Is Herman Cain Socially Conservative Enough?

Frum Forum ^ | October 7, 2011 | Mytheos Holt

[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?

[P-Marlowe]

Perry supported Guiliani in 2008 and supported TARP.

So let's all support Gingrich!

Unlike Romney and Cain, Gingrich signed the pro-life pledge. And he, more than anyone else running, knows and understands the Constitution. Cain's so-called excuse is patently inexcusable.

Frankly I believe that Gingrich would be the best man for the job right now. He knows how to "ADVANCE" legislation and he can maneuver through the inevitable political minefields better than anyone.

He is the most qualified candidate in any party and frankly, he has a lot better chance of winning the nomination than Cain. As Sarah Palin so eloquently put it, "Cain is the flavor of the week." Let's see how long he lasts at the front of the pack.

[mkjessup]

This whole thread seems to be a 'gotcha' against Cain, and not an actual discussion. If you prefer Perry, fine, but it would be more convincing if you showed ways Perry is conservative rather than tearing down challengers with thin smears.

You are correct. This is the same basic tactic used in the last presidential election cycle by the dearly departed RudyBots who would tear down and trash Ronald Reagan in order to make Rudy-Tooty look good. So what if Rudy was divorced? "So was Reagan", so what if Rudy is pro-choice? "Reagan signed an abortion bill", those were all half-clever attempts to elevate and alleviate the obvious liberal mindset that would define a Rudy Administration had he obtained the nomination and won the general election.

That dog ain't gonna hunt this time around.

[mkjessup]

Why are you pinging the mods?

[xzins]

For some reason, many freepers seem determined to settle on Cain come hell or high water.

There are months to go, and we have some real conservatives, each with blemishes, in the race: Perry, BAchmann, Santorum, Gingrich.

We have 1 pro-life libertarian republican: Paul (maybe Johnson?)

We have 1 questionable social conservative: Cain

As Bachmann says, “there’s no need to settle.” I’m not going to settle for anything less than the best conservative out there who also has a good chance to win.

[mkjessup]

I’m not going to settle for anything less than the best conservative out there who also has a good chance to win.

That IS the trick, isn't it?

[P-Marlowe]

Why are you pinging the mods?

The mods took it upon themselves to place a "barf alert" on this thread.

It appears they have removed the barf alert, so I guess that means they have reconsidered their decision. I will remember not to ping them anymore.

Thanks.

[xzins]

Just discovered that Gary Johnson is a pro-abortion libertarian and did not sign the pledge.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

Newt’s belief in global warming is a deal breaker.

It’s communism in a shiny green wrapper.

Newt has 100 ideas a week and only 50 are worthwhile.

Newt epitomizes the saying, “If you can’t do, teach.”

[butterdezillion]

When I see somebody pitch in a million bucks toward pro-life votes, I don’t think it’s justified to then call him anti-life because he used a different dictionary definition than I initially think of for the word “advance”. We can argue over which definition he meant and whether he was technically stupid or misinformed for choosing that particular definition, but I think he spoke loudly and convincingly of his pro-life stance with his million bucks. Talk is cheap, but it’s walking the walk that is convincing. And he’s done that.

[xzins]

yep, makes you feel like a handicapper at a horse race.

[Cincinatus' Wife]

It appears they have removed the barf alert, so I guess that means they have reconsidered their decision. I will remember not to ping them anymore.

They've stripped it of all "topic" designations, so it basically is a "stateless" thread.

[P-Marlowe]

And I absolutely do not like his 9% sales tax BEFORE the income tax is repealed. Period. That is foolish.

Don't worry. Cain doesn't believe he can advance the legislation to implement his plan.

So whatever plans he has.. well... if he is elected, they are dead in the water.

"I will support my 999 plan, but I have no constitutional authority to advance it"

[xzins]

And all we are saying is that his SBA vote makes his pro-life stance: questionable.

As P-Marlowe says, “He’s got some ‘splainin’ to do. He does. He needs a clear, convincing explanation.

He could also simply acknowledge the multiple meanings of the word advance and SIGN the SBA pledge with a provision that “advance does not mean ‘personally submit legislation.’”

[butterdezillion]

He doesn’t have any Constitutional authority to advance it. That’s just a fact.

He can promote it, and has said that he would. That’s what campaigning is - it’s promoting your ideas. But the chief executive’s official legal job is to execute what is legislated by somebody else. That is just a Constitutional fact of life.

You’re not doing yourself any favors by plugging this line. It just makes your arguments seem puny.

[xzins]

"I will support my 999 plan, but I have no constitutional authority to advance it"

LOL!

(aside: I guarantee that the tax and spenders will jump all over the 9% sales tax part right away and implement it faster than greased lightning. Surprisingly, you'll never guess what Herman Cain said his plan is to get to the part about 9% income tax and ultimately the repeal of the income tax......you guessed it....he'll educate, promote, convince...all that stuff presidents don't do to advance their cause.)

Looks like they took the "barf alert" off of this thread.

[P-Marlowe]

He doesn’t have any Constitutional authority to advance it. That’s just a fact.

Bull carp.

Article II section 3:

He shall from time to time give to the Congress Information of the State of the Union, and recommend to their Consideration such Measures as he shall judge necessary and expedient; he may, on extraordinary Occasions, convene both Houses, or either of them, and in Case of Disagreement between them, with Respect to the Time of Adjournment, he may adjourn them to such Time as he shall think proper;

.

The Presdident has the power not only to propose legislation, but to keep Congress in session until they vote on it.

So when Cain says that he can't sign the Pro-life pledge because he can't "advance" the legislation he is either ignorant of the powers of the president or a liar.

I vote ignorant.

[TigersEye]

The article is such a thinly disguised disingenuous smear based on not signing and idiotic pledge that only pandering career politicians are willing to do that it richly deserved a “barf alert.”

[butterdezillion]

He’s already explained himself, and you won’t listen to him. So why should he expect the Constitutional purists to listen to him if he jots a note and explains which definition for “advance” he means?

As long as we play the gotcha game, every issue is “Have you stopped beating your wife yet?”

We can expect that from the media and dems. We don’t need that kind of friendly fire.

As far as I can see, the guy has done everything in his power to support the pro-life cause. He has walked the walk.

If he supported TARP he probably has a greater need to convince people that he recognizes the limits built into the Constitution so I can understand him choosing to clarify the Constitutional point, which may be more questionable for him.

[butterdezillion]

“Recommending to their consideration” is not the same thing as advancing. *I* can recommend to Congress’ consideration too, but that doesn’t mean that I can advance anything.

As far as adjourning, if the 2 houses disagree on when to adjourn, the President can choose when they adjourn. That says nothing about actually advancing a measure, and if the two houses agree on adjourning the President can’t do a darn thing about that either.

[P-Marlowe]

“Recommending to their consideration” is not the same thing as advancing. *I* can recommend to Congress’ consideration too, but that doesn’t mean that I can advance anything.

That depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

.

ad·vance (d-vns)

v. ad·vanced, ad·vanc·ing, ad·vanc·es

v.tr.

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.

.

You guys are grasping at straws to defend the indefensible. Cain has flaws. Get over it. He was wrong.