Posted on 10/20/2011 6:40:19 PM PDT by wmfights
It’s a nice try but this doesn’t jibe with the exchange between him and Piers Morgan.
Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.”
No one on either side is arguing that the president has a constitutional power to issue executive orders barring women from having abortions. I’ve never heard even a diehard pro-lifer suggest that, so in essence, he wants you to believe here that he was responding with a point that no one disputes to a question that no one ever asks. Which means either he’s lying about what he understood Morgan’s question to mean or he’s so unacquainted with the most basic terms of the abortion debate that he genuinely felt obliged to reassure Americans that he won’t be sending the FBI to pregnant women’s homes to make sure they carry to term. Bad, bad news either way.
Beyond that, though, it’s simply not true that his response to Morgan was couched in terms of the limits of presidential power. Go back and watch the clip again. Morgan asks him what he’d want his daughter or granddaughter to do and Cain quickly arrives at this answer:
No, it comes down to is, it’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is, it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make. Not me as president. Not some politician. Not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t try to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive decision.
He’s talking about the entire government, not just the presidency, and of course it’s a core argument for pro-lifers that Congress should act to make this decision on behalf of women if/when Roe v. Wade is overturned. A moment later he told Morgan that his opinion as president shouldn’t necessarily operate as a “directive” on the nation, but then he was back to broad language about government again: “The government shouldn’t be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.” No pro-choicer could say it any better. How did we get from that to “I am 100% pro-life, end of story” in the span of 24 hours?
Question, then: Does this hurt him at all, and if it does, has the damage been done to his social conservative credibility or to his overall credibility, i.e. the basic belief that presidential candidates are fully engaged on complex but essential issues? For now, the rest of the field is attacking him on the former point. Santorum questioned his pro-life cred earlier this morning and then Perry, who desperately needs Cain to fade in social-con bastions like Iowa and South Carolina, issued this statement:
The campaign of Texas Gov. Rick Perry has responded to Cain’s comments, with Perry communications director Ray Sullivan saying, “A number of the Republicans candidates have flip flopped or been tripped up on the abortion issue. Governor Perry has been proudly pro-life for his entire career, successfully working to pass a parental consent law, a pre-abortion sonogram law, and defund Planned Parenthood in the state budget.”
That’s awfully timid. Let’s see what happens at the next debate. Until then, read HuffPo’s report on the reaction of Iowa social conservatives to what Cain told Morgan. Exit quotation from talk-radio host Steve Deace: “Cain is good at regurgitating talking points, but when he is forced to explain what he believes the devil is usually found in the details. Based on the testimony of his own words, Cain is neither ready, willing, nor able to honor the oath of office required of a President of the United States.”
I also watch the John Stossel interview and the liberal on the show, who is a complete punk, actually thought Cain was agreeing with him as did Stossel as did I.
I think he's afraid of getting pinned down. This is an out of the ball park question.
Where did he say that? In the interview everyone is twisting, he was very clear that it shouldn't be legal even under that circumstance. I have posted almost a dozen articles on Cain's pro-life position today, from archives to current ones, and none of those he has ever voiced that position
Nice try Perrybots. But find another attack lie to push about Cain cause this one ain't going to hunt.
My candidate would have knocked that question so far out of the ballpark you would never find it. Cain bunted. Grow up.
Because the Perrygasmics want to ignore the fact that the answer they are twisting was to a question not about abortion, but whether his (hypotheitically raped) grandchild should have to raise the child after birth. A child, who in Perry's views, should be able to be aborted by the way.
I WATCHED THE INTERVIEW AND THE ONE WITH STOSSEL YOU SHOULD TOO! Can you hear me now? If you didn’t watch the two videos you need to before commenting. I didn’t even look at the transcript I went straight to the video.
Did you not even read or hear the answer? Or did you simply want to believe a convenient lie?
If you do not like being exposed as liars, quit lying.
