Skip to comments.Herman Cain clarifies, sort of: “I am 100% pro-life. End of story.”
Posted on 10/20/2011 6:40:19 PM PDT by wmfights
Its a nice try but this doesnt jibe with the exchange between him and Piers Morgan.
Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply order people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.
No one on either side is arguing that the president has a constitutional power to issue executive orders barring women from having abortions. Ive never heard even a diehard pro-lifer suggest that, so in essence, he wants you to believe here that he was responding with a point that no one disputes to a question that no one ever asks. Which means either hes lying about what he understood Morgans question to mean or hes so unacquainted with the most basic terms of the abortion debate that he genuinely felt obliged to reassure Americans that he wont be sending the FBI to pregnant womens homes to make sure they carry to term. Bad, bad news either way.
Beyond that, though, its simply not true that his response to Morgan was couched in terms of the limits of presidential power. Go back and watch the clip again. Morgan asks him what hed want his daughter or granddaughter to do and Cain quickly arrives at this answer:
No, it comes down to is, its not the governments role or anybody elses role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, youre not talking about that big a number. So what Im 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 shouldnt try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.
Hes talking about the entire government, not just the presidency, and of course its a core argument for pro-lifers that Congress should act to make this decision on behalf of women if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned. A moment later he told Morgan that his opinion as president shouldnt necessarily operate as a directive on the nation, but then he was back to broad language about government again: The government shouldnt be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make. No pro-choicer could say it any better. How did we get from that to I am 100% pro-life, end of story in the span of 24 hours?
Question, then: Does this hurt him at all, and if it does, has the damage been done to his social conservative credibility or to his overall credibility, i.e. the basic belief that presidential candidates are fully engaged on complex but essential issues? For now, the rest of the field is attacking him on the former point. Santorum questioned his pro-life cred earlier this morning and then Perry, who desperately needs Cain to fade in social-con bastions like Iowa and South Carolina, issued this statement:
The campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry has responded to Cains comments, with Perry communications director Ray Sullivan saying, A number of the Republicans candidates have flip flopped or been tripped up on the abortion issue. Governor Perry has been proudly pro-life for his entire career, successfully working to pass a parental consent law, a pre-abortion sonogram law, and defund Planned Parenthood in the state budget.
Thats awfully timid. Lets see what happens at the next debate. Until then, read HuffPos report on the reaction of Iowa social conservatives to what Cain told Morgan. Exit quotation from talk-radio host Steve Deace: Cain is good at regurgitating talking points, but when he is forced to explain what he believes the devil is usually found in the details. Based on the testimony of his own words, Cain is neither ready, willing, nor able to honor the oath of office required of a President of the United States.
From Katrina Trinko at NRO :
Cain in a 1998 interview with Nation’s Restaurant News :
“Too many people in the electorate are single-issue voters,
and to try and cater to the single-issue voters
and the single-issue pockets out there felt
like I was compromising my beliefs,”
“As an example, with the pro-life and pro-abortion debate,
the most vocal people are on the ends.
I am pro-life
and people want you to be all or nothing.”
People are not "incorrectly responding", they know exactly what Cain said and meant but are dishonestly trying to distort his statements, all in an effort to help the candidate of their choice or, in Santorum's case, to help himself.
People are sick and tired of the dishonest crap the Democrats have pulled the past few years and I believe they will also reject the dishonesty of Republicans. When pathetic garbage like Morgan becomes the ally of supporters of Republican candidates, one has to wonder how different these people really are from liberals.
Cain is saying that as long as the Supremes say that Roe v. Wade lives, he’ll honor that. It’s a common political position, throwing everything upon the judges. Whether it’s righteous or wise may be another question.
Spreading slander about a real Pro-Life candidate does not make Perry look better, despite your obvious intention. It just shines light on Perry’s mixed position on abortion.
The whole mess over Cain's position on abortion is just one more example that experience does matter. He may be Pro-Life but it's hard to tell exactly what he thinks the POTUS can do about it, or if he thinks he should.
Perry's response was what I'm looking for. Perry pushed for passage and got it of a parental consent law, a sonogram requirement and stopped TX funding of Planned Parenthood. Perry understands the chief executive can push for passage of laws and act aggressively.
