Posted on 10/07/2011 8:43:16 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
Today, the Susan B. Anthony list and National Organization for marriage released a joint scorecard for the Republican candidates for President at the annual Values Voters Summit. Ordinarily, a release like this carries few surprises, and in this election cycle so dominated by fiscal issues, a scorecard devoted to gay marriage and abortion is unlikely to carry the same weight it would have in the past. However, what may surprise those perusing the score card this time around is the fact that one candidate – the one widely interpreted as the most conservative in the race – actually falls to the Left of most of his peers on both issues.
That candidate is Herman Cain. According to the scorecard, Cain, who many have interpreted as a Huckabee-style populist outsider, looks more like Ross Perot when social issues are discussed. On abortion, Cain is one of only two candidates who have refused to sign the Susan B. Anthony’s pro-Life pledge, a pledge which asks candidates to “commit to key pro-Life goals if elected to the Presidency in 2012.” The other candidate who has refused to sign is (unsurprisingly) former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney, whose record on abortion is famously confused. However, Cain still ends up to the Right of Romney in the aggregate on the issue, given that Romney is the only candidate to refuse to make it a priority to appoint pro-Life appointees to Executive Branch offices if elected.
It is on gay marriage where Cain takes more liberties. In fact, on gay marriage, he appears indistinguishable from Libertarian Rep. Ron Paul. Cain has refused to sign the Pro-Marriage Pledge, refused to support the so-called Federal Marriage Amendment, and has “Unknown stances” on every other issue the National Organization for Marriage (NOM) scores, other than defense of the Defense of Marriage Act, which every GOP candidate is on record supporting. In contrast, candidates like Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry and even Mitt Romney have openly said “Yes” to every question asked by NOM.
Given that Cain is perceived as the conservative standard bearer who has eclipsed more socially conventional candidates like Rick Perry, this raises an important question: Is Cain actually conservative enough for his support base, or are social issues actually in their twilight years?
The very survival of the Republic is at stake right now. All other issues are secondary.
See #199 and read the article
Cain supported Romney in 2008 and supported TARP. He is apparently a recent convert to the Tea Party philosophy. In that sense he is a lot like Romney.
I suspect he will work to divide the conservative vote and then when Romney appears to be close to having sewn up the nomination, Cain will drop out and support Romney to angle himself for the VP slot.
Well, yeah, unless the source has been specifically banned by Free Republic.
Are you saying that the person who posted the link did not have the right to do so??
Perry supported Guiliani in 2008 and supported TARP.
He is not a recent convert to anything. Here is 5 years worth of Cain conservative commentary:
http://economicfreedomcoalition.com/press-opinion.asp.
Knock yourself out.
Perry was wrong to support Guiliani and Tarp. So was CAIN to support Romney and Tarp.
There isn’t anything hard about being consistent.
I’m not sold on Cain...questionable stuff is keeping me from considering him a conservative.
And I absolutely do not like his 9% sales tax BEFORE the income tax is repealed. Period. That is foolish.
Maybe. Right now, I'd give any random person off the street, if they were affiliated with the Tea Party, the keys to the oval office, if it would mean evicting the Marxist in Chief. We could then make sure our Random Person took a crash course in Constitutional theory from, say, Heritage, then hold them accountable as they go forward. We no longer have a viable, fire in the belly reformer on the table, all other options are tainted one way or another, so we should at least consider someone who is an amateur, as long as he is our amateur.
You can call it anything you want. That doesn't make it factually true. Obama is neither promoting An American Jobs Bill, nor is he advancing the legislation. His own party won't advance the crap for which Obama is campaigning under the guise of advancing legislation. Who are you kidding?
” [I]n a little-noticed passage in his first book, “On My Honor,” an encomium on the Boy Scouts published in 2008, Perry also drew a parallel between homosexuality and alcoholism. “Even if an alcoholic is powerless over alcohol once it enters his body, he still makes a choice to drink,” he wrote. “And, even if someone is attracted to a person of the same sex, he or she still makes a choice to engage in sexual activity with someone of the same gender.”
In “On My Honor,” Perry also punted on the exact origins of homosexuality. He wrote that he is “no expert on the ‘nature versus nurture’ debate,” but that gays should simply choose abstinence. Perry’s campaign did not respond to a request for comment on whether he maintains this view.
