Cain clarifies again: Abortion shouldn’t be legal, but some families might decide to break the law anyway

posted at 5:10 pm on October 21, 2011 by Allahpundit

A better answer than yesterday’s spin attempt but Mediaite is right that it still doesn’t jibe with what he said to Piers Morgan. Then:

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…

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.

Now:

Look, abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if that family makes the decision to break the law, that’s that family’s decision. That’s all I’m trying to say.

Big difference between (a) the government shouldn’t tell you what to do about “sensitive” social decisions and (b) the government should tell you what to do by criminalizing one of your options. In fact, per Christian Heinze at the The Hill and Philip Klein at the Examiner, even in today’s answer there’s an element of choice insofar as Cain suggests that a pregnant woman might end up breaking the law to get an illegal abortion. That’s, er, true — some of them would end up doing that — but it’s an odd note for a man in his position to sound. Rarely do would-be presidents acknowledge lawbreaking as an option in any context, however disapprovingly. (Klein, applying Cain’s logic, goofs, “Theft should not be legal, but if a family decides they have to steal, that’s their decision.”) And rarely do pro-lifers suggest that criminal penalties might not be much of a deterrent. The whole point of the movement is to de-normalize abortion itself, not to lock up practitioners as punishment for what they’ve done. The more “normal” it is to carry out illegal abortions, whatever the penalty later, the greater the setback to the pro-life cause. Cain inadvertently injects a bit of that normalization here.

The good news is, now that he’s spent two days answering questions on this, sheer media fatigue with the subject will probably mean no new interrogations about it next week. New pressure will have to come from the other candidates like Michele Bachmann, who called his position “pro-abortion”(!) earlier today. Exit question: Will any of this end up doing damage to Cain’s polls? My experience with Cain fans in the comments here is that they’re extremely — extremely — loyal. Not quite as loyal as Palinistas are to Palin, maybe, but they’re getting there. Patience.


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 4

Explain how the government prevents the murderer from choosing to murder his victim?
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:25 PM

I’m not sure exactly what problem people might have in understanding that for every law made there is going to be someone who chooses to break it. The point also went ZOOM over AP’s head. The best I can determine is AP and others , in some kind of a neuron misfire, believe that if you acknowledge that very basic fact, you’re for breaking the law.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM

“I support affermative action, but I do not support one-size-fits-all applications,”

So the African-American fourth-generation college student with a family income of six-figures should have access to the same affirmative action preferences in admission as the African-American first generation college student coming from a poverty stricken broken home?

If that’s the case. Where and how does it end? Will we see affirmative action forever regardless of means and opportunity?

the stop Iran’s nukes thing with drilling thing,

So putting the economic squeeze on Iran won’t have an effect on their arms race? We have empirical evidence to suggest otherwise.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM

How the hell did this happen? Cain has been touting the pro-life position for as long as I’ve been listening to him. Did he not know what the issues he was saying all this time? This is worse than Sarah Palin not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was.

JackOfClubs on October 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM

New poll just out in Iowa taken yesterday:

Herman Cain (37 percent)

Mitt Romney (27 percent)
Ron Paul (11.5 percent)
Newt Gingrich (7.7 percent)
Rick Perry (5.9 percent)
Michele Bachmann (3.9 percent)
Rick Santorum (3.1 percent)
Jon Huntsman (1.2 percent)

Seems like Cain has actually increased his lead from earlier in the week.

Norwegian on October 21, 2011 at 6:51 PM

Here’s the link to this poll.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 7:31 PM

Note: the link is to a PDF file, in case folks aren’t using a PDF-capable device.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 7:35 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM

They’re keying on the word “choose” and “choice” and ignoring everything else. It’s a form of false argument, notably, Argument by Slogan.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

Explain how the government prevents the murderer from choosing to murder his victim?

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Revoke the doctor’s license and/or throw him in jail. That’s what the government can do once abortion becomes illegal. I think that’s reasonable.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM

They’re keying on the word “choose” and “choice” and ignoring everything else. It’s a form of false argument, notably, Argument by Slogan.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

I’m not sure what you mean, Jason. A person thinks about committing a crime and then chooses to do it (or chooses not do it), correct? It’s a thought process involving decision-making that is manifested in action (or inaction, depending on the choice made).

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM

Revoke the doctor’s license and/or throw him in jail. That’s what the government can do once abortion becomes illegal. I think that’s reasonable.
Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

What would be the charge?

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM

Cain says he’s 100% pro-life. We don’t know whether he is or not. We have to divine from his actions, deeds and words. If we use your analogy, Cain is saying the thief will make his choice, but we wont lock him up. There are no consequences.

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Cain doesn’t say that bolded part, Stossel injects it inappropriately. Cain says “no abortion” regardless of why the decision to abort is made.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:43 PM

All Cain had to say was…

“I’m pro-life, but will make the 3 exceptions.” That’s all he had to say and most, like me, would find that reasonable. Abortion is a trick y issue, but Cain’s performance was just bizarre and I’m still unsure where he stands.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 7:44 PM

Revoke the doctor’s license and/or throw him in jail. That’s what the government can do once abortion becomes illegal. I think that’s reasonable.

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 7:38 PM

That only deters abortion, it doesn’t stop it.

I’m assuming you’re pretty young Mr. P, correct me if I’m wrong.

Abortion has been illegal before, with exactly the same consequences you mention. That didn’t stop women from choosing to seek abortion and didn’t stop people from choosing to provide them.

I think we can safely say that if abortion were made illegal, a consequence for the practitioner would lose of license and jail. That doesn’t stop people choosing to break the law.

Try again.

So explain how government prevents the murderer from choosing to murder his victim?

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Exactly–they should be running mates. I have no idea what either one would really do if elected.
jazz_piano on October 21, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Probably wouldn’t have an abortion or put anyone else in jail who
did.

Cain has been as actively pro-life as any one of these candidates has been, not with just his mouth but his money. Maybe it’s because the black community has been participating in flat out infanticide, aborting 2 of every 3 black babies and it makes him sick. But he’s not into condemnation or incarceration like Santorum and Bachmann. Gee, how are they doing in the polls? Think there’s a connection?

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Cain says he’s 100% pro-life. We don’t know whether he is or not. We have to divine from his actions, deeds and words. If we use your analogy, Cain is saying the thief will make his choice, but we wont lock him up. There are no consequences.

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 7:33 PM

Cain doesn’t say that bolded part, Stossel injects it inappropriately. Cain says “no abortion” regardless of why the decision to abort is made.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011

And therein lies the problem. Cain, really a staunch and honorable pro-lifer since forever, doesn’t articulate that there should be any consequences for that family making the decision to end the life of a pre-born child. If Cain’s candidacy is to be viable over the long run, he must be seen as a straight shooter. If we want someone who is ‘not a politician’ then that person should not answer with dodges and ambiguities. “I’m 100% pro-life.” Clear. “If the family makes that decision…” No consequences, unclear and ambiguous.

