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?
It has been fun and you are still delusional. LOL. ;)
Everybody makes mistakes. Not everybody lies about them. Given your posts on this thread it probably doesn’t bother you.
Oh, you’re a lawyer. That explains everything.
I’m tired of lawyers. The country is in shambles, presided over by lawyers. I’m ready for somebody who thinks the OPPOSITE of the lawyers, as a breath of fresh air.
The only people who need to lie are those whose agenda is threatened by the truth. There is no need for a conservative to lie.
That letter from Perry (acting on behalf of the Republican Governors Association) "urged Congress to leave partisanship at the door and pass an economic recovery package". There was no reference to TARP.
TARP was not "an economic recovery package" it was a bank bailout. So where is your evidence that Perry supported TARP or that he lied to the lady?
You're as big a liar as Perry is.
It is also presided over by large corporations (of which Cain was once a CEO) and the Federal Reserve (of which Cain was once Chairman of the Kansas City Federal Reserve).
Have you joined the Wall Street protests?
Who turned those things into nightmares? Lawyers.
I remember you called me that and it was love at first site. Then a week later I saw a Mr Reaganaut and he posted "Is this a religious thread? Then why isnt it in the religious caucus?" on the same thread you were on.
After I finished laughing I posted "What? There are two of you? Or am I seeing double? You sound a-like?"
Well as I said, the sun finally came up because Sarah said it was OK to do so. Now we are allowed to start the Republican primaries.
The money quote:
” I could go on because I have respect for everybody up here. But it’s a game.”
He was just going down the list, and he made it clear that he was going down the list.
As a teacher, you know what it sounds like to me? Sounds like something teachers do all the time. It sounds like he turned to the person next to him and said something to make it seem like he could be pleasant regarding that person, then he went to the next person down the row and said something good about them, and then he said he could go down the whole row because he respects everybody, but the question is just a game because it’s all hypothetical.
Like a teacher would give a couple examples to her class and then say, “And I could say the same for everybody.” Or just simply, “Et cetera...”
Makes me wonder what order the candidates were standing in.
I think you’re making too much of the order, especially since Cain actually said of Romney, “If — if Governor Romney would throw out his jobs growth plan and replace it with 999, he has a shot.” (IOW, If Romney would become more like me, I’d think about choosing him. Otherwise, going on to the next person, there’s Gingrich over there and - all kidding aside - I really do respect him the most... And I could go all the way down the list because every candidate has something good about them that I can respect...)
Now we are allowed to start the Republican primaries.
- - - -
Praise Goddess! LOL.
Well considering that you are supporting Perry over Cain makes you the biggest idiot in history. Go back to DU and take your insults back to DU.....You are not a conservative AT ALL.......You supported McCain in 2008 and Perry in 2012.......you aren’t even a moderate Republican. You are a big fat liberal.
This is SUCH B.S. On the show “The View” (of all places), the other day, Cain explicated his views when Baba Wawa grilled him. He said that he does not support the now-standard “exceptions” for abortion of rape and incest, and indeed, only supports an exception being made to protect the life of the mother. As for gays, he stated (with Baba’s prompting) that he believes homosexuality is a choice, but he is willing to listen to scientific proof that it is otherwise. (Which, IMHO, is about as fair as you can get — to be willing to listen to and consider supposed proof of a view that does not coincide with your own.)
So the writer of this article has their panties in a wad because Cain didn’t sign some pledge and bind himself into future positions that may be untenable as POTUS. Geez, get over it! And here’s a derisive raspberry {thepppppbbbt!!} to everyone who is trying to smear Cain for no good reason.
Oh, praise the Lord! I was SO worried that we wouldn't be able to have primaries before the general election. Now that Sarah's not in, Romney has to be the nominee, right?
/sarc
1. I did not request the moderator to make that change to the title. I was simply answering a question another FReeper had asked on who would have added it, and the 'barf alert' changes to the title (in the brackets that were there) had '- Mod' at the end.
or do you have moderator privileges?
2. No, I do not have Moderator privileges. Only Moderators have those, and only they can make changes to a thread.
I'm just curious because you, spetznaz, seem to pay VERY CLOSE attention to other posters
3. No La Enchiladita, I have only been paying close attention to you and Cincinatus' Wife, and ironically that 'attention' has been limited to two posts (you must have a very low hurdle for 'very close attention' since for you this is my second post ever). That attention has stemmed from your insults (you in particular - don't worry, I will link that thread below) and for C's Wife she was not insulting anyone but just had an advocacy strategy for her candidate that was slightly acerbic (but again, not as acerbic as yours - as mentioned, link coming up below). Thus, my 'attention' to you has been 2+1 posts, and it pales compared to many other FReepers who (on that same thread) openly called you out.
yet close attention to you, your profile and postings raises some "interesting" questions.
4. Please, feel free to raise them. I would not post anything on FR that I would not mind being brought to the open (since, after all, this is an open board that can be read by anyone), so feel free to put anything to your heart's content. IF you can't find anything ask me and, if I have some minutes to waste, I may even help you search for it. I hope that helps?