Perry seems to be getting better at the debates and I've never seen the thin skinned elitist Romney exposed like that before. Romney lost his cool.
He needs to point out a person such as Alex Haley. He wrote the book ‘Roots’. As I remember Chicken George was the product of a rape. Because of Chicken George, Alex Haley eventually was born as a descendant and grew up, went to school, learned of his heritage, and wrote a best selling book that became a movie. Good things happen in the worst of circumstances.
You forgot the "sarcasm" tag.
He has done this on a regular basis.
I have no doubt that he is as pro life as any candidate out there but he'll say something stupid and then go have to dig himself out of it.
You might be right, but is he Pro-Life but doesn't think the govt should interfere, or does he think as POTUS he can push legislation that dramatically changes abortion in this country? From what I've seen and read it is the former.
I think he wants to try and change peoples minds, but doesn't want the govt involved.
Perry is not the most articulate guy out there but you are never confused as to where he stands.
I agree. Although I thought it was pretty clever how Perry got Romney to lose his cool at the last debate. I haven't seen anyone else do that before.
Yes, he HAS been pro-life his entire career. What was mentioned in the article is possible exceptions. However, it is ultimately up to the mother and her walk with GOD. Adoptions is pushed heavily in TX rather than abortion. I am from TX.
We have opinions too. Don’t be too smug, Cain may be a loser too.
Have trouble comprehending sentences?
“he will not be a king and impose his personal choice on any individual.”
Biblically we must tell someone when they are breaking the Law of God otherwise our silence is an agreement. The reason being - they might change their mind. If they continue, the perp is judged but the vocalist is not charged.
This is also why Satan wants all “hate speech” made illegal.
Perry has just one position wrong? I believe Cain has made several miss steps.
“Biblically we must tell someone when they are breaking the Law of God otherwise our silence is an agreement.”
Is that up to the president or church leaders?
No, times haven’t changed. Prominent Democrats who rely on catholic or deeply religious minority backing still maintain they are pro-life in personal view. it’s no different then Barack pretending he’s anti-gay marriage because the black community is against it.. he doesn’t mean it but he pretends he is for their benefit and the party backed him despite this professed anti-gat marriage view.
Cain is saying the same thing democrats have said and if it were coming from Perry he’d be savaged for it but I’m supposed to sweep it under the rug because some people ahve decided he’s a conservative savior despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Well I don’t believe in conservative saviors anymore. i don’t believe they exist. And people are fooling themselves by attaching a purity to this man and will be disappointed as the “savior” becomes known as the “politician” over time. The warning signs are there but they are refusing to see it. Just as for sadly over a decade people clung to this image Newt was a super conservative up until the Pelosi couch time and his interference in the NY congressional race. I’m just tired of politicians being put up on pedestals.
I know what he said, and he was hedging. He wouldn't sign the pro life pledge, why not? The president shouldn't advocate for life? The president makes decisions that can prevent abortions (stem cells, federal funding). Cain says “not my job”.
I heard someone say once about anti abortion legislation, that it isn't really anti abortion if at the end of the bill or law or regulation, you can say “and THEN you can kill the baby”.
Restrictions and exceptions to abortion are not pro life positions. We MUST save ALL the children. 50,000,000 have already died. How many more must die? Cain thinks that it is okay for some of them to die, I don't.
They called the mods on you?
Wow. They really cannot take any posts that question Cain in any way, shape or form.
They’ve kind of turned into zealots and need to step back and relax. If their man turns out to be okay, they’ll be okay, but he’s running for president.
We’ve got a president now who was not vetted. We don’t want another one.
Yep. "Send it back to the states". If Massachusetts declares that it's perfectly legal to have partial birth abortions of 9 month term unborn babies and force residents of that state to pay for it, "that's fine". Can't have the federal government intervene with a state's "right" to declare infanticide a legal "right", dontsa know.
Thank you for posting this article wmflights.
I had some other articles about Mr. Cain’s words yesterday and his changes today from other news sources, some mainstream and some conservative, but I did not have this one which I believe is the most scathing commentary of all of them. The author put his finger right on the problem - We have two different Herman Cains all the time, and somehow, he even manages to do that juggling act all at the same time!
