Topic: Ugh. Now Cain blows an easy abortion question.

[charlesoakwood]

Fran Porretto parses the "abortion question" ala Cain.  See what y'all think.

But there are questions apart from the right to life of the unborn baby. The most important of those questions is this: If abortion were made illegal at all stages of pregnancy, what would Americans have to allow their governments to do to enforce the laws against it?

Give that question a few moments' thought. J. Neil Schulman did, and arrived at a bleak assessment: A government powerful enough to forbid abortions is powerful enough to force abortions, and probably will when it suits that government to do so.

I don't have a problem with Cain on abortion.  He is sincere, and he has put his money
where his mouth is.  The/his problem is that when questioned his answers are honest
and forthright, he doesn't speak as a politician but as a man.

People these days are not accustomed to forthright honesty and it rubs.
It rubs because it is somewhat unpolished and course.  In another time
other countries would make fun of and deride Americans because of this
being the nature of our culture.  Today Americans are shocked, it causes
them to think and it makes them uncomfortable.

Cain says he' pro life and he will do all that he can and he means it.
He's not going to say 100% because he knows it is unachievable.

[Libertas]

I'd quibble with the "unachievable" characterization...nothing is unachievable unless we all quit.  The Left achieved the unachievable by having SCOTUS create an abortion right in the constitution where no such right existed in thought or theory!

[IronDioPriest]

NARAL clears up the controversy around Cain's position on life - just in case there was anyone still doubting what he believes.

@PJMedia...

NARAL Hands a Gift to Herman Cain

Last week’s twist-ups on CNN and Fox left some Republicans wondering whether Herman Cain is really pro-life or functionally pro-choice on abortion. Well, NARAL just stepped in to clear everything up by launching an attack on Cain.

[blockquote]Now, NARAL president Nancy Keenan has released an open letter Cain saying she believes he is fully pro-life on abortion and condemns him for taking such a position.

“Let’s start with the things we agree on: you are 100 percent opposed to a woman’s right to choose abortion care–even in cases of rape or incest–and have made that position clear on numerous occasions. End of story,” Keenan writes. The NARAL leader then says she disagrees with Cain’s assertion that a president doesn’t have significant power over the issue of abortion.[/blockquote]

A direct attack from NARAL on an issue that nearly derailed his run. The Hermanator thanks NARAL for their vital contribution to his campaign.

[LadyVirginia]

choose abortion care

 


Tack on the word care--makes it sounds so much better than plain old "abortion"

[IronDioPriest]

I wonder if Cain didn't pull something brilliant here. Maybe it was just a gaffe and a recovery. In fact, I think it was. But look at the result. Upon digging into his position with the mere scratch of a fingernail one can see that he is 100% pro-life, unequivocally. So much so, that he doesn't even go for the middling "except in cases of rape or incest" equivocation.

But the effect of what he's done here is to affirm life and his position on it, as well as making a commentary on his view of the power of the presidency and the office's ability to affect policy regarding abortion. It's NOT the president's job to tell people what to do in their personal lives, and these ARE decisions that families make on their own. Those are realities. He can simultaneously hold those realities, and say that if legislation came to his desk outlawing abortion in all 50 states, he would sign it.

For those looking for a pro-life president, they will see one. For those looking for a president who doesn't seek to interfere in their personal decisions, they will see one. For those looking for a president who understands the constitutional limits of the office, they will see one. Through the dust-up, he reaffirmed his pro-life credentials, while taking away some of the threat some "middle-of-the-roaders" might find in a zealous pro-life candidate.

Brilliant, or lucky? Or am I over-analyzing?

[Damn_Lucky]

I wonder if Cain didn't pull something brilliant here. Maybe it was just a gaffe and a recovery. In fact, I think it was. But look at the result. Upon digging into his position with the mere scratch of a fingernail one can see that he is 100% pro-life, unequivocally. So much so, that he doesn't even go for the middling "except in cases of rape or incest" equivocation.

But the effect of what he's done here is to affirm life and his position on it, as well as making a commentary on his view of the power of the presidency and the office's ability to affect policy regarding abortion. It's NOT the president's job to tell people what to do in their personal lives, and these ARE decisions that families make on their own. Those are realities. He can simultaneously hold those realities, and say that if legislation came to his desk outlawing abortion in all 50 states, he would sign it.

For those looking for a pro-life president, they will see one. For those looking for a president who doesn't seek to interfere in their personal decisions, they will see one. For those looking for a president who understands the constitutional limits of the office, they will see one. Through the dust-up, he reaffirmed his pro-life credentials, while taking away some of the threat some "middle-of-the-roaders" might find in a zealous pro-life candidate.

Brilliant, or lucky? Or am I over-analyzing?

I think over-analyzing there are to many pundits on to many subjects giving their spin on things.
I think Cain is just answering questions (Being himself) there is no hidden agenda.
IMHO

[charlesoakwood]

Cain understands advertising, not only did it turn in his favor, it was free.

On the subject of adverting and Cain, there is an upcoming debate between
him and Gingrich.  It has been speculated, justifiably so, that Gingrich will
eat his lunch.  It won't happen.

gNewt is unelectable, too much baggage.   
gNewt is out there selling gNewt; a new book, speaking engagements, etc. 
In order to maximize the effect of the media he is receiving
it is necessary he remain "the friendly professor". 

In other words, if he eats Herman's lunch in the debate he will
lose that "friendly professor" image and all those bucks he is working toward.

[Pandora]

I wonder if Cain didn't pull something brilliant here. Maybe it was just a gaffe and a recovery. In fact, I think it was. But look at the result. Upon digging into his position with the mere scratch of a fingernail one can see that he is 100% pro-life, unequivocally. So much so, that he doesn't even go for the middling "except in cases of rape or incest" equivocation.

But the effect of what he's done here is to affirm life and his position on it, as well as making a commentary on his view of the power of the presidency and the office's ability to affect policy regarding abortion. It's NOT the president's job to tell people what to do in their personal lives, and these ARE decisions that families make on their own. Those are realities. He can simultaneously hold those realities, and say that if legislation came to his desk outlawing abortion in all 50 states, he would sign it.

For those looking for a pro-life president, they will see one. For those looking for a president who doesn't seek to interfere in their personal decisions, they will see one. For those looking for a president who understands the constitutional limits of the office, they will see one. Through the dust-up, he reaffirmed his pro-life credentials, while taking away some of the threat some "middle-of-the-roaders" might find in a zealous pro-life candidate.

Brilliant, or lucky? Or am I over-analyzing?

You may be over-analynzing; he may have just gotten lucky.  Or not.  I don't really know.  

What I'm willing to consider Cain might understand comes from Fran Porretto's take on the issue, that if abortion is criminalized, what then in the matter of enforcement?  It was one thing before the Supremes declared it a right -- between a woman and any doctor that would perform one.  Now that it's an "ISSUE", are we prepared to imprison women who may or may not have had an abortion or just a miscarriage?  Are we ready to get ourselves fully immersed in the business of pregnant women?  I know in my case, there was nothing to be done to stop the miscarriage, so the doctor finished the job instead of letting me go on for hours, bleeding and in pain, until the end.

[charlesoakwood]

Shirley has serious questions for Cain.


Shirley Q Liquor has questions for Herman Cain