Referring to the flap over his comments on abortion during a CNN interview last night, Herman Cain said his remarks were “misconstrued.”
Noting that the president was limited in what he could do to change abortion laws, Cain emphasized in an interview with Sean Hannity today that he intended to only appoint judges who would be true to the original intent of the Constitution. He said he opposed government funding of abortion and Planned Parenthood. “I am 100 percent pro-life,” he said.
He expanded a little on his 9-9-9 plan and how it would impact low-income Americans. When Hannity asked if even the poor would have to pay a 9 percent tax on cars, Cain said they would if they bought new cars, but not used cars. He said the same standard applied to houses: newly-constructed ones would be slapped with a 9 percent tax, but not “used” homes being sold again.
Cain also made it clear he won’t be switching his 9 percent federal sales tax to any other kind of tax (Steve Moore has recommended making that a payroll tax) anytime soon. He stressed that people needed to become comfortable with a federal sales tax if the country was eventually going to switch over to say, a 23 percent sales tax. Cain plans to eventually replace his 9-9-9 plan with a fair tax plan.
Talking about the spat over immigration that occurred between Rick Perry and Mitt Romney, Cain criticized Perry for talking over Romney, an action that Cain said meant Perry had “shot himself in the foot.”
“I think it reflected negatively on Perry. … I think Mitt handled himself well,” Cain said, commenting that Romney was trying to have a “civil conversation.”
But he also said he was not offended by the fact that Perry had called him “brother,” noting that he’d often been called “brother” before.
UPDATE: Here is a statement Cain issued today that clarifies a little more what he meant:
Yesterday in an interview with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.
I understood the thrust of the question to ask whether that I, as president, would simply “order” people to not seek an abortion.
My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey.
As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100 percent pro-life. End of story.
I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children.
I will oppose government funding of abortion. I will veto any legislation that contains funds for Planned Parenthood. I will do everything that a President can do, consistent with his constitutional role, to advance the culture of life.
So is he for making abortion illegal or not? President can't do much, well, that's true, but it doesn't get Romney or anyone else off the hook. Clinton himself said that he wanted abortin to be "safe, legal....and rare". So what is the difference between him and Clinton or Kerry? No one LIKES abortion (for the most part).
The right wing views this as a litmus test. IF you're not willing to put people in jail (even though it would never happen) then you're damaged goods.
So he still didn't answer the question, but I guess he gets a pass?
The 23% sales tax is actually 30%. Here's how ridiculous (and math challenged they are). If you buy something for $1, 23 cents of that will be tax. So it's a 23% tax. That's their logic.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWell, that's good. It would be nice if Cain would explain what his words meant, though -- what he meant by saying "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 have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue."
Also, why did he say he was uncomfortable with social issues in years past?
I may well be entirely satisfied with his answers -- I am in fact devoutly hoping I will be -- but he needs to say more. (And perhaps he did say more than is reported here.) He can't just say something cryptic and then state a seemingly different view without explanation.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHey, he has taken a lesson from Mitt. He thinks he can hold opposed positions at the same time. Like giving women the choice but putting them in prison if they make the wrong choice.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseBy the way, I have heard Perry call white men "brother" several times. He seems to call all men "brother."
Other than Romney. :)
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIt's an Evangelical thing. I had an uncle who was a pastor and everyone was "brother" this and "sister" that.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is nuts. Either he's lying now, or he's been going around claiming to be pro-life while having NO IDEA what being pro-life means. He's either a liar or totally indifferent to the question of abortion.
Wake up people! Herman Cain is an empty double-breasted suit!!!
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseMaybe we need the 24-36-48 hour rule for any Cain statement, based on how long it takes him to fully extricate his foot from his mouth. Actually I'm with some of the others. I'm still not sure where he stands on Roe V. Wade, so the safest thing to do would probably be to look at what he thought about it before he ran for President. He basically didn't seem to care one way or the other about it, and evidently hasn't given it much thought since.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseAs for Perry talking over Romney, you have got to be kidding. Romney has been talking over everyone on stage at every debate -- particularly Perry -- ever since he got ten minutes worth of coverage talking over that heckler a few months ago. It worked once, so he keeps trotting it out at very panel and he does it whether he's the questioner or the questionee.
