Repubs can’t seem to forgive Mitt for a position he abandoned nearly a decade ago. Can’t imagine this will be forgotten anytime soon.
Last week and prior to: staunchly pro-choice:
…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.
Today: staunchly pro-life
Cain said he thought the question he was asked by CNN’s Piers Morgan on Wednesday night was “whether that I, as president, would simply ‘order’ people to not seek an abortion.”
“My answer was focused on the role of the President. The President has no constitutional authority to order any such action by anyone. That was the point I was trying to convey. As to my political policy view on abortion, I am 100% pro-life. End of story. I will appoint judges who understand the original intent of the Constitution. Judges who are committed to the rule of law know that the Constitution contains no right to take the life of unborn children,” Cain said in his statement. “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.”
Mr. Cain seems to have an inordinately difficult time understand the questions being asked of him.
Not seeing any real disconnect there. He is basically saying that he personally is pro-life, but that he would perform his role as president more as a libertarian, because that’s what he sees as the constitutional role of the POTUS. I agree he answers lots of questions in a way that raises more questions, but I don’t see that here.
Perhaps you missed the part where he said he will do everything within his power as president to advance the culture of life (translation: harness the power of law to eliminate the practice of abortion), shortly after he said that it’s not for presidents or politicians to make that decision for a family?
I’m sure you didn’t miss the part where he basically said the number of abortions is statistically insignificant. How is that consistent with the pro-life platform he now claims?
His anti-abortion, pro-choice position of last week was virtually indistinguishable from my own. Today, it’s indistinguishable from those of Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.
Thats shocking that you disagree with Mr. Cain seeing how your fucking obsessed with him… I think some on the left would love to fill the court with pro abortion, anti gun freaks as well…thus, advancing their culture of death…killing babies and not allowing citizens to protect themselves
as it stands now, you can have as many abortions as you like. Enjoy!
this isn’t about whether or not I agree with Mr. Cain. It’s about whether or not the GOP will back him now that he’s either revealed himself to be pro-choice, or completely confused about what exactly he is (or what he means to say).
*you’re
fascinated, not obsessed. And not with Mr. Cain, so much as I’m fascinated by the likely GOP voters’ fascination with him.
You don’t read so well, if you think I “enjoy” the fact that abortion occurs.
Perhaps you missed the part where he said he will do everything within his power as president to advance the culture of life (translation: harness the power of law to eliminate the practice of abortion), shortly after he said that it’s not for presidents or politicians to make that decision for a family?
I’m sure you didn’t miss the part where he basically said the number of abortions is statistically insignificant. How is that consistent with the pro-life platform he now claims?
His anti-abortion, pro-choice position of last week was virtually indistinguishable from my own. Today, it’s indistinguishable from those of Rick Santorum and Michele Bachmann.
I didn't miss those things, but it's like he took the same "POTUS can not do much" position in each case, then catered it to the audience... To the first he backs up with, they're not that common, and it's a personal decision, while to the second he highlights his personal pro-life feelings, and throws the bone out that he'll be putting "constructionist" judges on the court (ie the kind that think Roe v Wade was over-reach). Cain might be a better politician than we thought! ;)
Actually, it’s as if he took up the “POTUS should not do anything to interfere” in the former, then “As POTUS I will do everything within my power to interfere” in the latter.
Actually, it’s as if he took up the “POTUS should not do anything to interfere” in the former, then “As POTUS I will do everything within my power to interfere” in the latter.
As a Republican, i’d like to more of our party tell the religious zealots to suck it. The issue is about reigning in government not abortion or two dudes getting married. Isn’t pro-choice a lot less government? It’s not like the evangelicals are going to vote for Obama anyway.
As a Republican, i’d like to more of our party tell the religious zealots to suck it. The issue is about reigning in government not abortion or two dudes getting married. Isn’t pro-choice a lot less government? It’s not like the evangelicals are going to vote for Obama anyway.
As a Republican, i’d like to more of our party tell the religious zealots to suck it. The issue is about reigning in government not abortion or two dudes getting married. Isn’t pro-choice a lot less government? It’s not like the evangelicals are going to vote for Obama anyway.
Every time I read these types of comments I stand amazed…what exactly have the religious zealots done that have led to less freedom for you or anyone else? You’re being played by the left and by the media when you take something like the pro-abortion issue (its not pro-choice, its pro-abortion) and elevate it. Meanwhile, your liberties will be substantially reduced if we stay on the current course. It’s not like you are going to vote for Obama anyway.
what exactly have the religious zealots done that have led to less freedom for you or anyone else?
They drive the conversation away from relevant issues (well ok maybe not entirely but certainly take up disproportionate discussion time) that DO affect the vast majority of people (jobs, immigration, foreign policy etc)
(its not pro-choice, its pro-abortion)
yeah… thats just wrong… no one, not even the hard core crusaders on the pointy end of this debate on the pro-choice side (and yeah I know a bunch of them), LIKE abortion. NO ONE wants or is advocating MORE abortion. It is however not my job, or yours, and CERTAINLY not the governments to tell a woman if she can or cant have one. Just like its not our job to tell two men they cant have sex, or how to spend your pay check, or how to worship etc…
Meanwhile, your liberties will be substantially reduced if we stay on the current course
Yup… we agree here, this trend started with the partiot act and has been trending down since… I am not sure how any small gov proponent can possibly think that was a good piece of legislation
