Cain to Piers Morgan: I’m anti-abortion yet pro-choice

posted at 10:40 am on October 20, 2011 by Tina Korbe

Maybe Herman Cain is trying too hard to be likable. He doesn’t need to enter attack mode or anything, but it would help if he didn’t pander to lefty media hosts, either. I have to assume that’s what this is — unless Cain really doesn’t think it’s the government’s business to ban abortion?

Last night, Cain told Piers Morgan that “life begins at conception” and said he opposes abortion “in all cases.” But when Morgan pressed him with typical questions about whether Cain would want his daughter or granddaughter to have a child conceived by rape or incest, Cain dodged. First, he told Morgan he was confusing two separate matters (apples and oranges, perhaps?). But, then, he said this, apparently still in reference to what he thinks about cases involving rape:

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.

Watch:

Huh?

This isn’t the first time Cain has seemed to contradict himself on the abortion issue. In an interview with John Stossel earlier this month, Cain circled around and around Stossel’s frank questions, defaulting to stock phrases like “I’m pro-life” and “life begins at conception” — but also “that’s her choice.” When Stossel asked him if abortion should be legal, though, he flat-out said “no.” That suggests that, in general at least, he does think it’s the government’s role to “make that decision.”

And in an interview with Meet the Press’ David Gregory, Cain said he opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest because “the percentage of those instances is so minuscule that there are other options.” But “if it’s the life of the mother, that family is going to have to make that decision.”

If you put all the pieces together, at best it seems Cain believes abortion is wrong “in all cases,” should be illegal in most cases and should be a choice in some cases.

But it’s also possible he meant what he said to Piers Morgan, when he used pretty sweeping language to supposedly address exceptional cases: “It’s not the government’s role — or anybody else’s role — to make that decision.” It seems possible he’s bought into the idea that a complete government ban on abortion would somehow be an encroachment on individual freedom, rather than the most fundamental protection of it possible. Without life, what is liberty?

Yet, in 2003, he said he would support a Human Life Amendment, which would ultimately completely ban abortion. And, again, he told Stossel he thinks abortion should be illegal.

Quite confusing — and we can’t turn to his executive or legislative record to see what his actions on the issue have said. Whether his circumlocution should disqualify him with strictly pro-life voters is a matter for debate, but it would certainly help if Cain would clarify this by stating his position unequivocally.

For example (if this is his position), he could simply say: “I think abortion should be illegal and whether a person has a right to life is never another person’s choice to make.”

Or (if this is his position), he could say: “I think abortion should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest or when the life of the mother is at stake.”

Or (if this is his position), he could say: “I think abortion should be legal, but, culturally speaking, will work to oppose it because I personally believe it is wrong.”

Whatever it is, Mr. Cain, just spit it out.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6

Pizza pie in the sky.

the_nile on October 20, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Cain is losing it. I have no idea what he is talking about here.

neoavatara on October 20, 2011 at 10:43 AM

Herman-you ain’t ready for the big show.
Please exit the stage.

annoyinglittletwerp on October 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Can we please just vote Romney so he can beat Barry? Elect more conservative folks to Congress to balance. But no one can seriously make the argument Romney would be worse than Obama.

Zaggs on October 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM

And he might be our nominee? Really?

I will say, though, that it’s likely he doesn’t support tossing babies into linen closets to die a la Obama, so there is that.

changer1701 on October 20, 2011 at 10:45 AM

This is not a gray area Herman, don’t make it one.

Big Orange on October 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Let the gnashing of teeth begin.

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Or (if this is his position), he could say: “I think abortion should be legal, but, culturally speaking, will work to oppose it because I personally believe it is wrong.”

That seemed to be the gist of what he was saying, but he needs to clarify. You can be personally pro-life while still defending the right of others to have abortions. And you can take that a step further by supporting the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and leaving it up to the states to decide on the legality of abortion.

Doughboy on October 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Love ya Cain, but I believe your 15 minutes are up

cmsinaz on October 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

not confusing to me.

I believe life begins at conception. I think taking that life is murder. I don’t believe that we can ever empower a government to make decisions about what goes on in the inside of a person’s body, and so I oppose the government having the power to make voluntary, professionally medically managed illegal.

Where in the Constitution does the government derive the power to control what is inside a person’s body…my goodness, how can people believe the government can have the power to make abortions a criminal matter but not have the power to force them to buy health insurance??

