grounds of personal convenience.

        All that said, I think it should remain a state-level issue. I think the President should appoint justices to SCOTUS who reject the notion of a federal Constitutional right to privacy. I think the President should be someone who can use the “bully pulpit” to articulate and explain the fundamental morality involved. I think Herman Cain can do all of that.

        • mspector

          The President should oppose federal funding for abortion and for entities such as Planned Parenthood that perform abortions. If it is truly a matter of “right to choose” then let the woman doing the choosing do the paying.

        • http://www.dirkworld.com dirkbelig

          I’ve long noted the double-standard where a baby is a protected entity if someone kills the mother, but if the mother wants it gone, it’s only so much “choice,” and the cognitive dissonance it illustrates but that doesn’t negate my point.

          I saw a story recently about some state that’s banning minors from using tanning beds in order to protect their health while they allow them to have abortions without parental notification. My state outlawed minors having tattoos because it was a major life-changing decision, but (you guessed it) abortion is available, though notification may be required.

          As abhorrent as abortion is to many, the realities of the real world dictate that the solution to the infant genocide is going to be somewhere in between the Left’s “abortion on demand up to the moment of birth” and the Right’s “no abortions for any reason and if the woman dies or was raped, tough darts.”

          As intoxicating as the idea of protecting babies at all costs is to some, the fact is that there is another life involved and when the pro-life extremists refuse to acknowledge their interests as well as the baby’s, it makes it ever so much harder to convince those in the middle that the rules should be closer to the life side of the spectrum.

          It’s not about losing the Left; it’s about alienating the reasonable middle.

          • oldbird77

            having a baby makes someone feel bad or inconveniences them, doesn’t mean it’s ok to kill the baby. Why is adoption not an option?

    • aesthete

      it is her responsibility to make choices which do not intentionally put innocent lives in danger. If the artificial uterus develops such that women can transfer their unborn child to it, I’m sure that very few pro-lifers would object to her doing so, or to having government subsidize that choice. As of right now, however, it is up to a woman to make choices either before a pregnancy (birth control, abstinence, safe sex, etc), or to act responsibly with the lives of others after a pregnancy (i.e, not aborting the result). In the hierarchy of values, the freedom to live without being extinguished by another is paramount, and all other rights proceed from it. A womans’ right to her own body is important, but subordinate to her child’s right to life — just as my right to swing a sword around is subordinate to my coworker’s right to keep his neck connected to the rest of his body.

  • http://www.flaliberty.org scorpio0679

    Tina Korbe at HotAir,com found some more questionable statements:

    http://hotair.com/archives/2011/10/20/cain-to-piers-morgan-im-anti-abortion-yet-pro-choice/

  • tngal

    But then, it wasn’t a biggee on my radar to begin with.

    I beileve in prochoice to the extent you can
    chose whether or not to have sex
    chose to use or not use birth control
    choose to keep the new person or place into adoption (if pregnant)
    Choosing to kill someone for convenience or expediency (AOD) is not a option.

    There are so many choices. But the whole rape-incest argument usually goes against the first and second tenents. The woman/child wasn’t given the choice as to whether or not she wanted sex or birth control. If faced with the rape/incest scenario, I would hope I was strong enough to keep the child but subsequently kill the sob that put me in the position to begin with. I pray I would be that strong.

    (But….,but how can you say you’re pro life if you want to kill the sob that did this?? Hey I’m pro death penalty too. Deal with it)

    We don’t know what we’ll do unless we are the ones facing the decision. Cain’s right .

    There aren’t that many cases.

    The rape and incest arguments are not the reason Planned Parenthood gets so much government funding.

    • the_invisible_hand

      The choices of the mother in most incest, rape, and life-threatening health matters is obviated.

      The circumstances of conception and the reason for abortion do seem relevant.

      I understand the feeling of the RS editors that pro-life is all that matters in any case, but it is an extreme position, one that even most Republicans do not hold.

      Cain can weather this particular storm well so long as he gets out in front of the narrative RS and others will try to create.

