So unless you live under a rock or don’t give a hoot about GOP politics (or both), you’ve heard about Herman Cain’s recent abortion gaff. If you haven’t, go here. Anyway, I posted a comment on Facebook that I was very disappointed in his response in the interview with Piers Morgan. If he truly is pro-life in all cases, it isn’t too hard to defend or define your position on the matter. I stated as much in my response to Cain’s Morgan interview link.
A bit disappointed with your abortion comments. The proper answer to Piers' question about the granddaughter being raped is that two wrongs don't make a right. Killing a baby, even one conceived under the evil of rape, is punishing that life for the sins of his or her father. Mr. Cain, you have to clarify yourself, because after that interview, I'm not sure anymore where you stand.
Pretty easy stuff if you ask me. I want, with all my heart, to give Herman Cain the benefit of the doubt. Being grilled by a reporter of television personality who isn’t exactly an ally or worse is spiteful toward your positions, can be a hard thing to overcome. Mistakes –gaffs—can be made. It would only make sense that you send as much information to clarify your real position on an issue if you thought that it was misunderstood by the people you’re trying to gain the support of. Later on his Facebook page, Mr. Cain posted this:
I’m 100% pro-life. End of Story.
No it’s not the end of the story, even if Mr. Cain wants it to be. Again, I posted a response on Facebook as soon as that post went out:
Great that he is, but we need a little bit more meat. Is this "I'm 100% pro-life" with a but added in for certain situations, or is this "I'm 100% pro-life" with the understanding that every abortion results in the loss of innocent life, and therefore is an intolerable action that should not be legalized? Silly as it is, there are plenty of politicians who believe the former rather than the later but still call themselves "100% pro-life".
And that’s true. There a so many people within the GOP who simply aren’t ‘100%’ prolife. There are certain qualifiers that allow them to turn a blind eye toward the murder of an innocent infant, rape and incest being primary among them. Here’s one example of a lady that I had a back and forth with on Herman Cain's Facebook post who claims to be prolife but…
I am Pro Life..but..as a mother who loves her baby..if I was raped or my life was in danger..it should be my choice if I keep the baby or not.
You almost have to cry with the way this response has been framed. ‘It should be my choice if I keep the baby or not.’ Why, if this woman feels so strongly about this, does she not use the right terminology in her response? The answer is because it’s much easier to dismiss the baby in the womb as a lost possession then it is to deal with the ramifications of that ‘choice’. The baby dies.The statement should have read “…it should be my choice if I kill the baby or not."
But this is typical among the different factions in the GOP. While it’s head over heels closer to being genuinely more pro-life then the Democrats, the Republican party can hardly be called a solid pro-life party. I think Mr. Cain, and his supporters (to whom I had once counted myself as), have proven this fact. As a matter of fact, there were some people that even dropped their support once Cain posted that '100%' comment on Facebook.
We here in Alaska are well aware of pro-choice Republicans. In this state, life is a secondary issue compared to the amount of pork someone can deliver to the state from the Federal coffers. For Mr. Cain and his supporters, it’s all about 999. Like the GOP in Alaska, social issues are a big question mark easily put aside for more…important…issues like the economy.
Latter in the day, Herman Cain did, finely, put out a longer more detailed statement:
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% 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.
Is this enough? Does Mr. Cain mean this, or is this a play with semantics? Is he simply giving the right answer to avoid the issue, like I believe Mitt Romney is doing? Has he given social issues any thought, or is he stuck on 999? And the most important question, is he ready for prime time?
I don't know. I thought Mr. Cain was a candidate I could hands down support. But with this gaff? Like I said above, it should have been an easy answer. And what gives me a little bit more pause is that this isn't the first time Mr. Cain has tripped over his words in regards to abortion, as highlighted in a REDSTATE article by Lean H. Wolf.
It's a long road to the GOP nomination. Cain has a lot of time to make up for lost trust. I can say without a doubt that I'm not rock solid in his corner like I once was. Newt is looking pretty good, and despite the fact that he appears to snarl a lot, Rick Santorum is look pretty solid as well. Romney, never. Perry, eh. Maybe Paul if he wasn't so darn bat shit crazy. Bachmann seems a little off. And Huntsman is a joke.
It's going to be a long next couple of months.