Abortion should be fought by education, financial assistance to pregnant women, government paid for health services where the person does not have the means to pay, by religious education, by moral education, by peer pressure, with love and kindness.

This is why I really don’t much like either side in this debate. The pro-lifers and that pro-choicers both have their share of massive hypocrisy and the fact is that we can save more lives by what I mentioned above than we can save any other way, and in the end this is about saving lives

georgealbert on October 20, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Cue all neocons scrambling for a candidate to support… Romney? Too moderate. Perry? Too stupid. Cain? Too inexperienced. Newt? Too immoral. Oh you poor neocons.

If only there were a candidate who understood this financial crisis, predicted it, and had a plan to make real spending cuts. If only that candidate also were consistent, moral, and courageous. If only that candidate was pro-life and adhered to the constitution.

Oh, wait. Poor neocons.

iamse7en on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Makes sense to me.

You can’t want small government and expect the government to dictate your choices in life.

Thats much more confusing than Cain’s answer.

KMC1 on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Will the real Herman Cain please stand up. Herman has more faces than Joan Rivers.

NickDeringer on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Love ya Cain, but I believe your 15 minutes are up

cmsinaz on October 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

In other words, I ate too many pizzas, and don’t want another slice.

Frank T.J Mackey on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

The Joe Biden of the GOP?

Kermit on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Heh. Hot button! Now, the gloves will come off the social cons. Can’t wait to see his walkback on this one.

a capella on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Aw, Crikey. Can’t we have ONE ideal candidate in this race? Seriously. I just want someone who’s perfect. Is that too much to ask?

Book on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Wow. The Tea Party track record for picking candidates is pretty bad, isn’t it?

NoStoppingUs on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

To conclude he’s “Pro-Choice” is a bit premature. Even some of the most Pro-Life people will exclude “life of the mother” decisions.

mankai on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Maybe he really doesn’t want to win the nomination, but doesn’t want to be labeled a quitter. So instead of bowing out he just goes on TV and says stuff that will raise doubts about his competency on purpose.

Mark1971 on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Death of a Hundred Gaping Wounds

faraway on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

georgealbert on October 20, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Then you don’t believe life begins at conception.

Unless you believe that the government has no right to tell a woman she can’t kill her infant child… or anybody else for that matter.

mankai on October 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM

His definition clearly puts him in the doorway of Nancy Pelosi’s “kill them” morality tent, and he has lost this Catholic’s vote. Life (yours, mine and that means all innocent others) must be the first consideration.

Don L on October 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Help me Herman Cain, you’re our only hope.

dforston on October 20, 2011 at 10:55 AM

Death of a Hundred Gaping Wounds

faraway on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

LOL! Well played.

a capella on October 20, 2011 at 10:56 AM

No wonder he likes Romney. He’s got a different position on the issues daily. I can’t support a candidate that is not pro-life in practice.

kerrhome on October 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM

If only there were a candidate who understood this financial crisis, predicted it, and had a plan to make real spending cuts. If only that candidate also were consistent, moral, and courageous. If only that candidate was pro-life and adhered to the constitution.

iamse7en on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

If only that candidate could decry government spending while porking up his district, accept as gospel the word of terrorist organizations, and take cash from guys who really have a problem with black people.

KingGold on October 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM

I’m pro-choice, but the rape/incest excemption that some pro-lifers (and most pro-life politicians) support has always confused me. I get the politics of it, but it’s morally incoherent.

If you believe it’s murder, then why would murder be permitted in certain circumstances?

YYZ on October 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM

georgealbert on October 20, 2011 at 10:51 AM

Well said, Sir. I agree and could not have possibly stated it better.

CantCureStupid on October 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Yeah, that’s very confusong. At first I thought he was pro-choice only for the limited exceptions, but, no, he’s all over the place. Maybe he should keep a 3×5 card handy to read from when the question arises.

Seth Halpern on October 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM

Newt’s looking better and better with each passing day. Sheesh!

spypeach on October 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Aw, Crikey. Can’t we have ONE ideal candidate in this race? Seriously. I just want someone who’s perfect. Is that too much to ask?

Book on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Your oft repeated cynical position, about imperfect candidates (all are as we all know)merely overtly attempts to reduce the mass slaughter of innocent life as somehow being on par with any other minor political imperfection. Your hierarchy of values need serious immediate reconsideration.