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 7:44 PM

OHHHHHHH! It’s the lack of execeptions. . . . .Cain doesn’t support the three exceptions.

Why didn’t say so. So Cain is TOO Pro-life for you now.

So all of your points until now have been bogus. Well, yeah, they were, glad you admit it.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM

Yeah. Kind of hard to get your message out when every new message is “clarifying” a previous message.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 21, 2011 at 7:25 PM

Do you have a example to point to where Cain rushed out to clarify his position?

Or do you have bunch of media and bloggers asking the same questions from different angles and presenting hypotheticals?

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:28 PM

He’s had to clarify his position on abortion twice. QED.

Not against Cain here, but he muddled his own message.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 21, 2011 at 7:53 PM

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 7:50 PM

NOT the job of the Chief Executive.

That’s another point of Cain’s, ending the mucking about with abortion policy via executive order.

Kennedy allows with EO.
Reagan countermands Kennedy.
Bush Sr. tightens with EO.
Clinton countermands Bush and Reagan.
Bush Jr. countermands Clinton.
Obama countermands Bush Jr.

This is a major part of the problem with abortion in the United States. The Congress won’t make the law, so SCOTUS finds the law. Presidents try to end run SCOTUS by EO.

It’s time for a President to stand up and force Congress to present a law (a power the President does have by presenting Bills).

End the setting of Abortion Policy by EO decree, overturn RvW and force Congress into doing their job. Hopefully after the next President forces them to produce a budget.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:55 PM

He’s had to clarify his position on abortion twice. QED.

Not against Cain here, but he muddled his own message.

There Goes The Neighborhood on October 21, 2011 at 7:53 PM

His position never changed. The media just presented hypotheticals and had a conniption because he used the word choice to describe a decision.

Cain’s position has been consistent. NO abortion, no exceptions.

That Cain recognizes the restrictions of the Chief Executive is immaterial to his consistent position of No abortions, no exceptions for rape/incest.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:57 PM

I’m not sure what you mean, Jason. A person thinks about committing a crime and then chooses to do it (or chooses not do it), correct? It’s a thought process involving decision-making that is manifested in action (or inaction, depending on the choice made).

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 7:42 PM

We are accidentally talking past each other. I was describing why people were bending over backwards to find a way to call Cain pro-abortion and they were using the false argument, Argument by Slogan, because Cain used the word “choice” in reference to a decision to break or not break a law.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

That only deters abortion, it doesn’t stop it.

Well thank God you admit to SOME positive effect!

I’m assuming you’re pretty young Mr. P, correct me if I’m wrong.

Abortion has been illegal before, with exactly the same consequences you mention. That didn’t stop women from choosing to seek abortion and didn’t stop people from choosing to provide them.

You are SO wrong about that! What a bunch of baloney your twisted logic is. Before, when it was clearly illegal to have an abortion, there were back alley abortions, thousands of them, performed by disreputable people, not usually doctors. Today, when abortion is legal, there are millions of abortions. Whole communities are wiped away with such actions. When abortionists are outside the law and viewed as criminals there are far fewer of them and women are FAR less likely to make the criminal choice.

I think we can safely say that if abortion were made illegal, a consequence for the practitioner would lose of license and jail. That doesn’t stop people choosing to break the law.

As noted before, it stops MOST of them. Millions of pre-born children saved. Millions.

Try again.

So explain how government prevents the murderer from choosing to murder his victim?

I’d say you should try again, but you seem to be trying way too hard.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

This is worse than Sarah Palin not knowing what the Bush Doctrine was.
JackOfClubs on October 21, 2011 at 7:34 PM

oh please.that was made up by Dr. K. i’ve heard 4 or 5 different versions. was that your point?

Mr. Cain has lived this abortion issue and he knows exactly what it means, particulary in the black community where it is so prevalent. He’d have to condemn 2/3 of his church for heaven’s sake.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 8:05 PM

That only deters abortion, it doesn’t stop it.

I’m assuming you’re pretty young Mr. P, correct me if I’m wrong.

Abortion has been illegal before, with exactly the same consequences you mention. That didn’t stop women from choosing to seek abortion and didn’t stop people from choosing to provide them.

I think we can safely say that if abortion were made illegal, a consequence for the practitioner would lose of license and jail. That doesn’t stop people choosing to break the law.

Try again.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:48 PM

You have gone from trying to explain that Herman Cain is pro-life to explaining that to be pro-life is meaningless since we will never truly end the practice.

And yet you are calling me young and naive?

I agree we will never *truly* end murder, rape, or theft — but we will hold those accountable for their crimes. Who knows, maybe the criminalization of abortion — with sonogram laws and others — might just deter a few young girls from going through the procedure illegally and save a few more innocent babies. That’s called being pro-life. :-)

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 8:06 PM

NOT the job of the Chief Executive.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011

Wrong again. It’s not EXCLUSIVELY the job of Chief Executive. Your positioning of Cain seems to preclude activities of the bully pulpit – as if there’s no role to play for the President of the United States in matters of abortion. Cain has been ambiguous and has had to try and clarify his position on abortion – and he’s not been successful yet. He did that himself. Have no idea why you try to defend his lack of eloquence.

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 8:07 PM

I’m not sure exactly what problem people might have in understanding that for every law made there is going to be someone who chooses to break it. The point also went ZOOM over AP’s head.

I admit, until you mentioned it just now, it had never, ever occurred to me before. No, wait: What I meant to say is that it had occurred to me before, and in fact occurred to me while I was writing the post. Quote:

In fact, per Christian Heinze at the The Hill and Philip Klein at the Examiner, even in today’s answer there’s an element of choice insofar as Cain suggests that a pregnant woman might end up breaking the law to get an illegal abortion. That’s, er, true — some of them would end up doing that — but it’s an odd note for a man in his position to sound.

I already explained why a pro-life advocate and would-be president shouldn’t refer so casually to people opting for illegal abortions. Reject the argument if you like, but at least spare me the insinuation that Cain’s critics are too stupid to take his point.

Allahpundit on October 21, 2011 at 8:08 PM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011

I think that Cain could pull out a pistol and cap a girl scout on national television and you would have an explanation for why its really not that bad, and maybe we should all consider capping girl scouts.

sharrukin on October 21, 2011 at 8:12 PM

Mr. Prichard?

Are you under the impression that I’m Pro-Choice? I’m not.

I admit clearly that there will be a deterrent effect.

You’re off about something completely different from what I’m arguing.

Cain is Pro-life, no abortion, no exceptions for rape/incest.