  • domingos

    1. Cain: 28%.
    2. Romney: 21%.
    3. Paul:10%.
    4. Gingrich: 9%.
    5. Bachmann: 8%.
    6. Perry: 7%.

    • tngal

      What i found interesting was this survey was conducted yesterday. The day after the BIG DEBATE where Mr. Cain supposedly did a lackluster job and hurt his cred. And its in Iowa where he hasn’t been in awhile. The argument being that he hadn’t been there beating the bushes and thus he’d not have as much support. Wait’ll he gets back and starts his speaking tour. The pundits may not know what he’s saying but when he’s given the floor his audience knows what he’s about. Here’s hoping he can keep the mo’ through the caucus.

      I’m sure someone will put out now that rasmussen is a sucky pollster. hah.

      • gator_hoo

        Rather than a slogan masquerading as a plan. As Cain keeps showing he hasn’t really thought this through, as well as making gaffe after gaffe, that support won’t be there.

        I wanted to like Cain, but he just isn’t ready for prime time.

        • Scope

          before the Piers Morgan interview was shown on CNN. If the Iowans are anything, they are stalwarts for social issues. The pro-choice wording used by Cain will cause him to drop significantly, especially in Iowa.

  • kaheo

    Herman completely destroyed his chances of ever becoming the Republican nominee with that statement. This clip will be played over and over again if he comes close to getting the nomination. Maybe he will try to back track or clarify what he meant by “It’s not the government’s business telling a woman what she should do….”. How many times can he be allowed to backtrack, misspeak, joke about offensive issues and get away with it!? Looks like Romney will be the nominee unless he makes a major blunder! Perry should save his time and money for 2016 or 2020 depending on how it ends up in 2012!

    • mspector

      So long as it relies on people, like you, who do not listen critically and who do not read the transcript carefully. Cain understood exactly what Morgan was asking, which just so happened not to be the question Morgan probably wanted to ask nor the question right-to-lifers wanted Cain to answer.

      • kaheo

        and btw I listened to the whole interview. Indeed he was answering a specific case that involves rape and incest but he chose to go the extra mile to state “The government has no business dictating morality”. Why did he have to say that? This is what he should’ve said: I’m for govt intervention except in cases of rape/incest, simple! Instead he chose to take the banana/apple ideology route! This is the main difference between pro-lifers (belief govt should intervene to save life) and pro-choicers & libertarians like Ron Paul (govt has no business in abortion issues). Some are interpreting his statement to mean that govt can dictate morality in any situation that doesn’t involve rape and incest. Unfortunately, he didn’t give that clarification and I can bet this will be re-visited soon in an interview. Am sure then he will chose different words when he clarifies and says that government should intervene in certain moral situations!

  • lineholder

    I’ve watched it, and I’ll include it in with other research to try to determine on my own what I believe Cain’s positions to be on the matter, and I’ve decided to do the same for any other candidates in the race as well.

    LOL, after last week, I guess I definitely have become one of that ever-increasing group of Americans who have the mindset of a polite but firm “Thanks, but I’ll make up my own mind”.

    • acat

      Abortion is one of the more significant of the litmus tests I use, and is why I generally don’t trust nor support Dems.

      After sperm and egg get together, life becomes inevitable. Life is contagious, to borrow from Nirvana.

      If someone can argue themselves into a position where they can justify killing one sub-group by denying the obvious, I do not wish to trust them to not kill or otherwise oppress other sub-groups for equally deceptive reasons since, sooner or later, they’ll come for my sub-group, if only because I’m not getting any younger.

      Mew

      • lineholder

        If we go too far in one direction, government defines who lives and dies, based on government-established standards. If we go too far in the other direction, we end up with a situation like the one that existed back in day so prohibition. Somewhere in the middle is where we need to be, and personally, I’d choose right of center rather than left of center. In other words, I don’t want government involved in this issue any more than absolutely necessary. I think that for government to fund abortions at the taxpayer’s expense is wrong. I do believe that abortion is morally wrong under any circumstances. So, I’ll just have to evaluate various elements of the different comments Cain has made and then go from there.

