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?
I don't understand it.
I could hold my nose and vote for McCain because he is Pro-Life and served in the military. The Pro-Life position is a make or break issue for me. The service in the military is a big plus because the POTUS is the Commander in Chief.
I don't hold the lack of service against Cain, but the questionable Pro-Life, Pro-Family, Pro-Marriage is a killer. After all what's the point in saving a society if we are going to live like a Godless people.
Reminds me of a zombie movie... night of the living dead. One target down and off to the next.
Another one dead to me.
I wonder what he thought of Steve Jobs and what he accomplished in his life. Thank the Lord his mom wasn't pro-abortion, but was pro-adoption.
If your particular definition of what the word “is” is causes you to throw out as “questionably pro-life” a guy who put a million bucks toward encouraging Black voters to vote pro-life, you are beyond helping. I can’t believe you can’t see how piddly your argument looks.
The guy explained that he was talking about the Constitutional (that would mean LEGAL definitions are being used) role of the POTUS in legislation. He’s explained that he would sign a bill if it got to him. He’s said he would appoint pro-life judges. He spent a million bucks ADVANCING (used in the social/non-legal sense) the pro-life cause by trying to convince Blacks to vote pro-life. But none of that is good enough for you, supposedly because he COULD have meant the non-legal definition for “advance” instead of the legal definition he said straight-out that he was using.
Good Lord! Life is too short to waste on this kind of argument over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin - against people who by disagreeing are “defending the indefensible”, no less, according to you.
Wow. It’s gonna be a long primary season. I think I’ll just forget about all of it until it’s time for me to vote, spare myself this garbage.
His lack of understanding how govt functions should be a question for everyone. This lack of depth is what leads to comments like "I support the Palestians right of return". He later retracted that comment when someone explained to him what would happen to Israel, but why in the world didn't he know that in the first place. The same applies to the abortion.
Wow. Have you read any of this thread, any of the things Cain has actually said?
This is exactly what the Lord was talking about when He forbade bearing false witness. Please check out the truth about what Cain actually said before you believe gossip about why he did or didn’t sign any pledges.
Cain hasn’t flip flopped, Romney has.
And your lies about Cain aren’t doing your candidate any good. Cain never said he wanted to promote gays in the military, he opposed the repeal of DADT and has said he would like to reinstate it.
You are really getting pathetic, Marlowe.
He not only supported TARP he promoted it and thought it was a great idea to have the govt have ownership in businesses because "we can make money on this".
There are several definitions there. Linguistics 101. The meaning of a word is determined by it’s context. The context of advancing legislation is as in moving forward like a chess piece.
When Congress “advances” legislation we do not mean they promote it as in advertise it, it is moving forward.
Again, a President cannot advance legislation.
We can argue about this all day, but the bottom line is this. You and others are using this strawman argument to say that because he didn’t sign this pledge that Cain is NOT pro-life.
You all continue to ignore the multitude of evidence that he is.
Did you miss the point that in 2006 Cain spent $1 million of his own money to urge people to vote pro-life? He wasn’t running for office, he wasn’t pandering.
Prolife advocate Dr. Alveda King has worked with Mr. Cain on issues and when this SBA argument came out, she came out in his defense and said that Mr. Cain has always been a solid supporter of pro-life causes.
Yet you all are trying to excoriate him for not signing a poorly worded pledge? Seriously?
I’m done talking to you about this P-Marlowe.
Where does the Constitution allow a President to ADVANCE a bill?
I would let this issue go as piddly, but you people are insisting that by using what he outright claimed was the Constitutional/legal definition for “advance” and making a factually-correct statement using that definition, he is ignorant of “how government functions”.
This is stupid. Totally stupid. What he said was Constitutionally correct.
I can’t speak to his depth on all the issues, but if he made a statement and then changed his mind after learning more, he is to be commended for his refreshing coachability. In the particular case you mentioned, his showing up in Israel with no agenda other than to show personal support for the Israelis shows that his heart is in the right place, and the whole incident is refreshing.
I don’t know if his lack of knowledge will show up in comments to his detriment, which could be a concern for his campaigning ability. Nobody is an expert on everything, and the biggest measure of what kind of POTUS somebody would be is the advisors they surround themselves with, because those are the people who do the major processing, formulating, and implementing of policy. His support for Israel suggests to me that his heart is in the place so that he would choose the right advisors on that issue at least.