Punchy and his faction are criticizing Cain because he stated that even if it were illegal, women could still make a choice to seek an illegal abortion (which they could). His use of the word choice does not indicate he is pro-abortion in any way. It just describes the decision a woman/family would have to make about whether to seek that back alley abortion or not.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:13 PM

I think that Cain could pull out a pistol and cap a girl scout on national television and you would have an explanation for why its really not that bad, and maybe we should all consider capping girl scouts.
sharrukin on October 21, 2011 at 8:12 PM

??huh

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 8:15 PM

We are accidentally talking past each other. I was describing why people were bending over backwards to find a way to call Cain pro-abortion and they were using the false argument, Argument by Slogan, because Cain used the word “choice” in reference to a decision to break or not break a law.
Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:00 PM

Ah, that happens. Yes, my point also is how I’m puzzled just exactly how “crimes will happen” becomes twisted into “let’s have more crime”.

It’s just an admission of what should be, to anyone, a painfully obvious reality. Same as observing that we can manufacture an endless supply of umbrellas but people are still gonna get wet. Just stating simple facts of real life.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 8:17 PM

Dang, I figured this would be a boring thread. That’s what I get for not catching the genius that is AP. Its a nutball magnet. Too bad I kind of like Cain but think this is another one of his rookie missteps. I still don’t think its a big a deal as some of y’all are wanting to make it.

Guess what, Billy Graham Jr. could get elected president and it wouldn’t change current abortion law.

cozmo on October 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM

Mr. Prichard?

Are you under the impression that I’m Pro-Choice? I’m not.

I admit clearly that there will be a deterrent effect.

You’re off about something completely different from what I’m arguing.

Cain is Pro-life, no abortion, no exceptions for rape/incest.

Punchy and his faction are criticizing Cain because he stated that even if it were illegal, women could still make a choice to seek an illegal abortion (which they could). His use of the word choice does not indicate he is pro-abortion in any way. It just describes the decision a woman/family would have to make about whether to seek that back alley abortion or not.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011

No, I believe you are pro-life, judging by your posts. What I take exception to is your stridency and inferences that any of these candidates, Cain in particular, shouldn’t be held to account for their statements, that its not necessary they be clear on very important issues. I believe Cain is what you say, but I AM unclear on what he would do regarding the legal/social aspects of abortion as President. I am unclear on his position, because HE hasn’t been clear.

Also, I don’t think Punchy and his ‘faction’ are saying what you’re saying they’re saying.

If there IS a deterrent effect, then shouldn’t we be trying to get someone elected who will CLEARLY seek to put those deterrents into place?

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 8:21 PM

Where in Cain’s 999 plan is there an opportunity zone to make abortions illegal?

RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:25 PM

I think that Cain could pull out a pistol and cap a girl scout on national television and you would have an explanation for why its really not that bad, and maybe we should all consider capping girl scouts.

sharrukin on October 21, 2011 at 8:12 PM

And you’d be wrong.

Cain’s not pro-choice, it’s as simple as that.

He’s not a politician who says alot without saying anything at all. He’s not giving us lines like safe, legal and rare. He’s not gving us Bush’s, “Surely we can find common ground to reduce the number of abortions in America”. He’s not couching his position based on the extremely small percentage of rape and incest cases.

He’s got a position the media are unwilling to accept:

No abortions, no exceptions for rape and incest

So they resort to inserting context, like Stossel did.

Or they resort to inappropriate hypotheticals about his granddaughter.

Or they make the claim that Presidents don’t make abortion policy with EO’s like Allah did.

Or they argue by slogan.

=======================================

I do appreciate your ad hominem against me, ‘tho. I’ll decline to return the favor.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Guess what, Billy Graham Jr. could get elected president and it wouldn’t change current abortion law.
cozmo on October 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM

That’s right. And I bet Billy Graham would come across like Cain did. WWJD. Try to teach, persuade, lead by example, etc. It’s really a matter of changing the nation’s heart.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM

Punchy and his faction are criticizing Cain because he stated that even if it were illegal, women could still make a choice to seek an illegal abortion (which they could). His use of the word choice does not indicate he is pro-abortion in any way. It just describes the decision a woman/family would have to make about whether to seek that back alley abortion or not.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:13 PM

LOL. Awesome,I have my own faction now.

Mr. Coleman, Cain does not want government touching abortion. That’s what he said.

Cain: That’s her choice. That is not government’s choice.

Cain: 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…

I’m ready for some more Herman Cain “clarifying”, Mr. Coleman. I like your “Argument by Slogan” defense — that’s great stuff. I hope you bring Chewbacca into Act II of your performance.

:-)

Punchenko on October 21, 2011 at 8:27 PM

I do appreciate your ad hominem against me, ‘tho. I’ll decline to return the favor.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:25 PM

Its your logic thats the problem.

Its very Clintonian.

sharrukin on October 21, 2011 at 8:28 PM

That only deters abortion, it doesn’t stop it.

I’m assuming you’re pretty young Mr. P, correct me if I’m wrong.

Abortion has been illegal before, with exactly the same consequences you mention. That didn’t stop women from choosing to seek abortion and didn’t stop people from choosing to provide them.

I think we can safely say that if abortion were made illegal, a consequence for the practitioner would lose of license and jail. That doesn’t stop people choosing to break the law.

Try again.

So explain how government prevents the murderer from choosing to murder his victim?

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 7:48 PM

Capital punishment “deters” but does not prevent murder. Guess we should just throw in the towel on prosecuting murderers, too.

“Deter” is a heck of a lot better than what we have now. “Deter” would prevent MOST abortions, not all, but MOST. But, according to you, since we can’t stop ALL abortions, due to people breaking the law, we shouldn’t even try.

This is not a conservaitve position, period.

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM

I think all the other candidates should step forward and state categorically that they will sign a bill to ban abortions on his/her first day as president, just to be clear.

RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Oh, and let’s stop trying to “deter” thievery, too. We can’t ever comepletely prevent it, so why even bother?

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:30 PM

. Too bad I kind of like Cain but think this is another one of his rookie missteps. I still don’t think its a big a deal as some of y’all are wanting to make it.

cozmo on October 21, 2011 at 8:19 PM

It’s not a big deal to the 14 million people out of work. It is a big deal for some our resident nutballs.

Knucklehead on October 21, 2011 at 8:32 PM

I already explained why a pro-life advocate and would-be president shouldn’t refer so casually to people opting for illegal abortions.
Allahpundit on October 21, 2011 at 8:08 PM

This is where we differ in that, when it comes to news, I prefer to I separate feelings from fact. The fact is Cain just stated an incredibly simple fact (people will break laws). You read your what-he-really-said feelings into that simple fact in a controversy-mfg wild goose chase.

If I had the bizarre urge to respond to someone simply stating a universally agreed fact – we’re not talkin’ a real newsflash here – and wanted to inject a snarky thought on such an observation, I would go with “No sheet, Mr.Obvious”.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM

No, I believe you are pro-life, judging by your posts. What I take exception to is your stridency and inferences that any of these candidates, Cain in particular, shouldn’t be held to account for their statements, that its not necessary they be clear on very important issues.