Don L on October 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM

CantCureStupid on October 20, 2011 at 10:58 AM

It’s not well-said, it’s horrible inconsistent.

mankai on October 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM

Cain is imploding in slow-motion. First Gitmo, then the “electric fence” comments, now this… and to top it all off his tax plan is a VAT. I like the man and he’s still my second choice, but he is clearly not ready for prime time.

Caiwyn on October 20, 2011 at 11:00 AM

Both my face, and my palm are getting very sore lately.

DrAllecon on October 20, 2011 at 11:00 AM

let me repost what I said in the other thread on this topic:

first off, the whole context of the debate is framed wrong. It shouldn’t be pro-life vs. pro-choice, it should be pro-abortion vs. anti-abortion.

The pro-choice side has a monopoly on the word “choice” because it sounds ugly to say you’re for the killing of babies. The truth is any outcome in this situation is a choice. Nobody was ever trying to take that away, it’s always been about whether abortion should be legal or not.

And while it is legal to have one, regardless how you feel, you really have no power or authority to tell someone they should have one or not, the best you can do is to talk them out of it. Unless you have the authority to change Roe v. Wade yourself, in the next 30 seconds, this is the unfortunate reality you have to live with. In this sense Cain is right. In this sense, it is a personal decision for the mother and family to deal with. You have no say on what they do with their lives as long as it’s currently legal to do so. Abortion is murder, period, however, if you are a suppoerter of liberty and personal responsibility and feel that people should live with the choices they make, then you have to respect this view at least from that stance.

Any other argument you can make is fighting with windmills until we have the ability to change the law of the land. Period.

Pcoop on October 20, 2011 at 10:04 AM

Pcoop on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Quite confusing — and we can’t turn to his executive or legislative record to see what his actions on the issue have said.

But, but… he’s been a businessman in the private sector!!! We don’t want any “politicians”, remember?

kg598301 on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Pro-life/anti-abortion and pro-choice are not mutually exclusive. Some pro-lifers can’t grasp that. Some people see government controlling people’s decisions as more of a societal threat than the actual abortions themselves.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM

He believes life begins at conception. He believes that all human life is sacred. He believes that the government should not be promoting abortions and that if a woman decides to have one that it should be based on her perspective and not sold to her.

Where people get hung up with Cain is not understanding his looking at what is already and what he would support in the future. He clarifies his stance as very pro-life and then states that the government should butt out, as in now. He’s a very right brain thinker and processes his answers as such.

Hening on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM

If you believe it’s murder, then why would murder be permitted in certain circumstances?

YYZ on October 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM

Because elective abortion, like murder, considers intent. Only in those specific circumstances is the decision made under duress.

Just like when somebody kills someone by mistake, or kills in self-defense, or uses deadly force to protect somebody.

KingGold on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Aw, Crikey. Can’t we have ONE ideal candidate in this race? Seriously. I just want someone who’s perfect. Is that too much to ask?

Book on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Cain does need to explain his position(but not overexplain to the point that we’re more confused than before), but this excessive nitpicking by the base seriously needs to stop. If you people want Mitt Romney as your nominee, then keep throwing these other candidates under the bus. Bachmann faded almost immediately. Perry’s at the point where he may never recover. Newt’s saddled with baggage that’s holding him back. And Palin, Christie, and Daniels were being written off for various reasons before they could even announce their candidacy. Now conservatives are dissecting ever word out of Cain’s mouth.

Newsflash: There are no perfect candidates! Every single Republican in the field will at times say things that either offend, confuse, frustrate, or embarrass the base. They all have things on their private or public sector record that stick out like a sore thumb. And they all have vulnerabilities that can be exploited by the Democrats and the media(I know, I’m being redundant). But let the damn process play out without picking apart every statement these folks make.

Doughboy on October 20, 2011 at 11:02 AM

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Cool! I feel the same way about infanticide.

/

mankai on October 20, 2011 at 11:03 AM

this is a loaded question, any answer is a trap. if he says no to rape in any situation he is castigated for being a heartless bastard who wants to saddle young women w/ a reminder of a brutal attack. if he says yes in the case of rape then he gets attacked from the right for being a squish. the repubs need to refuse to answer these questions and point out there unfairness to the reporter and that they never question libs in this manner.

chasdal on October 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Time for a new flavor of the month (yet again).

RedRobin145 on October 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM

:) frank

cmsinaz on October 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

What a shame! Herman is a really good guy, but he keeps shooting himself in the foot!

GFW on October 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

Aw, Crikey. Can’t we have ONE ideal candidate in this race? Seriously. I just want someone who’s perfect. Is that too much to ask?

Book on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Unfortunately, yes.

Ward Cleaver on October 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

I completely agree with Herman Cain on this issue and it is exactly where I stand.

gracie on October 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM

What he said was clear to me.

He doesn’t believe it’s government’s role.

Allahs vulva on October 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM

’m pro-choice, but the rape/incest excemption that some pro-lifers (and most pro-life politicians) support has always confused me. I get the politics of it, but it’s morally incoherent.

If you believe it’s murder, then why would murder be permitted in certain circumstances?

YYZ on October 20, 2011 at 10:57 AM

I do agree. It’s hypocritical.

If you believe that a fetus is a human life/person, why should it be legal to kill innocent human life? Simply because it was conceived the wrong way, does not change the equation. It’s still a fetus.

The woman didn’t choose to have sex, but the baby didn’t choose to get conceived.

Life of the mother is pretty much the only exception in my book.

Frank T.J Mackey on October 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM

What a shame! Herman is a really good guy, but he keeps shooting himself in the foot!

GFW on October 20, 2011 at 11:05 AM

He’s shot them both clean off, now he’s working on the ankles.

Ward Cleaver on October 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Seriously. I just want someone who’s perfect. Is that too much to ask?

Book on October 20, 2011 at 10:53 AM

Yes, it is.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 1979 at 11:08 AM

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:07 AM

Time for a new flavor of the month (yet again).

RedRobin145 on October 20, 2011 at 11:04 AM

Then don’t complain when Willard Mitt Romney is accepting the Republican nomination for President on Aug. 30, 2012.

We have 4 candidates with a realistic shot at winning the primary: Romney, Cain, Perry, and Newt. Perry has some self-inflicted gaffes and screwups, but the base has been more than happy to pile on. Newt’s also made mistakes which coupled with his messy personal life has him as a non-starter for many conservatives. And now we’re in the process of tearing down Cain. Guess who that leaves us with?

Doughboy on October 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM

This guy wants to have it both ways. Typical used car salesman.

/Mitt Romney

Southernblogger on October 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM

He wants a national sales tax, he would negotiate with terrorists (maybe possibly, i dunno, I would have to see all the facts, just kidding) and now he is pro – life, and he is supposed to be a conservative alternative to Romney? WTF. This is the problem with someone with no record in an elected office. You don’t know what you are getting yourself into.

bitsy on October 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM

We have 4 candidates with a realistic shot at winning the primary: Romney, Cain, Perry, and Newt.

Doughboy on October 20, 2011 at 11:08 AM

Until Newt experiences a surge, he isn’t realistic. Perry and Cain have both given Romney a run for his money in the polls, but while Newt may be a good debater, he hasn’t made a decent showing anywhere this cycle.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM

People are still deciding on who they will vote on a president over the issue of abortion? Really?

What does it matter what the President thinks of abortion? SCOTUS has ruled and until there is a situation where 60 pro-life senators are in power long enough to replace the pro choice justices, this is all just smoke and mirrors.

You want to end abortion? Then get those 60 senators first.

I personally think it will be about the same time hell freezes over.

ButterflyDragon on October 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Guys! Let’s suck it up and line up behind Newt! We can overlook his global warming stance. It isn’t that big of a deal.

TheQuestion on October 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM

I don’t really find it hard to understand, you can be against something personally but be against government intervention. It should be a personal choice, and paid by personal funds, not taxpayer funded. But then again our ship always sinks on social issues because we just do it to ourselves. We should really just ignored Cain, and really push Romney because I needs me some more gov’ment! The more of these threads I read, the more I am convinced that we are going to just be stuck with more of the same, and then everyone will cry and whine on these threads that nothing ever changes.

gator70 on October 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM

Some people see government controlling people’s decisions as more of a societal threat than the actual abortions themselves.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM

Yep. Use of the heavy hand of the govenment is never good unless I agree with the outcome,…or something.

a capella on October 20, 2011 at 11:13 AM

ButterflyDragon on October 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM

I think you have said it best. The big question is, why are we wringing our hands over abortion, or better yet, letting the liberal media play us like fools over this every election cycle?

gator70 on October 20, 2011 at 11:14 AM

But no one can seriously make the argument Romney would be worse than Obama.

Zaggs on October 20, 2011 at 10:44 AM

Wow, what a resounding endorsement. Sums up the typical GOP candidate pretty well, though.

“Vote for him – he almost surely won’t be as crappy as the Democrat guy.”

How inspiring.

Midas on October 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM

TheQuestion on October 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM

You just may be right, I think we need to overlook some past transgressions to get the smartest guy in office.

gator70 on October 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM

Look…We can duck and dodge this issue all day long, and twice on Sunday’s, but here’s what this comes down to:

What should the federal government’s role be in private matters such as these?

If, on one hand, we say that federal govt’s role should be to protect life in all its forms, then, well…What about American citizens who plot and plan to do the country & our citizenry harm? If THEIR lives are so precious, then why seek them out to arrest/capture/kill them? Don’t get me wrong, I’m ALL for it…Anyone who does such a thing should NOT enjoy ANY constitutional freedoms, when they seek to destroy everything that document guarantees.

But, should the federal govt be involved in things like this? Is it a role for govt? How far do we allow govt to ‘go down that road’? If we allow them to participate in something like this, then will we be so agreeable when the boney claws of govt grasp our private lives just a little tighter, limiting our Liberty? (And yes, I know, killing the unborn has nothing to do with Liberty. Don’t bother presenting the argument. I’m just making a statement about how far we want govt in our lives, when, in this case, a loved one may already be suffering from a horrid rape or incest scenario. I’ve seen such a scenario play out, and it’s not pretty.)

Talismen on October 20, 2011 at 11:16 AM

People are still deciding on who they will vote on a president over the issue of abortion? Really?

ButterflyDragon on October 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM

Yep. Nothing new. It”ll divide and overide the fiscal issues, as always.

a capella on October 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Allahs vulva on October 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM

How’d u get away with that name?? Maybe it’s ’cause he doesn’t have one.

gracie on October 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM

What’s his position on women dying on the floor?

Akzed on October 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM

Cain’s got it right, and so did (gasp) Bill Clinton: Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare. State action should be limited to making it safe and encouraging it to be rare.

There is no contradiction between being pro-choice and anti-abortion. Being anti-abortion is not at all the same thing as demanding that it be outlawed.

That is the difference between libertarian conservatism and social conservatism, where the latter wants to use the forces of Law and the State to mandate certain moral standards. That sort of thing has a bad history. Govern best by governing least.

I’d legalize damn near everything, but that doesn’t mean I approve of any of it in particular.

Byron on October 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM

TheQuestion on October 20, 2011 at 11:12 AM

You just may be right, I think we need to overlook some past transgressions to get the smartest guy in office.

gator70 on October 20, 2011 at 11:15 AM

I could vote for Newt much easier than I could for Romney. Newt is the adult in this room full of childish candidates.

VegasRick on October 20, 2011 at 11:19 AM

Herman, you are getting on my nerves.

mobydutch on October 20, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Oh, wait. Poor neocons.

iamse7en on October 20, 2011 at 10:52 AM

Okies. So let’s vote for the so-called libertarian who’s now pandering to the conservative vote by coming out as a newly minted anti-abortion candidate, as opposed to the guy who just took the libertarian position on abortion.

Sorry, folks. With Rome burning, a position on an issue a President really has no control over (is Cain vowing to install liberal judges?) is just not a game changer.

MNHawk on October 20, 2011 at 11:20 AM

Or (if this is his position), he could say: “I think abortion should be legal, but, culturally speaking, will work to oppose it because I personally believe it is wrong.”

That seemed to be the gist of what he was saying, but he needs to clarify. You can be personally pro-life while still defending the right of others to have abortions. And you can take that a step further by supporting the repeal of Roe vs. Wade and leaving it up to the states to decide on the legality of abortion.

Doughboy on October 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

This is precisely my position. I am definitely against abortion, but reluctantly pro-choice. And I firmly believe that Roe v Wade is an overreach of federal jurisdiction and should be overturned on Federalist grounds. Let the states decide.

nukemhill on October 20, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I’m anti-abortion and pro-choice.