The interesting thing is that Cain is once more going out of his way to help Mitt. As GWBush would say, that could be "strategery," or it might just be that Cain feels a lot closer philosophically to Romney than he does Perry. Based on their pass association, the latter appears more likely.
Needs more panderbell!
He really should make some promises he can't keep, like telling everyone he'll outlaw abortion via EO the day he takes the oath, or promise to sign an anti-abortion constitutional amendment.
(the last one may fly over a few heads).
So the shameful thing is - he's promising to do only what a president is constitutionally limited to do when it comes to abortion.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood Lord, who is his press person?
I think he prompts more questions than he answers here. Plus, he has bad habit of laying blame on the people who are listening to his answers, rather than taking the blame for initially giving poorly worded or confusing answers. His original answer to the Piers Morgan wasn't "misconstrued". Instead, it was poorly delivered and highly ambiguous. He should have acknowledged that ambiguity (his own failing), and then moved to rectify it.
These are unforced errors: Release terrorists for American hostages, Electrify a fence and a needlessly unclear position on abortion. In a largely friendly environment - like a Republican primary is for a Republican candidate - they're survivable errors (probably). In the unfriendly landscape of a general election, these kinds of mistakes are campaign killers.
He needs to get better - a LOT better, or Herman Cain will get destroyed by the Axelrod media machine.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThese silly "you didn't hear what you thought you heard" evasions and equivocations by Cain are starting to become really annoying. Cain gets away with it because his supporters refuse to admit the obvious: that Cain is frequently careless with his words and really hasn't thought through many important issues that serious candidates take the time to study and understand. Instead, they buy uncritically into his explanations, no matter how ridiculous they are. He might get away with it in the primaries long enough to sneak away with the nomination. He will not get away with it in a national campaign. He'll be a complete embarrassment to himself and the Republican Party.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHe's as pro-life and anti-abortion as anyone could possibly be who has a chance of getting elected. He doesn't even approve of abortions in the case of rape or incest. You want to lose this election? Keep harping on this issue and we'll have another four years of Obama and we'll be borrowing money from the Chinese just to pay for abortions everywhere else in the world.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHerman forgot the first rule of holes. He's in deep and he keeps on digging. If he seriously thought someone was asking him whether he would, as President, order women not to have an abortion, he's an idiot. If he was prepared to treat such a question seriously and offer an answer, he's an idiot twice over.
There's only one explanation that fits the facts here. Herman Cain is a very confused man. He might be capable of taking an important role in American politics if he devoted years of study to innumerable topics. He isn't close to equipped to campaign for Congress this year. Running for President is a joke. He'll disappear before the first real votes are cast. In the mean time, he's a sideshow.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFlip flopping seems to be getting contagious.he should not get to close to Romney at these debates - he must be a carrier.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf anything, the resentment and outrage to Cain's statement that he is personally anti-abortion but believes it's "not the government's role ... to make that decision" exposes the hypocritical facade of the whole "Tea Party" schtick. Isn't the whole Tea Party platform supposedly centered around less government intervention? Apparently not when it comes to women's personal choices (or marriage between two consenting adults). They are as fake as their whole exposed "grass roots" nonsense (grass roots in so much as they're backed by the Koch brothers and big business). Priceless.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"Apparently not when it comes to women's personal choices (or marriage between two consenting adults)...." Nice try, hughman, but you're conflating two very different issues here.
What occurs between two consenting adults can rightly be called a choice, but the "choice" label only serves to confuse the abortion issue.
The pro-life position, yes, would take away a woman's choice to terminate a pregnancy, but the pro-abortion rights position takes away a living person's choice to exist.
To argue that we should intervene to protect the latter "choice" is not hypocritical and is not inconsistent with a movement dedicated to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHughman:
"Isn't the whole Tea Party platform supposedly centered around less government intervention?"
It is, but it's not anarchism: most Tea Partiers believe that the government *DOES* have fundamental functions, especially those represented by the soldier and the cop and the judge. The government should fight wars to protect its citizenry (as needed) and ENFORCE THE LAWS THAT PROTECT PEOPLE'S RIGHTS.
That includes laws that prohibit fraud (including breach of contract), theft, AND MURDER.
Pro-life Tea Partiers believe that abortion is murder -- it is: it's, inarguably, the deliberate, unjust taking of human life -- and, therefore, the government just might have a role in intervening.
THIS IS BASIC STUFF.
Your answer to your own question is tendentious.
"Isn't the whole Tea Party platform supposedly centered around less government intervention? Apparently not when it comes to women's personal choices (or marriage between two consenting adults)."
Most Tea Partiers believe in a wide berth regarding women's personal choices in terms of the career they have (or don't have, if they choose to be stay-at-home moms), the amount of money they earn, what they buy with what they earn, who they socialize with, etc.
Women just don't have the right to make the personal choice to murder others -- neither do men, for that matter -- which is why society frowns upon and even criminalizes such "personal choices" as infanticide or killing one's husband.
And, about marriage, any two people can call themselves married if they want. They can also call themselves Klingons, elves, vampires, or graduates of Hogwarts -- and they can call dogs cats, and they can call poultry beef, at least in the privacy of their own homes and not in the marketplace or courthouse.
What you're probably alluding to is the LEGAL definition of marriage, and it's simply absurd to believe that the government must not interfere in THE GOVERNMENT'S OWN DEFINITIONS of social institutions.
Suppose a person gets a hunting license that authorizes a certain amount of hunting deer, that hunter then kills an endangered mountain lion, and he argues that the hunting license permitted that kind of hunting. From your argument, the principle of "less government intervention" must mean that the government shouldn't have any say about whether its own licenses' reference to "deer" is really just a reference to just any old four-legged mammal.
You don't like the Tea Party principle of limited government. (What clear principle separates you from totalitarianism isn't clear.)
You don't like the Right's opposition to abortion and the radical redefinition of marriage.
You're a Leftist; I get it.
But just because you don't like these two things, it doesn't mean that it's hypocritical to stand for both. You make yourself look very, very foolish when you try to claim that it is hypocritical.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseSince hughman wants government out of abortion, he no doubt would like to see the Hyde amendment passed, abortion stripped from Obamacare and Medicare coverage, government funding of Planned Parenthood and other abortion providers stopped, etc.
I can live with that. When will it be done?
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseConservatives love their candidates UNTIL they open their mouths and start talking.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOnce they start talking...the love affair is over.
The best thing for a Republican candidate is
NEVER do an interview.
NEVER state your opinion.
Just memorize the Conservative party platform and keep quoting it over and over again...
"I'm pro life. I'm for smaller government. I'm for lower taxes. Poor people are lazy. Rich people are Job Creators. And I love my Uzi"
OK, one more time. Mr. Cain evidently does not understand that one task of a candidate is to state what he thinks the law should be if he disagrees with the current law. If he thinks there should be a constitutional amendment outlawing abortion or returning abortion to the states, i.e to the pre-Roe status quo, he ought to say so. And then he can say that if he can't get a constitutional amendment through or if the Supreme Court does not overrule Roe, he will do what he can to restrict abortion. That would make sense.
He may be unaware that the possibility of a constitutional amendment exists, which may explain why he keeps talking only about promoting the "culture of life" and stopping government support for abortions, both of which assume the eternal validity of Roe v. Wade. He may also not want to offend people who support the right to abortion. In fairness to him, neither Reagan nor either Bush really did anything to challenge Roe, except where government funding was involved.
But listening to Cain, I am sorry to say that you get the sense that he doesn't know how to construct a reasoned argument and doesn't understand when he is contradicting himself.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseIf the Republican romance with him continues, it will be a long year next year.