Herman Cain Clarifies (???) His View On Abortion: I Meant Abortion Should Be Illegal But If Someone Wants To Have an Illegal Abortion, That's Her Choice

His previous statement was that he was against all abortions (no exceptions, including for rape and/or health of the mother), but then, asked about a hypothetical rape-pregnancy of a granddaughter, when on to say:

"It's not the government's role, or anyone else's role, to make that decision.... 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."

Now, before getting to his new parsing of the question, it has to be noted that he did, in the Piers Morgan interview, attempt to say that Morgan was confusing two issues.

I don't think he was confusing two issues -- this is the issue -- but he did attempt to claim that.

Now Cain is saying that while his position is and always has been "pro life, from conception, no exceptions," he was "just trying to say" that the woman in this position might still seek an abortion, and it's not his role to tell her what to do.

This is the most bizarre statement on the issue I've ever heard. Cain is saying, if I have this right, that he's perfectly willing to criminalize abortion -- to make it illegal, to impose a criminal penalty on at least those who perform them (and possibly those who seek them) -- but that he also doesn't want to boss people around and tell them they shouldn't seek an illegal abortion.

That is, on the legal side of things, he wants it outlawed. On the moral suasion side of things, he suddenly takes the libertarian position that it isn't his "role" to tell that young woman what to do about her "choice."

I say this is bizarre because I know what the mainstream conservative Republican position is -- Yes, to criminalizing abortion, and also yes to telling women they shouldn't seek them.

I know the mainstream "conservative" Clintonesque Democratic position on this -- No, to criminalizing abortion, but "yes" to making abortion "safe, legal, and rare." That is, the fudge-the-difference Clinton position is basically that we shouldn't use "hard power" to reduce abortions -- no criminalization -- but we can use "soft power" to do so.

I know the liberal/hyperfeminist position -- no to criminalization, no to moral suasion against abortion. In fact, the liberal/hyperfeminist position is clearly to endorse/promote abortions.

Herman Cain is the first person I've ever heard say he'd use the "hard power" of criminalization of abortion but then flinch from using the "soft power" of advising/recommending against it. He'd make it illegal, but he'd leave the "choice" of whether to seek an illegal abortion to the mother and family in question?

Honestly, I don't know what he's saying, and frankly, I don't think he does, either. This is a pattern with him. It really seems that in whole swathes of important policy choices, he really hasn't given the matter much thought at all, and is grasping to cohere his thinking on these issues on the fly, during interviews.

Criminalizing abortions -- especially with this "no exceptions" stance -- does impose significant burdens, penalties, and risks on people. I know where pro-lifers stand on these negative consequences -- they support them. I've argued with no-exceptions pro-lifers about the case of rape, and while I disagree with their position, I can't say they haven't given the matter some thought. They are, at the end of the day, willing to say that a woman impregnated b a rapist should be forced by the state to carry her rapist's baby to term.

Now, that's a damned tough, absolutist position to take. But they do take it, and they plant their flag on that hill.

With Cain, it seems to be he's groping his way to find some wiggle-room in this position -- which is fine. He's a politician. It's what politicians do, seek wiggle-room.

But what's not fine is that he doesn't seem to have thought about it previously to Piers Morgan asking him about it, leaving him to babble about using the force of criminal law to outlaw abortion, but then claiming some kind of weird "libertarian" position that while he'll criminalize the procedure, he won't "tell" the woman in question whether or not she should seek that criminal procedure.

That part he'll leave up to her personal "choice" on that matter.

What a weird and clunky way to try to have it both ways on a very binary position.

I have to ask DrewM.'s question again (which I also began to wonder about) -- what was he discussing as a talk radio host?

I mentioned in a comment that initially I was open to Herman Cain. While I didn't like the "complete neophyte in campaigning" aspect of him, I thought that, having been a political talk radio host, he'd actually not turn out to be a complete neophyte.

After all, isn't a political talk show host offering up opinions and discussing the news and being challenged by callers and learning from guests every week?

So I figured that his training as political talk-show host would end up counting as related experience for politics.

But again and again he seems to be incoherent on very basic things.

So what the hell was he talking about every day?

How did he never stumble over this tough question, and then, after consideration, come to some kind of answer in his own mind?

How did Israel, the Right of Return, Afghanistan, etc., never come up on this talk show?

For The Poor, It's Not 9-9-9, It's 9-0-9: Cain begins talking up a wrinkle to his plan -- whether it's new, or only newly publicized, I don't know. But he says the poor would not pay the income tax portion of the plan. So for them, it would be nine zero nine.

That doesn't seem ludicrous. The idea that we'd just jack up income taxes on those accustomed to paying none was always kind of a stretch (and massively unpopular -- wait 'til you tell a full half of the population you're raising their taxes).

But this sure seems to be the sort of thing that could have been mentioned earlier.

In Fairness... I'm a Perry booster. But what really bothered me about Perry wasn't just his "heartless" comment itself, but the implication that he really had not expected this to be an issue, and really had not bothered thinking about it too much. Leaving him to grope on stage for explanations and defenses, and coming up with the worst one possible.

So Perry does this too.

I don't get this. I don't get it all.

I can see not knowing this or that wonkish detail, or having given thought to some minor issue.

But on big things like war, abortion, and immigration -- were these guys really not expecting the issues to come up?

I just don't understand how you get on to a debate stage or do nationally televised interviews thinking "Oh, if those issues come up, I'm sure I'll come up with something on the spur of the moment."

If they come up? You're thinking maybe they won't?

What's with winging it?

Posted by: Ace at 03:08 PM

Comments

(Jump to bottom of comments)

1 Wow

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 03:09 PM (6d9Y3)

2 Put me in coach! I can win this thing.

Posted by: Newt Gingrich at October 21, 2011 03:10 PM (usXZy)

3 Italics are de rigueur...

Posted by: Joe Biden at October 21, 2011 03:10 PM (rJVPU)

4 This is our frontrunner.... *startsshufflingherowngrave*

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 03:11 PM (i4gLS)

5 I had hopes for Cain, but the more he talks, the more incoherent his positions get.

Posted by: 81.1%, Non-union Labor at October 21, 2011 03:11 PM (fJhBR)

6 "It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide! I shouldn't try to tell them what decision to make."

Does the same principle hold for bank robbery?

Posted by: Willie Sutton at October 21, 2011 03:11 PM (QKKT0)

7 This is a matter of the heart, not to mention the Penal Code.

Posted by: Herman Cain at October 21, 2011 03:12 PM (QKKT0)

8 I don't get it. What am I missing?

Posted by: FireHorse at October 21, 2011 03:12 PM (XFU/t)

9 The right answer:

"I'm pro-life. But due to Roe v Wade, and due to the fact that issues like this really ought to be handled by the states, I don't see this as an issue for the President. Rather than focusing on wedge issues, ask me a relevant question, please."

Posted by: sandy burger at October 21, 2011 03:13 PM (0U+Pz)

10 Well I'm really surprised that such a veteran, experienced person in the realm of politics could make such a bizarre statement.

No, wait.....

Posted by: lu feeling twinkly at October 21, 2011 03:13 PM (pLTLS)

11 Put me in coach! I can win this thing.
You joke, but at this point I would not be surprised to see Gingrich start moving up. Every other semi-legitimate not-Romney has had his or her day in the sun, so it might as well be Newt's turn.

Posted by: Ghost of Lee Atwater at October 21, 2011 03:14 PM (JxMoP)

12 I don't think using the power of the state to prevent murder (if you believe it is so) conflicts with the small government libertarian vision at all. There are a few legitimate functions of government and that is one of them. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and all that.

Posted by: Tyler at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (zJDIJ)

13 "Honestly, I don't know what he's saying, and frankly, I don't think he does, either. "

I'll stick with Perry until he withdraws, wins, or is defeated. And then vote for the GOP nominee against Obama.
I hope Cain doesn't win the nomination. He concerns me.

Posted by: Dick Nixon at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (kaOJx)

14 curiouser and curiouser

Posted by: Honey Badger at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (GvYeG)

15 All I know is that whatever he is saying, not saying, or screwing up saying, is better then anything Romney could lie to me about.

Posted by: James at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (Y5Ri0)

16
Well, I guess Mr. Cain cleared that right up.

Posted by: Dave at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (Xm1aB)

17 Barack Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (8y9MW)

18 but but but but he's an insurgent/outsider!!1!1!!

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (i4gLS)

19 I guess there is also problems with how he has been presenting the 'Chilean model".

It's supposedly not "optional" in Chile and most Chileans want out of it. (according to a recent poll.)

Posted by: tasker at October 21, 2011 03:16 PM (rJVPU)

20 This is a matter of the heart, not to mention the Penal Code.
Huh huh, you said "penal."

Posted by: Beavis and Butthead, returning October 27th at October 21, 2011 03:16 PM (JxMoP)

21 I know where pro-lifers stand on these negative consequences -- they support them.
I believe a compelling case can be made that the primary purpose of the federal government is to protect the rights of the citizens, and that includes the baby. Given that, it is logical to conclude that the right to life of the baby is more important than the right to privacy of the mother. If medical considerations mean that the baby or the mother (or both)is likely to die from full term pregnancy, then the issue is one life versus another.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 03:16 PM (6d9Y3)

22 He doesn't need to know what he's saying. He is huckabee 2012.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 03:16 PM (wQ3cy)

23 curiouser and curiouser
Posted by: Honey Badger at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (GvYeG)
well catlady did support him...and Paul

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of Curious at October 21, 2011 03:17 PM (yAor6)

24 they plant their flag on that hill.

That's what a candidate should do. If you are running for office, YOU WILL alienate someone with your stand on abortion. You won't win them back. Take your position, then shift the question to the poor economy.

Posted by: fluffy at October 21, 2011 03:17 PM (3SvjA)

25 So what the hell was he talking about every day?

Question of the day. I don't suppose any of the morons are familiar with his work?

Posted by: Methos at October 21, 2011 03:17 PM (sOXQX)

26 We're so proud of Herb.

Posted by: Moorehouse U at October 21, 2011 03:17 PM (EL+OC)

27 Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 03:16 PM (wQ3cy)
+1

Posted by: RINO Vice President For Life AuthorLMendez, Formerly YRM, Who Supports The Ban Of Curious at October 21, 2011 03:17 PM (yAor6)

28 Is he brain-damaged? Really, if he's so big on being out-spoken and a "new, bold kind of Conservative" why not stick with, "Yes, I believe abortions- including in the case of rape or incest- should be illegal in the United States."

Better, how about, "I believe in a government as defined by a Constructionist view of the Constitution, which leaves the bulk of legal power with the states. I, personally, oppose abortion and would vote, in my state, to make it illegal. But I believe each state should be able to make its own law on that issue."?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:18 PM (8y9MW)

29 Newt! Save Us!

Posted by: Iblis at October 21, 2011 03:18 PM (5Lneh)

30 Sigh...

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:18 PM (wuv1c)

31 Can someone tell Mr. Cain, thanks for playing... here are your parting gifts.

Posted by: AndrewsDad at October 21, 2011 03:19 PM (C2//T)

32
I put a link to his second amendment opinions in the sidebar.
It appears he agrees with the idea that the state and local government should be able to restrict gun ownership

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:19 PM (wuv1c)

33
Remember when the Democrats, when not saying he was evil incarnate, would call Ronald Reagan an "amiable dunce?"

Well, Herb Cain is our amiable dunce.

Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:19 PM (G/zuv)

34 Has anyone noticed that we haven't heard a SINGLE clip from any of Cain's radio shows yet?

Ya think someone's sitting on an oppo dump? Maybe just possibly?

There's a reason that stuff is still under wraps. "Shatter glass in case of emergency."

Posted by: Jeff B., pre-op transromneybot at October 21, 2011 03:20 PM (bbxN5)

35 He simply got off message. He was supposed to say "9-9-9." And, "If people would just read my website, they would understand and not misquote my position."

Posted by: USA at October 21, 2011 03:21 PM (6Cjut)

36 And now for the part that makes teeth grind:

Compare and contrast Ace's 17 pages above with Drew's 16 pages from yesterday, later edition *and* Drew's 6 pages from yesterday, initial draft.

Discuss.

Posted by: Rat Bastard at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (uehxp)

37 Crap, he'd fall apart in the general.

Posted by: MJH at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (kBLec)

38 Okay, so can we just bury this particular candidacy and move on to people who are serious? That would mean we would lose Bachman as well, but I'm okay with that (by "serious" I mean: hold serious positions, I'm willing to let Santorum continue yelling into the hurricane, if he so desires).

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (8y9MW)

39
It appears he agrees with the idea that the state and local government should be able to restrict gun ownership

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:19 PM (wuv1c)

Whoa.

Posted by: NRA at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (EL+OC)

40 Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can either have a politician who smoothly answers questions like this but who is a "career politician," or you can have a non-career politician who's going to fumble on stuff, just like most anybody posting on this forum would from time to time. You can't have both. Pick what you want, and stop complaining when you don't get the other at the same time.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (+inic)

41 15 All I know is that whatever he is saying, not saying, or screwing up saying, is better then anything Romney could lie to me about.
Posted by: James at October 21, 2011 03:15 PM (Y5Ri0)

***

I completely understand this sentiment-however....

Cain has said that as a CEO he might not know foreign policy -but he could hire the best advisers.

Well.

Most of the job of being President -if Americans still believe in "local" determination- is foreign policy.

Cain said he could see himself possibly trading all of the prisoners of Guantanamo for one American hostage.

Then he said after the debate that he simply-"misspoke".

The problem is he said it twice and the "misspoke" excuse sounds like a Romney-or worse.

At the very best it illustrates that Cain is not very good at hiring-wouldn't he have hired better campaign consultants-and/or advisors?

They let him make that mistake twice, and they let him repeat that mistake during the debate.

Posted by: tasker at October 21, 2011 03:23 PM (rJVPU)

42 What did he think Piers Morgan was going to talk about?

God, guns, religion, gay whatever, abortion, gaffes.

Cain is a time bomb.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 03:23 PM (OhYCU)

43 >>>I put a link to his second amendment opinions in the sidebar. >>>It appears he agrees with the idea that the state and local government should be able to restrict gun ownership
You know what's funny? Something tells me his poll numbers aren't really going to drop, even as all this stuff breaks. There's a certain brain-dead segment of the base that just WANTS to like him, to the exclusion of actually looking at his positions or viability as a candidate. And they will keep him aloft for awhile longer at least. Just a hunch.

Posted by: Jeff B., pre-op transromneybot at October 21, 2011 03:23 PM (bbxN5)

44 The man is looney tunes.. and he should stop "clarifying".. he's just digging himself deeper in.

Posted by: Chi-Town Jerry at October 21, 2011 03:23 PM (f9c2L)

45 Does the 9-0-9 eliminate the EITC? If it does, it might not be so bad. At a certain level of income, you don't have any money left with which to pay income tax.

You can't get blood from a stone.

Posted by: toby928� at October 21, 2011 03:23 PM (GTbGH)

46 To be perfectly fair, Cain's position on abortion is identical to theleft's view on ticking-bomb torture.Keep it illegal but assume that in a real crisis people are going to do it anyway.

Posted by: Aaron at October 21, 2011 03:23 PM (8X9tr)

47 or you can have a non-career politician who's going to fumble on stuff,
just like most anybody posting on this forum would from time to time.

If it were just occasionally- or if his "explanations" didn't make even less sense than his original statements, I'd agree with you. This, however, is not that.

Steve Forbes was not this bad. Ross Perot was not this bad. Okay, the second time, Ross Perot was this bad- but not the first time.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:24 PM (8y9MW)

48
I'm not especially happy about this. At first I liked Cain and I want to continue to like him, but he fails on the most basic political issues.
Can't someone counsel him and tell him to STFU and just give canned answers?
The reporters are asking canned questions, so give them the same stupid scripted answer all politicians do.
That's Running for Political Office 101. He can't seem to comprehend that

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:24 PM (wuv1c)

49 I'm not sure what the problem is here. What I'm getting is that a) he thinks abortion is wrong in all circumstances but b) his personal opinion doesn't necessarily control the situation. Seems clear enough to me, and is basically what AllanG is suggesting (and indeed, that's exactly what the law of the land was before the Roe v. Wade power grab).

Posted by: Hoobert Heever at October 21, 2011 03:24 PM (Yg39p)

50 Shite, have you noticed after Biden pointed out the rapey-rape that rape is, in fact, now part of every discussion?
Talkin about jobs bill, well you got rape. Talkin about abortion, well you got rape. Talkin about OWS, well you got rape. Talkin about the chicken, rape!
RAPE! RAPE! RAPE!
Christ on a pony!

Posted by: Sgt. Fury at October 21, 2011 03:24 PM (yc3WX)

51 Shorter-

Cain's one recommendation as a CEO-that he hires well-is getting disproved.

Posted by: tasker at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (rJVPU)

52 To be fair, Cain will gather the experts on this area to advise him on the right policy.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (OhYCU)

53 Herman Cain can't be trusted on this issue.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (L8TIZ)

54 O/T - Gov Jan Brewer met with the SCOAMF, he was condescending, lectured her, and mocked SB 1070 and Arizona

The twerp is a legend in his own mind

Posted by: kbdabear at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (Y+DPZ)

55
I understand perfectly what Human Cain was trying to say and I agree with him.

My view on abortion is that is the murder of a unborn baby. I do, however, believe that I have no right to forbid anyone from doing anything to their own body.

If you cut off your wang, I'll think you're an idiot and you belong in a mental hospital. But I won't stop you from doing it.

If you want to kill your unborn baby for Whatever reason, I'll consider it an uncivilized act, but who am I to insist my humanity, my rules on anyone?

You had the abortion. You have to live with it.

Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (G/zuv)

56 H. J. RES. 31
`Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex. `Section 2. Reproductive rights for women under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State. `Section 3. Congress shall have power to enforce and implement this article by appropriate legislation. `Section 4. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification.'.What could go wrong ?

Bill Clinton could have used Section 1, "on account of sex". He then would have had to lie about "not having sex with that woman."

Posted by: Barney Frank at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (e8kgV)

57 Gee, Ace, I think it's tough to impose the death penalty on a baby for the crime of the sperm donor.

Posted by: Chuckit at October 21, 2011 03:26 PM (b7EsT)

58 "I'm pro-life. But due to Roe v Wade, and due to the fact that issues like this really ought to be handled by the states, I don't see this as an issue for the President. Rather than focusing on wedge issues, ask me a relevant question, please."
^^This.

Posted by: LibertarianJim at October 21, 2011 03:26 PM (PReJ3)

59 If this doesn't cause him to sink like a stone, I'll eat that stone. So... true conservatives, now what? Where do you go from here? I keep harping on it with every comment I post here (about 2.3 per day), it's Romney or Perry. Take your pick. No wiggle room here, every one of you that says "not Perry" is saying "Romney." If you don't realize that yet, you will.

Posted by: Burt TC at October 21, 2011 03:26 PM (TOk1P)

60 >>>40 Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can either have a politician who smoothly answers questions like this but who is a "career politician," or you can have a non-career politician who's going to fumble on stuff, just like most anybody posting on this forum would from time to time. You can't have both. Pick what you want, and stop complaining when you don't get the other at the same time.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (+inic)

You see, I don't believe this. Being a good, organized, thoughtful speaker and being a non-careerist politician should not be mutually exclusive. I know they are not mutually exclusive. There has to be SOMEONE who is not a careerist pol who is also not a gaffe machine.

Posted by: Paul at October 21, 2011 03:26 PM (DsHk0)

61 How did Israel, the Right of Return, Afghanistan, etc., never come up on this talk show?
John Derbyshire made the point that Cains problem is his narrowness, that he solely judges from his ownexperience. He took Cains answer to the question who the best fed-chairman was, as an example. Conservatives usually say Paul Volcker, but Cain named Greenspan, becuz Cain worked with him.
I think Derb is spot on. I have to guess, but I think Cain spent most of the time on radio talking about the things he experienced in various semi-governmental positions or his business career. Im quite that he did not discuss or cared much forcurrent events that he never encountered before.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 03:26 PM (i4gLS)

62 There's a certain brain-dead segment of the base that just WANTS to like
him, to the exclusion of actually looking at his positions or viability
as a candidate.

Yuppers.

Posted by: White Guilter at October 21, 2011 03:27 PM (EL+OC)

63 It's not inconsistent. It's moxy!

Posted by: USA at October 21, 2011 03:27 PM (6Cjut)

64 No polling -post Nevada debate- has come out as of last night- that I've seen.

Posted by: tasker at October 21, 2011 03:27 PM (rJVPU)

65
>>>You know what's funny? Something tells me his poll numbers aren't really going to drop, even as all this stuff breaks. There's a certain brain-dead segment of the base that just WANTS to like him, to the exclusion of actually looking at his positions or viability as a candidate. And they will keep him aloft for awhile longer at least. Just a hunch.

That's possible, however I think part of the reason this stuff hasn't "broke" is that it's not really being covered by conservative talk radio and a lot of people get their news from conservative talk radio.
I have a feeling that once his abortion views become an issue, which they no doubt will in the next major debate due to this flub, his stock will sink in Iowa. They Republican party in iowa tends to be real religious and anti-abortion. His second amendment stuff won't help him in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina or Florida either.
Just give it 2 weeks

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:27 PM (wuv1c)

66 Otay - Cain surging, but starting to sound as daffy as Ron Paul. Hate to say it, but Newt is the only one left. So who should Newt pick as VP? Just askin.

Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 21, 2011 03:27 PM (0M3AQ)

67 >>>Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can either have a
politician who smoothly answers questions like this but who is a "career
politician," or you can have a non-career politician who's going to
fumble on stuff, just like most anybody posting on this forum would from
time to time. You can't have both. Pick what you want, and stop
complaining when you don't get the other at the same time.

Easy. Give me a career politician, for fuck's sake. I never drank any of this idiotic Kool Aid about "noble savages" who would emerge from the wilderness to seize the reins of government and return it to true virtue.

Also, I'm no career politician, but I wouldn't fumble ANY of this stuff. I'd be an abrasive, hateful jackass who would alienate voters (don't get me wrong), but I wouldn't make these gaffes. You don't have to be a "career politician" to have thought five minutes in advance about your positioning on the truly obvious, major political issues. To say otherwise is to engage in the soft bigotry of low expectations.

Posted by: Jeff B., pre-op transromneybot at October 21, 2011 03:27 PM (bbxN5)

68 Special! Limited time only. Abortions for Chilean models half price. Limit 9.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 03:27 PM (OhYCU)

69 H. J. RES. 31
`Section 1.
Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by the
United States or by any State on account of sex.

Of course, rape and other "sex" crimes would be unConstitutional.

Posted by: Barney Frank at October 21, 2011 03:28 PM (e8kgV)

70 You had the abortion. You have to live with it.

The baby won't.

Posted by: Methos at October 21, 2011 03:28 PM (sOXQX)

71 I'm not sure what the problem is here.

His original statement is that he would support a ban on abortions becoming "the law of the land." That is- he supports a Federal ban on abortions. That's not what I suggested.

He is saying he wants to make it a Federal Crime to perform an abortion, but that he can't "tell the woman what to do." Except that making something illegal is telling someone what to do. It's saying "don't do this. If you do, you're going to jail."

So the problem is two-fold (for me): 1) Insufficiently Conservative: Abortion is not a Federal Issue (BTW- neither is murder, for the record). 2) Incoherent: when your explanation makes the situation more muddled, you fail.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:28 PM (8y9MW)

72 My view on abortion is that is the murder of a unborn baby. I do, however, believe that I have no right to forbid anyone from doing anything to their own body.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (G/zuv)
Muder is murder. Why don't human rights apply to the baby? The baby is the only innocent party in the matter.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 03:29 PM (6d9Y3)

73 52 To be fair, Cain will gather the experts on this area to advise him on the right policy.
Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (OhYCU)

****

Well it looks like he has not done it for campaigning...

Who the hell is advising him on foreign policy?

Didn't he think that was part of the job description?

Posted by: tasker at October 21, 2011 03:29 PM (rJVPU)

74 I said yesterday that I wouldn't be surprised if Cain's success in the business world has been more attributable to other factors than to Cain himself. And he is way too overconfident in his own abilities.

Posted by: Havedash at October 21, 2011 03:29 PM (sFD5n)

75 I don't have any idea what he is saying, but at least his position is clearer then Mittens.

Posted by: Jean at October 21, 2011 03:29 PM (WkuV6)

76 Sorry Herm but your daily fuck ups are getting old. It's almost like you never thought you would do this well and were totally unprepared for your success. You blew it Herm.

Posted by: robtr at October 21, 2011 03:29 PM (MtwBb)

77 72 My view on abortion is that is the murder of a unborn baby. I do, however, believe that I have no right to forbid anyone from doing anything to their own body.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (G/zuv)
Muder is murder. Why don't human rights apply to the baby? The baby is the only innocent party in the matter.

Two reasons mostly: (1) they don't vote, and (2) they have no SSN and therefore do not exist. See?

Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 21, 2011 03:30 PM (0M3AQ)

78
At the very least... Perry knew he couldn't be trusted to be interviewed on CNN.

A man's gotta know his limitations.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 03:30 PM (OhYCU)

79 >>>My view on abortion is that is the murder of a unborn baby. I do, however, believe that I have no right to forbid anyone from doing anything to their own body.

>>>If you want to kill your unborn baby for Whatever reason, I'll consider it an uncivilized act, but who am I to insist my humanity, my rules on anyone?
Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:25 PM (G/zuv)

So lemme make sure I have this straight: You concede that abortion is murder, but you don't think you or the state has the right to forbid it?

Once you accept the premise "abortion is murder", saying "it's really not my place to judge someone for getting an abortion" is simply insanity.

Posted by: Paul at October 21, 2011 03:31 PM (DsHk0)

80 Soothsayer, your comment is more convoluted than Cain's. Murder is murder, and you either think babies are being murdered here or you don't. According to you, it's alright to murder babies?
Really?

Posted by: Burt TC at October 21, 2011 03:31 PM (TOk1P)

81 Anyone But Obamney!

Posted by: The Chap in the Deerstalker Cap at October 21, 2011 03:31 PM (qndXR)

82 Ok you can stop the bludgeoning, I'm off the Cain train.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 21, 2011 03:31 PM (0q2P7)

83 Also, I'm no career politician, but I wouldn't fumble ANY of this stuff. I'd be an abrasive, hateful jackass who would alienate voters (don't get me wrong), but I wouldn't make these gaffes.
Yeah, actually, you probably would.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:32 PM (+inic)

84 Two reasons mostly: (1) they don't vote, and (2) they have no SSN and therefore do not exist. See?
Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 21, 2011 03:30 PM (0M3AQ)
Sadly, you are right.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 03:32 PM (6d9Y3)

85 Abortion. It's legal. Next issue.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 03:32 PM (mka2b)

86 Each state needs to decide when life begins.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 03:32 PM (OhYCU)

87 Is it too late for Jim DeMint to get in the race?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:32 PM (+inic)

88 I understand perfectly what Human Cain was trying to say and I agree with him.My
view on abortion is that is the murder of a unborn baby. I do, however,
believe that I have no right to forbid anyone from doing anything to
their own body.

Except that it's not at all clear that's what he's saying. On one hand he says he's "pro-choice", on the other hand he says he'd make it illegal. On the... umm... third hand he says he'd make it illegal but supports the right to break the very law he says he'd support.

There's not that many positions one can have on this. They pretty much fall into (nobody running for President is going to say they're pro-abortion):

1. Personally opposed to abortion, but disapprove of laws banning it.
2. Opposed to abortion, would make it illegal (perhaps with exceptions for rape, incest, protect life of mother).
3. Opposed to abortion, but laws pertaining to it should be made at the state level, thus oppose a federal ban.

Cain seems to be trying to have it all three ways, and it doesn't make any sense.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2011 03:33 PM (SY2Kh)

89 Dead babies do vote, and they vote democrat.

Posted by: Dr Spank at October 21, 2011 03:33 PM (L8TIZ)

90
Abortion is a cruel and barbaric practice. But I can't tell some woman that I don't know that she must carry and give birth to some retard-rapist's baby.

Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:34 PM (G/zuv)

91 I think what he is trying to say is that legal and illegal abortion are apples and oranges. Only an idiot wouldn't understand that.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at October 21, 2011 03:34 PM (+lsX1)

92 I'm tanned, rested, and ready! And, I'm a darned sight less stupid than your current crop of candidates.

Posted by: Dan Quayle at October 21, 2011 03:34 PM (6d9Y3)

93 O/T. I saw an Obama 2012 bumper sticker today. Does the absence of Biden on the ticket signify anything??? This is a serious question. Has anybody seen an Obama/Biden 2012 ticket?

Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 21, 2011 03:34 PM (6IV8T)

94 Yes we will die on that hill, especially if you believe that life begins at conception. If that is your belief, there is no other hill to die on. It is intellectually dishonest to make an exception for rape/incest. Besides, those are basically red herrings that are so infrequent they really aren't germane to the discussion. Politicially is it a winner, probably, but that is because people avoid the hard questions. If you don't believe life begins at conception, or are unsure, then you are probably entitled to some wiggle room. In the end, if you could outlaw abortion, except for rape/incest. That is probably a good starting point - because again, very few abortions occur for those reasons. I would hope most pro-lifers would take that compromise, and then work on getting that exception removed.
Anyway, should this be the core issue in 2012 - NO. But pro-life is a litmus test for a lot of people, because it tells us something about your core principles. As the Catholic Church says, abortion is different. Frankly, I would think less of a politician who said life begins at conception, except during rape. That is pure pandering of the worst kind.
With respect to Cain, he should learn to answer like Ron Paul, who I believe masterfully straddles thepro-life position with his pure libertarian view point. That life should be protected, but it is not the role of the federal government.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 03:35 PM (gmeXX)

95 Abortion is a cruel and barbaric practice. But I can't tell some woman
that I don't know that she must carry and give birth to some
retard-rapist's baby.

Can you tell a man you don't know not to be a rapist?

Posted by: Methos at October 21, 2011 03:35 PM (sOXQX)

96 My view on abortion is that is the murder of a unborn baby. I do, however, believe that I have no right to forbid anyone from doing anything to their own body.If you cut off your wang, I'll think you're an idiot and you belong in a mental hospital. But I won't stop you from doing it.If you want to kill your unborn baby for Whatever reason, I'll consider it an uncivilized act, but who am I to insist my humanity, my rules on anyone?This has to be the most logically distressed argument for (I think it was for?) abortion I've ever seen.
If abortion is *murder* of an unborn baby, then the mother doesn't have a right to commit it - period. She can do what she wants with her own body - she can't do what she wants with somebody else's. Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:35 PM (+inic)

97 And yet, he's soaring in the polls.

Whatever could be the reason for that?

Jesus, conservatives really need to get their heads out of their asses. This is the crap I expect from brain-dead liberals - not from our side.

Posted by: lu feeling twinkly at October 21, 2011 03:35 PM (pLTLS)

98 My view on abortion is that is the murder of a unborn baby. I do,
however, believe that I have no right to forbid anyone from doing
anything to their own body.

Except that baby is not "their own body." The baby has a completely separate and distinct body with a completely separate and distinct genetic code. So if it's murder- it's murder. And it therefore should be stopped.

You can only say it is "their own body" if you do not accept that the baby is a separate entity- in which case what is wrong with abortions of convenience?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:36 PM (8y9MW)

99 93O/T. I saw an Obama 2012 bumper sticker today. Does the absence of Biden on the ticket signify anything??? This is a serious question. Has anybody seen an Obama/Biden 2012 ticket?Posted by: Chilling the most for perry at October 21, 2011 03:34 PM (6IV8T) If they think Biden is the problem.......

Posted by: Red Shirt at October 21, 2011 03:36 PM (FIDMq)

100 @85

Slavery. It's legal. Next issue.

Posted by: 1860 at October 21, 2011 03:36 PM (Xm1aB)

101 These abortion arguments are so new and fresh and exciting and useless.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 03:37 PM (mka2b)

102 >>>85 Abortion. It's legal. Next issue.
Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 03:32 PM (mka2b)

Well shit. Guess we should just give up trying to repeal Obamacare then. It's legal, after all.

Posted by: Paul at October 21, 2011 03:37 PM (DsHk0)

103 There has to be SOMEONE who is not a careerist pol who is also not a gaffe machine.

Actually, they're all over the place. They're just too smart to run.