        But after reading a few articles during the past week, and not just at RS mind you, it’s become rather obvious that it is next to impossible for authors of various articles to keep their own personal biases out of what they write. Perhaps it’s just unrealistic to expect them to do so. But it is making it difficult for people who are just looking for facts without all the commentary. It would be simpler if they said “here is this bit of information” and then said “here is my viewpoint and opinion”, but that isn’t what they do.

        (Sigh) That’s more or less what has caused me to reach the point of deciding that I’d just have to do the research on my own rather than take things on blind faith at face value.

        • acat

          Government big enough to supply everything you need is big enough to take everything you have … The course of history shows that as a government grows, liberty decreases.

          – Gerald Ford

          In my opinion, Ford got this exactly right. The inverse is also true, as government shrinks, individual liberty – options, choices, increase.

          And yes, ya gotta do your research. Especially on the internet, where nobody can tell if you’re a cat unless ya tell ‘em. It’s time consuming, but it doesn’t have to be painful.

          Mew

          • lineholder

            for my own naivete right now. As sad as it may sound and strange as it may seem, I didn’t really get into politics that much until Obama came along. So I’ve had to learn a lot of different things in a relatively short period of time.

            But for some reason, I believed that when it came to being able to trust the information provided on Conservatives sites…I just thought Conservatives were different, that’s all. They’re not, at least not during election season. It doesn’t matter whether I like it or not. That’s just how it is.

            Yeah, I was pretty naive on that one.

    • Justin Spagnolo (standardcandle)

      We’ll welcome you back into the fold, like the prodigal son… we’ll even kill the fatted calf. :)

      Just teasin’… I only tease friends and family.

      It’s like I said before… The media will see to a Cain implosion.

      • lineholder

        Choosing Perry, I mean. I’ve not been able to shake my first impression of Perry, which stems, ironically enough, from his “heartless” comment. No, I wasn’t offended by it. What was conveyed, implied and insinuated, not only in what he said but also how he said it, was that he made a public policy decision based on his “heart”. When I started thinking about how that might translate to a national level if he was elected President, then it became problematic from my viewpoint, because unemployment is high, a lot of people are out jobs, losing their homes, etc. Will he make decisions based on his “heart” where those things are concerned? I just don’t seeing that as being what our nation needs right now.

        As to media seeing to it that Cain will implode, they definitely seem to be trying their hardest to do that, I agree. I guess it depends on how many people have moved over into the “I’ll make up my own mind” column and don’t let media influence the choice they make.

        But I want to take this opportunity to say thank you for being straight up with me last week, Justin. It wasn’t until then that I started recognizing just how naive I was being about the whole thing.

        • bzip

          I have to disagree on “media seeing to it that Cain will implode”, at least on Fox News they are doing everything they can to promote Cain and Romney.

          • Scope

            Cain is everywhere on every TV channel because he is the new frontrunner. He is being asked some harder questions, and he is answering as he sees fit. Because he is answering as he has, more have more questions, but the Co-Cains won’t hear anything of it. Tell me Perry hasn’t been bashed and trashed by the media. The Ron Paul people have long claimed that he is being treated unfairly by the media, and that he hasn’t gotten a fair shake, even though Fox, and Cavuto particularly, have had him on far more than any other candidate. Perry is being mostly barred by the media. Then again maybe he understands that going into enemy territory isn’t wise.

    • rightwingmom52

      of being conservative? That we make up our own mind? That we don’t fall in line with being told what to believe?

      I’ve drawn my own conclusions which are not in line with those who think Cain has become something other than pro life based on a few words taken out of context from one interview.

      • lineholder

        for the moment as well.

  • redmymind

    then it is blatantly inconsistent to entertain ANY circumstances (i.e., rape) wherein the direct killing of the unborn child might be “justified.” The pro-abortionists get this, hence their calculated refusal to acknowledge that human life begins at conception, thereby necessarily subjecting themselves to a fuzzy and arbitrary slippery-slope scenario as to precisely when the life of the fetus should be considered “human.”