However, it’s a real shame we have two Mr. Cains when it comes to the life and protection of unborn children. Of all things, THAT should not have been a question or doubt for us. Yet, it is now.
What we saw in the CNN interview was so totally different than his crafted press release that came out today. I guess I wasn’t the only one who noticed it. The author of the hotair.com article even asked this question:
“How did we get from that to I am 100% pro-life, end of story in the span of 24 hours?”
My logic just doesn’t let me believe Mr. Cain meant a U.S. president couldn’t run to some clinic and hold the staff hostage so a woman couldn’t get an abortion. No, he said (and I quote exactly) “The government shouldnt be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.
To think Mr. Cain was saying he could not physically stop some woman with his body somewhere is an unbelievable defense of what he meant.
So he has issued a very strongly-worded rebuke of his own words today and hopes we believe him with that.
I’m not buying it, and it looks like a lot of other voters will not either.
Thank you again wm for starting this thread. I know how hard it is to take hits from posters who are either angry, saddened, upset, or other. It is not a fun place to be, and I know it took a lot of courage to take the punches and hostilities from all the different camps so you could take the hard truth to the people who want to know that truth.
Cain is 100 percent pro-life. People are trying to suggest otherwise, but it’s not so. I’ve heard him state his position. No abortions, ever, under any circumstances.
You need to read it again. He was asked whether a mother should have to raise a baby that came from rape. That was when Cain THAT was a family decision. Comprehension around here has been waning of late.
You are a filthy LIAR and your statement is libelous. You obviously are a secularist who believes it is allowable to lie if it advances your cause. We do not like filthy liars on FreeRepublic. Why don't you just buzz off and find some scum you would be more compatible with.
Cain talks out of both sides of his mouth on abortion.
I choose to believe the side of his mouth that corresponds with his promise to sign immoral, unconstitutional “fetal pain” legislation, which doesn’t equally protect the God-given, unalienable right to life of all, and his support for pro-child-killing politicians like Mitt Romney and Scott Brown.
Your post is quite obviously inaccurate, since Cain promised to sign immoral, unconstitutional "fetal pain" legislation should he become president. These lawless "laws" define the child as a person, and then allow certain disfavored classes of them to be killed by the abortionists.
In spite of the fact that the sacred oath of office is a promise to God and man to support this imperative obligation:
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"No person shall be deprived of life without due process of law."
"No State shall deprive any person of life without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
That’s one of the stupidest posts I’ve ever seen on FR. And that takes some doing.
That’s Cain’s stated position. I heard him say so. Now, whether he follows through is another matter.
I simply think we ought to be fair and accurate in our criticism of candidates.
I remember John Kerry saying “life begins at conception” in 2004. So, whoopedy-do.
Not really, you have a history of them. If liars and bigots are to take over FR, it will not happen with me going along quietly.
Total BS. You’re a liar.
Oh please, you're way out of your league. Your a dishonest bigot. We are trying to get a conservative elected to the Presidency, we don't have time to play games with juveniles. Keyes isn't running so you don't have a dog in this race. Why don't you just slink off and leave these issues to the adults.
Why don’t you back up your big libelous words with a speck of evidence of bigotry on my part?
I'm sure there is no way I can match your overwhelming humility.
Also, share evidence of dishonesty on my part.
You made the accusation. Back it up.
And again, the Fred Phelps nonsense is out and out libel.
Cain is not a polished politician. That is a strength and a weakness for him. A huge part of his popularity is that he is truly an outsider. He is not a career politician. On the other hand, he has little experience at fielding these types of questions and can be tripped up fairly easily. I would vote for him in a heartbeat over Obama, but you Cain people have to take your blinders off, if you don’t think he flubbed this answer. Yes, he says he is “pro-life”. He uses that as a label, but when he explains his position, it sounds like the typical democrat pro-choice position (”I’m personally opposed to abortion, but I would never force my beliefs on someone else”). Maybe he truly is pro-life, but he’s done a poor job of explaining it. And for you supporters to say he was answering a question about adoption not abortion, go read his statement from today regarding the exchange. It says NOTHING about adoption. He clearly says it was about a President ordering someone not to have an abortion. The fact that he disagrees with you (his most ardent supporters) on what he was actually stating is more evidence that he has not been clear on the issue. Don’t stick your fingers on your ears and sing “LA LA LA”. Admit he has a problem and that he needs to fix it.