I think that is how you referred to me on another thread, as "interesting,"
5. Yes, VERY interesting. I cannot conceptualize what advocacy strategy thinks it is wise to insult others (even saying they are acting like love struck teenage girls when all they said is they liked a certain candidate). It is absolutely folly and really intellectually obtuse to believe that you can get someone to like your candidate by treating them as a child. I always believed the best way was to show why YOUR preferred candidate's policies and points were the best for the country, and if so how they were better than competing policies. A pro-Perry FReeper doing just that is Shield, something I mentioned on that post as well. He/She is focusing solely on his points, not asking FReepers what is wrong with them. Not insulting people. To the extent I was even wondering if you may be an anti-Perry candidate, because you surely are not helping him by bashing other folk. That is very interesting, and interesting is quite a polite word choice. Other FReepers on that thread used other less polite words.
at the same time you couldn't believe that I haven't been banned yet (due to my questions about Herman Cain and the ensuing vigorous discussion).
6. Yes, I was quite surprised considering some of the things you told other FReepers on that thread. Things that, as I mentioned, if a new poster joined and started referring to fellow FReepers in such a manner he'd have received a zot in less than 10 minutes. Or in cincinatus' wife case, I understand from another FReeper that she got a warning from JR himself (which I mentioned is rare enough as to count as a privilege). Also, dear La Enchiladita, it wasn't because of your 'questions' about Herman Cain or the ensuing 'vigorous discussion.' You did not ask as many questions as you attacked other Freepers, and the 'vigorous' discussions were based on them getting back to you and you continuing your 'sage and erudite advocacy strategy.'
Anyways, here is the link to my post on that thread, which links to the rest of the thread. Have a nice day La Enchiladita, and try harder next time. As for advocacy for any candidate, like in that fable I posted of the contest between the Sun and the North Wind, focus on showing the qualities and virtues of your preferred candidate's policies (like Shield does for Perry) rather than debating on the specifics of how a FReeper's preference for Cain makes him or her a gushing teenage girl. Your mileage may vary, but it will be definitely higher if you use logic and sense rather than vitriol and nonsense. Have a nice day, and find the link below (since you are accusing me of contacting the Mods - never done that actually in all my years here since I consider myself a big boy who doesn't need to run to teacher - but I guess I can start now since you copied him on your post to me and he/she may be interested in how you debate other FReepers). Anyways, here's the thread ...let your words on it, and my words on it, show who is right (I've also copied some of the FReepers you - erm - 'vigorously debated' on that thread):
The original thread:
Herman Cain leads GOP field in N.C.
My first every post to you La Enchiladita (and before this one, the only one ...as I mentioned, I guess paying 'very close attention' to you has a very low hurdle):
I mentioned you twice on this post but forgot to copy you. Mea culpa.
Neither the corporations nor the Federal Reserve have told me that it’s none of my business whether or not my government is breaking the law and Constitution. Only the lawyers/judges have scraped that low. The very people who are supposed to be upholding the checks and balances, the Constitution, the rule of law, the separation of powers, and the whole principle of accountability so that there is no such thing as absolute power without accountability to the people.
IOW, they are supposed to understand the founding documents well enough to know that if holding government accountable EVER becomes “nobody’s business”, this nation is dead.
Instead, with a few exceptions, the lawyers I have observed in the last 3 years have spat upon everything the Founders lived and died for and everything that this country IS. And they have done it while using high-sounding windy words that are poison to everything American. Big-headed enough to think they can justify anything if they use twisted enough logic, and too wrong-headed to realize that if they can justify anything just by twisting, we have nothing that’s safe from manipulation by other crooks just like themselves. IOW, we have nothing solid. It’s all just a bunch of sophistry and wind.
Most Congress-critters are lawyers, and Congress is one of the most lawless, despicable, disgusting places in the world. We’ve been given so much as an inheritance and these people have frittered it away for peanuts. All while blathering about as if they were wise.
If corporations and Federal Reserve are ripping me off I don’t know enough about it to say anything. But the slime of the lawyers in the past 3 years has been so putrid that I have literally had to back away from hearing any of them because it made me physically sick to hear their serpentine hissing, mocking what they are supposed to be actually serving.
They think we’re stupid but we can see what they’re doing. Just like we can see what the stupid Wall Street protestors are doing - together with the Soros-SEIU-New Party machine that has been peddling this communist garbage all along. The corrupt anti-American lawyers and the communist machine are just opposite ends of the same snake.
Well lets hope not but I have a bad feeling about it. In 2007 I had this bad feeling that McCain would get it inspite of his immigration amnesty, and most here said it was not possible. A year later 2008 they were saying McCain can save us. Even after TARP.
“He with the most money wins.”
Well, I guess we better just roll over and die then, P-Marlowe. Eh? Who’s the richest person in the world? If they don’t become the GOP candidate, we have no chance of winning, according to your theory.
I don’t believe that. Obama’s got all the free advertising a guy could want, with the media we’ve got right now. But there is a limit to how many people will swallow that bait and how long they will keep swallowing it. Money can buy advertising, but no matter how much lipstick you put on a pig... people can still see through it. And they are.
You’ve accused people of seeing Palin or Cain as their savior. Sounds to me like mammon is your political savior.
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.