    Why doesn’t Herman Cain get this???

    Having said this, surgical procedures performed to save the life of the mother wherein there is a possibility that the unborn child might be harmed or even killed is a different moral scenario altogether for two basic reasons:

    1. The sole object of such procedures is to SAVE a human life (the mother’s).

    2. The death or injury of the unborn child is a foreseeable outcome of such procedures but never the INTENDED effect. In fact, the surgeon’s mindset would be to save BOTH lives, if possible.

    To be clear, this is not a case of one “favoring” the life of the mother over that of the unborn child, so much as it falls on the physician to save a life (the mother’s) that will surely be lost if nothing is done.

    • txindependent

      What if they aren’t sure the mother will die but they are 95% sure? It just opens up a can of worms to get the government involved in these situations imo.

      • redmymind

        It really comes down to a question of reasonable presumption based on the expertise of the attending physician, further informed by professional experience.

        Unless we are dealing with axiomatic, mathematical truths or necessary deductions in the field of pure logic, nobody operates from a condition of a 100% certainty. However, as in all things, reasonable judgments have to be made, otherwise we would all stand paralyzed with inaction.

        The physician performing the procedure to save the mother’s life does so based on the reasonable belief (itself predicated on a set of specific, medically acknowledged, credible dangers to the mother’s life) that the mother will die, untreated.

        Now, is he or she 100% certain that death will result without treatment? No. But the physician does not have that epistemological luxury to resort to inaction, paralyzed in search of a level of certitude empirical science simply cannot provide by its very nature and limitations.

        However, overwhelming scientific/medical evidence, coupled with the practices the physician has been schooled in, provide for a qualified presumption of strong probabilities that the mother will die if not treated.

        In closing with the issue of “certitude” you brought up, txindependent, and rightly so, what’s really at issue is MORAL certitude, which does not require one to be empowered with “100% scientific certitude” (which, as I had indicated above, is an impossibility due to the very limits of scientific inquiry itself–bereft as it is . . . and admittedly so . . . of any direct “predictive” powers other than where the question of probabilities may take it).

        As for moral certitude . . . YES . . . based on what his or her professional training and experience indicate, the treating physician must be morally certain that the surgical procedure is both necessary and just. That is, he or she cannot engage in it in a frame of mind that entertains the least bit of legitimate doubt (to be distinguished from mere psychological anxiety) as to the salutary purpose and timing of the procedure.

  • deVere

    I think that perhaps Mr. Cain meant to say that he is pro-choice only in the cases of rape, incest, or danger to the life of the mother, but he didn’t express himself clearly enough.

    I think that Mr Cain is not experienced enough to be the GOP Presidential candidate. I am convinced that he would commit a series of gaffes and lose the general election.

  • Crash71234

    Reacting to the flurry of stories about his abortion position, Herman Cain just tweeted, ?I?m 100% pro-life. End of story.?

    • clintonformccain

      Cain clearly stated both on CNN and Meet the Press that it is not government’s role to decide. It is up to the family and the woman to decide. That’s a perfectly valid position, but it’s a perfectly pro-choice position. That is not even a little bit “pro-life” from a public policy standpoint.

    • Scope

      I misunderstood the question, or I misspoke to the growing list.

      • watchandlearn

        Only if you don’t want Cain to win does it really matter.

      • Scope

        He and Romney were the only 2 to not sign it. I wonder why.

        • watchandlearn

          Maybe you can find some kind of justification in your head to dislike Cain more than you already do because he’s a threat to your man Perry.

          It all really breaks down to that. Whether Perry thinks your “heartless” or Cain says he’s “100% Prolife”, but said it in a confusing way on Piers Morgan, it all breaks down to who you want.

          I want the rocket scientist.

          • Scope

            to dislike Cain. He has provided me with concrete reasons to dislike him beginning with all but calling Perry a racist over a story that should never have been made a story, and that Cain in fact helped exacerbate with his remarks to Chris Wallace. He said that he couldn’t support Perry if he became the nominee. He said that he would have any of the other candidates as his VP, except Perry. Why do I need to look for justification when Cain has handed valid reasons to me on a platter.