Posted by: Joanna at October 21, 2011 03:37 PM (cjhzU)

104 gee i want the 47% of this country that doesn't pay taxes to have to start. i want to see the look on their faces when that big one time a year welfare check they call a tax return doesn't come. Or it says "you owe". the dependent class is rapidly coming close to growing larger than the productive class in this nation. after that it's banana republic time.

Posted by: bannor at October 21, 2011 03:37 PM (6AXh/)

105 These abortion arguments are so new and fresh and exciting and useless.
Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 03:37 PM (mka2b)
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note which item is first on that list.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 03:38 PM (6d9Y3)

106 Leaving him to grope on stage for explanations and defenses, and coming up with the worst one possible.

To be fair to Perry, that isn't 100% true. He did have a canned "provide maximum opportunity to the available talent in Texas" response along with a lot of caveats there were at least thought through. It was when the question was pressed (The dog that won't let go of the bone) that he threw "heartless" out there to try and kill the issue (Which it did, though not the way he wanted it to).

In my mind means his initial response was what his team thought would sell, and his off the cuff, is what he actually thinks. Which doesn't correspond with a huge swath of the base, whom he confidentially insulted with the same statement.

Posted by: MikeTheMoose Camellia Sinensis Operative at October 21, 2011 03:38 PM (0q2P7)

107 90 Abortion is a cruel and barbaric practice. But I can't tell some woman that I don't know that she must carry and give birth to some retard-rapist's baby.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:34 PM (G/zuv)
Even if it meant punishing a future generation with Joe Biden IV? You just know that he's going to go tardasil stupid and rape some women just to prove a point.

Posted by: Havedash at October 21, 2011 03:38 PM (sFD5n)

108
But what of the woman's rights; does she have any say at all?

If there are indeed the rights of two distinct persons involved in every pregnancy, why do the rights of one supersede the rights of the other?

Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:38 PM (G/zuv)

109 My neighbor called and wanted me to perform an abortion on her. I told her I'm running for office for Pete's sake, I can't be performing any abortions.

Posted by: Mitt Romney at October 21, 2011 03:38 PM (AF1jB)

110

@ If Newt actually becomes any type of threat, Romney will just buy him. Offer him the VP slot -- or offer to pay off his Tiffany bill.

So, its Romney. Man, going be harsh to lose twice in a row.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 21, 2011 03:39 PM (oBrVT)

111 Does he actually want to be President? If so, why didn't he put together positions on the major issues of the day a long time ago?
If you keepworkingout what your positions are during interviews and debates, you're going to look bad a certain percentage of the time.

Posted by: Wm T Sherman at October 21, 2011 03:39 PM (w41GQ)

112 102
Well shit. Guess we should just give up trying to repeal Obamacare then. It's legal, after all.

That has yet to be decided. Every cycle we beat each other up over abortion and the Democrats stand back and laugh. Go ahead and do it again.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 03:40 PM (mka2b)

113
Just wait til the next debate. This will be the first question asked to Cain.

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:40 PM (wuv1c)

114 109
My neighbor called and wanted me to perform an abortion on her. I told
her I'm running for office for Pete's sake, I can't be performing any
abortions

until after the election

Posted by: Mitt Romney at October 21, 2011 03:40 PM (136wp)

115 But what of the woman's rights; does she have any say at all?If there are indeed the rights of two distinct persons involved in every pregnancy, why do the rights of one supersede the rights of the other?
Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:38 PM (G/zuv)
The woman has the right to privacy, the baby has the right to life; the right to life has to trump. If the pregnancy threatens her life, then it is a case of triage.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 03:40 PM (6d9Y3)

116 108

But what of the woman's rights; does she have any say at all?

If
there are indeed the rights of two distinct persons involved in every
pregnancy, why do the rights of one supersede the rights of the other?

Posted by: soothsayer

Exactly, why do the rights of the mother supersede the rights of the child? My solution : when a woman comes for an abortion, abort her and save the child.

Posted by: Dr Spank at October 21, 2011 03:41 PM (L8TIZ)

117 *sigh*

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 03:41 PM (/AHDz)

118 @112

Um, actually, we don't beat each other up over abortion in the Republican primaries.

But this round, we've got Cain alarming the normal pro-life base with very confusing commentary on the issue.

Posted by: 1860 at October 21, 2011 03:42 PM (Xm1aB)

119 105
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Note which item is first on that list.

None of those make it in Obamaworld which, if this keeps up, we are going to have for 4 more years.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 03:42 PM (mka2b)

120
Slavery. It's legal. Next issue.Posted by: 1860

Well -- aint that just a bitch
Posted by : Dred Scott

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 21, 2011 03:42 PM (oBrVT)

121
>>So, its Romney. Man, going be harsh to lose twice in a row.
Indeed.
I should be excited about 2012, but I'm dreading it.
We're going to have to choose between a failed welfare statist and a successful welfare statist.
It's essentially like an English election. Everyone loses, whether Tories, Labour or Lib-Dems win, because there really isn't a lick of difference between them. One is just better at running the welfare state.

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:42 PM (wuv1c)

122 "If there are indeed the rights of two distinct persons involved in every
pregnancy, why do the rights of one supersede the rights of the other?"
Because the one keeps trying to kill the other.

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 03:43 PM (/AHDz)

123 But what of the woman's rights; does she have any say at all?

Okay, are you brain-damaged?

Which Right takes precedence: the Right to Life, or the right not to be inconvenienced? I have a right to carry a weapon- I do not have a right (except in defense of my life or that of another) to shoot you. Why? Because your right to Life is more important than my Right to Bear Arms- until you violate the social contract by threatening another life.

Under the normal circumstance, the woman had the right to say "no." This is even the case in "incest" since the liberals insist on separating that from "rape."

In the case of rape- why should the only innocent in the entire transaction (that would be the baby- who hasn't even made an error of judgement) be the one to pay the ultimate price?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:43 PM (8y9MW)

124 Also, I'm no career politician, but I wouldn't fumble ANY of this stuff. I'd be an abrasive, hateful jackass who would alienate voters (don't get me wrong), but I wouldn't make these gaffes.
Just like Santorum.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 03:43 PM (GULKT)

125 OH DEAR GOD MAKE IT STOP!

Posted by: The chicken at October 21, 2011 03:43 PM (8c34o)

126 it seems to me that cain is pro-life as a personal matter, but pro-choice regarding laws seeking to make it illegal. i just saw a clip from wolf blitzer he did a couple months back, he is asked.

look at this staring at 3:00. his answer is deliberately avoiding the real question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywpLbguOwFk

Posted by: Milo Wendt at October 21, 2011 03:43 PM (Z7toi)

127 It's looking like it's time for me to jump in this race.

Posted by: Alan Keyes at October 21, 2011 03:44 PM (tf9Ne)

128 We're going to have to choose between a failed welfare statist and a successful welfare statist.

If it makes you feel any better, they'll both be failed welfare statists four years from now.

Posted by: Methos at October 21, 2011 03:45 PM (sOXQX)

129 Yeah, yeah, yeah, they all suck. To paraphrase the inestimable Donald Rumsfield.
You go to election with the assholes you have.

Posted by: Warthog at October 21, 2011 03:46 PM (WDySP)

130 110 @ If Newt actually becomes any type of threat, Romney will just buy him. Offer him the VP slot -- or offer to pay off his Tiffany bill.So, its Romney. Man, going be harsh to lose twice in a row.
No. Romney is boxed into to his 20-25% RINO box and he can't get out. Thats why we have such things as Tard Alert. If you are too dumb to reach out to the base you can always call Tard Alert and a smiling representative of the MSM will prop you up and put fresh lipstick on you and call you smart. That is until the general, then Tard Alert is more like anal rape-rape. Just ask Juan McCain.

Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 21, 2011 03:46 PM (0M3AQ)

131
Can we get Sarah to take a second look?

Posted by: Dave at October 21, 2011 03:46 PM (Xm1aB)

132
If it's any consolation I am totally against homosexual marriage.

And sandals.

Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:46 PM (G/zuv)

133 I thought I told you! No. Wire. Hangers!! EVER!!1!

Posted by: Joan Crawfords festering snatch at October 21, 2011 03:47 PM (8ieXv)

134 126 it seems to me that cain is pro-life as a personal matter, but pro-choice regarding laws seeking to make it illegal. i just saw a clip from wolf blitzer he did a couple months back, he is asked.look at this staring at 3:00. his answer is deliberately avoiding the real question.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ywpLbguOwFk
Posted by: Milo Wendt at October 21, 2011 03:43 PM (Z7toi)
Thats not true. He statedexplicitely in an earlier interview that he wanted to make abortions illegal.
Cain circled around and around Stossel�s frank questions, defaulting to stock phrases like �I�m pro-life� and �life begins at conception� � but also �that�s her choice.� When Stossel asked him if abortion should be legal, though, he flat-out said �no.�

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 03:47 PM (i4gLS)

135 Can't wait until they ask Cain about gay marriage. I'm already popping the popcorn.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:47 PM (+inic)

136 This is depressing. I'm going to assume Perry will win the Texas primary even if he drops out prior to it and there just isn't any point in me voting next March.

Posted by: Bob Saget at October 21, 2011 03:48 PM (SDkq3)

137 Oh, it won't be so bad. I'm a pretty good guy and that's the truth. I've seen what President Obama has done to this country and I mean to get in their on day one and start cleaning house. Starting with Obamacare.

BWAAHAHAHAHA! Oh shit, who am I fooling? I can't even keep a straight face with this bullshit anymore! You fuckers are screwed!

Posted by: Mitt Romney at October 21, 2011 03:48 PM (AF1jB)

138 >>>Just like Santorum.

Actually yeah, that would probably be the right comparison. Correct on points most of the time, but an absolute failure on demeanor.

Posted by: Jeff B., pre-op transromneybot at October 21, 2011 03:49 PM (bbxN5)

139 What's with winging it?

Posted by Ace at 03:08 PM New Comments Thingy

Stupid party.

I don't know the reason, maybe the cynics are right, politics is an inherently unethical game, so the more you try to have a consistent, "pure" position, whichever position that is, the more of a doofus you look in the political realm.

That doesn't quite explain this particular gaffe, but there you go.

I think Cain could have benefited from a dose of "I really just care about fixing the economy and keeping the peace, I'm willing to let (people, states, the legislature) concentrate on this issue."

But that sounds too much like "I don't know," which is death in ego-driven political games.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of Not Being Fooled at October 21, 2011 03:49 PM (bxiXv)

140 There has to be SOMEONE who is not a careerist pol who is also not a gaffe machine.

They're all waiting on 2016, unfortunately.

Posted by: supercore23 at October 21, 2011 03:50 PM (bwV72)

141 Can't wait until they ask Cain about gay marriage. I'm already popping the popcorn.

Oh, my. I hadn't even thought of that. I can only imagine the rhetorical gymnastics.

It will be like watching Michael Moore try to do the Pommel Horse. Or Rosie O try the spring-board.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:50 PM (8y9MW)

142 We came, we saw, we aborted.

Posted by: Hillary Clinton at October 21, 2011 03:50 PM (AF1jB)

143 131
Can we get Sarah to take a second look?
Posted by: Dave at October 21, 2011 03:46 PM (Xm1aB)

I'd like to look at Sarah from both sides, now.

Posted by: CoolCzech at October 21, 2011 03:50 PM (niZvt)

144 A candidate's stance on abortion is reallllllly going to make a difference when Iran lauches a warhead.
/

Posted by: stillwater at October 21, 2011 03:50 PM (0GpN4)

145 If it's any consolation I am totally against homosexual marriage.

And sandals.
Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:46 PM (G/zuv)

I think we can all, except CAC, come together on the sandal issue.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of Not Being Fooled at October 21, 2011 03:51 PM (bxiXv)

146 launches

Posted by: stillwater at October 21, 2011 03:51 PM (0GpN4)

147 But what of the woman's rights; does she have any say at all?If there are indeed the rights of two distinct persons involved in every pregnancy, why do the rights of one supersede the rights of the other?
Because one will die. It's really pretty simple.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 03:51 PM (VKD8C)

148 Cain has just about talked me into thinking my wife was right about him. That is, that he got into this not to win the nomination or the presidency (and probably thought he had zero chance to) but simply to pump up his name recognition and sell more of his damn books.

I think he sounds like he's not thought any of this through before because he hasn't. He didn't figure that he had to before the slack-jawed and pathetic GOP field in this race made him into a contender.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 21, 2011 03:51 PM (haFNK)

149 I guess I don't see the problem here. It's a perfectly reasonable position to say that thoughone is opposed to abortion under any circumstances, and though it may even be illegal, in the end it is the family's choice as to what action to take, even if they take an action that is illegal.
It seems like you guys are a little too eager to criticize Cain. Sure his statements may not always be totally clear, but you go the extra mile to assume the worst from it. Can't you just give the guy the benefit of the doubt without parsing every single statement for a way to knock him down?

Posted by: zoomwsu at October 21, 2011 03:52 PM (Papdd)

150 Well in response to Ace's update.

I think one of the reasons the Republican field looks unprepared or weak...

is because a lot of the Republican bench positioned themselves to run in 2016.

Back when Obama was inaugurated I don't think too many thought Obama would implode in such a spectacular fashion.

(Some knewhe wasn't ready, that he was inexperienced-but I doubt they predicted the Democrat consiglieri Geithner, Summers, etc would be so abysmal.)

Posted by: tasker at October 21, 2011 03:52 PM (rJVPU)

151 #147
It's so simple we keep talking about it every 4 years.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 03:53 PM (mka2b)

152 144
A candidate's stance on abortion is reallllllly going to make a difference when Iran lauches a warhead.
/
Posted by: stillwater at October 21, 2011 03:50 PM (0GpN4)
I dont even wanna think of what opinions Cain might have about Iran and nukes. He might succeed in making Ron Paul look reasonable.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 03:53 PM (i4gLS)

153 40 Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can either have a politician who smoothly answers questions like this but who is a "career politician," or you can have a non-career politician who's going to fumble on stuff, just like most anybody posting on this forum would from time to time. You can't have both. Pick what you want, and stop complaining when you don't get the other at the same time.
Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (+inic)
Um, bullshit? Look if someone isn't a career politician, then they don't need to be perfect, but by entering the race they have chosen to become a politician. And they should be prepared for the major common topics of the office they seek. And for an office of President you are aiming pretty high and better have people helping you choose the best way to express your opinion so its clear (or at least clear to the group your currently talking to in the case of some politicians).
Hell even a guy running for the position of dogcatcher better show some knowledge of animal control, and some competency that he's not just going to shoot every loose animal he sees.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 03:53 PM (GULKT)

154 I am a sex offense prosecutor. I had a case in which a fourteen year old girl became pregnant by her own dad. She wanted an abortion. I was not in a position legally, morally, or ethically (or, for that matter, tactically) to state an opinion. I did want to do a DNA test on the fetus, however, for evidentiary reasons. Never having done this before, I didn't know how to go about doing this. I eventually called up the abortion clinic and asked them what it would take for the cops to get a DNA sample. They responded, and this is as close to an exact quote as I can make it, you can just have it. We were just going to throw it away anyway.

Posted by: WalrusRex at October 21, 2011 03:53 PM (OkVDh)

155 In Fairness... I'm a Perry booster. But what really bothered me about Perry wasn't just his "heartless" comment itself, but the implication that he really had not expected this to be an issue, and really had not bothered thinking about it too much.
Compared to DOOM!, nuclear Iran, socialized medicine, the housing crisis, and EPA jackboots shutting down our domestic energy, it should barely register as an issue. Primaries have a way of blowing up minor issues well beyond their true importance.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 03:53 PM (6d9Y3)

156 A candidate's stance on abortion is reallllllly going to make a difference when Iran lauches a warhead.

And, if our Government were functioning as originally Constituted, we would be able to ignore the question. But it's not, so we can't. The Federal Government has a say in abortion: we need to know a candidate's stance.

Now, the one I would prefer is "Roe v. Wade was a bad decision because it removed from the States a power they should have according to the constitution: namely, the ability to determine the legality of abortion. I would appoint Justices who would begin overturning the entire anti-Federalist machine, including Roe v. Wade, and would return that power to the States."

Failing that, I want someone with a coherent position.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:53 PM (8y9MW)

157 I'm going to stick with Perry through the primaries, then vote for Mitt in the general after he wins the nomination ... which he will because Perry can't even debate as well as George W.
I'm not at all happy about this.

Posted by: Warden at October 21, 2011 03:55 PM (HzhBE)

158 Perry. Abortion. Heartless. Assembly.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 03:55 PM (OhYCU)

159 @ 144 A candidate's stance on abortion is reallllllly going to make a difference when Iran lauches a warhead.
A candidate's stance on ObamaCare is realllllly going to make a difference when Iran launches a warhead.
/

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:55 PM (+inic)

160 Can't you just give the guy the benefit of the doubt without parsing every single statement for a way to knock him down?

Given that he's putting himself forward as a Presidential Candidate, and we'd like to go forward with the best one possible? No. He get the same tear-down machine as everyone else.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:56 PM (8y9MW)

161 I put a link to his second amendment opinions in the sidebar. It appears he agrees with the idea that the state and local government should be able to restrict gun ownership

Posted by: Ben at October 21, 2011 03:19 PM (wuv1c)
It's starting to sound a lot like he's parroting stuff he's heard reported in MSM newscasts, and has no idea what the hell most of it means. Good grief. Maybe the CBS Evening News is what passes for campaign "research" with this guy.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 21, 2011 03:56 PM (haFNK)

162 A candidate's stance on abortion is reallllllly going to make a difference when Iran lauches a warhead.

If we hadn't aborted 50 million American babies we could better absorb the destruction of a city or two.

Posted by: Bizarro Barry at October 21, 2011 03:56 PM (sOXQX)

163 It seems like you guys are a little too eager to criticize Cain. Sure his statements may not always be totally clear, but you go the extra mile to assume the worst from it. Can't you just give the guy the benefit of the doubt without parsing every single statement for a way to knock him down?
Posted by: zoomwsu at October 21, 2011 03:52 PM (Papdd)
We've already got President Training-Pants in office right now. Why should we be willing to replace him with another?

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 03:56 PM (GULKT)

164
@130

Can't see what stops him. Money, name req and experience aside, here's the current primary calendar:

01-?? January 2012 New Hampshire primary
01-03 January 3, 2012 Iowa caucus
01-14 January 14, 2012 Nevada caucus
01-21 January 21, 2012 South Carolina primary
01-31 January 31, 2012 Florida primary

02-04 February 4�11, 2012 Maine caucus
02-07 February 7, 2012 Colorado caucus
02-07 February 7, 2012 Minnesota caucus
02-28 February 28, 2012 Arizona primary
02-28 February 28, 2012 Michigan primary

Last time around Romney threw in the towel the first week of Febuary 2008. Are there any of the races above that we expect him to lose to give someone else the case for staying in?

BTW - Remember that caucus are usually easier to buy than elections.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 21, 2011 03:56 PM (oBrVT)

165 You can either have a politician who smoothly answers questions like this but who is a "career politician," or you can have a non-career politician who's going to fumble on stuff, just like most anybody posting on this forum would from time to time.

You know, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that, young fella. Because I was all set to win the whole fucking prize by flipping through a few charts on Larry King until I decided I'd rather fuck over George HW Bush instead.

Posted by: Ross Perot at October 21, 2011 03:57 PM (HzhBE)

166 151 #147It's so simple we keep talking about it every 4 years.
Yeah, sorry. 4000 American children are killed every day single day. We're going to keep talking until it stops. Deal with it.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 03:57 PM (VKD8C)

167 Mitt isn't going to win in Iowa or South Carolina.

Where's that leave us?

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at October 21, 2011 03:58 PM (AF1jB)

168 "Can we get Sarah to take a second look?"
If only. There's no way, though. She'd only look like a bigger flake if she changed her mind now.

I know it would have been a long shot, but I still think she's the only one that might have actually been able to make a difference.

So while I think it's more likely that Obama loses now, I also think it will make less of a difference if he does.

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 03:58 PM (/AHDz)

169 We're going to keep talking until it stops. Deal with it.

**Up Twinkles**

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 03:58 PM (8y9MW)

170 Cain has just about talked me into thinking my wife was right about him.
That is, that he got into this not to win the nomination or the
presidency (and probably thought he had zero chance to) but simply to
pump up his name recognition and sell more of his damn books.

Worked for me.

Posted by: Barry the Magnificent at October 21, 2011 03:58 PM (sOXQX)

171 Well folks, you can't have it both ways. You can
either have a politician who smoothly answers questions like this but
who is a "career politician," or you can have a non-career politician
who's going to fumble on stuff, just like most anybody posting on this
forum would from time to time. You can't have both. Pick what you
want, and stop complaining when you don't get the other at the same
time.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 03:22 PM (+inic)
How about a "non-career politician who doesn't say dumb shit every time he opens his mouth"? Thanks for offering the false choice, but no thanks.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 21, 2011 03:58 PM (haFNK)

172
Honestly, I don't know what he's saying, and frankly, I don't think he does, either.

Ace:

Cain recognizes not only a long standing tradition of American law enforcement, but something that's been practiced by all of humanity and stretches back to long before the codes of Hammurabi:

The difference between de Jure and de Facto.

The two will never mesh, and recognizing that fact doesn't make you a fool or a hypocrite. It makes you, if anything, a realist.

And we certainly can't allow a realist to be a serious contender for president.

Posted by: Ed Anger at October 21, 2011 03:59 PM (7+pP9)

173 This is sesame street simple, Ace: he opposes abortion personally, but he doesn't project his personal opinion outside the law onto others.

What, in the metric fucking val-u-rite-covered hobo part of that shit is escaping you?

Posted by: tangonein at October 21, 2011 03:59 PM (x3YFz)

174 Are there any of the races above that we expect him to lose to give someone else the case for staying in?

Since by the stupid RNC rules all primaries and caucuses held before March 1 this time are proportional delegates nobody will drop out until after March 1.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2011 04:00 PM (YdQQY)

175 Honestly, I don't know what he's saying, and frankly, I don't think he
does, either. This is a pattern with him. It really seems that in
whole swathes of important policy choices, he really hasn't given the
matter much thought at all, and is grasping to cohere his thinking on
these issues on the fly, during interviews.
Yes - exactly right. Seems to have good values, but isn't really ready for High Office.

But what really bothered me about Perry wasn't just his "heartless"
comment itself, but the implication that he really had not expected this
to be an issue, and really had not bothered thinking about it too much.
Leaving him to grope on stage for explanations and defenses, and
coming up with the worst one possible.

Yes - exactly right. And the same for the vaccine question. And he doesn't seem to have his economic plans just quite ready-to-go when he wants to talk about them.

Kinda too bad there wasn't someone else around - you know, a nice attractive candidate that's all vetted - all over the place - used to being on the national stage - and has good conservative (economic and social) values. Where would one find someone like that?

Ah - Ronald Reagan. To quote Rooster Cogburn: "Just when you need them the most, they're dead."

Posted by: Roger at October 21, 2011 04:00 PM (tAwhy)

176 last fucking time I ever hit the tip jar here. For more reasons than this thread.

Posted by: tangonein at October 21, 2011 04:00 PM (x3YFz)

177 156 - "Compared to DOOM!, nuclear Iran, socialized medicine, the housing crisis, and EPA jackboots shutting down our domestic energy, it should barely register as an issue. Primaries have a way of blowing up minor issues well beyond their true importance."
I disagree, it allows you to see what sort of principles that person has. If a politician is so easily willing to give up their pro-life beliefs to remain a Democrat (e.g., every democrat over the age of 60), then they are liklely willing to sell out in matters of much less importance. Ron Paul is right, how can we expect an officeholder to respect our private property rights if they are unwilling to respect the right to life. If they won't protect the unborn, why will they protect the elderly? It is just too big an issue, and to say it should be ignored is foolish.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:00 PM (gmeXX)

178 Given that he's putting himself forward as a Presidential Candidate, and we'd like to go forward with the best one possible? No. He get the same tear-down machine as everyone else.
Ok Allen, let's just load up the circular firing squad and welcome the second term of President SCOAMF then, because self-destruction is what you guys seem intent on.

Posted by: zoomwsu at October 21, 2011 04:00 PM (Papdd)

179
You know what's funny? Something tells me his
poll numbers aren't really going to drop, even as all this stuff
breaks. There's a certain brain-dead segment of the base that just
WANTS to like him, to the exclusion of actually looking at his positions
or viability as a candidate. And they will keep him aloft for awhile
longer at least. Just a hunch.

Posted by: Jeff B., pre-op transromneybot at October 21, 2011 03:23 PM (bbxN5)
I hope you're wrong, but I'm afraid you're right...sigh.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 21, 2011 04:01 PM (haFNK)

180 My strategy is to watch these amateurs implode all over each other until it's only me and Mitt left. I will then eat him as I did Pawlenty, and then prepare for my main course Obamal'orange.

Posted by: Newt at October 21, 2011 04:01 PM (MVVJU)

181 "If we hadn't aborted 50 million American babies we could better absorb the destruction of a city or two."

Not to mention how 50 million additional American taxpayers might help us get back to solvency.

I wonder how many of those 50 million were going to innovate like Steve Jobs, or how many were going to make medical breakthroughs that would have ended up improving everyone's life.

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 04:01 PM (/AHDz)

182 Last time around Romney threw in the towel the first week of Febuary 2008. Are there any of the races above that we expect him to lose to give someone else the case for staying in?BTW - Remember that caucus are usually easier to buy than elections.
Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 21, 2011 03:56 PM (oBrVT)
I believe all those primaries now fall under the category of being awarded Proportionally. They will not be winner-take-all affairs where Romney can have an insurmountable lead built up that no one can overcome given the right circumstances.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 04:02 PM (GULKT)

183 I was checking out Red State yesterday and one of the commentors posted the following:
Herman Cain, when asked if he�d run for office, said he �was not ready to appease voters by taking stands on those issues.� then said �I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing� http://tinyurl.com/3wefdmc
Cain added, �I�m not a social issues crusader. I�m a free-enterprise crusader.�
Cain said he had determined that while he has very strong and distinct opinions about business-related matters, he is less clear-cut in his stances on social issues and was not ready to appease voters by taking stands on those issues.
�Too many people in the electorate are single-issue voters,� he commented, �and to try and cater to the single-issue voters and the single-issue pockets out there felt like I was compromising my beliefs. As an example, with the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing.� Nation�s Restaurant News
I think a lot of people who consider themselves to be fiscal conservatives don't understandthat that includes beinga social conservative as well. It's a hand-in-hand deal. I don't get why he doesn't know this, it's basic conservative Republican 101.

Posted by: The Ghost of Kim Novak clearly pimping for Perry at October 21, 2011 04:02 PM (8DdAv)

184 @ 171 How about a "non-career politician who doesn't say dumb shit every time he opens his mouth"? Thanks for offering the false choice, but no thanks.
Not a false choice. Look, I know that everybody thinks that they're God's gift to television cameras, and is just convinced that they can get in front of a camera and sound like a pro. Good luck with that. To do that, as with many other things people might want to be good at, you actually have to be a pro.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 04:02 PM (+inic)

185 We is the Cincinnatus of our time?

Posted by: The Robot Devil at October 21, 2011 04:02 PM (136wp)

186 What's with winging it?

We no longer require our presidential candidates to be knowledgeable. Our country is more interested in politicians who can say what they want to hear in a compelling way than in politicians who actually know something. Some of these modern presidential candidates only know certain facts because they were fed to them by an adviser. I am not saying these men and women must be great policy experts but is it to much to expect them to be generalists?

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 21, 2011 04:02 PM (d6QMz)

187 173 This is sesame street simple, Ace: he opposes abortion personally, but he doesn't project his personal opinion outside the law onto others.
Posted by: tangonein at October 21, 2011 03:59 PM (x3YFz)
You Cainics keep saying that, but itsSIMPLY NOT TRUE.
In an interview with John Stossel earlier this month, Cain circled around and around Stossel�s frank questions, defaulting to stock phrases like �I�m pro-life� and �life begins at conception� � but also �that�s her choice.� When Stossel asked him if abortion should be legal, though, he flat-out said �no.�

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 04:03 PM (i4gLS)

188 The problem is, abortion is not illegal and there is little support to make it illegal in this country. It didn't happen under President Bush and it won't happen under President Perry or President Cain.

So I'm not sure how hypotheticals about the issue move Republican candidates in a positive direction.

Posted by: MayBee at October 21, 2011 04:03 PM (PLixr)

189 If they won't protect the unborn, why will they protect the elderly? It is just too big an issue, and to say it should be ignored is foolish.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:00 PM (gmeXX)
I was responding to Ace's update about Perry's take on the in-state tuition issue, not Cain's abortion stance.

Posted by: Vashta Nerada at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (6d9Y3)

190 173 This is sesame street simple, Ace: he opposes abortion personally, but he doesn't project his personal opinion outside the law onto others.What, in the metric fucking val-u-rite-covered hobo part of that shit is escaping you?
Posted by: tangonein at October 21, 2011 03:59 PM (x3YFz)
Great. So we've got John Kerry dipped in chocolate running as a Republican.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (GULKT)

191 Cain is just having a hard time trying to walk back what was essentially another gaffe. The abortion issue is a damn thorny problem for any politician to address without stepping on their weenie with one group or another because the country is evenly split on it. The best political answer is:

I am personally against it but it is the law of the land and as President I must enforce the law. However I will appoint judges who will return this issue to the States where it rightfully belongs.

That is a damn simple answer and will probably piss off the least number of people.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (YdQQY)

192 Cain has just about talked me into thinking my wife was right about him. That is, that he got into this not to win the nomination or the presidency (and probably thought he had zero chance to) but simply to pump up his name recognition and sell more of his damn books.

Isn't this what they said about Sarah Palin? She was in it for the Money. I don't think Herman is in it for the Money. I think he made the same mistake as Perry. I think they both believed because of their past successes, that this would be no different. Well it is different, very different. I think Perry is starting to figure it out, but it may be too late.

Newt? I am thinking Newt, layer of scum and all.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (ZDUD4)

193 Taking a position that abortion is wrong but is not willing to personally project it onto others is like saying 'I'm against murder, but I'm not willing to project that personal opinion onto someone else'. It is a weak position and it is illogical.

Posted by: Hidajunshin at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (MVVJU)

194 181
"If we hadn't aborted 50 million American babies we could better absorb the destruction of a city or two."

Not to mention how 50 million additional American taxpayers might help us get back to solvency.

I
wonder how many of those 50 million were going to innovate like Steve
Jobs, or how many were going to make medical breakthroughs that would
have ended up improving everyone's life.

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 04:01 PM (/AHDz)
Oh, and most of those? Those were black children. Never hear the black congressional clusterfuck ever come out to denounce what is obviously genocide on the part of Planned Parenthood Murder.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (x3YFz)

195 I wonder how many of those 50 million were going to innovate like Steve Jobs, or how many were going to make medical breakthroughs that would have ended up improving everyone's life.
Nah, they were all black kids who would just have ended up comitting crimes anywise.

Posted by: Dr. Steven D. Levitt at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (+inic)

196 Ah, here we go. I was wondering when the Cain-bashing thread would get posted.

Posted by: Marmo at October 21, 2011 04:05 PM (InrkQ)

197 But on big things like war, abortion, and immigration -- were these guys really not expecting the issues to come up?

You're right about the winging it stuff. Most of them are doing it, with the exception of the perpetual candidate from Massachusetts who simply berates you for even asking about Masscare (there was an article about this today - Goldberg? someone like that - wherein Romney's advisers are shocked shocked I tell you that people are still asking about Masscare!).

However, in Perry's defense, I think in terms of the tuition law, he didn't see it as an illegal immigration issue. I think he thought he was solid enough on immigration/border issues (Inhofe apparently agreeing with that assessment, btw) that he just didn't think that the 10-yr old tuition thing would be of interest on a national level.

Obviously, major blind spot (even though for me it's a big meh and it does not concern me in terms of what Pres. Perry would do) on his part and clearly not handled as well as he could.

If I were a candidate I'd make my team pepper me with questions for hours each day until I never came up with an emotionally-charged answer and could state something in as simple a way as possible. Most of them don't have that luxury (Perry has a full time job already) or discipline (Cain strikes me as unwilling to do that). A couple of them seem much better at it: Romney and Gingrich. Both are basically full-time politicians with no other jobs to do but prep.

It is what it is.

Posted by: Y-not at October 21, 2011 04:05 PM (5H6zj)

198 But on big things like war, abortion, and immigration -- were these guys really not expecting the issues to come up?
Very, very few politicians have ever considered or reasoned to/from/around-in their positions. There are certain fragments of discourse they've attached to certain "issues," because they work in the position-defense situations those politicians normally encounter; they end conversation.
But, like I've said before, you can't go into a Republican presidential primary, especially not this one, just talking shit. GOP voters want more from their candidates than familiar phrases (some of that "more" is non-policy stuff, of course). And in debates, Newt and RAUN POL! know everything, or they're prepared for everything, and the Mittbot is just well enough programmed to fool "I'm smart, too!" chumps into thinking the Mittbot has some thoughts, while everyone else just looks dumb and crazy and weird.
And I mean all the other candidates have a really hard time with this stuff�stuff Democrats never have to face, because they can just be angry idiot phrase-recycling YEAH! machines and who cares? The media and their voters don't.
This is why all the sniping at Palin for not being "smart" enough on "policy" was wrong-headed/bullshit/whatever. She's far above average at that sort of thing. In fact, I'm not sure any actually existing electoral-type politician is as issue-smart as the average fucking blog commenter is.
Seriously, think about it. Grade 'em on that curve. Who gets an A in the Basic Shit About Whatever 101 mid-term? Just Newt, POL!'s son, maybe Ryan, and probably the POL! himself.
(The POL!'s A is a bluffer's A, but he could get it.)
These people are not better than us. They're significantly worse.

Posted by: oblig. at October 21, 2011 04:05 PM (cePv8)

199 FUCK!

Posted by: oblig. at October 21, 2011 04:06 PM (cePv8)

200
Newt? I am thinking Newt, layer of scum and all.

Err, I wouldn't be able to stomach that...

Posted by: The Robot Devil at October 21, 2011 04:06 PM (136wp)

201 @ 192 Newt? I am thinking Newt, layer of scum and all.
Unfortunately, as smart of a guy as Newt is, he's a skeleton closet timebomb just waiting to happen.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 04:06 PM (+inic)

202 166
Yeah, sorry. 4000 American children are killed every day single day. We're going to keep talking until it stops. Deal with it.

Deal with 4 more years of Obama then cause as per usual the issue always screws the Republicans over.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 04:06 PM (mka2b)

203 Actually there is a lot of support to make it illegal. Somewhere between the support that exists for Obamacare and the support that exists for puppies. Probably closer to Obamcare, but there is still a lot of support for making it illegal. And that support is growing each year. Maybe it won't happen under a Perry or Cain, but one day it will. The first step is to get it back to the states. That process could begin under a Perry/Cain presidency. I have no confidence that Mitt would nominate a conservative justice.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:06 PM (gmeXX)

204 "The problem is, abortion is not illegal and there is little support to
make it illegal in this country."

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade and it finally had to become more than just an academic exercise, maybe the public could be persuaded. So I'm less interested in whether a President would push for making abortion illegal than I am in what kind of supreme he or she would appoint.

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 04:06 PM (/AHDz)

205 "Our country is more interested in politicians who can say what they want to hear in a compelling way than in politicians who actually know something."

Which brings us to the Fox debates. Jeebus, what a disaster those monstrosities were. Every question designed to gin up a sound bite they could play every fucking minute for the next three days.

I'm surprised they didn't have a break where circus clowns came out and did a little dance with a fucking trained seal with a calliope banging away in the background. It was that bad. The media must think every single person in the country is a drooling fucktard.

Posted by: Dack Thrombosis at October 21, 2011 04:07 PM (AF1jB)

206 he opposes abortion personally, but he doesn't project his personal opinion outside the law onto others.

bzzzzt. He wants to make it illegal. That would throw out "his personal opinion outside the law," now wouldn't it?

Ok Allen, let's just load up the circular firing squad and welcome the
second term of President SCOAMF then, because self-destruction is what
you guys seem intent on.

So... we don't get to criticize our candidates for saying stupid stuff? We don't get to point out that it's reflects poorly on his ability to explain himself? We're just supposed to say, "Oh, he's a Republican- we know he means well!"

No. That's the Democrat way. That's the way that got us Barack Obama, who is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure. I will vet all the candidates. I'm willing to forgive a little gaff-ness for, say, Rick Perry, or Rick Santorum, or (even) Ron Paul or Mitt Romney. They all have political resumes I can look at- actual history that shows me what they'll do. Since all I have is Herman Cain's words, he doesn't get that benefit of the doubt. If all I have is your words, your words had better be darn near perfect.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:07 PM (8y9MW)

207 193
Taking a position that abortion is wrong but is not willing to
personally project it onto others is like saying 'I'm against murder,
but I'm not willing to project that personal opinion onto someone
else'. It is a weak position and it is illogical.

Posted by: Hidajunshin at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (MVVJU)
That's ignorant.
Having personal beliefs that diverge from someone else's doesn't give you the right or the merit to impose them on someone else.Little principle we call: LibertyYou're free to fuck up as much as you want as long as it doesn't fuck up my world. i.e. drink 2 gallons of vodka a day, smoke weed, throw yourself off a cliff.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:07 PM (x3YFz)

208 @185 We is the Cincinnatus of our time?
I'm right here, why do you ask?

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 04:07 PM (+inic)

209 "Deal with 4 more years of Obama then cause as per usual the issue always screws the Republicans over."

Somehow several pro-life Republican Presidents were elected over the last 30+ years.

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 04:08 PM (/AHDz)

210 Deal with 4 more years of Obama then cause as per usual the issue always screws the Republicans over.
Any examples at all to back up this assertion? Who was the Great Repbulcian Savior who couldn't get elected because he just loved the Rights of Women tm too damn much?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:08 PM (VKD8C)

211 Not a false choice. Look, I know that everybody thinks that they're
God's gift to television cameras, and is just convinced that they can
get in front of a camera and sound like a pro. Good luck with that. To
do that, as with many other things people might want to be good at, you
actually have to be a pro.

It's too much to ask that someone who's running for President be able to communicate his own positions without contradicting himself? Really?

It's not a terribly complicated or new issue. There are only a few possible positions to have.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2011 04:08 PM (SY2Kh)

212 If they come up? You're thinking maybe they won't?

What's with winging it?

That's why I'm starting to lean towards Newt (baggage and all). He has a concise answer to every question under the sun, and I have yet to disagree with any of his responses.
Perry seems to be a lot slower on his feet than I was led to believe. Very unfortunate because we need the executive experience right now.

Posted by: Great Reagan's Ghost at October 21, 2011 04:09 PM (UK3qx)

213 33
Remember when the Democrats, when not saying he was evil incarnate, would call Ronald Reagan an "amiable dunce?"

Well, Herb Cain is our amiable dunce.

Posted by: soothsayer at October 21, 2011 03:19 PM (G/zuv) I think Perry already took that title.

Posted by: Marmo at October 21, 2011 04:09 PM (InrkQ)

214 You're free to fuck up as much as you want as long as it doesn't fuck up my world. i.e. drink 2 gallons of vodka a day, smoke weed, throw yourself off a cliff.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:07 PM

Yep, that works.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 21, 2011 04:09 PM (ZDUD4)

215 I think all you people who got your feelings hurt because Perry called you heartless should simply acknowledge that you're not heartless, as evidenced by the fact that you got your feelings hurt when he called you heartless. I'm sure he'll apologize, then we can get on with nominating him. Everybody wins!

Posted by: Burt TC at October 21, 2011 04:09 PM (TOk1P)

216 Palin's looking more and more coherent and consistent every time a candidate opens his/her mouth. Sigh.

Posted by: SFGoth at October 21, 2011 04:09 PM (dZ756)

217 So you're cool with murder as long as someone doesn't murder your family, tangonine?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (VKD8C)

218 Personally, I'm of the cloth that believes abortion is murder. You want to kill your kid? You answer to God, but don't ask me to pay for it.

Simple.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (x3YFz)

219 Ah Newt, if debating were the only requirement for successfully winning an election. Let's not elevate him too much for his stellar debate skills - as good as they are.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (gmeXX)

220 MS has Initiative 26 on the ballot for this November. This referendum attempts to define life as beginning at conception. It criminalizes interference with the process once the egg is fertilized. It is stupid beyond belief.

Birth control pills interfere with the attachment of the egg to the uterine wall. Is someone going to be examining every woman's menstrual blood to see if a fertilized egg has been expelled? Maybe there is an exception for this; I haven't read the all initiative yet. I do know that you can still use a diaphragm or a rubber as they block the sperm and egg joining.

Will there be a coroner's inquest every time a woman spontaneously aborts? This is not an uncommon occurrence. Gee, I'm sure that will make the agony of losing your baby so much more pleasant. Followed by a possible indictment....what could go wrong?

No petri dish IVF procedures will be conducted here any more. I'm sure that is cheerful news for couples struggling to conceive. You see, if the egg fails to implant then someone killed a baby. No MS doctors are going to submit themselves to this danger.

The thing is, this stupid 'law' is likely to pass here. Sigh. Ah well, eventually the SC will rule it unconstitutional. The stupid, it burns hard here sometimes.

Posted by: GnuBreed at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (ENKCw)

221 I was wondering when the Cain-bashing thread would get posted.
It's for his own good. He is going to explode. Better to help him.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (OhYCU)

222 I can't think of that many on the pro-life side who'll state that they're 100 % against abortion, even in the case of rape or incest. That this issue of all the issues today is being used against Mr. Cain is unfathomable.

Posted by: bill glass at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (cnjvR)

223 217
So you're cool with murder as long as someone doesn't murder your family, tangonine?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (VKD8C)
.... really? You want to have a logic fight?

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:11 PM (x3YFz)

224 Deal with 4 more years of Obama then cause as per usual the issue always screws the Republicans over.

Tell that to President Gore. Or President Mondale.

Just sayin'.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:11 PM (8y9MW)

225 Posted by: bill glass at October 21, 2011 04:10 PM (cnjvR)
Yeah right, becuz its the first time that he's talking out of his ass...

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 04:12 PM (i4gLS)

226 Yes, I do tango. How is killing my 2 year old any different than killing my unborn child, in terms of how it impacts your life? Should I be able to kill my 2 year old?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (VKD8C)

227 200 Newt? I am thinking Newt, layer of scum and all.Err, I wouldn't be able to stomach that...
The good news is the layer of scum has been publicized, thus its a spent round. He has experience, knowledge and smarts. He also knows how to fillet the media while cleaning his nails. Finally, he has real ideas how to reconfigure to a constitutional government by flanking the left. Just sayin.

Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (0M3AQ)

228 205
"Our country is more interested in politicians who can say what they
want to hear in a compelling way than in politicians who actually know
something."

Which brings us to the Fox debates. Jeebus, what a disaster those
monstrosities were. Every question designed to gin up a sound bite they
could play every fucking minute for the next three days.

I'm surprised they didn't have a break where circus clowns came out and
did a little dance with a fucking trained seal with a calliope banging
away in the background. It was that bad. The media must think every
single person in the country is a drooling fucktard.

Politicians know debates are designed for soundbites, which is why they try to give answers that will be played on endless news loops. Take Romney, for example. He has been trained to give the "right answer" (for the base) in 30sec-1min. I am not saying he is an idiot- he is, in fact, naturally bright- but this is the way the game is played.

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (d6QMz)

229 In fact, I'm not sure any actually existing electoral-type politician is as issue-smart as the average fucking blog commenter is.

If this country survives another four years, maybe one of us should run.

Posted by: Methos at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (sOXQX)

230 It's too much to ask that someone who's running for President be able to communicate his own positions without contradicting himself? Really?No, it's not too much to ask...but it is something that is made more difficult by someone not being used to being in front of a TV camera with a potentially hostile interviewer. That's why I said you can either have a slick politician type who has done that for 30 years, or you can have a "non-career politician" who's going to fumble in front of a camera a lot of the time.If you choose to want the non-career politician, then expect that things will get a little muddied at times.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (+inic)

231 I will stand by my theory that social cons should relax until we get a Fiscal Con in the White House. Not that social consevatism isn't important, it is. However, these are not messages that can rally the masses like Jobs, Debt, Taxes and regulations.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (ZDUD4)

232 226 Yes, I do tango. How is killing my 2 year old any different than killing my unborn child, in terms of how it impacts your life? Should I be able to kill my 2 year old?

No. She has a SSN. See?

Posted by: Sub-Tard at October 21, 2011 04:14 PM (0M3AQ)

233 You're free to fuck up as much as you want as long as it doesn't fuck up
my world. i.e. drink 2 gallons of vodka a day, smoke weed, throw
yourself off a cliff.

But not "drink 2 gallons of vodka a day, smoke weed, and shoot that guy who accidentally stepped on your foot."

It's simple: either abortion is taking a life, or it is not. If it is taking a life, then it is only justified in the most rare of circumstances (particularly, when talking about abortion: if the life of mother is at stake*). If it is not taking a life, then there is no reason to object to it whatever.

Truth is binary.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:15 PM (8y9MW)

234 Thankfully Bush 43 did not advertise that he was pro-life. It would have only hurt him.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:15 PM (gmeXX)

235 So... we don't get to criticize our candidates for saying stupid stuff? We don't get to point out that it's reflects poorly on his ability to explain himself? We're just supposed to say, "Oh, he's a Republican- we know he means well!"Of course not! I think it's perfectly okay to begin with the assumption that he holds a generally-acceptable conservative view on the subject (until he clearly demonstrates he thinks otherwise) and say "gosh, Mr. Cain handled that poorly. He needs to work on his answers if he's going to win this thing," and going on to offer meaningful advice and opinion that builds our candidates up.
What annoys me is that instead of reasonably discussing and criticizing our candidates, many of you are treating them just like you'd treat a candidate from the other side--tearing him down, implying ineptitude, rather than the real difficulty of being artfully articulate yet inoffensive on such a controversial question.

Posted by: zoomwsu at October 21, 2011 04:16 PM (Papdd)

236 Jeez, this Herman Cain chap is beginning to look a lot like Sean Connery shooting off the plane's rudder in Indiana Jones in the Last Crusade

Posted by: Freeloading Open Range Defecationist at October 21, 2011 04:16 PM (0AClR)

237
Are we a land of liberty if a person is slaughtered in the womb without even given theirdue process rights? It's an ignorant position to deny these people constitutional rights just because they happen to be residing in a warm sack.

Posted by: Hidajunshin at October 21, 2011 04:16 PM (MVVJU)

238 226
Yes, I do tango. How is killing my 2 year old any different than killing
my unborn child, in terms of how it impacts your life? Should I be able
to kill my 2 year old?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (VKD8C)
Ok, I'll bite. And you won't like it:Ask yourself at what age of the child you become accountable for killing your child? The courts say one thing. I live in a society governed by laws, so I adhere to them. So to answer your first stupid question: No, if you try and kill anyone and I'm present I'm going to kill you in their defense.
I may not agree with all laws but I abide by them. So take your ignorant argument and... have fun at disneyland with it

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:16 PM (x3YFz)

239 The root of Cains problem isnt communication, its lack ofpoliticalknowledge.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 04:16 PM (i4gLS)

240 Not a false choice. Look, I know that everybody
thinks that they're God's gift to television cameras, and is just
convinced that they can get in front of a camera and sound like a pro.
Good luck with that. To do that, as with many other things people might
want to be good at, you actually have to be a pro.

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 04:02 PM (+inic)
Yes, it is. You're confusing delivery with content. If anything, Cain's delivery is fine. People love listening to him speak (remind you of anyone there?). It's the content of what he says that's the problem. It often doesn't make a lick of sense. Not policy wonk details not making sense, but just plain old common sense is not there, but especially, his answer show NO preparation for the issues he'd have to face if he got elected - God help us all. Nothing. His delivery - the "professional politician" stuff is fine. He just happens to not know a damn thing about what he's talking about most of the time.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 21, 2011 04:17 PM (haFNK)

241 "I will stand by my theory that social cons should relax until we get a Fiscal Con in the White House. Not that social consevatism isn't important, it is. However, these are not messages that can rally the masses like Jobs, Debt, Taxes and regulations."
Once again, we have the mythical unicorn (or liger), the fiscal conservative but social liberal. Last seen .... where?

