"Why on Kolob, would the MSM attack me?
I represent THEM. And their backers Soros and the Saudis."
Posted on 10/03/2011 1:00:34 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
If all the poorly articulated political and economic philosophy and the multiple contradictory and confusing major issue stands of George Herbert Walker Bush, Bob Dole, and John McCain were tossed into a blender, and the device were turned on high for a minute, the result would be a smoothie whose taste would be indistinguishable from the murky concoction that's been served up by Mitt Romney for the last five years: saccharine, bland, and utterly forgettable five minutes after it's choked down.
Is it so late in the 2012 nominating process that anyone can say with even quasi-certainty that this pasty, unidentifiable mush, served up by the Republican field's sole polished moderate manikin, is the only beverage Republicans can sell in 2012?
The anxious GOP Establishment, which has detested every conservative would-be Republican presidential nominee -- Ronald Reagan not excluded -- since 1952, is desperately trying to sell this argument right now.......
Don't believe any of it.
If for no other reason, don't believe it because the same electability narrative -- less blatantly but with equal vigor -- is being peddled by the MSM, which has been carpet-bombing Rick Perry from 30,000 feet for some three weeks now. Does any reader of this site believe that the MSM is trying to help the Republican Party avoid an electability mistake in choosing its nominee?
Or...is it not rather just slightly more likely that the MSM would try to kill off whom they fear? Has a negative word been uttered by the MSM in recent weeks about Mitt Romney? Think long and hard about what that benevolent silence might mean.
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
To me the more important issue is how Romney is running an incredible campaign--something folks who can`t stand him seem blind to. He is running as the guy who isn`t scary to those in the middle. He tried the same thing in Massachusetts against Kennedy and failed miserably; then he was trying to show he`s really kinda liberal, now he`s trying to pose as someone who`s KINDA but not really conservative.
The primary season is for exactly what has been going on. I don`t dislike Perry as some do, but my logline is sincere--there isn`t a candidate running now who doesn`t have major problems, and bringing up uncomfortable positions and history isn`t a bad thing. At the very least, we get to see how these people hold up under fire.
You agree with Cain’s position on abortion? (that he and Mitt refused to sign the pledge?)
"Why on Kolob, would the MSM attack me?
I represent THEM. And their backers Soros and the Saudis."
You don't?
Herman Cain Declines to Sign Pro-Life Pledge - ABC News - Jun 18, 2011
Cain issued a statement to explain why he chose not to sign the pledge. He said he agrees with the first three parts of the pledge because he "adamantly" supports the appointing pro-life judges and selecting pro-life appointees to his Cabinet and the Executive Branch as well as ending taxpayer funding for abortions, but he had a problem with the last part of the pledge."The fourth requirement demands that I 'advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation," he said. "I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues. In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency."
Why didn’t he sign it?
Your question is answered in my previous post. Assuming you asked because the previous blockquote and cite was insufficient explanation, or not credible, or somehow unclear in your mind, here are more cites and blockquotes, but they are repetitive of his statement.
He reached out to Susan B. Anthony and asked them to change the wording of Point #4 from "advance and sign" to "support and sign" (Congress advances legislation, not the President) and they refused. He was 1 word off of signing it.Susan B. Anthony Pledge
Herman Cain Issues - June 22nd, 2011
"I support right-to-life issues unequivocally and I adamantly support the first three aspects of the Susan B. Anthony pledge involving appointing pro-life judges, choosing pro-life cabinet members, and ending taxpayer-funded abortions.However, the fourth requirement demands that I 'advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation.
I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues.
In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency."
Herman Cain Reaffirms Commitment to Pro-Life Principles
Ellen Carmichael - Press Release - June 18, 2011
Cain explained that he could not pledge to "advance" legislation as president because that's the job of the Congress."I don't know about other folks, but I read, and I had problems with one word in there," he said. "But people went nuts ... They didn't consider that small request or point of clarification good enough so they threw me under the bus."
He stressed that he opposes all abortion rights, from conception to delivery.
In heated presser, Cain discusses the Fed, abortion and gun rights
James Hohmann - POLITICO.com - 6/18/11
"I support right-to-life issues unequivocally and I adamantly support the first three aspects of the Susan B. Anthony pledge involving appointing pro-life judges, choosing pro-life cabinet members, and ending taxpayer-funded abortions," Cain said in a statement. "However, the fourth requirement demands that I `advance' the Pain-Capable Unborn Child Protection Act. As president, I would sign it, but Congress must advance the legislation.""I have been a consistent and unwavering champion of pro life issues," Cain added. "In no way does this singular instance of clarification denote an abandonment of the pro-life movement, but instead, is a testament to my respect for the balance of power and the role of the presidency."
