Replies

I have read his words, that's not the point and you know it. You are attempting to claim he said the government has no right to force a woman to raise a child of rape and I am saying that is ridculous because there is no place anywhere that the government says, suggests, forces, or even attempts to force a woman not to raise a child of rape. To believe that was what he meant was to state that Herman set up a straw man to knock it down. What Herman did was argue both sides of an issue. That means he did not have the courage to stand up for life, CLEARLY and unequivably instead he took both sides and muddied up the waters enough for people to be confused about where he stands.

You don't have to believe that, but more and more people do believe it and there is nothing Herman can do to put that genie back in the bottle. He didn't do it once, he did it twice once on Stossels show and again with Piers Morgan. That's not a mistake or a mispeak.

I have read his words, that's not the point and you know it. You are attempting to claim he said the government has no right to force a woman to raise a child of rape and I am saying that is ridculous because there is no place anywhere that the government says, suggests, forces, or even attempts to force a woman not to raise a child of rape. To believe that was what he meant was to state that Herman set up a straw man to knock it down. What Herman did was argue both sides of an issue. That means he did not have the courage to stand up for life, CLEARLY and unequivably instead he took both sides and muddied up the waters enough for people to be confused about where he stands.

So Herman answered the literal question correctly, however because you wish to interpret the answer in the context that you have assembled, then Herman is in the wrong. Brilliant.

Actions speak lounder than words. Herman's record is 100% pro-life, anti-abortion.

What Herman did was argue both sides of an issue

He did it again this am on F & F. ""Cain was asked whether abortion should be part of the political discussion. "No it should not quite frankly. But my position is real clear and has been consistent, I am pro-life," he said. The former Godfather's Pizza CEO has repeatedly called himself "pro-life" but said "it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision" in a recent CNN interview."

So what does he mean that the issue of abortion "should not be part of the political discussion"?

You are attempting to claim he said the government has no right to force a woman to raise a child of rape and I am saying that is ridculous because there is no place anywhere that the government says, suggests, forces, or even attempts to force a woman not to raise a child of rape. To believe that was what he meant was to state that Herman set up a straw man to knock it down.

Go look at the question Cain was asked. He was asked about "bringing up" the child in plain English.

Read the damn question!!

Cain SAID what question he thought he was answering, and that his answer was about abortion (not adoption as a few of his supporters still claim). It’s like they like their own fiction more than Cain’s truth.

Mark Steyn summed up Cain’s problem perfectly in an article today: “there are whole areas of public policy in which he simply has no interest. None.”

It is unfathomable to me how a person who is “100% pro-life”, and has been for years, and who has run before as a pro-life candidate, could make a bigger mess out of the question. And saying that abortion should not be part of the discussion at all? (Gretchen Carlson: “Should abortion be part of the political discussion?” Herman Cain: “No it should not, quite frankly.”)

Of course, I’m sure his supporters will have a great fairy tale to spin about how this question means something different, or he’s being taken out of context, or “look, squirrel”.