          • watchandlearn

            Fine. At least you’re honest when asked.

            It’s totally about how you you like Perry and how Cain is a threat to that so Cain must be assaulted and torn down in order for Perry to be brought back up.

            Got it.

          • tyman

            I liked Herbcain before he did all the aforementioned items in Scope’s post. I was excited when he got in the race.

            If Perry dropped out, I was prepared to support Cain against Flipper for the nomination.

            Once Cain jumped on the Romney bandwagon he lost me.

      • clintonformccain

        If he is trying to be too clever by half with these answers or if he really has no clue about the political ramifications of these questions and his answers.

        I understand that abortion is a tricky issue for politicians. There isn’t really a position that isn’t going to alienate large groups of potential voters, However, this is hardly a new issue or one where any semi-conscious candidate hasn’t worked out what their position is going to be.

        Cain has to be the first pol in recent memory who has answered multiple abortion questions and left me without absolutely no clue what his position (from a public policiy/governing standpoint) is. Frankly, I don’t really care about his personal views. I just wanna know what stands he would take (while governing) on the issue. If he isn’t prepared to answer that question, he has no business being in a primary for the Republican nomination. Sheesh.

    • streiff

      in three days?

      This guy should be a yoga instructor, he’s got the whole flexibility thing nailed down

      • clintonformccain

        He is starting to look like the ideal VP choice for Romney. Both of them seem to like being all things to all people by taking every possible position on every possible issue.

      • watchandlearn

        You constantly write front page threads ripping into Cain or his ideas.

        You desperately want him to fail. It goes beyond “vetting” and into trying to discredit and persuade others into not supporting him.

        Can’t you prop up Perry without having to tear down others who split his support?

        And yes, I’ll defend Cain, but this pile on is ridiculous and unobjective.

        • tyman

          Perry was taking hits misrepresenting his positions left and right.

          As I said above, Cain lost me when he joined in and misrepresented Perry’s positions. When he singled Perry out as the one he could not support as the nominee, it spoke volumes about Cain as the “non-politician”.

          That type of unnecessary divisiveness is what most Americans DO NOT like about Washington, and Herb played it like an old pro.

          • bzip

            Cain lost me big time on that coupled to the racial issue about the rock coupled to Cain inexperience (it is showing now) and being a compete gaffe machine that will surely get Obama re-elected again

        • streiff

          the guy just isn’t ready for a run at the presidency.

          His 9-9-9 plan was as dumb as a bag of clawhammers. The only reason it got traction was that no one had paid attention to him.

          In this clip he’s obviously making the rape/incest exception for abortion and in the next day or so we will feature a video clip of him making a “health of the mother” exception. This makes his position on abortion indistinguishable from Mitt Romney’s. Now I won’t support that in the primary though I may have to in the general. What I can’t support is a guy who isn’t all that verbally adept trying to tell me that he’s “100% pro life.”

          He foreign policy pronouncements to date have been cringe inducing.

          • watchandlearn

            Art Laffer, Larry Kudlow, Stephen Moore, among others have praised Cain’s 9-9-9 plan. Is it perfect? Probably not, but is it good and in the right direction? It sure is. When people call it “dumb” while true experts like Laffer praise it… It only makes the people who call it “dumb” look bad.

            In the clip above, Cain started off fine. He goofed up though. Also, there’s nothing wrong with an exception in the case of a “Mother’s life”.

            I noticed that you typed, “Can’t support… a guy who isn’t all that verbally adept…” Weeeeeelll…. That leaves off some other candidates.

            No one past Huntsman has true foreign policy experience. Cain has a math degree. Foreign policy is nothing but simple memorization and a slight recognition of trends. I trust that Cain can learn that stuff, and I trust his judgement.

            Now with your first comment… I can equally say that any candidate isn’t ready for a run at the presidency.

          • streiff

            Art Laffer and Stephen Moore wrote, according to Stephen Moore, the 9-9-9 plan so I’d hope they like it. Most “real experts:” have said it isn’t workable and Stephen Moore, himself, this week said the sales tax part was a bad idea. Maybe you should actually know something about your candidate before you comment on his policies. Just a hint.

            It is just a very very stupid idea so long as we aren’t governed by Plato’s philosopher kings.

            Yes, there is actually something wrong with any exception because it is hard to come up with a situation where aborting a viable fetus will actually save a mother’s life.

            No one said a word… except you… about foreign policy experience. I said his statments of foreign policy. Nice non sequitur but reading comprehension can really be your friend.

            Okay, I’ve given you your content-free, knowledge-free rant and insult-fest gratis. Enjoy it. It won’t happen again.

          • watchandlearn

            “Stephen Moore, himself, this week said the sales tax part was a bad idea”

            Actually, Moore said, ?I want to be very, very clear on this,? he said. ?I am not bearish on this plan. If you could put in place the 9-9-9 plan, oh my God, it would be like steroids in the economy. ? You would have a million jobs a month if we put this in place. ? I love the concept of it ? but the American people will not go for a national sales tax. They?re just afraid of it.? Maybe you should’ve clarified your statement or it’s just that your close friend reading comprehension, wasn’t around.

            “Maybe you should actually know something about your candidate before you comment on his policies. Just a hint” You have a lovely personality.

            “It is just a very very stupid idea so long as we aren?t governed by Plato?s philosopher kings.” It’s sad that I know what you’re talking about because of my worthless Political Science degree. Thanks for reminding me.

            “Yes, there is actually something wrong with any exception because it is hard to come up with a situation where aborting a viable fetus will actually save a mother?s life.” You’re right on the fact that the situation rarely occurs, but on the off chance that it does- It’s quite a fair allowance. I don’t support abortion in the case of rape/incest, but if a mother’s life is legitimately in danger, I’d let them save themselves.

            “No one said a word? except you? about foreign policy experience. I said his statments of foreign policy. Nice non sequitur but reading comprehension can really be your friend.” That’s fair. Though, the narrative against Herman Cain has been that “He’s clueless on foreign policy, these remarks show that.” My argument is: He’ll learn. If he simply kept the Bush doctrine, which he likely would, it’d work out fine for him.

            “Okay, I?ve given you your content-free, knowledge-free rant and insult-fest gratis. Enjoy it. It won?t happen again.” There’s that lovely personality of yours rearing it’s head again.

          • streiff

            watch and learn. I doubt that you are capable of it, but in the plus column it doesn’t really matter.

    • gator_hoo

      Not now, anyway. When he says he is 100% pro-life, does he mean personally? There are a lot of democrats who would describe themselves as pro-life but think that abortion should be legal, which is exactly the position Cain appeared to take with Piers Morgan. So, though I recognize that the term “pro-life” usually means believing that abortion should be illegal, I don’t think in the context of Cain’s earlier remarks it resolves the issue, because he could be repeating his personal views rather than his governing views.

      • rightwingmom52

        Look downthread a little – here.

  • http://www.ufcle.com/willis/willis.htm Steven Willis

    I listened to and watched the video several times and read the transcript several times. He was clearly discussing whether he would force his relative to raise a child conceived by rape. He said that would be a decision for the family, not the government. Who would disagree? He answered the question asked and he pointed out the mixed question aspect.

    It was a gotcha complex question. Cain did not handle it perfectly.: he could have restated the question as two questions and then answered them separately. Of course, Palin tried similar tactics and her efforts ended up on the editing floor.

    Wanting a more experienced candidate at interviews is legitimate; however, I do not believe calling Cain pro-choice or calling him a flip-flopper on this issue is legitimate.

    I like both Perry and Cain; however, both need more experience – and they need it quickly – handling hostile interviews. I agree with those who said that we should not be doing Piers’ job for him.

  • izoneguy

  • ajshea

    http://twitter.com/#!/THEHermanCain/statuses/127066806253916160

    I believe him, and I believe that this story is a distortion of what Cain said.

    • Aaron Gardner

      That clears up everything.

      • izoneguy

        Would you hire a Muslim?

        Is the fence electrified or not?

        Would you swap a US solider for all the Gitmo prisoners?

        How many times will you modify the 999 plan?

        Is the 9% National Sales Tax now a converted payroll tax?

        If Congress wanted 10-10-10 what would you do?

        Do you now understand what the “Right of Return” is?

        Do you now understand what a neoconservative is?

        Do you know the history of Taiwan and where it is located?

        Do you have video or photo proof of Perry’s alleged racist rock?

        Would you accept a VP nomination from Romney?

        Who would you vote for if it turns out to be Perry vs. Obama in 2012?

        If you lose the election will you go to work at FOX?

        Do you prefer Apples or Oranges?

        • watchandlearn

          Go send him those questions and see if he responds.

          If he does, see if it’s to your liking.

      • ajshea

        Cain’s tweet is consistent with everything he has ever said about his stand on abortion, this is the only confusing piece of evidence there is.

        I admit the line of questioning makes it sound like he was back-tracking if you only look it quickly. But its inconsistent with everything else he has ever said, and even what he in response to the very first question about abortion.

        The failure of this diary to address that inconsistency is my complaint.

        *We* all knew that Obama was lying when he said “you can keep your doctor/insurance/etc”. He was consistent with that narrative, and we knew he was lying because of what we did know about the legislation (that nobody except Betsy McCaughey read).

        Not a valid comparison. One has, to my knowledge, always been on the side of pro-life, and the other has always said whatever was expedient.

        • Aaron Gardner

          I am concerned with his politics, not his personal choices.

          • bzip

            He open that door up a long time ago. Much more than just pro-life. He is always walking back gaffes, misstatements, electric fence joking, GITMO detainees and you want to release this guy on Obama….sure if you like O that much to ensure O’s reelection go for it but count me out.

    • bzip

      Oh I see another one of those,” I didn’t understand the question or I was only joking” answers…

      The guy isn’t ready for prime time, can’t you see that or are you that desperate to have those inspiring speeches with no substance

    • tracker

      In his own words–

      “I am pro-life, with exceptions…”

      http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/280512/cain-and-social-issues-katrina-trinko

      • rightwingmom52

        or the story? That’s okay, I’ll do it.

        Interestingly, when Cain did run for senate, he made abortion a key issue in his campaign. According to The Atlantic, Cain focused on the fact that Johnny Isakson supported allowing abortions in cases of rape, incest, and the mother?s life, while the only exception Cain was comfortable with was when the mother?s life was endangered. When Isakson (then a House member) voted for allowing overseas military hospitals to offer abortions, Cain (along with Mac Collins, who was also running for the Georgia Senate seat), was endorsed by Georgia Right to Life.

        When Cain talked about abortion on Meet the Press Sunday, he had the same position as he did in 2004: he does not want abortion legal in cases of rape or incest, and when it comes to cases where the mother?s life is endangered, he wants the family to decide what to do.

        • watchandlearn

          Good post.

        • tracker

          100% =/= “with exceptions.”

          However, I did include the link to the whole story so others could see it.

          The problem I have with Cain is that he keeps making amateur mistakes…or jokes…or…whatever. The point is that although he’s been successful in many other areas of life, he’s not ready for the big chair.

          • rightwingmom52

            .
            .

          • tracker

            My intent is not to argue the rightness or wrongness of his position–but to point out that his words tend to lack consistency (sometimes in the same conversation), and that if we have to use divination to understand what he meant instead of what he said, then we’re back to playing 64 dimensional pyramid chess.

            And once again, if one supports ANY exceptions, that person can not by definition be considered “100% pro life. End of story.”

        • gator_hoo

          Because what he is clearly saying in that interview is “I personally disagree with abortion in the case of rape or incest.” which is entirely consistent with the post.

  • kcdude

    If Cain is not pro-life then unfortunately, the same must be said of Perry. His position is reported to be that of prolife except in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother.