Herman Cain and the SBA Pledge

The Susan B. Anthony List pledge is starting to look like the James Dobson marriage amendment pledge fiasco from the last presidential election cycle.

There was at the time (and still is for that matter) a legitimate divide among conservatives over whether there should be a constitutional amendment defining marriage. Certain sections of the conservative movement oppose federal involvement where they believe state involvement is more appropriate. The divide isn’t over the end goal, but over federalism—the relationship between the individual state governments and the federal government, and the role each plays under our Constitution.

James Dobson (who I happen to like and admire) had come down on the side of a constitutional amendment defining marriage—hard. He slammed any candidate that disagreed with his specific approach to solving the problem. At the end of the day, it turned out to be completely non-productive. It knocked out at least one serious conservative candidate, and caused infighting among conservatives. It was a real life example of the proverbial circular firing squad.

The SBA pledge is taking the same approach (attempting to force a specific approach on candidates) and it’s already producing the same results: infighting among conservatives who agree on the end goal, but disagree about the proper approach to reach the goal.

Herman Cain is 100% pro-life. Nobody denies it. He’s not only one of the most vocal pro-lifers in the race, but in the past he has put his personal money (a lot of his personal money) where his mouth is by backing campaigns to end abortion, particularly in the black community.

But Herman Cain has an objection to section 4 of the pledge. Cain’s objection may seem minor, but it’s real. He believes section 4, as it is currently worded, violates the separation of powers between the executive branch and legislative branch. Unlike other candidates in the race, Herman Cain took the time to read the pledge and mull over what he would committing to should he sign it. Politics as usual would have been to sign it, forget it, and move on; but Herman Cain has made a commitment to follow the Constitution, not politics as usual.

Lest we forget, it was politicians and judges ignoring the letter of the Constitution that got us in this abortion mess to begin with. Are we really going to come down hard on a candidate now because they want to adhere to the letter of the Constitution?

Herman Cain has said he supports the rest of the pledge and would sign it if section 4 was modified to meet his constitutional objection. He’s even suggested a change (and it’s pretty minor—changing the word “advance” to “support”). Will SBA change the pledge to allow Herman Cain, one of the most adamant pro-lifers in the race, to sign it?

Of those that have signed the pledge, at least two are lip-service pro-lifers. Their commitment to life can be summed up as “Sure, I’m pro-life; now let’s move on; next question!” Was the goal of the SBA pledge to marginalize one of the most resolutely pro-life candidates, while at the same time provide cover for marginally pro-life candidates? I don’t think so.

Unfortunately, if SBA doesn’t change the pledge to make it more constitutionally sound, that’s exactly how it will have worked out. They will have damaged one of their friends, someone that has shown a real commitment to the pro-life movement, and provided cover for politicians looking for an easy way to add “pro-life” to their portfolio.

Herman Cain is definitely Pro Life, as I am myself. And he's right, there is a serious problem with the fourth part of the pledge. However, it's not the problem he cites in his "explanation," and his "explanation" leaves me questioning his leadership and his willingness to provide initiative on issues.

The biggest problem with Item 4 in the SBA List Pro-Life Presidential Leadership Pledge is that the judges that would be appointed to fulfill item 1 of that pledge would toss out the law proposed in item 4 as unconstitutional. I would support a law like that in my state. But I can't find any enumerated power, delegated to the United States Congress in Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, which, when interpreted with the original intent of the founders, would allow a Congress to pass and a president to sign into law a federal "Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act"?

Herman Cain lost some of my respect when he stated that he would sign such a law.

>> Do we sometimes get lost in the red tape rather than doing the right thing? <<

We do. We also get lost in the idea that candidates should go around signing other peoples’ pledges. Cain is a long time speaker, author and radio talk show host. He is more than capable of presenting his own positions verbally and in writing - and does not need to go around signing the words of other people to prove his credibility.

This is true of any respectable candidate IMO. I put much more faith in their personal histories and their ability to present their own words than I do in their signing any pledges.

First, I'm not sure what your question is, and whether it's directed at me.

However, I think I'll expand a bit on my previous post.

Cains "explanation" showed weakness. And it showed a weakness I've never seen in his speechs, nor when I've talked to him in person. His explanation makes it sound like a President Herman Cain 1) Won't propose actual legislation or submit actual bills (or budgests?) to the Congress, 2) Won't lobby for "the President Cain agenda" in the Congress. It sounds like he'll take the position, "If the Congress wants to pass it, they will, if they don't, they won't, far be it from me as President to lobby for my agenda or ask them to pass it. We have separation of powers in this country." and 3) Will be a rubber stamp signature on anything Congress does pass, and especially won't stand up and say, "Where does Congress get the authority to pass this law?"

I'm puzzled by this whole thing. His "explanation" looks like it might have been written by a staffer. The Herman Cain I've met would have said, "Look, you people at SBA, make up your minds! Do you want the Constitution to be followed in it's original meaning? Or do you want us to ignore the Constitution and just pass whatever laws are expedient and necessary? I'm not signing a pledge to do both."

I'm puzzled that the released "explanation" is so far from what I just wrote.

No kidding. Let’s just ignore all the good that this man has done with both his time and money for prolife causes because he didn’t sign a poorly worded document.

And his reasons should make true conservatives proud, that he cares enough about the Constitution to not commit to an unconstitutional process. The man cares about the law.

I have been told that this distinction is “silly”. SILLY.

Oh really? Ever heard of situational ethics? It is wrong when Obama and his minions ignore the constitutional process, but it’s okay as long as conservatives do it for a good cause?

Of course we shouldn’t. We must recognize that the Constitution is not only a document of laws but a document of instruction and process. Herman Cain just adhered to that process.

The real story here, in my opinion, is why didn’t the SBA fix one word so one of the most prolife activists could sign it?

SBA lost all credibility with me - and many of my friends and associates - during the Nevada US Senate race. They chose to endorse a woman who flip-flopped her stance again and again (Lowden) over men who were solid in their Pro-Life stance.

When I called an spoke with them they flat out said that if there wasn't a woman in the race they wouldn't have endorsed anyone. Seriously? What does ones sex have to do with it? Yes - a woman can get pregnant and make the choice. However, it takes two to make a baby.

“....The real story here, in my opinion, is why didn’t the SBA fix one word so one of the most prolife activists could sign it?...”

I’ll take it one step further: why don’t these groups ask each candidate for their own written pledge on these issues, instead of trying to make their pledge and their group the issue?

Oh, that answers that. The SBL is just like all other advocacy groups, they are in this for two causes: life, and the relevance of their own organization.

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.