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 word has a specific technical political/con law meaning.
By your argument, you can’t believe in the Trinity because the word isn’t in the Bible.
Cain isn’t wrong you are.
CASE CLOSED.
www.ontheissues.org
will take care of a lot of your squishy list.
You are right, I will vote for Newt over Perry any day.
As far as I am concerned we are still FRiends. If you cannot separate your personal feelings from your political positions, well then that is a shame.
We have been FRiends for years now. We obviously do not see eye to eye on the political front, but I had always considered you my Christian FRiend.
If that must end it is because you so choose. I choose to remain your FRiend. If you can't be friends with someone you can't agree with 100% on the political forum, then I can understand that and I will honor your choice to put me on your "virtual ignore" list. The ball is in your court reaganaut. I will honor your wishes.
Cain misspoke from obvious ignorance. Your defense of his untenable position is based on pure stubbornness. You have been educated on this issue. But you stick to your position solely because you are emotionally tied to Cain as your political savior.
- - - - - -
Mind reading and fail, fail, fail, fail. I support Cain because the rest of those running are losers. You are the one who is being stubborn (just like with your support of tuition for illegals) and I have educated you, not the other way around.
I never supported Bachman or Palin and I already have a Savior, I’m not looking for a political one. However, I am completely fed up with your lies, insults and stupidity. You were once a good friend of mine yet you destroyed it because I won’t support Perry.
Goodbye, PM, I am done with you and your lies and slander of me.
The MSM pulled the race card on him, and he out-maneuvered them deftly.
Openly associating one GOP candidate (and a Te-hey-ax-ayn, to fit the liberal sterotype to boot) with the "n-word" is one thing.
Going immediately for a reaction to another Republican, is yet another.
But when the 2nd Republican is ALSO black, I smell an agenda.
If he didn't condemn it forcefully enough, the meme would be "Uncle Tom, Perry's House Boy."
If he condemned it TOO forcefully, he risked starting a war between two GOP candidates in front of the press.
So he did the best he could, asking for more information to dilute the seriousness of the charge, and saying the "n-word" himself to show that HE wasn't skirting the issue.
Only a dishonest Perrywinkle would call this "pulling the race card on Perry."
Cheers!
I refuse to be FRiends with people who insult me and slander me.
It isn’t because we disagree on candidates, it is because of your behavior both towards me and on threads like this.
I’m not friends with people I don’t trust. I can be friends with people I disagree with, which is why I sent you that PM the other day regarding Perry and asking you not to try to change my mind, but I will not be friends with people who lie and insult me like you have.
We have been friends for many years and I am sorry to see it end this way, but I can’t bear you any longer when you act this way. It is like I don’t know you at all.
Well, you didn't go to law school, did you?
BTW, I thought I was on your virtual ignore list. Why are you posting to me?
I don’t believe for a minute you were ever considering Cain, you have been Perry for quite awhile now.
It has been a month and 4 days. Prior to that I was 100% in the Palin Camp. When she failed to make an announcement on September 3, I decided that she wasn't running, so I moved to the Perry Camp. I liked a lot of the stuff that Cain was saying, but he isn't really electable. He does not have the political connections to finish this race. His refusal to sign the pro-life pledge bothered me a lot. His statements regarding the 2nd amendment bothered me a lot. His playing the race card bothers me a lot. His understanding of the role of Government bothers me a lot.
You may be convinced Cain is gonna crash and burn and you are doing your part to make sure that happens and we get Ricardo Perry aren’t you?
Perry will make a great President. Cain would make a fine VP. Then he can use the next 8 years to learn a little about the constitution and the role of Government.
I admit the dig about law school was a backhanded insult, but it was also a joke. Do you understand the Law of Sarcasm?
As far as slandering you, I believe that is a false charge. I don't take this crap personally. Show me where I "slandered" you. Maybe I challenged your opinion and accused you of being wrong. Well, that is because you are wrong. Everyone is wrong once in a while. Believe it or not even I have been wrong before.
We have been friends for many years and I am sorry to see it end this way, but I can’t bear you any longer when you act this way. It is like I don’t know you at all.
Well if that is the way you feel, then this will be my last post to you. If you honestly feel that way, then please do not respond to anything I say on this forum again. That includes the religion forum.
If you decide to ping me or post to me on any other thread, then I will take that as an invitation to renew our long lost FRiendship.
<><
Marlowe
What is dishonest about acknowledging that advance has multiple meanings? It does. Therefore, no dishonesty there.
What is dishonest about attaching to YOUR signature a provision that advance does not mean “personally submit legislation”? Nothing. No dishonesty there.
I don’t see the dishonesty you profess to see. For some reason that gets me called “looney.”
And for your info, I am not a Perry-bot any more than I’m a Bach-bot, Sant-bot, Ging-bot, or even Paul-bot. There are a few things I’m not excited with Perry about, so he isn’t my ideal candidate, either.
First, I don’t think it was necessary to ping some of the FI’s. Second, you slandered me by accusing me of being a Palin supporter and saying I considered Cain a political savior when that was my big gripe against the Palinistas.
Perhaps we should just avoid each other on the political threads. Funny since I got on these because of the complaints that I spent all my time posting on the RF.
That's just a silly comment. I asked you to just tell me what a "class c whatever" is. I have other things to do than homework assignments from you.
You've had a whole week to tell me something you already know, so your entire comment above is cornpone.
Because Gingrich is not a problem. Romney is a problem. Romney is the first name that came to his mind.
That says something, and especially since he endorsed Romney the last time around.
It is your ordained mission to spread propaganda if I don't spoon feed you the truth. Got it.
I’m beginning to think some of these folks are uneducated and illiterate. They also have a “need a messiah” complex when it comes to their candidate.
I fear for the republic.
The only thing I can conclude is you don’t know either what you are talking about.
Cain was the head of the Fed Reserve Bank of Kansas City. Get over it. It’s in his bio.
“In the last debate, he said if Romney would walk back his position on something or other (something finacial and not social), then Romney is his first choice for VP.”
Except that he didn’t say this, or even close. Post the full quote, or stop smearing Cain.
They are my FRiends. :-)
Second, you slandered me by accusing me of being a Palin supporter
I didn't know you weren't. I assumed every virulent Perry Basher was a Palinista. Apparently I was wrong.
and saying I considered Cain a political savior when that was my big gripe against the Palinistas.
Well your defense of Cain at the expense of your friendship with long time freepers tells me that there was something going on there. I didn't say you considered him your religious savior, but you certainly seem to convey the idea that you believe that there is a politician out there who can save America from itself. There isn't. None of these candidates is going to save America. The best they can do is to point the country in the right direction. Perry is not a monster. Cain is not a Savior. Both men are committed Christians and both men would be good presidents. I have a lot of concerns about Cain's political positions. He has said a lot of things that concern me. He does not seem to understand the role of the President or the government. That doesn't make him a bad man, but it does raise questions about his ability to lead in the right direction.
FWIW I thought the Palinistas would go apoplectic when Palin chose not to run. Instead there seems to be a knee jerk response to run in the direction of Cain. But Cain is no Palin. Palin is a born leader. Cain is still riding around on his training wheels.
Perhaps we should just avoid each other on the political threads. Funny since I got on these because of the complaints that I spent all my time posting on the RF.
Well, you posted to me, so we are FRiends again. I'm not going to give up so easy.
Does Herman Sharpton Cain still thinks conservatives are nasty towards gays in military.
Oh yes! Forgive me. I have such trouble reading. Must use a magnifying glass. Of course I see it now. Churchill was one of my favorite people, God rest his soul. Thank you for taking the time to correct me.
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.