JonPrichard on October 21, 2011 at 8:21 PM

You do realize that the attempt on this very blog was made to say that President’s don’t set abortion policy by EO, correct?

That of course is not true, but the attempt was made by one of the bloggers here.

Cain rejects setting abortion policy by EO. As a chief executive he recognizes that it is not his place to make abortion policy by decree. Congress makes the law, the executive administers is, the courts interpret it.

In the video linked in this post, he says clearly that he will sign anti-abortion legislation. He’s stated his support for anti-abortion, strict-constitutionalist judges.

I think a large reason for your lack of clarity on Cain’s position is that people like Stossel have injected context into his statements like – “if it’s a choice, that means it’s legal” when it most certainly does not.

I think if you listen to Cain’s statements, and disregard the editorializing or the extrapolating by media and bloggers, you’ll have a better understanding of Cain’s position.

Or perhaps you’ll find a statement that shows me wrong. I’d welcome that because defending against these repeated false arguments is tiring.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM

I think all the other candidates should step forward and state categorically that they will sign a bill to ban abortions on his/her first day as president, just to be clear.

RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Perry has said he supports an amedment to the Constitution to protect the unborn. Gingrich has said that he would immediately sign the Mexico City policy again to stop US tax $$ from funding abortions over-seas (all Republican POTUSes have done this, though, so it’s pretty much par for the course).

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Oh, and let’s stop trying to “deter” thievery, too. We can’t ever comepletely prevent it, so why even bother?

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:30 PM

Is anyone saying “don’t bother”. Cain sure isn’t. I’m sure not.

Cain has consistently said “No abortion, no exceptions for rape/incest.”

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:34 PM

I think all the other candidates should step forward and state categorically that they will sign a bill to ban abortions on his/her first day as president, just to be clear.
RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Oh yah, that would go over like a turd in a punchbowel. And the only turd left floating would be Santorum. Obama…4 more years.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 8:36 PM

Perry has said he supports an amedment to the Constitution to protect the unborn.

he knows that’s not gonna happen so he’d be happy to do it. that’s the shifty politician in him.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:34 PM

By not enforcing the law, yes, you are giving up. “Paper tiger” doesn’t even begin to describe this untenable position.

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Perry has said he supports an amedment to the Constitution to protect the unborn. Gingrich has said that he would immediately sign the Mexico City policy again to stop US tax $$ from funding abortions over-seas (all Republican POTUSes have done this, though, so it’s pretty much par for the course).

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM

Cain supports the Human Life Amendment, and has stated so every time he’s been asked.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:39 PM

I think all the other candidates should step forward and state categorically that they will sign a bill to ban abortions on his/her first day as president, just to be clear.
RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM

But….but…but…that would entail obsessively examining and re-examining every word in minutiae for days on end of other candidates.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 8:41 PM

By not enforcing the law

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:38 PM

Cain’s not indicated that he wouldn’t enforce the law. He’s actually stated the obvious, that choosing the illegal abortion would be in fact, illegal.

Cain never said anything about not enforcing the law. Do you have some basis for this?

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:43 PM

Perry has said he supports an amedment to the Constitution to protect the unborn.
Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 8:33 PM

No, he’s for the pre-Roe patchwork of laws, state by state:
Rick Perry Categorizes Abortion as a States’ Rights Issue

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 8:45 PM

I think all the other candidates should step forward and state categorically that they will sign a bill to ban abortions on his/her first day as president, just to be clear.
RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:29 PM

Well, that would require Congress to pass such a bill.

An EO to ban abortion would be struck down by the courts within minutes and a Presidential decree won’t overturn RvW.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:45 PM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:45 PM

good work, Jason.

gracie on October 21, 2011 at 8:50 PM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:45 PM

No doubt, and Congress does not have the gonads to even put a bill on the president’s desk. The point is moot.

RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:53 PM

RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 8:53 PM

I think you’re wrong there. However, there is a pretty well defined way in which it would have to go down.

First. You need to overturn RvW. That requires a Pro-Life President and a Republican Senate.

Second. A President can present a Bill. Not Obama style of letting Congress write up a bill based on you speech, but an actual bill presented by the Executive.

Third. You need a Republican House and Senate.

That’s about the only path to make it happen.

Everything else is just kicking the can back and forth across the aisle.

———————-

Now what you can do is eliminate all federal funding for abortion, and write that bill with teeth. Teeth that yanks all funding for any organization even tangentially associated with abortion.

THAT is doable without overturning RvW.

And. . . in this climate with regard to spending, you might not even need 60 Senators to get it done.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 8:45 PM

No, he supports an amendment. Check out #7:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Well, it’s been fun. Time for dinner and a movie.

Have a good night.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 9:04 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 8:45 PM

No, he supports an amendment. Check out #7:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/seven-ways-rick-perry-wants-change-constitution-131634517.html

-Aslan’s Girl

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:00 PM

Thank you for the newslink, AG.

So he went from “Jul 27, 2011 8:32pm -
Rick Perry Categorizes Abortion as a States’ Rights Issue”
to
“Fri, Aug 19, 2011 – Seven ways Rick Perry wants to change the Constitution”

How is that not a major flip-flop – in less than a month?

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM

I can see an effort to cut funding to abortion, especially as part of the repeal of Obamacare. As a stand-alone legislation I don’t think it would go anywhere even with a GOP president and both houses of Congress, no matter where the bill originated.

RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:59 PM

I can see an effort to cut funding to abortion, especially as part of the repeal of Obamacare. As a stand-alone legislation I don’t think it would go anywhere even with a GOP president and both houses of Congress, no matter where the bill originated.

RedRedRice on October 21, 2011 at 9:12 PM

Yes, you can defund taxpayer funded abortions. A Constitutional amendment ain’t gonna happen, so it’s easy and meaningless to sign on to a “pledge” to “pass” one.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:18 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Nah, he supports tossing it back to the states to reduce most abortions right away; that’s the quickest way to do that. Then, if Congress passes an amendment and it gets to his desk, he’ll sign that into law. He still supports the states’ right aspect, no flip-flop. He’s just saying he’ll support the other if it comes to his desk.

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Oh, and supporting an amendment is still supporting states’ rights because ALL states have to vote for or against an amendment. It’s not done by fiat. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:23 PM

Capitalist piglet and punchenko are seriously screwed in the head. They make it a point to troll EVERY Cain thread. Makes me think race IS an issue with those two. I dislike Romney, but I’m not on every Romney thread bashing him for simply breathing like those two do to Cain.

Hard Right on October 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM

The race card now? You can go to hell.

capitalist piglet on October 21, 2011 at 9:30 PM

Nah, he supports tossing it back to the states to reduce most abortions right away; that’s the quickest way to do that. Then, if Congress passes an amendment and it gets to his desk, he’ll sign that into law. He still supports the states’ right aspect, no flip-flop. He’s just saying he’ll support the other if it comes to his desk.

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Makes sense.

capitalist piglet on October 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM

Not quite as loyal as Palinistas are to Palin, maybe, but they’re getting there. Patience.

LOL so says (hopes) the cynical, snarky, beta, unhappy and dissatisfied AP…AP, do you believe you have the expertise to understand and/or explain the mentality of people who ascribe to the following line of Marxist thought? I refuse to join any club that would have me as a member.

As someone who’s neither passive nor passive-aggressive, I will happily tell you that I don’t believe you do have the necessary qualifications to understand/explain their thinking – people like you are more interested in spending your time trying to find inconsistencies in what a person is saying than you are trying to understand where s/he’s actually coming from, so you get hung up on the particular words they choose to use to convey their points i.e. you’re one of those people who isn’t very adept at seeing the forest through the trees.

When I see Cain unselfconsciously think aloud in public like this and get excoriated for doing so by the likes of you, it endears him to me even more, and it reminds me why I have a strong tendency towards disliking politicians and political junkies – as I said, no, I don’t expect you to understand what I am saying here! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on October 21, 2011 at 9:31 PM

I actually thought you made that up.
We are in so much trouble.
Oh Crap

sharrukin on October 21, 2011 at 7:27 PM

Oh no – I don’t make anything up. Even something as scary as that. : )

And Knucklehead, thank you for the link to the poll.

capitalist piglet on October 21, 2011 at 9:34 PM

OH OH Now, the Weekly Standard and National Review Online have picked up on some of Cain’s previous stances and remarks on abortion AND THEY’RE WORSE (Especially what I posted after the “AND”):

http://tinyurl.com/3j87235

http://tinyurl.com/3qqelqr

But Cain’s first run for office didn’t happen until 2004, when he ran (and lost in the primary) for a Georgia senate seat. Why the delay? At least one reason, according to a 1998 piece in Nation’s Restaurant News that explores why Cain decided against running for a Nebraska senate seat in 2000, is that he wasn’t comfortable with campaigning on social issues:

After meeting with political consultants and past and present senators, Cain said he had determined that while he has very strong and distinct opinions about business-related matters, he is less clear-cutin his stances on social issues and was not ready to appease voters by taking stands on those issues.

“Too many people in the electorate are single-issue voters,” he commented, “and to try and cater to the single-issue voters and the single-issue pockets out there felt like I was compromising my beliefs. As an example, with the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing.”

He added, “I am not a social-issue crusader. I am a free-enterprise crusader.”

AND

In another interview when he ran for US Senate in Georgia in 2004:

Are there circumstances under which he thinks abortion should be legal?

There’s a four-second pause. “Ahhh,” [Cain] sighs, going silent for 16 seconds.

“You’re asking, are there circumstances in which it should be legal?” Yes.

“Let me get back to you on that. I need to mull this over because that question can be a trap either way you go. I don’t want to be inconsistent with what I have said in the past.”You have to mull it over? You have to make sure it matches what you said before? WOW, wouldn’t need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

TriciaNC on October 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:06 PM

Nah, he supports tossing it back to the states to reduce most abortions right away; that’s the quickest way to do that. Then, if Congress passes an amendment and it gets to his desk, he’ll sign that into law. He still supports the states’ right aspect, no flip-flop. He’s just saying he’ll support the other if it comes to his desk.
Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Where has he said that? To go with a phrase offered up here a lot, “it needs to be clarified”. And even if that were the case, he’s trying to have it both ways in an attempt to cover the political bases. As I mentioned above, a Constitutional amendment on abortion just isn’t going to be, which means he’s be stuck with with the patchwork of state’s laws – if even that.

I’m not sure what “tossing it back to the states” means in reality, how would he do that?

Do you know if he has a position on abortion in cases of rape and incest?

I have to confess I giggled at this line from your newslink:
“Perry at one time believed that abortion policy should be left to the states”. It was just three weeks prior, lol.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:38 PM

Oh, and supporting an amendment is still supporting states’ rights because ALL states have to vote for or against an amendment. It’s not done by fiat. The two positions are not mutually exclusive.
Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:23 PM

I think I covered that above, the “having it both ways” to cover political bases.

On Constitutional amendments – I support one that has free pizza delivered to me every day. I’ll even sign a pledge on that!
(Of course, I might have better luck with Cain on that!)

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:43 PM

TriciaNC on October 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Cain’s only exception is “life of the mother” and even then he’s reluctant to talk about it. . . why???

Courts have already determined that “life of the mother” can be expanded to “health of the mother” and then that has been expanded to “mental health of the mother” which then makes the exception cover anyone who wants it, because to deny it would cause “depression” or “possible suicide”. (See Idaho’s “no exceptions” law)

=========================

Ok, now I’m out.

Have a good night.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 9:58 PM

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 9:20 PM

Duh, I didn’t mean he’d “sign it”, I meant he’d support it. Of course I know the POTUS doesn’t sign amendments into law, :rollseyes at self:

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 10:00 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:38 PM

His book is all about states’ rights. Have you read it?

Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 10:01 PM

National Review Online have picked up on some of Cain’s previous stances and remarks on abortion AND THEY’RE WORSE
TriciaNC on October 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

Your link to NRO didn;t work, but I did find this there:

NRLC ‘Confident’ that Cain’s Pro-Life
October 21, 2011
The National Right to Life Committee has no concerns about Herman Cain’s commitment to the pro-life position.
“Herman Cain’s pro-life,” says David O’Steen, executive director of the National Right to Life Committee, noting that Cain has “clarified” the comments he made on CNN earlier this week about abortion.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 10:02 PM

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 9:38 PM
His book is all about states’ rights. Have you read it?
Aslans Girl on October 21, 2011 at 10:01 PM

Nah, I think in lowest circle in Hades the punishment is to read politician’s me & my life books, penned by a ghostwriters, for all of eternity. Dreadful, self-serving stuff. Not just Perry, any politician – especially when it’s springboard fodder for a campaign.

Probably the last book I read that’s in that neighborhood was “The Conscience of a Conservative”. Interesting read.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 10:13 PM

JOBS!

And why should I choose some abortion absolutist who will never see their preference rendered law or a position triangulated politician who lacks core conviction (a.k.a. Romney)?

Enough distraction.

exdeadhead on October 21, 2011 at 10:15 PM

“Let me get back to you on that. I need to mull this over because that question can be a trap either way you go. I don’t want to be inconsistent with what I have said in the past.”You have to mull it over? You have to make sure it matches what you said before? WOW, wouldn’t need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

TriciaNC on October 21, 2011 at 9:35 PM

What exactly is your problem with what he did there? Should he not care about intellectually consistency? Should he not openly verbalize that he’s wrestling with the issue in some way?

