Reacting to the flurry of stories about his abortion position, Herman Cain just tweeted, “I’m 100% pro-life. End of story.”
A well-connected Georgia Republican and social conservative e-mails that “To my knowledge he [Cain] is strongly pro-life. Not sure about the statement he made in the John Stossel interview, but my understanding is he [only supports exceptions for the] life of the mother only.”
I’ve looked a little more into Cain’s past statements about abortion and found a couple more things. One, he served as spokesperson for a group called America’s PAC. That group aired a radio ad with this narrative, “Today, one-third of African-American pregnancies end in abortion. Black babies are terminated at triple the rate of white babies. The Democrat Party supports these liberal abortion laws that are decimating our people. Democrats say they want our votes. Why don`t they want our lives?” in 2006. In an interview at the time with Fox News host Neil Cavuto, Cain defended the ads against criticism, saying, “It is designed to be a wakeup call for people to not just look at the party, but look at the candidates and the values they stand for. And that is what this is intended to do.”
But back in 1999, Cain still wasn’t comfortable with publicly discussing his views on abortion. Check out this excerpt from a National Journal article:
If he runs, Cain says he will advocate market-oriented reforms of health care and Social Security, plus a ‘’simpler and fairer’’ tax system. Each of these issues ranks high on the GOP’s economic agenda. But unlike many in his party, Cain opposes school vouchers for private schools and backs efforts only to ’'revisit,’’ not eliminate, affirmative action. He declined to give his position on abortion rights.
In the primaries, Cain’s moderate social stances could pose problems.
Wow, this whole issue is just opportunistic garbage. If you watch the interview it is obvious they are talking about incest or rape. I guess many on the right really do prefer political pros who speak only in carefully crafted meaningless language - any opportunity to parse and it is an example that the candidate is unfit to be president. I guess we are supposed to be electing the best spin doctor. Mitt Romney is on video being both passionately pro-abortion and passionately pro-life for pete's sake.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseNo, we want his language to be both carefully crafted and meaningful. Those two characteristics are not mutually exclusive. Failing that (as we all do fail from time to time), we want it at least to be meaningful.
Now, Cain is certainly entitled to clarify his statements; indeed, we're all begging him to do so. But all we get is another vehement statement, with no explanation for what seem to be inconsistencies, followed by "end of story." He is going to have to do much better.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"But back in 1999, Cain still wasn’t comfortable with publicly discussing his views on abortion."
As late as 2002, Romney was quite explicit in his being "unequivocal" about being pro-choice.
I understand, I understand: as a reporter, one has to report even old information if it's news to the general public, but I think that one should provide a little context about the presumptive front-runner's views on abortion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI agree with Lawrence - who cares if a businessman who was only then just considering whether to make a first run for office was comfortable talking about social issues. Maybe he hadn't really thought about them enough to have solid positions. Maybe he had a gut reaction but didn't feel like he had a firm and communicable reason for having those positions
We allow people to "see the light" and completely change their position on the abortion issue (see Romney) - I'm not sure why we should be less accepting of someone who never held much of a position at all coming over to our side.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat % pro-life is Romney, Katrina?
Today is Thursday, if that helps.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm more offended by his "End of story" than I am by his position on abortion. Cain increasingly reminds me of every lousy executive I've worked for who's convinced he or she knows it all and only a moron would question their brilliance.
This guy wants to be president? Eat a slice, Herman.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI think I like Cain, but he does have that habit and it drives me nuts. I am always hearing, "end of story", or "next question" when he doesn't want to elaborate.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFor me, there are two troubling things about this: 1) he seemed confused about the issue, suggesting he hadn't thought it through 2) if he hasn't thought this through, and prepared his position to the point where he is at all times comfortable about discussing it (which is the standard; this is the big time), then what else hasn't he thought through? This is a rookie political error, whatever the substantive merits. This is an issue he shouldn't be talking about or explaining at the moment.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbusePeople are talking about a clumsy statement you make on something as radioactive on abortion, and you're going to address the controversy in a Tweet, and then declare "end of story"?
Oh, brother.
I have never before ran a political campaign at any level, but it seems like political crisis management 101 that you get to the nearest camera, read a carefully worded statement where you apologize for your poor phrasing and clarify exactly what your position are on the questions that were asked in that prior interview, and then you change the subject.
I don't think a 150-character Tweet does that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnd you probably never will, judging by this. Conventional thinking can get you only so far. People are different, what works for Cain would never work for Perry. Let Cain be Cain, ok? If he sinks, he sinks and you would never have to worry about any of this...
