Cain answered it and to say “no one” thinks the President has such authority says to me you haven’t looked at the present President and the things the lamestream media says IS within his power! They absolutely think the President has the power to control this as long as it is a lib occupying the White House.
Ravenstar
Cain has been more consistently, money-where-his-mouth-is, principled, pro-life than any other candidate. (Santorum isn't a candidate - it's a way of life.)
From some of the comments on this thread, an observer might surmise that social conservatives are a) illiterate - or at least incapable of parsing a simple verbal response; b) rabidly partisan followers of other candidates - to the extent that they're willing to perjure themselves; or c) racists.
I honestly can't think of any other explanations.
Just damn.
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.
He's done that several times.
Perry is not the most articulate guy out there but you are never confused as to where he stands.
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
with exceptions,
and people want you to be all or nothing.”
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.
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 shouldn’t 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.
http://theiowarepublican.com/2011/do-we-really-know-who-herman-cain-is/
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.
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.
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.)