You see his statements there and assume the worst, so you hold them against him, while someone like me, who is actively concerned with intellectually integrity, sees them and assumes the best, so I don’t hold any of what he says against him until I hear him say, “This is my final answer”. Once he does that, it becomes a different issue for me.

Are you aware that Harry Truman admitted to being prejudiced, yet he ordered the military to racially integrate blacks anyways? What do you judge him by in that regard, the racial slurs he used before, during, and after his presidency, or the action he took on integration against overwhelming public opposition?

Impatient, fault-finding people like you are not constructive.

Bizarro No. 1 on October 21, 2011 at 10:28 PM

JOBS!
And why should I choose some abortion absolutist who will never see their preference rendered law or a position triangulated politician who lacks core conviction (a.k.a. Romney)?
Enough distraction.
exdeadhead on October 21, 2011 at 10:15 PM

While I don’t agree with all your comment – and didn’t understand some of it – I think you have a point. Hot button issues like abortion are primarily the one-issue group draws, a much narrower segment than most of Americans who are impacted daily by a horrid economy and loss of jobs.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM

I should think this’d be moved to Top Picks.

MadisonConservative on October 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM

In another interview when he ran for US Senate in Georgia in 2004:

Are there circumstances under which he thinks abortion should be legal?

There’s a four-second pause. “Ahhh,” [Cain] sighs, going silent for 16 seconds.

“You’re asking, are there circumstances in which it should be legal?” Yes.

“Let me get back to you on that. I need to mull this over because that question can be a trap either way you go. I don’t want to be inconsistent with what I have said in the past.”

You have to mull it over? You have to make sure it matches what you said before?

It’s at the last 4 paragraphs in the article here:

http://tinyurl.com/3j87235

WOW, wouldn’t need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

TriciaNC on October 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM

Is anyone saying “don’t bother”. Cain sure isn’t. I’m sure not.

Cain has consistently said “No abortion, no exceptions for rape/incest.”

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 8:34 PM

That’s not good enough – believing what he says he’ll do as President about abortion, while you are aware that he is at the same time taking his own sweet time to articulate on his own terms what his personal views on abortion are, proves that you’re just a shill for Cain.

You’re just making excuses for him, and, as AllahPalpatine omnisciently said, you Cainiacs, too, will succumb to personality cultism and become like the Palinistas! Stop fighting the truth, Jason!!! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on October 21, 2011 at 10:58 PM

WOW, wouldn’t need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

TriciaNC on October 21, 2011 at 10:50 PM

There are no other possible truthful conclusions to draw than the one you arrived at, correct, God, er, I mean Tricia?

Bizarro No. 1 on October 21, 2011 at 11:03 PM

With everything that’s going on, the same old socon types top priority is to put the govt in charge of pregnancy. Pathetic.

Good thing you are a just niche of the population. I know. You really, really believe you are mainstream. You are in a bible bubble.

Moesart on October 21, 2011 at 11:15 PM

Bizaro@10:58

What exactly are you saying is “not good enough”

How do you square the inconsistency between your 10:28 and 10:58 positions.

Calling me a shill for Cain is nothing but an ad hominem attack on me and means nothing. It’s also silly as I’ve also consistently defended Perry and Palin from the plethora of false arguments that currently plague Hotair.

I’ve also consistently defended Newt when posters drag out the false “He divorced his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer” tripe. It wasn’t cancer and she asked for the divorce.

Cain’s held a consistent position on abortion for his entire public life. No one has yet shown otherwise.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 11:24 PM

and didn’t understand some of it

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 10:31 PM

Brevity isn’t always so witty ‘twould seem.

Jobs are priority one for me and the electorate. Focus on abortion prompted by unfriendly media questioning should be called out and ignored. A simple “go to my website” would suffice in response.

The best result abortion absolutists can expect is legal but rare. Maybe some states would render it illegal if Roe v Wade is reveresed (which only forces the determined to cross state lines), but this result can only be achieved via right side judicial appointments, which Cain favors. Abortion becomes rare when the impregnated become counseled about the life inside and alternatives to killing it. Forcing back alley abortions really is no longer an option.

Romney has no core. He is a political wind sock.

exdeadhead on October 21, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Brevity isn’t always so witty ‘twould seem.

Jobs are priority one for me and the electorate. Focus on abortion prompted by unfriendly media questioning should be called out and ignored. A simple “go to my website” would suffice in response.

The best result abortion absolutists can expect is legal but rare. Maybe some states would render it illegal if Roe v Wade is reveresed (which only forces the determined to cross state lines), but this result can only be achieved via right side judicial appointments, which Cain favors. Abortion becomes rare when the impregnated become counseled about the life inside and alternatives to killing it. Forcing back alley abortions really is no longer an option.

Romney has no core. He is a political wind sock.

exdeadhead on October 21, 2011 at 11:35 PM

Yup. Can’t find a whole lot to disagree with there.

whatcat on October 21, 2011 at 11:42 PM

I should think this’d be moved to Top Picks.

MadisonConservative on October 21, 2011 at 10:40 PM

I’ve thought that too since this afternoon, when the comment count passed the second of three Cain-abortion posts on HotAir in two days.

I don’t like to speculate, but I’d imagine there’s a little bit of embarrassment at play as Tina first tried to stir the pot with the Morgan interview, where the inappropriate hypotheticals were offered by a hostile media to knock Cain from his “no abortion” position, then Allah followed it up with the second Cain “no abortion” post and farcically suggested that EO’s aren’t commonly used to set abortion policy (they are), and now we have this one where we’re presented with the trick question “if it’s illegal, and they choose to seek an abortion, that’d be illegal right?” question.

It’s interesting to see the supposed conservative side media/blog/complex presented with something they’ve never really been presented with from a national candidate before. Someone who is Pro-Life (from conception) and who also refuses to make exceptions for rape and incest (Stossel’s shock).

I expect in the next few days we’ll see another media interview where the questioning again turns to this topic and the demand for Cain to “clarify” comes again with another hypothetical, contextual extrapolation and set piece question trap is offered.

You know who this helps, right?

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Jobs are priority one for me and the electorate. Focus on abortion prompted by unfriendly media questioning should be called out and ignored. A simple “go to my website” would suffice in response.

exdeadhead on October 21, 2011 at 11:35 PM

I’m not disagreeing with you here. I agree that that would probably be the easiest and most painless course.

However, I respect Cain for A) not taking the easy way out, and B)leveraging this for some pretty wide ranging press on the left and the right.

Cain is at an economic disadvantage from the perpetual campaign machine that Romney has amassed and the volume of cash that attracts establishment Republicans like moths to a flame. He’s also been in the game from the start, slowly building momentum and didn’t jump in midrace to great fanfare and a huge polling burst followed by the Texas political cash machine that tuned itself on two Bush terms and has sat idly by the past 4 years.