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusewell unless he wins the primary and then fails miserably in the general because of his "end of story" attitude.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAt sometime during the 1972 Democrat primary, particularity near the end, I'm quite sure someone at some time said...
"Let McGovern be McGovern"
We all know how that turned out.
History tells us that during a time of tremendous political upheaval, the most strident and otherwise impractical candidates can secure their party's nomination. When they do, they lose - and they frequently lose BIG TIME.
I don't know if Cain will be McGovern, but his campaign discipline is thus far, not encouraging.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAbortion is a Red Herring, in that no politician on the national stage is going to do anything. It's a sop to the social conservatives, but once elected is put in the closet.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHow utterly wrong.
Ever hear of the Partial Birth Abortion ban, passed by the then recently-minted GOP Congress in the late 90's, and enacted with GWB's signature? Or cutting off "family planning" funding to the UN and other international bodies?
And, perhaps you missed the entire debate that ensued over GWB's insistence to continue the ban on embryonic stem cell research.
And, personally, I'm glad the US Supreme Court is merely one vote shy to overturn Roe, as opposed to four votes shy, as it was when Roe was enacted. (Yes, that last word is apt.)
That's only off the top of my head. Your level of inattention to such matters does not render them moot.
PS -- the national discussion on life issues, led by Reagan, and then GWB, has had a profound effect at the state level.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMr. Cain is far more libertarian, not moderate, than people realize. As a very socially conservative (protestant evangelical), but philosophically more libertarian, I am quite comfortable with that. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the President to be our "moral leader"; he should be a moral man and leader, but it is not his position to sit in judgement over people's moral choices- this is an error that both the right wing and left wing moralists commit. Leading by example is far better than leading by pronouncement.
Would Herman Cain sign legislation and appoint judges that would overturn Roe v. Wade?- given his past writings and statements on the radio don't doubt it- he is 100% pro-life.
But he is not going stray into the weeds with a strident moralizer like Rick Santorum, when our society is facing eminent economic decline. Cain is mounting an insurgency against the Republican establishment and all it's traditional groups, he is undoubtedly going to get ire from those whom he is bypassing.
But let's get our spheres of influence prioritized- Christians, if we want to see lives spared from abortion, put your lives where your mouth is- care for the modern day "widows and orphans" (welfare dependent single-women and their children) with your own time and resources. For example, support faith-based pregnancy centers with your time and treasure. Merely voting for a guy who makes pronouncements about outlawing the sins we hate is not a sufficient moral act to be credited to you as righteousness. An significant end can be brought to abortion without a single law ever being changed.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThere is much wrong here, but I'll just address this:
"Merely voting for a guy who makes pronouncements about outlawing the sins we hate is not a sufficient moral act to be credited to you as righteousness."
Leaving aside the "righteousness" comment -- who are you to ascribe selfish motives to the pro-life movement? -- yes, it is insufficient merely to vote for a candidate who makes pronouncements about outlawing the taking of human life; however, it is necessary. Necessary and also insufficient; more is needed. You seem to be using the words "insufficient" and "unnecessary" interchangeably -- as if it is unnecessary (and in fact selfish or egotistical) in addition to being insufficient -- to vote for a pro-life candidate.
I find it hard to believe that someone who cares about life considers Santorum a "strident moralizer" for emphasizing life -- or who thinks life becomes less important "when our society is facing eminent [sic] economic decline."
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAnyone lacking the conscience to care for innocent infants can get it merely by replacing "abortion" with "slavery".
See why we're suspicious of Romney, who up until the age of 60 was passionately arguing that slavery ought to be a protected legal option, then in order to get votes of the abolitionist party in a national election suddenly claimed to believe slavery to be wrong and to seek the repeal of the Dred Scott decision, and yet refused to pledge to prohibit slaveholders from his cabinet.
Killing your own baby is a greater moral evil even than enslaving your brother, properly understood, so the analogy holds.
At least within a consistent moral framework.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFirst he's clumsy with his negotiating with terrorists answer. And now he's clumsy with an answer on abortion. Yeah, he's not going to last.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"I can't have illegals---I'm running for office!"
Yeah, who could beat a genius like that?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt is profoundly beside the point to argue that Romney's views on abortion are more suspect than Cain's. Granted, but so what? Romney has held every imaginable view over the years, and that's despicable. But Cain seems to hold every imaginable view at the same time. Romney is dishonest about issue. He doesn't take it seriously and that calls into question his basic decency. But Cain just doesn't seem to understand what he's talking about and that raises an entirely different set of concerns.
It has been clear from the start that Cain can't make a national campaign fly. It gets clearer every day.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse