A better question would be, "Why would a freeper attack Cain who has a 100% record in support of life and has stated unequivicolly that he does not support abortion at any time? and would halt funding to Planned Parenthood and appoing judges with a pro-life philosophy"
You will twist as hard as you can to find fault in a contextual response and ignore his record and clear cut statement of position. You behave like you are more interested in formulating his position that taking the clear cut evidence of it.
I’ve twisted nothing. When the incident occured, I argued that his answer didn’t fit with the claims of his supporters that he was talking about adoption. Then Cain came out and said he was talking about abortion.
The only person twisting is you — or at least, arguing that Cain is lying about what he was talking about.
The question is why? Why will you not accept Cain’s own explanation for what his answer was about? Why do you feel the need to make up a different story for him?