Cain’s dominated the news cycle and spent little to nothing to do it. He’s also doing it at a politically opportune time as after another week or so of this, the MSM will tire of it and producers will be forced to move on and declare Cain’s abortion stance “covered.”

It’s shrewd, even if it wasn’t intended to be so.

I guess that is what happens when you put a non-politician in the race for politics top slot.

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 12:56 AM

Wow, the media and AP are really trying to bend over backwards to make this an issue, when they really don’t have a logical argument against Cain on this.

Cain is Pro-Life.

Cain is against using the Executive to set abortion policy.

Cain WOULD sign anti-abortion legislation if it is presented to him.

Cain recognizes that merely making abortion illegal will not end abortion completely.

Cain recognizes that if abortion were made illegal, there would still be those who seek an illegal abortion.

Cain’s recognizing that people will break the law does not make him supportive of lawbreakers, it just means he recognizes that there will be lawbreakers. That’s actually more being more realistic than most candidates ever are.

It seems like AP and some others are trying to suggest that merely designating it as illegal it would stop and no one would choose to seek an illegal abortion. Further, that recognizing that people will choose to break the law, somehow makes breaking the law “normal”; that’s just not logical.

Abortion has been going on since before mankind settled into permanent settlements. Societies can either take steps to encourage it’s availability or discourage its availability, that’s it, society can NEVER stop abortion 100%, there will ALWAYS be people who seek it out, legal or illegal.

What the “movement” wants is immaterial when you are the Chief Executive. The Chief Executive is there to administer the law, not create it, and certainly not to advance a societal movement by decree.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 5:51 PM

Comment winner!

With one exception, your comment about “AP …really trying to bend over backwards to make this an issue.”

AP simply reported the “issue” or Cain’s remark, which has been fanned into a form of hyperbole-confusion about Cain — in other words, yet another, tiresome media effort by the Left to reduce a GOP candidate (Cain, in this case) to a stumbling, mumbling, illiterate fool.

Recall Hillary Clinton while on “official” Secretary of State business laughing aloud in ridicule of Herman Cain, alleging he can’t name the leaders of other nations (which Cain admitted he was not able to do as to the more obscure nations elsewhere, but really, that’s refreshing honesty from Cain). To Hillary, being the shrew and spiteful rube that she is, she actually used her office as SoS to go to another nation and to ridicule Cain to the head of another nation before foreign press. That was a classic case of Hillary Clinton being utterly rank, utterly corrupt, utterly a bas*ard of a sliming Democrat.

So the media has fanned it more but the MOTIVE, the reason they’re doing so, is because they’re in need of reducing Cain, who is popular among the Right and among Independents (and even some Democrats), to mush.

AP isn’t doing that — he’s reporting the situation.

Cain’s remarks are confusing, not entirely clearly expressed, yes, but even so, I had no problem understanding his point.

He’s pro-life, he regards abortion as the intentional act of murder of a human being. Many of us on the Right feel likewise.

That ISN’T Cain claiming he would, if President, somehow “make abortion illegal” because the Executive Branch can’t take that action and I’m sure Cain is aware of that.

But asked what HIS VIEWS ARE as to abortion, there he says his views, and he acknowledges that some others will differ and engage in the deed anyway (“that’s their choice” should abortion ever be illegal, to engage in illegality).

It’s not the clearest of statements but it’s not all that confusing as some would have others believe.

Even though murder is illegal, some still engage in it. Even though burglary is illegal, some still engage in it. Even if forgery is illegal, some still engage in it. Some make “personal choices” to engage in deeds and acts despite social disapproval and even criminal penalty. Their choice.

That’s what Cain is expressing — he’s acknowledging that should abortion become illegal (again, illegal), that “it’s their choice” should others engage in it. He’s not saying it’s OK to engage in it, he’s not saying that it’s OK to violate laws (legal and/or moral ones), he’s simply acknowledging that individuals chose their individual acts.

Lourdes on October 22, 2011 at 2:07 AM

And the Left, Leftmedia, is going to continue to pose these hot-button social issue “questions” to Republican candidates right up until November 2012 and certainly afterward to our Republican President elected (God willing, God granting us).

The REASON they pose these social questions to GOP candidates and certainly will continue to do so with our nominee later is that they know they’ll be able to generate animus about the answer afterward, WHATEVER the answer is.

WHATEVER any GOP candidate and later, nominee, says will be used by Leftmedia to mash-up and rehash and denigrate whoever says what. So it’s not the answer that’s the issue so much as this is one of the tried-and-true social issue muck-up processes used to dissipate and confuse the voters.

They KNOW Obama is gungho on abortion because he (and the wife) make sure everyone knows they are so (and Barack Obama is rated “the most pro-abortion politician” identified, both before and after his term in the Presidency).

So he has the pro-abortion interests in his pocket. The Left can’t use his pro-abortion views and works (nor the wife’s) to ridicule him (or her) because they know their customers are of like mind (and would be angry if they analyzed the Obama-pro-abortion record and views).

But the Leftmedia also knows that the pro-life voters are predominantly on the Right, among the GOP. So they’re pursuing this critical social issue to both weaken voter integrity on the Right and to try to ruin the credibility (“pro-lifers are stupid people”) of GOP candidates who are pro-life.

Lourdes on October 22, 2011 at 2:16 AM

…Allah followed it up with the second Cain “no abortion” post and farcically suggested that EO’s aren’t commonly used to set abortion policy (they are)…

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 12:47 AM

No Executive Order (“EO”) is “commonly” (if not actually) going to make any difference with the issue of abortion because it’s already established by the Supreme Court that it’s “allowed” (therefore, “legal”, based upon Roe v. Wade). An EO can’t change that, it can only make policy for an Administration as to desired funding for whom and for what (as in, make some policy by EO that would establish some panel or Office or Czar that would be required to review and/or approve federal funding for abortions, etc. and/or declare an Administration’s views which would be expected to influence national behaviors…

…but it could NOT alter the Supreme Court decision as to laws. To do that, we will need to overturn Roe v. Wade and it appears quite possible that that might occur.

Lourdes on October 22, 2011 at 2:23 AM

Lourdes on October 22, 2011 at 2:23 AM

On the other hand, Obama has somehow managed by EO to get our Justice Dept. to avoid enforcing some of our laws, which I find intolerable but Congress has allowed this to continue and I don’t know why.

So I imagine through INFLUENCE that an EO “could” alter how laws were enforced, an EO to my knowledge couldn’t overturn or make void a Supreme Court decision on what is law and what isnt’.

I guess it comes down to the Executive Branch carrying great influence as to how it’s Administration functions and what acts it takes or refuses to. So what AP wrote originally is right (“…Allah followed it up with the second Cain “no abortion” post and…suggested that EO’s aren’t commonly used to set abortion policy…”).