I don’t believe in abortion. But I don’t believe the govt should make the decision for women.

Same with guns. I don’t like guns. I don’t want to own a gun. I also don’t want the govt to tell me whether I can or can’t own a gun.

It’s really not that hard to be anti-item and pro-choice item.

angryed on October 20, 2011 at 11:21 AM

I see no difference in shooting my neighbor and abortion. Both are murder.

Big Orange on October 20, 2011 at 11:21 AM

typical left tactic, the country is on the verge of economic collapse so instead lets get all the candidates to spend their political capital on social-con issues and see if we can’t paint them as radical. meh.

maineconservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:21 AM

Yep. Nothing new. It”ll divide and overide the fiscal issues, as always.

a capella on October 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Breaking News: life is more important than Money.

portlandon on October 20, 2011 at 11:22 AM

That is the difference between libertarian conservatism and social conservatism, where the latter wants to use the forces of Law and the State to mandate certain moral standards. That sort of thing has a bad history. Govern best by governing least.

Byron on October 20, 2011 at 11:18 AM

You’re confusing your terms. It’s the difference between social conservatism and social libertarianism. Like it or not, the conservative view on abortion is that it should be outlawed. The libertarian view is that it should be legal.

Though, to be honest, I’d like to know where the federalist position lies on that scale, where abortion is no longer a federal issue, and each state votes individually to keep it legal in their own areas.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Until Newt experiences a surge, he isn’t realistic. Perry and Cain have both given Romney a run for his money in the polls, but while Newt may be a good debater, he hasn’t made a decent showing anywhere this cycle.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:11 AM

And why isn’t Newt experiencing a surge? What have people been saying for months since he got into the race? “Oh no, he has too much personal baggage.” “Newt’s brilliant, but he could never beat Obama in the general election.” “Newt would destroy Obama in the debates, but he can’t win the nomination.”

It’s a self-fulfilling prophecy. We’re tearing down these candidates and eliminating them from contention before they ever have a chance to compete. Look, there are legitimate issues that deserve scrutiny from the base. Perry’s positions on in-state tuition and the border fence, and his alleged crony capitalist record. Mittens’ flip-flopping, cheap shot tactics against Perry on Social Security, and of course Romneycare. Bachmann’s complete lack of legislative achievement or executive experience. Newt’s contradictory statements on Paul Ryan’s plan. And Cain’s lack of time in elected office and the many potential pitfalls of the 9-9-9 plan.

But there’s a difference between examining a candidate’s record and getting sidetracked on issues that have no bearing on this election. Like Cain’s comment on the electrified fence. Who gives a sh-t?! It was either a bad joke or something he just blurted out which will never become reality anyway. Hell, it’ll be a minor miracle if the fence ever even gets completed. And it was the same nonsense with Perry when he talked about Bernanke being “almost treasonous”. People freaked out for no reason. Like an independent voter is gonna go with Obama because the GOP candidate said something like that? We need to focus on the stuff that really matters, people.

Doughboy on October 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM

How’d u get away with that name?? Maybe it’s ’cause he doesn’t have one. gracie on October 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Akzed on October 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM

Only the GOP could win this election for Obama…….and they are doing a great job.

Beat the rush!!!

Obama 2012!!!!!

PappyD61 on October 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM

mankai on October 20, 2011 at 10:59 AM

I disagree. He stated his beliefs. In his view, the government has no business on either side of the issue (at least that’s how I read it). I appreciate that you don’t hold that view. He stated what he believes are real ways to help reduce and prevent abortions in this country. Do you disagree with him on that, too?

Do I think Roe v. Wade is bad law? Hell yes. If Roe is overturned tomorrow, do you think that will criminalize abortion? I don’t… I think it will be left up to the states, and even if every state bans the practice, there will still be abortions, because it’s not just a legal issue. We have to fight against what people have been taught for the last 40 years, and if you think all it will take is for SCOTUS to reverse, then you have a lot more faith in society than I do.

CantCureStupid on October 20, 2011 at 11:24 AM

He’s shot them both clean off, now he’s working on the ankles.

Ward Cleaver on October 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Evidently, he shot them after removing them from his mouth for a moment. He must have because he’s still rambling.