Cain's a regular person. He thought they were having a regular conversation so he pivoted to answer the new question which he clearly recognized because he pointed out that Morgan was mixing topics.
I don't question Cain's commitment to pro-life issues and HotAir, purportedly "right-leaning" media, should be sensible enough to look at the transcript and follow the threads of conversation. Of course, that would be fair-minded and honest. It wouldn't get any site hits either and they exist to pull in ad traffic.
Most of the supposed flip-flops from Cain are down to his inexperience at speaking like a politician instead of a normal person. It's a problem because the "game" is rigged against non-politicians.
Cain said he'd sign such a bill although he didn't sign the pledge because he disagreed with the wording on that clause feeling it broke the separation of powers boundaries. Other than Huntsman, I think the other 'major' candidates signed it.
From your outrage, none of the candidates suit you on this issue.
“Ive decided that you perrywinkles are absolutely crazy...”
I was just about to formulate a well thought-out, articulate argument on this issue with a perry supporter, then I read your post.
And you’re right. These people are disingenuous. They are nuts. They’re making stuff up, then beating the drum relentlessly on thread after thread. They don’t really stand for conservative causes. They stand for Perry - that’s it.
On another thread, I was going to say something nice about Perry, but I stopped myself. NONE of his people on FR will give Cain an inch on anything. Why should I waste my time saying anything nice about their candidate?
They’re driving people AWAY from their guy in droves. I say let ‘em keep at it.
LOL! I have a keen understanding of the term trajectory:
trajectory (trəˈdʒɛktərɪ, -trɪ)
|n , pl -ries
a curve that cuts a family of curves or surfaces at
Just isn't happening. Now you can believe it's happening but it's not.
Right. None of these candidates measure up. Codifying the killing of certain classes of persons is immoral and unconstitutional.
His comments are so confusing I think you might be right that on a personal level he is Pro-Life. However, he doesn't want the govt involved in the decision of the mother. IOW, the same argument a lot of other politicians make, "I'm Pro-Life but the govt shouldn't be involved."
I think this explains why he wouldn't sign the Pro-Life pledge.
That’s not what he said on the radio yesterday. He took a pro-life position.
I'm sure that will satisfy a lot of folks. I've read the article a couple times and see the typical politician talking out of both sides of his mouth. "I oppose it personally, but the govt shouldn't be involved".
The fact that he has to go back and explain again is a big red flag. He's had to do this on a lot of other things as well. Now he's getting a pass because he's inexperienced. It sure reminds me of the Joe the plumber moment. All the obama supporters were so caught up in the personality they didn't want to see the big red flag that obama was a socialist.
It sure looks like we are seeing the same thing from Cain supporters on his positions on social issues.
Cain says he supports a pro-life amendment.
I don’t think an amendment is needed. The Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments already cover it. But that is a strongly pro-life position. Such an amendment would outlaw abortion.
An archived search of Cain’s campaign website shows that he routinely attacked Isakson for wavering on abortion rights, chastising him in an early radio ad for voting “to allow abortions in our tax-funded military hospitals overseas.” (The bill had simply allowed servicemen or women serving overseas to use personal funds on abortion.)
In an early television ad he introduced himself, first and foremost, as a believer of life from conception.
In an issue paper on his website, meanwhile, he said he would oppose abortion in the case of pregnancies resulting from rape or incest, as well as the use of tax dollars that “could encourage abortion as a ‘solution’ to problem pregnancies.”
Beyond the confines of a carefully managed campaign website, Cain was even more outspoken. He told the Washington Post that he considers “plausible” a theory that the abortion rights group, Planned Parenthood, was established to systematically lower the black population.
“One of the motivations was killing black babies,” he said, “because they didn’t want to deal with the problems of illiteracy and poverty.”
(He’s entirely right about that, BTW. And that’s still its mission.)