I have to ask: what was Morgan mixing? What Cain doesn’t sound like he’s certain is how to address this question, and reflexively, he starts trotting out language he’s heard before.
“it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision.”
“it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.”
Neither of these comments fits the point he was making that a child’s origins in rape and incest aren’t reasons to kill a child. They’re pro-choice language. That doesn’t mean he’s pro-choice, and I’m NOT saying he is personally or politically pro-choice. But I don’t think these sound like answers coming from a conservative with a strong ability to enunciate his view of abortion. Obviously, he has taken a strong stance on abortion prior to the question that threw him off. But he was thrown by a variation on the Kitty Dukakis stumper, and I don’t think this indicates that Cain is going to be great in debates without serious effort—effort he doesn’t seem interested in making.
I think he relies on his prior work on the radio to have prepared him for this kind of question, and it didn’t, since so many callers already agreed with him. And he has expressed disdain for the debate process with his comments regarding the other candidates “getting on his last nerve.” What is the process for if it’s not to get on his nerves, to winnow out the details of each candidate’s positions and resumes? What are these meetings for if they are not intended to get each candidate to expose his abilities and interests through pressure? You would think that Cain, having been exposed repeatedly through the Boortz show to this kind of discussion, would be more patient, more able, and less obviously annoyed. But he comes across as someone who wouldn’t be bothered if he could avoid this distasteful stuff, both at the debates and when being questioned by the press.
Someone should apparently write down the questions and submit it to him, so he can send it to his staff and they can formulate his response for him. Because he is about as clear as mud on the issue at this point.
Here's an article from Alan Keyes on the Stossel interview: Herman Cain is not making sense:
Stossel: A quickie, a quick question on one more hot subject – abortion …”Keyes goes on to say:Cain: Yes
Stossel: You’re against it …
Cain: I’m pro-life from conception, yes
Stossel: Any cases where it should be legal?
Cain: I don’t think government should make that decision. I don’t believe that government should make that decision.
Stossel: People should be free to abort a baby …
Cain: I support life from conception. No, people shouldn’t be just free to abort because if we don’t protect the sanctity of life from conception we will also start to play God relative to life at the end of life.
Stossel: I’m confused on what your position is. If a …
Cain: My position is I’m pro-life, period.
Stossel: … woman is raped she should not be allowed to end the pregnancy?
Cain: That’s her choice. That is not government’s choice. I support life from conception.
Stossel: So abortion should be legal.
Cain: No abortion should not be legal. I believe in the sanctity of life.
Stossel: I’m not understanding. If it’s her choice, that means its legal.
Cain: I don’t believe a woman should have an abortion. Does that help to clear it up.
Stossel: Even if she is raped?
Cain: Even if she is raped or she is the victim of incest, because there are other options. We must protect the sanctity of life and I have always believed that. (Applause.) Real clear.
But I more than sympathize with John Stossel’s confusion when Cain’s emphatic pro-life declarations are accompanied by the equally emphatic statement that, when it comes to the legality of abortion, “I don’t’ think government should make that decision. I don’t believe that government should make that decision.” Equally confused is his assertion that, in the case of rape, “That’s her choice. That is not the government’s choice. I support life from conception.”Keyes concludes with a statement that highlights the problem of nominating a person who has never had a single day in public office, and who therefore has no record at all on which to ground our opinions of what he really means:
Sometimes politicians betray their professed conservative views because they were never sincerely committed to them in the first place. Sometimes they do so because, despite their sincere proclamations of personal belief, they lack the understanding to defend their views when challenged on grounds of law and civic principle. When it comes to making and enforcing laws, personal beliefs and predilections cannot, in practice, be sustained except by people who know how to deal with such challenges. The self-contradiction that confused John Stossel will surely be exploited in the debates and councils (in the public eye and behind the scenes) in the course of which laws are made and policies implemented. Someone who starts by firmly espousing a self-contradictory view will end by surrendering to opponents who embarrass him with that self-contradiction. Sadly, the people who supported him will then lament the failure of principle that, with a little discerning thought, they would have seen coming long before it occurred.
And in the Morgan interview, he never says the words "I would support a law that bans abortion".
Maybe he would, and if so, he should say it.
But it is absurd, given how poorly Cain has answered the questions, for Cain supporters to blame OTHER CANDIDATE SUPPORTERS for their own candidate's lack of ability to communicate effectively on this issue.