BuckeyeSam on October 20, 2011 at 11:25 AM

How’d u get away with that name?? Maybe it’s ’cause he doesn’t have one. gracie on October 20, 2011 at 11:17 AM

Akzed on October 20, 2011 at 11:23 AM

O_O

…………………..dude.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Pro-life/anti-abortion and pro-choice are not mutually exclusive. Some pro-lifers can’t grasp that. Some people see government controlling people’s decisions as more of a societal threat than the actual abortions themselves.

MadisonConservative on October 20, 2011 at 11:01 AM
Are you OK with the government controlling your decision to murder or not to murder your toddler under certain circumstances? how is abortion different?

neuquenguy on October 20, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Second look at …. uh … oh, nevermind.

matd on October 20, 2011 at 11:25 AM

Anytime you hear a completely incoherent answer from Herman Cain it’s just further proof that he would be an OUTSTANDING President because he has no political skills!

/cainlusional

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 11:26 AM

He’s personally against it, but won’t force his beliefs on others. Are we clear now? Really, some people are rtying way too hard to attack Cain over piddly crap.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Breaking News: life is more important than Money.

portlandon on October 20, 2011 at 11:22 AM

Sure. That’s why we should allow Obama to win re-election by concentrting on the nonfiscal issues. That way, the prolifers win, y’see.

a capella on October 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM

I do agree. It’s hypocritical.

If you believe that a fetus is a human life/person, why should it be legal to kill innocent human life? Simply because it was conceived the wrong way, does not change the equation. It’s still a fetus.

The woman didn’t choose to have sex, but the baby didn’t choose to get conceived.

Life of the mother is pretty much the only exception in my book.

Frank T.J Mackey on October 20, 2011 at 11:06 AM

Now try getting elected by telling rape victims they have to give birth to the product of rape.

Don’t get me wrong, you’re logically and morally consistent. But the public doesn’t react to emotional issues like this with cold logic. I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I don’t think it’s an electable position. This is why the issue of abortion is such a minefield.

Caiwyn on October 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM

He’s personally against it, but won’t force his beliefs on others. Are we clear now? Really, some people are rtying way too hard to attack Cain over piddly crap.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM

If this is true then he is pro-choice.

neuquenguy on October 20, 2011 at 11:28 AM

I see the usual suspects are attacking Cain in order to prop up romney or perry.
Look, he’s against abortion personally but won’t force his beliefs on others. Is that so hard to understand?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:29 AM

He’s personally against it, but won’t force his beliefs on others. Are we clear now? Really, some people are rtying way too hard to attack Cain over piddly crap.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM

Uhm – he said at one time he’d sign a Life Amendment. Wouldn’t that be forcing his views on people?

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 11:29 AM

I really don’t care about his abortion stance. Will he do the right thing as president for the economy and defense of America? I think the answer is yes.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I see the usual suspects are attacking Cain in order to prop up romney or perry.
Look, he’s against abortion personally but won’t force his beliefs on others. Is that so hard to understand?

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:29 AM

By definition – that’s a Pro-Choice position.

It’s exactly the same position that Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi claim to adhere to.

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM

If he thinks life begins at conception but doesn’t think govt should make abortion illegal, then he’s a monster. Who could stand around and say the govt should do nothing if people are being murdered?!

TheBlueSite on October 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM

I’m hopping off the Perry train to get on the Cain Train, now hopping off the Cain Train to board the Newt Train.

I’m running out of trains.

stenwin77 on October 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM

I really don’t care about his abortion stance. Will he do the right thing as president for the economy and defense of America? I think the answer is yes.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:31 AM

Fair enough then – you have no problem with him being Pro-Choice.

Others are free to have a problem with that though.

HondaV65 on October 20, 2011 at 11:32 AM

Pablo Honey on October 20, 2011 at 10:47 AM

Those silly conservatives and their desire to protect innocent life. Perhaps you can relate if we frame it in terms of executing vicious, sociopathic murderers who torture their victims or shoot police officers at point blank range–you know, the people the left weeps for. Clearer to you now?

DrMagnolias on October 20, 2011 at 11:33 AM

He’s personally against it, but won’t force his beliefs on others. Are we clear now? Really, some people are rtying way too hard to attack Cain over piddly crap.

Hard Right on October 20, 2011 at 11:27 AM

If that’s the case then he has lost my vote. Killing innocent people is something I don’t care for.

Big Orange on October 20, 2011 at 11:33 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 6