Herman Cain Reaffirms Pro-Life View After Not Signing Pledge
Steven Ertelt - LifeNews.com - 6/18/11
ABC Article discussed at FR
One or two drop out and Christie and Palin jump in, the situation stays the same, or worse. Romney will sashay away with the nomination if we're not careful, especially with the open primary states such as my own.
You have deliberately misled people into the notion that Cain isn't pro-life. The reality is simply that he is not an inveterate liar, like most politicians, who will promise what they cannot deliver.
Cain, in fact, promised to uphold three of the four planks in the pledge. He deferred on the fourth, explaining that he would not have, as president, authority to pass such a bill, correctly noting that requires Congress.
Now, I know it's trendy for politicians to promise to deliver Congressional votes, but it's not reasonable. Cain showed himself to be a man of principle, at once standing up for the Right to Life, and fighting to change a culture where deception and empty promises are the par for the course.
What's sad is that Bachmann, Santorum, Pawlenty, Gingrich, et al, probably intended no deceit at all by signing the pledge. It probably never even occurred to them that "I'd earnestly fight to" and "I pledge to" are two different phrases.
side note: this pledge issue is a good reason to oppose Romney; his refusal was political, not wshing to defund hospitals which commit abortion. I say, let them know that by killing babies, they are choosing to decline public funds.
Cain is as pro life as I am and I wouldn't sign any dumb ass pledges either. I count it to his credit that he won't "sign a pledge".
Heh. I just noticed that this question is also answered in an ABC News article that you linked to, in post #1!
They did the same with McCain. Remember when he was the media darling. They could find nothing wrong with him, they highlighted him in interviews, they gave him favorable press, they did say “some” negative things but they were so minor. And then he got the nomination! And they beat the crap out of him and built up Obama at every turn. The same thing will happen with Romney. They have all the dirt, the artcles are written, and all they have to do is wait while the trial lawyers and teacher’s union flacks destroy Perry.
When was the 3rd debate?
Perry’s third debate was September 22nd.
Yes, you are right, there were 3.
I think it was rather letting Perry talk as much as he did that destroyed him.
Not really, go listen/watch the video of the NH Townhall in Derry. He was actually allowed to finish a sentence and was quite good.
I agree. He destroyed himself.
Here’s more on Cain’s pro life stance:
Life, liberty & pursuit of happiness starts with unborn life
The Founding Fathers got it right. The Founding Fathers got it right because of those fundamental principles: life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They also got it in the right order. That wasn’t an accident. Their vision meant that you could pursue happiness in America as long as you don’t infringe upon the liberties of somebody else. And you can pursue all the liberties that you want as long as you don’t infringe upon the life of anybody else. And that starts with the life of the unborn.
Source: May 1, 2011
Defund Planned Parenthood; intent was to kill black babies
I absolutely would defund Planned Parenthood—not because I don’t believe in planning parenthood, [but because] Planned Parenthood as an organization is an absolute farce on the American people.
People who know the history of Margaret Sanger, who started Planned Parenthood, they know that the intention was not to help young women who get pregnant to plan their parenthood. No—it was a sham to be able to kill black babies.
Source: Interview on the Bryan Fischer radio show Jan 18, 2011
Life begins at conception, period
I believe that life begins at conception, period. And that means that I will have to see enough evidence that someone I would appoint shares that same view. I believe that the current Supreme Court is leaning too much to the liberal side.
I’m a Christian, I’ve been a Christian all my life. I’ve been a believer in the Bible since I was 10 years old. I’m very active in my church, and there is no way I would compromise my religious beliefs about the sanctity of life. And so it starts with, will they have demonstrated, in some of their other rulings, if they come from the federal judge bench, whether or not they also share that.
Because I believe that the principles that our Founding Fathers cherished, when they founded this country, and wrote the Declaration of Independence which inspired the Constitution, they were based upon biblical principles. I want to get back to those principles as president, if I run and get elected—not rewrite those documents.
Source: Interview on the Bryan Fischer radio show Jan 18, 2011
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.