I correctly stated over a month ago that Palin was NOT RUNNING and I caught hell for it for a month. Then Palin confirmed that she was NOT RUNNING. So the sand has shifted in Cain's favor, but he has not yet been vetted.
His 999 plan is dead on arrival and for good reason. We don't need an income tax AND a sales tax. We can't trust congress with one, much less both.
His excuse for not signing the pro-life pledge shows his utter lack of knowledge of how government works. But when you point it out, the long knives come out.
The fact of the matter is that looking at the race objectively, there are only 2 viable candidates, Perry and Romney. They are the only ones who will get the money necessary to stay in the race until the nomination is decided. Cain will get some grass roots support from people who think he is the Tea Party answer, but then we all thought that about Bachmann and where is she?
This race will be between Romney and Perry. Perry has run these marathon election cycles before and has always been successful. Romney has run them as well and has never been successful (except for one term as the most liberal governor in US History).
So there's your race FRiends. Romney or Perry or some also ran. Hopefully the also rans will not combine to pull off enough votes from Perry to give the nomination to Romney, but then again that's what happened in 2008.
How is he going to reinstate it if he can't advance it?
You are really getting pathetic, Marlowe.
So while you were previously a Palin-onlyer, now you are a Cain-onlyer?
Is that right?
The race is ultimately going to be Perry v. Romney. Which would you prefer?
If you want to address potential weaknesses that Cain has, you would do much better to focus on something like his support of TARP (if that’s what he actually supported) than this RINO-generated article questioning the pro-life credentials of a man who spent a million of his own dollars to encourage people to vote pro-life.
I have no problem with people addressing the problems with a particular candidate; we actually need that, in order to come up with the best candidate. But it’s just a waste of time to focus on claims that are so laughable - and yet may trick people who only read a deceptive headline.
Cain has actually said?
Are you aware he was a big supporter of TARP and govt ownership in private business?
Are you aware he won't sign a basic pledge to fight to end abortion?
The richest guy wins, eh? Nobody else is even in the race.
Sad. This thread has done more to turn me off of Perry than anything I’ve seen so far.
This was the first big red flag for me with Cain. It is either disingenuous, or ignorance, when Cain argues the POTUS can't push whatever agenda he/she wants. How the heck did Reagan get tax cuts through a Rat controlled House if a POTUS can't advance what he wants.
The argument that Cain is so intelligent that he sees a flaw in the wording of the pledge falls apart when you see what he has said on other topics.
Are you aware that he spent a million of his own dollars to encourage people to vote pro-life, supports every measure that the SBA list brought up, says he would sign the bill in question if it came to him as POTUS, and says he would appoint pro-life judges?
What’s your problem? You’re libeling a guy as not being pro-life when he has talked the talk AND walked the walk long before anybody was even paying attention. Don’t you care about bearing false witness?
TARP is another subject, and in another thread I would love to address that, because support of TARP is problematic to me. But this thread is about an article that sought to portray Cain as not being pro-life, when he has already explained why he did what he did and has already SHOWN by his walk AND talk that he is pro-life.
What I’m responding to here is the libelous claims against Cain - because if conservatives don’t keep each other honest, then we’re gonna end up with crap at the end of all this, and deserve everything we get because of it.
Many thanks for clearing up his position
Sounds great to me and any poster that tries to tie him to abortion etc after seeing these facts is being completely disingenuous
I give up. No matter how I or others try to point out the basic reading comprehension skill of analyzing context in defining the meaning of words - actually decoding what somebody else is meaning - you insist on ignoring it.
I can lead a horse to water but I can’t make it drink.
And no, I didn’t just say that you are of the equine species; I used the word “horse” as a metaphor... It’s a literary technique... Oh, never mind.
This statement from Cain reveals a PROFOUND ignorance of the Constitution and the role of the Executive.
- - - -
No, what it shows is YOUR profound ignornace of the Constitution and the role of POTUS.
Congress advances legislation, Presidents SIGN it. Now, they can certainly support and encourage but that is not ‘advancing’ as MrR pointed out.
P-M, why are you so gung ho on attacking and lying about Cain, rather than supporting your own candidate, Perry?
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.