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:17 PM (gmeXX)

242
In fact, I'm not sure any actually existing electoral-type politician is as issue-smart as the average fucking blog commenter is.

I can think of about ten, some of them no-names in the House.

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 21, 2011 04:17 PM (d6QMz)

243 Take Romney, for example. He has been trained to give the "right answer" (for the base) in 30sec-1min. I am not saying he is an idiot- he is, in fact, naturally bright- but this is the way the game is played.
Posted by: Miss'80s at October 21, 2011 04:13 PM (d6QMz)
And he's going to give you that 30sec-1 min answer dammit. Even if it would require a much shorter answer like "Yes or No." Oh and after that 1 minute answer you're not going to be sure on if it should be considered a yes or a no.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 04:18 PM (GULKT)

244 209
Somehow several pro-life Republican Presidents were elected over the last 30+ years.

Posted by: Kensington

Good. Vote for the nominee. Anybody but Obama.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 04:19 PM (mka2b)

245 Some of us happen to think this type of muddled response not only suggests Cain would make a terrible candidate, but that he would make a terrible President as well. Which is kind of important.

Posted by: Burt TC at October 21, 2011 04:19 PM (TOk1P)

246 "Thankfully Bush 43 did not advertise that he was pro-life. It would have only hurt him."

Are you being sarcastic? W. was openly pro-life.

Posted by: Kensington at October 21, 2011 04:19 PM (/AHDz)

247 242 I missed the word "electoral". Maybe 5?

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 21, 2011 04:19 PM (d6QMz)

248
Once again, we have the mythical unicorn (or liger), the fiscal conservative but social liberal. Last seen .... where?
Posted by: SH

It's like trying to roll up a Paladin.

Posted by: Laurie David's Cervix at October 21, 2011 04:20 PM (oBrVT)

249 You're free to fuck up as much as you want as long as it doesn't fuck up
my world. i.e. drink 2 gallons of vodka a day, smoke weed, throw
yourself off a cliff.

50 million babies annihilated vs. 300 million people walking around America today. That's basically one in seven of the people you should have known over the course of your life that didn't survive their mothers and the courts long enough to meet you. I'm pretty sure that falls into the category of fucking up all our lives whether they would have been friends, employees, the smart aleck tenor in your church choir, or whatever.

Posted by: Methos at October 21, 2011 04:20 PM (sOXQX)

250 I may not agree with all laws but I abide by them
Well, I guess we can all just pack up and go home. Abortion is legal so it must be ok! Pretty weak for a "logical" argument, Tango.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:20 PM (VKD8C)

251 Personally, I'm of the cloth that believes abortion is murder. You want
to kill your kid? You answer to God, but don't ask me to pay for it.

WTF? Let's put down this syllogism.

P1) Abortion is Murder
P2) ???
C) Abortion should be legal.

Please define Premise 2 (P2) for me.

Because, see, mine goes like this:

P1) Abortion is taking of life.
P2) Taking of life is, in most cases, Murder
C1/P3)Abortion is, in most cases, Murder.
P4) Murder is illegal
C2) Abortion, when it is murder, should be illegal.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:20 PM (8y9MW)

252 Let's face it, this is Cain's problem. The GOP is the pro-life party. It is not going to damage you to have a pro-life position. He could have answered it in one simple question and then gone back to the 999 plan. He screwed it up, and now he has two issues to deal with: (1) whether he really is pro-life and (2) whether he is prepared for a presidential run. This was a huge unforced error. A nuanced abortion position is just not workable. I wish they would grill Romney on it. Who knows where he stands exactly.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:21 PM (gmeXX)

253 243 And he's going to give you that 30sec-1 min answer dammit. Even if
it would require a much shorter answer like "Yes or No." Oh and after
that 1 minute answer you're not going to be sure on if it should be
considered a yes or a no.

Yes, but he gives enough to satisfy everyone. So people who want one answer will think he said one thing, and people who want another believe he agreed with them.

Posted by: Miss'80s at October 21, 2011 04:21 PM (d6QMz)

254 Isn't this what they said about Sarah Palin? She was
in it for the Money. I don't think Herman is in it for the Money. I
think he made the same mistake as Perry. I think they both believed
because of their past successes, that this would be no different. Well
it is different, very different. I think Perry is starting to figure it
out, but it may be too late.

Newt? I am thinking Newt, layer of scum and all.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 21, 2011 04:04 PM (ZDUD4)
Palin, who I also used to have a much higher opinion of than I do now (like Cain), gave me no choice but to think that about her. She still is reinforcing that impression with the constant sniping at various candidates she does nonstop on FNS and other outlets. (shrug) Take your pick on Cain then...got in on a lark, to sell books, to land a big cable news/radio gig? Whatever...one thing that is certain though is that he's not done a damn bit of preparation before he started.

Posted by: davidinvirginia at October 21, 2011 04:21 PM (haFNK)

255 This thread will end in chaos. I'm out before I become tangled in it's viscous vortex.

Posted by: Cherry pi at October 21, 2011 04:22 PM (OhYCU)

256 250

I may not agree with all laws but I abide by them

Well, I guess we can all just pack up and go home. Abortion is legal
so it must be ok! Pretty weak for a "logical" argument, Tango.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:20 PM (VKD8C)
I think I made it pretty clear that I'm against abortion. So unless you're all in for armed assault on abortion clinics, you can just stop with the holier-than-thou bullshit.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:22 PM (x3YFz)

257 Who knows where he stands exactly.

He was for abortion before he was against it. IOW he is like his fellow State citizen, he Kerried it.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2011 04:22 PM (YdQQY)

258 No, it's not too much to ask...but it is something that is made more
difficult by someone not being used to being in front of a TV camera
with a potentially hostile interviewer.

He was a radio talk show host. Granted, that's not quite the same as doing TV interviews, but you don't become President without doing quite a few of them. It's also an expected role of the President to be able to state and defend your own positions, be they in front of a TV camera or otherwise.

My opinion of Cain (and Bachmann) was from the start that they were running vanity campaigns, undertaken not with any intention to win but rather to benefit themselves personally. Nothing either of them have done since announcing has changed that view.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2011 04:22 PM (SY2Kh)

259 "Once again, we have the mythical unicorn (or liger), the fiscal conservative but social liberal. Last seen .... where?"

Hi!

Posted by: Mitt Romney, Your Inevitable Nominee at October 21, 2011 04:23 PM (/AHDz)

260
I find it very hard to believe that someone like Ace would not know the whole rape/incest exception to abortion makes one pro-choice. It's not that hard. The issue is life. Period. If you make an exception for rape or incest you are bringing the two major pro-choice arguments into the equation: choice and birth defects. You can't say the choice to get pregnant then determines the choice to stay pregnant. A life is a life. You can't say medical problems with the fetus determines the choice to stay pregnant. A life is a life. If you make an exception that involves the choice to get pregnant (rape and/or incest when it involves a minor), or the choice of dealing with birth defects (incest), then you are bringing choice into it.
A true pro-life advocate advocates for life in all circumstances. A life is a life. As a pro-abortion person, I always tried to get a pro-lifer to make an exception for rape and incest because as soon as I got them to concede to it, which is surprisingly easy to do, I knew I had them. If you are willing to accept the choice to get pregnant as your criteria for abortion you are not pro-life. You're pro-choice. A life is a life. Period. Mitt Romney is pro-choice and so is Herman Cain.

Posted by: Jaynie59 at October 21, 2011 04:23 PM (4zKCA)

261 Maybe we should find all the rapist's other children and kill them too.

Posted by: Edj at October 21, 2011 04:23 PM (+QKfp)

262 Tango, you're the one defending Cain's muddled stance on the issue. Do you, or do you not, support abortion being recriminalized?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:23 PM (VKD8C)

263 251
Personally, I'm of the cloth that believes abortion is murder. You want
to kill your kid? You answer to God, but don't ask me to pay for it.

WTF? Let's put down this syllogism.

P1) Abortion is Murder
P2) ???
C) Abortion should be legal.

Please define Premise 2 (P2) for me.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:20 PM (8y9MW)
I'm certain I never said abortion should be legal.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:24 PM (x3YFz)

264 He could have answered it in one simple question and then gone back to the 999 plan
Well how long can Cain go back to his 9-9-9 plan? I mean you can't even call it that anymore. Its the 9-0-9 and 9-9-9 plan. How soon before it becomes the 9-0-9, 9-9-9, and 9-15-9 plan?

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 04:25 PM (GULKT)

265 246 - yes sarcasm to the poster who thinks the abortion issue is what prevents the GOP from winning the presidency. They seem to think we live in a country where everyone is pro-choice. The country is becoming more pro-life for many reasons, one of the biggest is SCIENCE. That is we now have great sonogram technology. Why the GOP should run away from an issue that the general public is embracing simply because the media is against it is beyond me.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:25 PM (gmeXX)

266 @ 238 I may not agree with all laws but I abide by them. So take your ignorant argument and... have fun at disneyland with it
Er, answering an argument with "it's legal, so there" isn't exactly a logical "win."

Posted by: Titus Quinctius Cincinnatus at October 21, 2011 04:25 PM (+inic)

267 262
Tango, you're the one defending Cain's muddled stance on the issue. Do
you, or do you not, support abortion being recriminalized?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:23 PM (VKD8C)\good question, and the first time you've asked a good one.I think abortion should be illegal. In all cases.But, it's not.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:25 PM (x3YFz)

268 Once again, we have the mythical unicorn (or liger), the fiscal conservative but social liberal. Last seen .... where?

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:17 PM

Santorum is a Social Con, how is he doing? My point isn't that a Fiscal con can live in the same body as a social liberal. I don't think that's possible, at least with any success. But if you are going to run for President, you have to pound your message and it had better be a fiscal one or you will not win in this Country.

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 21, 2011 04:25 PM (ZDUD4)

269 Abortion is legal.
Abortion is murder.
Therefore
Murder is legal.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 04:26 PM (mka2b)

270 I will stand by my theory that social cons should relax until we get a
Fiscal Con in the White House. Not that social consevatism isn't
important, it is. However, these are not messages that can rally the
masses like Jobs, Debt, Taxes and regulations.

No. If America is going to be an evil country, why bother making any attempt to salvage it?

Posted by: Methos at October 21, 2011 04:26 PM (sOXQX)

271 I think it's perfectly okay to begin with the assumption that he holds a generally-acceptable conservative view on the subject

Ummm... no. Again: All I have from Herman Cain is his words. I have no history to back up what he would do. Romney fans may not like it, but Romney has a history that is Not Conservative Enough for me- so I can more-or-less ignore his words, and trust that (in general) people don't change their positions much. That may be unfair to Mr. Romney, but that's the way the world works (why do you think it's harder to get a job once you have 3 or 4 positions in a row where you were only there a year or less?).

So, given that I don't have a history for Herman Cain that will demonstrate what his actions are likely to be, his answers must be very, very good all the time.

Ok, I'll bite. And you won't like it:

Dude. Your bark was worse. And your bark was pathetic.

That was not a logical argument, that wasn't even an argument strictly on topic. Since we are not debating the illegality of abortion itself, but rather the position of whether or not it should be illegal ("should be" vs "is") your comment wouldn't even get scored in the debate.

The question is: Should abortion be illegal. If the answer is yes, why would then not be telling someone what their actions (that is: not getting an abortion) should be?

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:26 PM (8y9MW)

272
this is what we get for having our debates moderated by liberals,
this is what we get when our leaders read the NYT and LAT and hoping not to be spoken ill of,
this is what we get when our canidates are afraid of speaking conservative philosophy, fucking Ron fucking Paul's stance on abortion makes morte sense than this and he's nuttier than a friutcake.

memo to all future conserv. canidates - say what you beleive and STOP worrying what the marxists are going to say about it!!!

Posted by: shoey at October 21, 2011 04:26 PM (m6OUa)

273 But, it's not.
Do you agree that politicians should work to change the law?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:27 PM (VKD8C)

274 So I'm taking a boatload of heat because I:

1) Think abortion in all cases is immoral
2) Recognize the current laws

We've got that much straight?

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:27 PM (x3YFz)

275 No one wants to do the hard work of thinking this stuff through--at least no one wants to do that AND run for the office. So people like Daniels and Ryan and Christie have more or less coherent, consistent philosophies and take more or less coherent, consistent positionsthat they can articulate and defend. People like Romney and Perry and Cain run for President with little thought other than to pander and try to win today's news cycle.
My guess is the people who run are motivated by ego or power, and they know the public will vote for the guy who makes them feel good, policy logic be damned. The ones who are motivated by policy choices also know this. With the exception of Cain, they are all experienced elected officials, they should know what the public wants, and they all agree.
The public wants feel-good lullabyes, not policies and programs.

Posted by: Marty at October 21, 2011 04:28 PM (b0AML)

276 Mitt 259, are you really a fiscal conservative? I look forward to this being the 3rd election you have lost in your illustrious 20 year non-political career. One for 4 isn't bad.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:28 PM (gmeXX)

277 269 Abortion is legal.Abortion is murder. Therefore Murder is legal.
And we should accept this situation because...?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:29 PM (VKD8C)

278 273

But, it's not.

Do you agree that politicians should work to change the law?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:27 PM (VKD8C)
um. really? You're really asking me that? Do you think that if politicians don't change a law with which you disagree they should get your vote? (rhetorical question, Netterman, take a lap).

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:29 PM (x3YFz)

279 277

269 Abortion is legal.
Abortion is murder.
Therefore
Murder is legal.

And we should accept this situation because...?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:29 PM (VKD8C)
ok, smartass, what are you going to do about it?

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:29 PM (x3YFz)

280 Cain puts as much preparation in on his campaign as he does on his pizzas: a bunch of stuff just thrown together that in the end is unpalatable and hard to stomach.

Posted by: Joe Mama at October 21, 2011 04:30 PM (CYoZS)

281 Now do you believe me, that the Republican Party is threatened by these conservatives - first Bachmann, then Perry, now Cain? And, can I have some money please, just anything you have lying around?

Posted by: Charles Thompson at October 21, 2011 04:30 PM (HprDl)

282 Every Presidential candidate in recent memory has had one of the following positions about abortion:

1. In favor of a federal ban, perhaps with an exception for incest, rape, and welfare of the mother. (pro-life)

2. Personally opposed to abortion, but against state or federal laws banning it. (pro-choice)

3. Personally opposed to abortion, against a federal ban but believes Roe v Wade should be overturned with the states free to decide what restrictions to place. (federalist)

Three choices, four if you count exceptions for rape, incest, welfare of the mother. That's about it. How could anyone have difficulty describing where they stand in less than two sentences?

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2011 04:31 PM (SY2Kh)

283 277
But see, murder is NOT legal. Syllogisms don't equal truth.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 04:31 PM (mka2b)

284 um. really? You're really asking me that?
Yes, I am. You are defending Cain when his position is anything but clear. Who the hell knows if he would do anything to work to end legal abortion. I don't think he even knows what he would do.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:31 PM (VKD8C)

285
ya know who else i blame for this shit?
RINO's like Romney who never have a problem joining in the chorus whenever a conservative takes a conservative stance.
and if you support Romney YOU are part of the problem.

Posted by: shoey at October 21, 2011 04:31 PM (m6OUa)

286 "Mitt 259, are you really a fiscal conservative?"
Silly boy, that's how I sold myself and secured the nomination!

Posted by: Mitt Romney, Your Inevitable Nominee at October 21, 2011 04:32 PM (/AHDz)

287 ya know who else i blame for this shit?

RINO's like Romney who never have a problem joining in the chorus whenever a conservative takes a conservative stance.

and if you support Romney YOU are part of the problem.

Posted by: shoey at October 21, 2011 04:31 PM

Agreed

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 21, 2011 04:32 PM (ZDUD4)

288 268 - Social conservatives are typically more fiscally conservative than non-social conservatives. Not perfect, and not always. But there is just no such thing as a fiscal conservative but social liberal. How are those blue dog democrats doing. I wouldn't support Santorum, but I'm sure he would be much more fiscally conservative than Romney. The point is we should find someone who is both, because those who will sell out life, will sell out on the budget as well.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:32 PM (gmeXX)

289 I'm certain I never said abortion should be legal.

No, you never used those words. However, since the discussion on the thread has been "Pro-Life v Pro-Abortion" and you came down on the "Pro-Abortion" side of that argument (at least by way of saying you wouldn't stop someone), that means you think abortion should be legal.

If you didn't, you would see the problem with Mr. Cane's stance- that is, he's advocating for something to be illegal, but then refusing to "impose his values" on women. That is, he would not attempt to dissuade them from doing something he believes should be illegal.

And you defended that.

If America is going to be an evil country, why bother making any attempt to salvage it?

Actually, I'm of the mind that you really can't be Fiscally Conservative and Socially Liberal. Or, rather, you can't do so logically. But people hold lots of illogical ideas.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:33 PM (8y9MW)

290 "Once again, we have the mythical unicorn (or liger), the fiscal conservative but social liberal. Last seen .... where?"

Second look at me!

Posted by: Rudy Giuliani at October 21, 2011 04:33 PM (/AHDz)

291 Every candidate I support gets taken down by the media. Romney is the only one they are going to let us have.
1. Palin
2. Bachmann
3. Perry
4. Cain

Of course when Romney gets the nomination, they'll get him too. Probably got some really good shit on him.

Posted by: kansas at October 21, 2011 04:33 PM (mka2b)

292 So, given that I don't have a history for Herman Cain that will demonstrate what his actions are likely to be, his answers must be very, very good all the time. What do you mean you don't have a history that demonstrates what his actions are likely to be? He's articulated his philosophy on governing very clearly--identify the right problem and surround yourself with the right people--the success of which is demonstrated in his ability to take command of a failing enterprise and turn it into something that is successful.
I'm sorry he's not the career politician you seem to require, but I'll take a very successful, accomplished businessman that has reached the pinnacle of three different career fields (IT, Business and Finance) over a pathetic politician any day of the week.

Posted by: zoomwsu at October 21, 2011 04:34 PM (Papdd)

293 We no longer require our presidential candidates to be knowledgeable.
"Welcome to Costco. I love you."

Posted by: Scott J at October 21, 2011 04:35 PM (/bVuS)

294 Now do you believe me, that the Republican Party is threatened by these
conservatives - first Bachmann, then Perry, now Cain? And, can I have
some money please, just anything you have lying around?

The GOP didn't force Bachmann to overdose on Tardisil, Perry to do poorly in debates, or Cain to have no fucking idea what he's talking about at any given moment. The fault lies with each of them individually, not some form of Republican Party plot.

Neither Bachmann or Cain should've been considered as serious candidates in the first place.

Posted by: Hollowpoint at October 21, 2011 04:35 PM (SY2Kh)

295 brb, selling out on life!

Posted by: Herman Cain at October 21, 2011 04:35 PM (/AHDz)

296 ok, smartass, what are you going to do about it?
I am working closely with those who crafted theNebraska fetal pain bill. It is likely to come before the SC. What are you doing?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:36 PM (VKD8C)

297
the mythical social-liberal/fiscal-conservative doesn't exist.
once you buy the whole "fairness" and "social justice" bullcrap you are no longer ANY kind of conservative, you are a progressive.

Posted by: shoey at October 21, 2011 04:37 PM (m6OUa)

298 Another spirited discussion the AOS board. Good job Ace.

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 04:37 PM (gmeXX)

299 "Every candidate I support gets taken down by the media. Romney is the only one they are going to let us have. "
Okay, so we're agreed then? Some of us would like to take some vacation time over the holidays. We'll just pencil in Mitt M-I-T-T (Geez, what a funny sounding name) Romney R-O-M-N-E-Y on the ballot.

Then we can start running all our anti-Mormon screeds and exposes. Have you heard how those guys treated black people? Hoo, man!

Posted by: The MFM at October 21, 2011 04:37 PM (/AHDz)

300 So I'm taking a boatload of heat because I:1) Think abortion in all cases is immoral2) Recognize the current laws Obtusely refused to recognize that the question at issue was whether or not you could "impose your values" on someone once abortion is illegal

Fixed. The Question was never "is abortion legal." None of us are quite that dumb. Well, maybe ace after a weekend bender, but he won't start that for minutes, yet. The Question was "short abortion be legal; if 'no' do you then have a 'right' to 'impose your values' on a mother who seeks one?"

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:37 PM (8y9MW)

301 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.

Posted by: steevy at October 21, 2011 04:38 PM (fyOgS)

302 murder is NOT legal
It is as long as the person you murder hasn't left the womb.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:38 PM (VKD8C)

303 Neither Bachmann or Cain should've been considered as serious candidates in the first place.
^This

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 04:38 PM (i4gLS)

304 "the mythical social-liberal/fiscal-conservative doesn't exist."
*ahem*

Posted by: Andrew Sullivan, With A Straight Face at October 21, 2011 04:39 PM (/AHDz)

305 300
So I'm taking a boatload of heat because I:1) Think abortion in all cases is immoral2) Recognize the current laws Obtusely
refused to recognize that the question at issue was whether or not you
could "impose your values" on someone once abortion is illegal

Fixed.
The Question was never "is abortion legal." None of us are quite that
dumb. Well, maybe ace after a weekend bender, but he won't start that
for minutes, yet. The Question was "short abortion be legal; if 'no' do
you then have a 'right' to 'impose your values' on a mother who seeks
one?"

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:37 PM (8y9MW)
Not fixed. I don't impose my values, courts enforce laws. Want the laws changed? vote. Seriously? Are you that stupid?

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:39 PM (x3YFz)

306 "Of course when Romney gets the nomination, they'll get him too. Probably got some really good shit on him."
Just wait until you meet the sister wives!

Posted by: The MFM at October 21, 2011 04:40 PM (/AHDz)

307 Want the laws changed? vote
Yeah, but the key is to vote for somethone who will change the law. We aren't sure that Cain would do so. That's the point of this entire post.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:41 PM (VKD8C)

308 296

ok, smartass, what are you going to do about it?

I am working closely with those who crafted theNebraska fetal pain
bill. It is likely to come before the SC. What are you doing?

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:36 PM (VKD8C)
nothing. and perhaps I should. Not a bad reply.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:41 PM (x3YFz)

309 But see, murder is NOT legal. Syllogisms don't equal truth.

Logically, murder is legal. That is, there is at least one form of murder (abortion) which is legal. Therefore, murder is legal.

It may not be legal in all situations and circumstances, but there is at least one where it is.

And, also note: I always said "should be" about abortion being illegal, not "is." Logically, IF you believe that abortion is murder, then you must believe that a) abortion should be illegal OR b) that murder in general should not be.

This has to do with logical thought, not facts on the ground. But we cannot change the facts on the ground until we understand what we're really saying when we're talking.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:41 PM (8y9MW)

310 307

Want the laws changed? vote

Yeah, but the key is to vote for somethone who will change the
law. We aren't sure that Cain would do so. That's the point of this
entire post.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:41 PM (VKD8C)
and please point out which candidate would.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:41 PM (x3YFz)

311 Obama is a stuttering clusterf*ck of a miserable failure.
Posted by: steevy
--at last, something everyone can agree upon!

Posted by: stillwater at October 21, 2011 04:43 PM (0GpN4)

312 I am completely against the abortion of Anchor Babies and will build a double uterine wall so that no more Anchor Babies are aborted.

Posted by: Michelle Bachman at October 21, 2011 04:44 PM (gmeXX)

313 I was briefly on the Cain train but that was mostly a one night stand to show Perry I was unhappy with him. Now, I'm just closing my eyes and thinking of the empire whenever I watch Perry speak.

My dad, however, who is mostly a kneejerk liberal, with some flashes of crazy uncategorizable political views, LOVES Herman Cain. He saw him speak in Tennessee on a whim and I never saw him without the button after that. He LOVES the 9-9-9. He has no clue what it means, I don't think.

I was just on vacation with my neo-Marxist feminist sister and my dad and other family for two weeks. I did a lot of deep calming breaths during family dinners.

Posted by: elizabethe at October 21, 2011 04:44 PM (nhzv3)

314 The deal is I think we all agree abortion is murder. so we've got another case of Blue-on-Blue here.

How we fix it is what is contentious.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:44 PM (x3YFz)

315 He's articulated his philosophy on governing very clearly--identify the
right problem and surround yourself with the right people--the success
of which is demonstrated in his ability to take command of a failing
enterprise and turn it into something that is successful.

He's what? Oh, yes. He "articulated." That is: said. And then he has shown me a relatively bumbling campaign that hadn't bothered to teach him what Right of Return is. Or coach him not to say "Abortion should be illegal, but I wouldn't counsel against seeking one." Or any number of other things he's done.

His Godfather's Pizza success story was quite some time ago- and since then he's been a Radio Talk Show host. A Conservative Radio Talk Show host. A Conservative Radio Talk Show host who didn't know what the Right of Return is.

He hasn't shown me anything. I'm sure he has quite a head for business and marketing. He has shown me nothing that suggests he has a good head for policy.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:45 PM (8y9MW)

316 Want the laws changed? vote

Yeah, but the key is to vote for somethone who will change the law. We aren't sure that Cain would do so. That's the point of this entire post.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:41 PM

Umm, the President can't change the law. He can show some leadership on a number of social issues but he can Change nothing. Wasn't Roe a Court case?

In order to get Roe overturned wouldn't you need a Good President to nominate a Pro Life SCJ? Then wouldn't you need a Pro life 60 members of the senate to approve that Nomination? Where should we really apply the litmus test? Maybe the Senate?

Posted by: Oldsailor's poet at October 21, 2011 04:45 PM (ZDUD4)

317 As a Palinista, where do I turn? As if it really matters anyway. By the time my state votes in the primary (I'm a Hoosier), we'll already have Romney as our candidate.

Posted by: sleepy-beans at October 21, 2011 04:46 PM (PNaRh)

318 and please point out which candidate would.
I would place bets that Perry, Santorum, and probably The Newtster would all put judges into place who would overturn Roe. Perry and Santorum are true believers, and Newt wants a strong conservative and would see Roe as a side victory.
Perry and Santorum would probably also support a Personhood Amendment. Newt...I don't know.
Bachman would be pro-life, but I could see her putting an idiot on the SC because she doesn't seem like she really has it all together.
Cain. Well he's a bit of a question mark. I think he would put in a strong conservative, but maybe he'd put in a moderate. I don't like having that question.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:46 PM (VKD8C)

319 The Right of Return is you coming back to Godfather's and buying another pizza!

Whoop!

Posted by: Herman Cain at October 21, 2011 04:47 PM (AF1jB)

320 315
He's articulated his philosophy on governing very clearly--identify the
right problem and surround yourself with the right people--the success
of which is demonstrated in his ability to take command of a failing
enterprise and turn it into something that is successful.

He's
what? Oh, yes. He "articulated." That is: said. And then he has
shown me a relatively bumbling campaign that hadn't bothered to teach
him what Right of Return is. Or coach him not to say "Abortion should
be illegal, but I wouldn't counsel against seeking one." Or any number
of other things he's done.

His Godfather's Pizza success story
was quite some time ago- and since then he's been a Radio Talk Show
host. A Conservative Radio Talk Show host. A Conservative Radio Talk
Show host who didn't know what the Right of Return is.

He hasn't
shown me anything. I'm sure he has quite a head for business and
marketing. He has shown me nothing that suggests he has a good head for
policy.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:45 PM (8y9MW)
Allen, in short: I trust him. I think his heart is in the right place and I think his experience is enough. Now, granted no one expects the spanish inquisition to be prepared to be president, but he's just as qualified as a hollywood actor (Reagan) or a baseball team owner (Bush) or some random fuckstain who organized communist rallies (Obama).

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:49 PM (x3YFz)

321 AllenG - right on. He is a great marketer - his 999 plan is testatment to that. I like the plan too, assuming it stayed a 999 plan and not a 14-12-20 plan for one group a 9-0-9 for others and a 15.3-Pi-7.3 for others. Anyway, you would think a conservative talk show host would not get tripped up over a simply question about abortion.

Posted by: Michelle Bachman at October 21, 2011 04:49 PM (gmeXX)

322 Umm, the President can't change the law.
As Obama proved via DOMA, he can refuse to enforce the law. That would never happen with Roe, of course.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:50 PM (VKD8C)

323 Not fixed. I don't impose my values, courts enforce laws. Want the laws changed? vote. Seriously? Are you that stupid?
And the question from the beginning has been squaring the circle of "It should be illegal, but I won't impose my values." What? That makes no sense. The specific position he was "clarifying" was when he said he would act to make abortion illegal.

Not return it to the states. Not have Roe v Wade overturned. Not "advocate against abortion." He would act to make it illegal. And then he wouldn't have a problem with a woman seeking an abortion.

A quote. From the link. "Look, abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if that family
makes the decision to break the law, that�s that family�s decision.
That�s all I�m trying to say."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:51 PM (8y9MW)

324 #287 You guys have lost it.

Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 21, 2011 04:52 PM (i9cTu)

325 309But see, murder is NOT legal. Syllogisms don't equal truth.

Logically, murder is legal. That is, there is at least one form of murder (abortion) which is legal. Therefore, murder is legal.

It may not be legal in all situations and circumstances, but there is at least one where it is.

And, also note: I always said "should be" about abortion being illegal, not "is." Logically, IF you believe that abortion is murder, then you must believe that a) abortion should be illegal OR b) that murder in general should not be.

This has to do with logical thought, not facts on the ground. But we cannot change the facts on the ground until we understand what we're really saying when we're talking.
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:41 PM (8y9MW) this is not my main issue, but your logic often appeals to me. you get down to the heart of things very quickly and with minimum wordage.... i like that.now, i have to think about this and decide if i agree with it... leaning towards "yes"

Posted by: shoey at October 21, 2011 04:53 PM (m6OUa)

326 but he's just as qualified as a hollywood actor (Reagan) or a baseball team owner (Bush)
Yeah its not like they were governors or something. They were just an actor and a baseball team owner. Nothing more.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 04:53 PM (GULKT)

327 323
Not fixed. I don't impose my values, courts enforce laws. Want the laws changed? vote. Seriously? Are you that stupid?
And
the question from the beginning has been squaring the circle of "It
should be illegal, but I won't impose my values." What? That makes no
sense. The specific position he was "clarifying" was when he said he
would act to make abortion illegal.

Not return it to the states.
Not have Roe v Wade overturned. Not "advocate against abortion." He
would act to make it illegal. And then he wouldn't have a problem with a
woman seeking an abortion.

A quote. From the link. "Look, abortion should not be legal. That is clear. But if that family
makes the decision to break the law, that�s that family�s decision.
That�s all I�m trying to say."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:51 PM (8y9MW)
...and that family goes to jail for murder? That's how I read it. I personally think it should be returned to the states. But what I believe doesn't matter. What the nation believes does matter. Again we're Blue-on-Blue here.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:53 PM (x3YFz)

328 326

but he's just as qualified as a hollywood actor (Reagan) or a baseball team owner (Bush)

Yeah its not like they were governors or something. They were just an actor and a baseball team owner. Nothing more.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 04:53 PM (GULKT)
being a politician, in my book is a negative. Next!

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:54 PM (x3YFz)

329 324#287 You guys have lost it. Posted by: polynikes - Texan for Romney at October 21, 2011 04:52 PM (i9cTu) you haven't seen anything yet, the closer Romney gets to the nomination the more agitated i will become about him.... will NOT accept him as our nominee.

Posted by: shoey at October 21, 2011 04:55 PM (m6OUa)

330 Perry and Santorum would probably also support a Personhood Amendment. Newt...I don't know.

Perry did come out in support of a Constitutional amendment. Remember, early on he was quizzed on abortion (and gay marriage) and he started with a federalist stance, but when pressed added that he was for a constitutional amendment. A lot of arguments ensued about whether or not that was a consistent position (I thought it was, fwiw).

Posted by: Y-not at October 21, 2011 04:55 PM (5H6zj)

331 and please point out which candidate would.

Rick Perry wants it moved back to the States.
For the record.

but he's just as qualified as a hollywood actor (Reagan) or a baseball
team owner (Bush) or some random fuckstain who organized communist
rallies (Obama).

