Let's see, which is better? being called a liar, or being called unprincipled? Kind of a tough choice RM. And an unnecessary choice. There is another way to understand this. Cain is a political novice, by his own admission. He has yet to fully understand how prolife policy might be implemented in a constitutional Republic.
And frankly, it is not an easy question. I'm guessing that Cain believes by expressing his core belief on the matter in general terms he can keep from getting bogged down on the details of implementation. As a messaging strategy, I am not sure that will work, but in no way does it represent a lack of principle. He has demonstrated his principles sufficiently by putting his money where most of the rest of us will only put our mouths.
But his principles must now be translated to a plan of action, and he needs to work that through with someone who has a good understanding, not only of the issues, but how to message on those issues. Again, this is a phenomena primarily associated with political inexperience. Nothing else.
Then again he seems to understand the role of a president pretty well when asked to state his policy position.
“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."
Watch the phony "pro-life" RINOs try to say that's not a pro-life policy.
Placing credence in political neophytes is a huge mistake. Ross Perot proved that twice. Without a governing or legislative record on which to judge Cain, we are left with dissecting his public rhetoric, both past and present. When his rhetoric falls short, Cain falls short. That applies to all politicians, btw.
Personal principles sometimes take a backseat when people enter into the political arena. I have given Cain the benefit of the doubt several times. The same can't be said for the smear merchants hitting Perry with gratuitous attacks. This emotional euphoria for Cain is unnatural and self destructive.
Having said all that. If Cain is the last man standing on the right, I will vote for him over Obama. However, I still see Romney (aka. FUMR) taking the nomination. Although the level of certainty for Willard is way down right now. The first goal remains to knock off Willard. If that means its Newt, Bachmann, my guy, Perry or if its Cain who becomes the nominee, here's the bottom line. In the end, conservatives will need to coalesce around one challenger in order to beat Obama and send him packing back to Chicago. Anything less and America will continue to suffer.
And frankly, it is not an easy question.
Seems like he's got it figured out. He's on record as supporting an "original intent" interpretation of the Constitution. Using the process of Amendment is the only way to ban abortion at the national level within the original intent of the enumerated powers.
He's either going to be "in trouble" over abortion or he's going to be "in trouble" over original intent, but there are people who are going to try and insure that he is and remains "in trouble" about something.