I like Perry a lot but tearing everyone else down because he isn’t Perry (or whoever) doesn’t help him, it just pisses people off. Let’s also be real, Perry isn’t helping himself lately. He is almost pulling a Fred Thompson (who I strongly supported) where a lot of people were hoping for him but he didn’t come through. Right now, Perry is even losing to Cain in Texas. Let’s not tear down all the other Conservative candidates because the one we like isn’t doing well.
.. the media is egging all of this on.. they did it to Bachmann when she was leading. Then when Perry took the lead, they did it to him.. now that Cain took the lead, they are doing it to him...
..and we are enabling them.
Remember who the enemy is here.
Yep.
Here’s part of Cain’s statement from today. Note: it has an entirely different tact than you have:
In a statement released late Thursday afternoon - Cain’s campaign had not previously responded to requests from CBS News throughout the day for clarification of the candidate’s position - Cain said that he understood the question he’d been asked as questioning whether he “would simply ‘order’ people to not seek an abortion” if he becomes president.
“My answer was focused on the role of the President,” Cain said. “The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.”
He added: “As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story.”
Obviously, your candidate is not Perry.
Cain said he did not believe in rape in any case - case, invest, whatever. That was his “personal” view which is almost irrelevant. The issue is government’s role. But when pressed about it he said the woman should have the right to choose whether to have an aboriton. So he believes in a woman’s right of choice in abortions involving rape.
I am not attacking Cain on this issue. I just believe in consistency. I find this piling on Perry (when he has already been politically irradicated) while giving Cain a pass is wrong.
Your man child, slick huckster fouled out, my guy stood for principles that you apparently cannot comprehend.
Thanks for the Perry-bot pretzel logic.
CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why —
MORGAN: No circumstances?
CAIN: No circumstances.
MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.
CAIN: They qualify but —
MORGAN: Rape and incest.
CAIN: Rape and incest. Cain is specifically rejecting exceptions to anti-abortion laws that other candidates have put forth allowing abortion in cases of rape and incest.
MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.
CAIN: Ask the tricky question.
MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?
CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?
MORGAN: Why?
CAIN: You’re mixing —
MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.
CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.
Cain clearly states he is anti abortion.
Cain then answers Morgan's stupid question about a mother "BRINGING UP" a baby.
Guess it’s me but someone’s stand on abortion, their religious views etc are personal issues and I really don’t give a rats ass about what one candidate or the other thinks about it.
You can say that, “defines” the person and I still don’t care because it’s a personal opinion. My main concern for any presidential candidate is reducing the size of and getting government out my life. I want someone who believes in and will defend the Constitution 100%, is a fiscal conservative, supports a strong military, protects our borders and will eliminate the IRS, NEA, EPA and any federal administration that is useless.. which is most of them.
If I find a candidate that does that, then the rest will probably fall in line inclduing any Supreme Court potential nominees. If they do the above but are pro-choice, then I’ll settle for that flaw because I’m looking for the greater good no a single stance on a single issue. There is no perfect candidate and in reality abortion, relgious issues etc should be settled at the state level NOT the federal level, it’s not their purview. The federal government has limitations..
Why focus on who is the most pure? It makes more sense to focus on who is the most effective at curtailing abortions. If some purist candidate wins and can't get Thing One accomplished, then what good is he?
” I believe in my gut Cain is pro-life. This was not a tricky question. Cain made it a tricky question. “ <<<
That is exactly how I feel. I believe he is far better on the issue than Perry, actually, but why does he dazzle me with perfect philosophy, then turns around and confuses me utterly on his sincerity to do a dang thing about it to “advance” his perfect philosophy. He better convince me first and fast. Rick Perry has, IMHO, a very dense and political useful philosophy but NO ONE doubts he would blaze both guns against abortion. THAT is where a RECORD of doing exactly that counts so much. Perry lets the chips fall where they may, but his word is his bond.
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.