IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Posted on 10/20/2011 6:40:19 PM PDT by wmfights
It’s a nice try but this doesn’t 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. I’ve 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 he’s lying about what he understood Morgan’s question to mean or he’s so unacquainted with the most basic terms of the abortion debate that he genuinely felt obliged to reassure Americans that he won’t be sending the FBI to pregnant women’s homes to make sure they carry to term. Bad, bad news either way.
Beyond that, though, it’s 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 he’d want his daughter or granddaughter to do and Cain quickly arrives at this answer:
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. 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.
He’s talking about the entire government, not just the presidency, and of course it’s 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 shouldn’t necessarily operate as a “directive” on the nation, but then he was back to broad language about government again: “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.” 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 Cain’s 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.”
That’s awfully timid. Let’s see what happens at the next debate. Until then, read HuffPo’s 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.”
In real life, the enemy is Obama. On FR, the enemy has been Perry.
I am a Cain supporter. I just can’t stand people trashing one candidate while giving a pass to another candidate who has the same position.
I’ve seen them both and read the transcripts. It is clear he is 100% pro-life and said so.
He has put millions of his own dollars into pro-life causes, he has always had a strong pro-life position that was never questioned until now.
This is preposterous. Here’s the transcript of the Morgan/Cain conversation:
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/herman_cains_self_inflicted_abortion_problem/singleton/
Cain’s “choice” comment was NOT referring to ABORTION, but rather whether a victim of rape should rear the child.
MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grandchildren 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.
I posted the very words to you. Sorry the truth interferes with your mindless bot worship of St Perry.
So don’t put your hands over your ears and scream “no=no-no” because the facts do not validate your emotionally hysterically postings.
And in other place "Thou who says thou shalt not steal, do you steal? thou who says thou shalt not covet. Do you commit sacrilege?"
Once again I walk by faith in the gospel of Jesus Christ, how he died for my sins was buried and rose again the 3rd day and nailed those commandments to the cross. I am a son and the 10 does not apply to me. It applies to those who do not walk by faith. I walk by faith. "the Law is not made for a righteous man but for the ungodly"
Is the law for you? you can be sure you are not Godly because "the man who lives by them will be judged by them" and "if you offend in one you offend in all" and "who art thou oh man who judges, for when you judge you condemn yourself"
IF you'd rather NOT be pinged FReepmail me.
IF you'd like to be added FReepmail me. Thanks.
*****************************************************************************************************************************************************
Exactly right. And the BTW part of your comment is the real kicker.
“I don’t even agree with exceptions for rape, life of the mother”
I’m really not trying to argue, just sincerely interested in your thoughts about the ‘life of the mother’ part. Are you saying it’s in God’s hands and not intervene?
OH please, I've been a strong defender of Perry but I've never seen him being an enemy of this site. Every candidate will have rabid opponents (just like we are seeing here with people 'bearing false witness' against Cain on this vital issue). BUT, overall, this site has been pretty friendly to him. The only two candidates on our side who I really think the site is an enemy of (and rightly so) are Romeny and Paul.
BUT, overall, this site has been pretty friendly to him...
All I can say is, wow. We clearly are on two different sites.
Piers himself changed the topic from killing babies to bringing up babies.
Whatever point you or the news source you are citing thinks, those are the words.
They said Piers was a fairly decent interviewer but occasionally fell into fits of madness in mid-sentence. People laughed at the idea, but there it is ~ Piers is a nut case. He can't keep on topic more than 10 seconds.
I remember conservatives tearing Perry down. I remember them doing it because he wasn’t their favored candidate. Now I’m supposed to give Cain a pass when cain couldn’t even abide to let the rock story go? Like hell I will. There are plenty of Democrats who claim to be pro-life. There are plenty of Democrats who claim to be good catholics. When it comes to policy they are pro-choice. I don’t know what cain really is. All I know is he is mouthing the same rhetoric those pro choice democarts do. If I had to posit a guess I’d say he may be pro-life but he is trying to avoid taking a position on anything would explain why he keeps backtracking on what he says from one interview to the next without really clearing up any of his positions.
It's you and yours who are incredibly defensive and you wont even watch the interview. Insane.
You are actually agreeing with him. Look at Morgan’s question, he was asking about ‘bringing the baby up’, not aborting the baby.
People are being manipulated.. they are being told what was said in the headline or first sentence of the article, not actually digging in and logically reading what was said.
Look at it again from a old FReeper media skeptic like we used to have here. What specifically did Morgan ask, what did Cain respond? (not what we are told he asked and what we are told he responded to)..
Focus only on the parenthetical (actual quotes for those in Rio Linda), not the ‘editorialized’ comments in between.
That cannot be construed other than as a first step in a new discussion about adoption.
You do not, as it turns out, BRING UP dead fetuses.
Bottom line...Cain is PERSONALLY pro-life. He is speaking only for himself. In the end, he’s really saying he is pro-choice.
He's been doing a pretty good job of speaking this week. The two people with foot in mouth disease this week seem to be Romney and Cain.
Besides I disagree with the premise. He doesn't struggle with speaking in other settings only group debates. And he does seem to be improving. 6 months from now I don't think his debate skills would be a liability if he continued on this trajectory.
No, I’m saying that the child should not be sacrificed in a worrysome situation. Certainly drastic measures, including ending the pregnancy, might be medically necessary. But even then, the premature child should be given every chance to survive.
The “life of the mother” excuse has given doctors license to sign-off on elective abortion in less than critical cases, with no intent to let the child live.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.