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_08/perry_equates_homosexuality_wi031767.php
........”The number one issue in the 2012 election will undoubtedly be the economy. While this is not necessarily a weak area for Perry, it doesn’t define him as a candidate. The governor’s most well known positions are on social issues like his strong pro-life views or his stance against same-sex marriage. Perhaps he is most notorious for his position on the now overturned sodomy law. This was a policy which outlawed homosexual relations in the state of Texas. When asked about the law, Governor Perry called it [the law] “appropriate”. This is a position that he will most likely have to defend if he gains the Republican nomination and reaches the general election.”.....
I don't think you are aware that I am agreeing with your above sentence. Obama is advancing this legislation...whatever you want to call it. Call it what McConnell calls it: an american stimulus bill.
Call it "playtime in toyland" for all I care. All I know is that Obama is advancing it as your sentence above agrees.
That is fair enough, and I think your concerns about the sales tax before repeal is a legitimate question.
Most Cain supporters here have been reacting to the blatant misrepresentations and lies about his conservatism.
Here is a good discussion on Fox about the 999 http://foxnewsinsider.com/2011/09/28/could-herman-cain%E2%80%99s-999-plan-really-work/
Thanks for the ping, xzins. It’s hard to find out about Cain (especially when lately I am very pressed for time), and who the heck else is there? Romney - no freaking way even if he was running against Stalin. Perry - nauseating but I s’pose I could force myself to vote for him. Bachmann? I can’t believe she’ll run. Gingrich? Hard to believe he’d get the nomination although I could force myself to vote for him if it comes to that. Santorum? He’d be so demonized in the MSM that I doubt he could win even if was nominated. It’s dis-spiriting.
No, I don't agree. To advance means to improve or make progress. Obama is not making progress. Therefore, he is not advancing his latest porkulus spending spree masquerading as a Jobs Bill. He is using this as a re-election campaign platform.
My comments were NOT directed at Herman Cain; I might actually support him now that Governor Palin has had enough of the garbage from both PUBs and RATs.
My comments were aimed primarily at Romney and Perry. That said, I will be watching Mr. Cain because I maintain that I will not support a child molester nor a homosexual panderer.
I haven’t paid much attention to the GOP race because I was hoping Sarah would run. So I’ve been one of the people who just sees the titles of the threads as they go past, which is why I’m kind of sensitive about that as well. There may well have been lies against Perry as well, and I would call those out as well if I knew of them. I’m only sort of settling down to earnest checking of the candidates now that we know who’s in and who’s not.
My belief is that the biggest crisis on our hands is the failure of the rule of law, so we need somebody with the temperament to deal with that. Sarah would have been the best, I think. Romney would probably be the worst. I’m still sorting out Perry and Cain. Anybody would be better than Obama, as long as they are Constitutionally eligible.
One thing I do respect about Gingrich and about Palin were their focus on Obama as the person to defeat. The primary battle is just that - a battle. But we dare not lose the war because we were so eager to win one battle. Our team has to come out of this battle with a candidate having both the energy and credibility to win the war. We can’t afford too much friendly fire. As we see which candidates fight Obama’s agenda best we will see the ones most able to actually do the job we desperately need to have done. That’s how I’d like to see the campaigns run - keeping the focus on what the candidates’ priorities would be to fix the mess we’re in.
I think about what Jesus said: “A kingdom divided against itself cannot stand.” We need to be united to rescue America from those who want to fundamentally change her from the beacon of freedom and prosperity that she has always been.
Advance also means “promote” as in “advanced the cause of cancer awareness” see http://www.thefreedictionary.com/advance
1. To cause to move forward: advance a chess piece.
2. To put forward; propose or suggest: advanced a novel theory during the seminar.
3. To aid the growth or progress of: advanced the cause of freedom.
4. To raise in rank; promote.
5. To cause to occur sooner: advance a deadline by one week.
6. To raise in amount or rate; increase.
7. To pay (money or interest) before due.
8. To supply or lend, especially on credit.
9. To serve as an advance person for (a trip to be made by a politician or a dignitary): “advanced the China trip during which the first trade agreements . . . were signed” (Suzanne Perney).
10. Archaic To lift.
Hey, do you remember the grief we caught when we questioned why Cain wouldn't sign the Pro-Life pledge and the many twists and turns good conservatives went through to justify his not signing the pledge? Now we see he's not so Pro-Family and the radical homosexual agenda isn't something he is concerned with.
I don't know about you, but I'm starting to see conservatives start to make the same error "moderate" obama supporters made in 2008. What the obama supporters did was ignore all the clear warnings and instead they imposed their views of the man over what was actually known. We are seeing the same thing with Cain.
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.