Lourdes on October 22, 2011 at 2:26 AM

Maybe some states would render it illegal if Roe v Wade is reveresed (which only forces the determined to cross state lines), but this result can only be achieved via right side judicial appointments, which Cain favors. Abortion becomes rare when the impregnated become counseled about the life inside and alternatives to killing it. Forcing back alley abortions really is no longer an option…

exdeadhead on October 21, 2011 at 11:35 PM

“Back alley” behaviors occur all the time by personal option, “choice.” Some people behave in all kinds of demented, wrong-headed, absurd and ugly deeds and always will (and always have) but society in general doesn’t have to make their wrong deeds legitimate or sanction them by deeming them free from reprimand just because these things occur.

The ESSENCE OF THIS ISSUE is protection of defenseless human life. An unborn human being cannot defend itself from harms and because of that, society seeks to defend them from harms. Their LIVES are at risk in some situations and that risk is the critical issue here: the unborn cannot pick up weapons to defend themselves, they can’t run away from mortal threat, they can’t call out for friends or neighbors to come to their helps, there is no way out of danger for the unborn, so, thus, society seeks to come to their aid and assistance when their lives are threatened with mortal danger.

An adult can and does think and reason for themselves, they can take defensive actions to maintain their life, they can make telephone calls for emergency aid, they can run away, ask the neighbors for helps, pick up weapons in the worst case situations and use them against immediate threats. No unborn human being has these options. Thus, society responds to help the most defenseless among us, the unborn.

People who find pregnancy unbearable have other options beyond ending the life of their unborn child. With the ease and availability of abortion on demand today, these people with these problems are not taking advantage of other options and most surely are rejecting the awareness of what they are actually doing when they participate in an abortion.

Lourdes on October 22, 2011 at 2:35 AM

Bizaro@10:58

What exactly are you saying is “not good enough”

How do you square the inconsistency between your 10:28 and 10:58 positions.

Calling me a shill for Cain is nothing but an ad hominem attack on me and means nothing. It’s also silly as I’ve also consistently defended Perry and Palin from the plethora of false arguments that currently plague Hotair.

I’ve also consistently defended Newt when posters drag out the false “He divorced his wife while she was in the hospital with cancer” tripe. It wasn’t cancer and she asked for the divorce.

Cain’s held a consistent position on abortion for his entire public life. No one has yet shown otherwise.

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 11:24 PM

Jason – I was teasing you. I agree with you about Herman! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on October 22, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Lourdes on October 22, 2011 at 2:23 AM

I’m not sure if you’re aware. It’s pretty obvious AP wasn’t.

President Kennedy established federal funding for abortion via EO.
President Reagan countermanded Kennedy’s EO
President Bush Sr. tightened restrictions on abortion via EO
President Clinton countermanded Reagan’s and Bush Sr.’s EO’s and expanded Kennedy’s
President Bush Jr. countermanded Clinton.
President Obama countermanded Bush.

Presidents have been using Executive Orders to expand and contract federal funding and access to abortion for quite some time.

The courts found law, Congress refuses to act, so both sides have been ping-ponging abortion back and forth via EO.

Cain wants to end this practice, he’ll need Congress’ help to do that, but he’s the only candidate willing to take on this particular problem of setting abortion policy by EO.

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 2:38 AM

Jason – I was teasing you. I agree with you about Herman! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on October 22, 2011 at 2:36 AM

Roger that. My sincere apologies. Kinda embarrassed now. Really glad now that, I deleted the screed I’d originally banged out.

It started:

Ok, that’s it why bother anymore, lemme show ya’ll how to really make some false arguments. . . .

Then it went into an ad hom on Romney, affirm the consequent on Newt, amazing familiarity on Perry, ambig assert on Bachmann, AAA on Paul, AA on Santorum, A to C on Huntsman, back to the top with A to C2 on Romney, A to FA on Newt and so on.

Got all the way down to Argument by Bafflement before I just gave up and decided I’d never be able to hit submit.

Salut!

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 2:47 AM

Jason Coleman on October 21, 2011 at 11:24 PM

To further clarify, I was mocking those who would seriously say to you what I was saying in jest.

While I don’t agree with Alinsky that ridicule is man’s most potent weapon, I do admit that I enjoy mocking people and/or their ideas when they take them too seriously. Herman’s pretty much right – America does need to get a better sense of humor!

PS here’s an unsolicited compliment from me: you strike me as a very honorable person. :)

Bizarro No. 1 on October 22, 2011 at 2:51 AM

Bizarro No. 1 on October 22, 2011 at 2:51 AM</blockquote

Thanks for the compliment.

As far as mocking/ridicule, I can battle in the trenches with the best of them. I just don't relish the idea of friendly fire.

Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 3:07 AM

How is a smaller government going to add yet another war to its portfolio – a war on abortion? We’re already fighting the war on drugs and losing by all accounts. Will a war on abortion fix everything?

There seems to be an exceptionally strong market for it, evil practice or not. Legislating against the marketplace requires tremendous enforcement efforts be put into place leading to gangsters and Elliot Ness characters.

We seem to be winning a war on tobacco, whether right or wrong. And we’re doing it by converting smoking into something so rude and crude even the nastiest people don’t want to smoke at the same time we raise the taxes on it. We’re removing the market demand for tobacco rather than trying to make its use illegal. Perhaps that is what must be done about abortion. Making it illegal does not work. I remember the 60s and how easy it was to get abortions despite it being very illegal where I lived. Remove the market demand. Otherwise you create bigger government to enforce the unenforceable.

{^_^}

herself on October 22, 2011 at 3:56 AM

I expect in the next few days we’ll see another media interview where the questioning again turns to this topic and the demand for Cain to “clarify” comes again with another hypothetical, contextual extrapolation and set piece question trap is offered.

This would be a good time to be selling dead horses for the beating frenzy.

You know who this helps, right?
Jason Coleman on October 22, 2011 at 12:47 AM

Both the candidate Jesus hates the most and the one Jesus loves the most?
(h/t to The Most Reverend Robert Jeffries)
:D

whatcat on October 22, 2011 at 9:09 AM

I understand what he is saying and i agree.

I am anti abortion, hate that it is even an option, and would never consider it, but you know what. When it comes to rape or incest, or even getting knocked up as a 15 year old. Its not a decision i want to make for anyone else. Let them explain it to God.

Dont get me wrong, aborting a baby is disgusting, but i refuse to force my beliefs on someone else….even in this instance.

Does life start at conception? You can believe that but you cant prove it. If some gets a few cells sucked out of them at 4 weeks i cant get any more upset than if someone was raped and did the same thing.

I know it wont be a popular viewpoint on this boards. I just totally get what Cain is trying to say. He doesnt believe in abortion but he isnt going to make it a big priority to change federal law.

You rock Herman Cain.

alecj on October 22, 2011 at 12:30 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4