But he's not as qualified as the former Governor of California (Reagan) or the former Governor of Texas (Bush 43). Running companies in two different industries would be different enough that most boards would have passed over Cain (which I've been misspelling, i just realized. Whoops), if he'd wanted to be CEO of, say, Interstate Battery. Or Craftsman. Or whoever. The leap from CEO (many years in the past) to President is an even bigger one.

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 04:56 PM (8y9MW)

332 being a politician, in my book is a negative. Next!
Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:54 PM (x3YFz

Cain, by persuing a political office has made himself a politician.

Posted by: buzzion at October 21, 2011 04:56 PM (GULKT)

333 I would love to stay. I'm glad to have solid input that makes me think about my positions. AllenG, Lauren, thank you.

I'm off to teach class. See you tomorrow! Stay safe.

Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:56 PM (x3YFz)

334 ...but he's just as qualified as a hollywood actor (Reagan) or ...
Posted by: tangonine at October 21, 2011 04:49 PM (x3YFz)
Bullshit. Reagan was a two term Governor of the biggest state in the Union, who thought and wrote deeply about his political philosophy, was able to apply principles where his knowledge was insufficient and knew whereto standon the big questions because he knew what conservatism meant.
Cain is making it up as he goes along and is completely clueless. "Common sense" and crudecrowd pleasingare no substitutes for principles.

Posted by: Elize Nayden at October 21, 2011 04:58 PM (i4gLS)

335 Yep, as it is with most races, it will be the candidate with the fewest mistakes. Cain flubbed this response, I'll admit it completely. I agree with his position as I see it (personally opposed to abortion, but he's gonna live with the law we have, much like tangonine, Romney, Giuliani (not sure on that one)), but it isn't clear in his responses. I don't think he'd be a bad candidate, because he has other things to offer, not just this. His flub on the 2nd amendment (sidebar item)? I read to be a state's right issue to Herman. I don't think he wants to take guns away. His no muslims in the cabinet comments? He's taking on questions others don't, but doesn't explain them well. He doesn't want to interfere in people's lives, but he has a shitty way of saying it. He is a conservative, and he is a successful business man, something which is sorely needed right now.

I'm glad we are focused on this one, and I look forward to the next candidate that happens to come into the crosshairs. So far Bachmann and Cain are gone, in the minds of a fair majority of commenters and bloggers. Other candidates didn't get into the race.

So many angry thoughts keep creeping in right now. Imma gonna quit, before I say something I regret here, because I respect a lot of people here.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at October 21, 2011 04:58 PM (UEEex)

336 Fox is pushing Cain and Romney. That's why they're doing so well in the polls. Most Republicans watch Fox. Where's Perry? Not on Fox. Even Palin, a Fox employee, disses Perry. And Ace is right, a candidate ought to be able to handle a debate, the press, and other candidates with some finesse.

Posted by: paulaincaifornia at October 21, 2011 04:58 PM (8DdAv)

337 Allen, in short: I trust him.
This. Maybe there's just an overabundance of cynicism in the AoS bubble, but Mr. Cain has a level of trustworthiness that all the other candidates do not have, and that is why, even though he may not have the political bona fides, I have confidence that he will get the right information and make smart, informed decisions on the issues that he is faced with.

Posted by: zoomwsu at October 21, 2011 04:58 PM (Papdd)

338 Have a good class, Tangonine.

Posted by: Lauren at October 21, 2011 04:59 PM (VKD8C)

339 O/T: I was on the waiting list for the latest Vince Flynn book Kill Shot which they had scheduled for Nov. I just checked on the publication date and it has been moved to Feb 2012. So any of you Morons waiting for that book will have to wait some more.

I checked his web site and it looks like his cancer is giving him some real issues. It has spread to bones and folks, that is NOT good news.

Posted by: Vic at October 21, 2011 04:59 PM (YdQQY)

340 Sgt Fury---Biden's "rape" and Pelosi's"die on the floor" is to keep the Independent women vote in line

Posted by: TheThinMan at October 21, 2011 04:59 PM (X6O1T)

341 I'm pretty sure you can a Constitutionalist and wish for a new amendment and be consistent. But not all amendments are true to federalism (e.g., the 17th amendment).

Posted by: SH at October 21, 2011 05:00 PM (gmeXX)

342 Reagan also beat the living tar out of Bobby Kennedy in a debate on Vietnam.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMzTcvXk1j4

Posted by: SFGoth at October 21, 2011 05:02 PM (dZ756)

343 Mr. Cain has a level of trustworthiness that all the other candidates do not have

I don't "trust" anyone I only know from TV. My trust is a rare and valuable thing, I do not grant it lightly.

Slightly OT: I just managed to get my hands on a copy of Fed Up (Perry's book). Just started it last night, but I keep asking my self "What happened to this Rick Perry? This Rick Perry would have kicked tail in the debates."

Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 05:07 PM (8y9MW)

344 Pssst.

Michele Bachmann co-sponsored the Right to Life Act to extend rights to the unborn,
the Child Interstate Notification Act, the Unborn Child Pain Awareness
Act, and the No Taxpayer Funding for Abortion Act.

See for yourself

Don't tell anyone.

Posted by: franksalterego at October 21, 2011 05:07 PM (9XykO)

345 I keep wondering that about Perry too, AllenG. Fed Up is a pretty good read.

Posted by: Jay in Ames at October 21, 2011 05:10 PM (UEEex)

346 Cain's problem seems to be with follow up questions, particularly when he's given a position that seems entirely straightforward like "I'm 100% pro-life." So when the interviewer then follows up, it seems like Cain is thrown off thinking he must've said something wrong. Other times it just seems like he's still thinking of the subject of the previous question and linking them together even when they're not.

Perry's problem, I think, is that no, he hasn't really thought about how he'd answer these things because I don't think he had any ambitions to run for President. The party basically just up and drafted him like they tried to do to Christie. And as governor of a state that pretty much runs itself, he's never really had to explain himself or come up with a new idea.

Posted by: crankytrex at October 21, 2011 05:24 PM (08O0O)

347 I am 100% pro-life, period.

Let me explain. In an interview yesterday with Piers Morgan on CNN, I was asked questions about abortion policy and the role of the President.

If you listen to the line of questioning, it is clear that Mr. Morgan was asking if 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 view on abortion...again, I am pro-life. End of story.

As President, 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.

Friends, please know that I appreciate all of your support. Together, we will put America back on the right track.

Sincerely,

Herman Cain

Posted by: twoslaps at October 21, 2011 05:40 PM (yBkGb)

348
Cain leave a bit to be desired because he strikes me as having little depth, which in turn, affects his waffling policy positions. Business leaders tend to approach life in this manner because they have to be able to react to business conditions tactically, not strategically--and Mitt Romney is the same way which is why he and Cain sound similar and use similar language. Ok, they get their plan into place...then what?
Perry has a bit more depth to him, but his obvious problem is that he cannot articulate it and no matter how much people proclaim that debates don't matter, they'll matter big time when the day arrives that he has to debate the SCOAMF. If he puts in a performance like he did the other night, it'll be over.

Posted by: Hidajunshin at October 21, 2011 05:40 PM (MVVJU)

349 From NRO:
�When he [Piers Morgan] then tried to pigeon hole me on my granddaughter being there as a victim of rape then what would I do, the only point I was trying to make, a lot of families will be in that position and will not be thinking well what would the government want me to do,� Cain told Fox News about why he answered CNN�s Morgan the way he did earlier this week. �My position is no abortion, my position is no abortion. But all I was trying to point out was take the typical family in this country and you don�t know what they might do in the heat of the moment, that�s what I was trying to say.�

Posted by: zoomwsu at October 21, 2011 05:43 PM (Papdd)

350 So rather than focus on Cain's intent, most of you say fuck him.

Brilliant!

Actually, the sesquipedalian Ace shouldn't like Cain, as they have nothing in common as far as style goes.

Cain's is more successful by any measure, as it always has been and always will be.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 21, 2011 05:45 PM (yBkGb)

351 "Cain will sign executive ORDER to ban abortion!" is, wrongly or not, what Cain might have been thinking in saying he couldn't ORDER, as POTUS, his grandchild to do anything outside the bounds of the constitution.

Since you people ORDER cheeseburgers all day (instead of pizza) you probably think that's what a president ORDERs too, but you would be (as per usual) plastered.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 21, 2011 05:49 PM (yBkGb)

352 Slightly OT: I just managed to get my hands on a copy of Fed Up (Perry's book). Just started it last night, but I keep asking my self "What happened to this Rick Perry? This Rick Perry would have kicked tail in the debates."
Posted by: AllenG (Dedicated Tenther) is tired beyond tired of the trolls at October 21, 2011 05:07 PM (8y9MW) the simplest explanation is that "Fed Up" was not written by Rick Perry but rather a ghost writer and it is cynically geared towards winning over the TEA Party people and doesn't reflect what Perry really believes or maybe he does believe it but gives priority to politics over principle...i believe it's one of the two, which one i'm not sure, neither puts Perry in a good light in my mind.

Posted by: shoey at October 21, 2011 05:52 PM (m6OUa)

353 Excuse me. Rereading my hyperbolic comments, I realized that by a literal measurement of the words Ace's verbose style would be more successful if the number of words were indeed the goal, so by that measurement our host wins that contest hands down.

Thank you.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 21, 2011 06:01 PM (yBkGb)

354 And, here's where the GOP dies on the pyres of its own stupid moral issue hang ups.

The insistence on making regulation of abortion a nation wide issue at all costs (even at the expense of tearing down federalism and its good limits on government) will be the undoing of this party.

The correct answer: We need to overrule RvW and get this back to the states, period.

The answer that will lose elections again and again as the middle swing voters see the paroxysms of angst at the issue from the religious right: Hey, lets regulate abortions nation wide and focus on it more than the economy.

Good times.

Hey Ace, Drew: How about a little probing of Mitts two faces on the abortion issue. What does this guy believe? Or is that too anti establishment of me to ask?

Posted by: Gonzo at October 21, 2011 06:27 PM (RPozk)

355 Where's Perry? Not on Fox

According to Bill O'Reilly Perry is scheduled to be on his show next Tuesday which should coincide with his economic/tax platform release.

Posted by: Nicole at October 21, 2011 06:28 PM (Nrslf)

356 I don't understand the confusion. The man is personally pro-life, and expects the constitution to guide his actions on the matter.

Geez Ace, you sound like a soc con purist.

Posted by: lee at October 21, 2011 07:12 PM (WGGwF)

357 >>>I put a link to his second amendment opinions in the sidebar.

>>>It appears he agrees with the idea that the state and local government should be able to restrict gun ownership

So, if you disagree with Cain, you're saying felons, the insane, and the children should have access to .50 cal machine guns, and the federal government should overturn any state attempt to try and control their use, right?

Posted by: lee at October 21, 2011 07:18 PM (WGGwF)

358
Maybe Perry supporters need to take philosophy of logic classes if they don't understand Cain.

Any Wicket can do what it wants to do. It is illegal for any Wicket to do A.

Does that mean a Wicket cannot do A? No, it does not. Any Wicket can still do A, because of the first sentence.
Is this really hard for you to understand? If abortion were illegal, the President still would not have the power of almighty God to strike down with lightning anyone choosing to get an abortion prior to them getting it. The President has to have the knowledge that people can do what they choose if they believe that the cost of doing that is such that the benefit is worth it.

Who is John Galt?

Posted by: doug at October 21, 2011 07:30 PM (gUGI6)

359 Again, I am late to the thread. I liked Cain and hoped that he would do well. I tend to be more lenient on the preparation side. However, I agree with Ace here and am disappointed in the lack of preparation on these obvious issues. My major problem with Cain now is that he seems to be running to for the VP slot on Romney team. There is something to the theory that he is running as a blocker on the conservative side to hand the nomination to Romney. He took a swipe at Perry for the 3 rd time already while popping up Romney, the least conservative in the pack. I am more or less done with him too. He moves down to 3rd for me now. I am with Perry to the bitter end. Newt moves up to 2nd choice now. I learned my Palin lesson. I bought into this electability crap, and let the attack against Palin affect my preference. I chose Perry over her. In hindsight, despite all her baggages, Palin would have been better than both Perry and Cain, given that she hasn't been through the primary process yet. I leave as an exercise for us to see that it is quite easy to turn the talking point of her "quitting" against the left. Anyway, we have to deal with the field we have. Perry is the one with a real overall conservative record for us to judge. So we will have to help him to get through the finish line.

I am more dead set against Romney as the nominee for the obvious reasons stated already. Another reason is because of his supporters. They "attacked" Palin for giving speeches about international trade, foreign policies (even in Hongkong, India etc...). Then turn around touting Romney for doing the same! Christie is another warning sign. He gave a speech making moral equivalency between the Tea Party and the OWS. It is sad if Romney is our nominee. I think conservatives should get off Cain 's train and coalese around Perry if possible. It looks to me that Cain to happy to be a VP for Romney the way he is acting so far.

Posted by: LAI at October 21, 2011 07:39 PM (nLTW4)

360 I still like my Solomon-esque position as something "pro-choice" enough for independents ... but pro-life enough for most.

Everyone hates one of the two pieces:

1) Everyone shall be granted the privilege to total and irrevocable legal and physical divorce.

2) The fetus is, however, an alive citizen of America. And the doctor performing the 'divorce' is in charge of safe delivery.

If the entire process is early enough, the 'birth' is easy enough, and we see money dumped into extreme neo-natal care by those that want to the improve the survivability.

If the process has progressed into the last trimester, you have the doctor offering the choices of c-section, induction, or just waiting for the natural birth.

All the most offensive procedures evaporate.

Posted by: Al at October 21, 2011 08:06 PM (MzQOZ)

361 >>>My major problem with Cain now is that he seems to be running to for the VP slot on Romney team.

Really?

" new University of Iowa Hawkeye Poll shows Cain leading the GOP pack of eight, preferred by 37 percent of likely Republican caucus-goers.

Romney was the choice of 27 percent of those polled, followed by Ron Paul at 11.5 percent."

Posted by: lee at October 21, 2011 08:21 PM (5kFGJ)

362 Really?

Yes, just look at his actions. He is not serious about going after Romney at all. He jumped at every opportunity to go after Perry. I liked him a lot 2 weeks ago.

Posted by: LAI at October 21, 2011 08:39 PM (nLTW4)

363 Yep! I was agreed, I'll keep in touch to your blog.

Posted by: The Night Eternal ePub at October 21, 2011 08:48 PM (A5Ehp)

364
That is useful information and its quite easy to come a croper if you are not vigilant.

Posted by: The Litigators epub at October 21, 2011 09:06 PM (7PCfU)

365 OH OH.
Now, the Weekly Standard and National Review Online are on it.
They have picked up on some of Cain's previous stances and remarks on abortion. AND THEY'RE WORSE.
Rules here wouldn't let me post the links. Yes, I did tinyurl.
Especially the one where he says there are instances where it should be legal. He also said he'd have to mull it over and make sure it matched what he said in the past.
What? You have to mull it over? You have to make sure it matches what you said before?
WOW! Wouldn't need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

Posted by: Tricia at October 21, 2011 09:10 PM (gqG91)

366 OH OH.
Now, the Weekly Standard and National Review Online are on it.
http://tinyurl.com/3qqelqr and http://tinyurl.com/3j87235
They have picked up on some of Cain's previous stances and remarks on abortion. AND THEY'RE WORSE.
Rules here wouldn't let me post the links. Yes, I did tinyurl.
Especially the one where he says there are instances where it should be legal. He also said he'd have to mull it over and make sure it matched what he said in the past.
What? You have to mull it over? You have to make sure it matches what you said before?
WOW! Wouldn't need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

Posted by: Tricia at October 21, 2011 09:13 PM (gqG91)

367 Thanks for sharing, please keep an update about this info. love to read it more. i like this site too much.

Posted by: The Snow Angel ePub at October 21, 2011 09:19 PM (5E6Sn)

368 I'm voting Perry and I'm sick of Cain's showbiz and horsecrap.

I'll vote for whoever the GOP nominates, but I hope the conservatives really behind the 90% ally who can win, so we don't wind up with Romney.

Posted by: Dustin at October 21, 2011 09:20 PM (fF625)

369 It's like when he talks, his tongue is falling down the stairs. It's getting painful.

Posted by: Adlib at October 21, 2011 09:24 PM (tGEIz)

370 Trying one more time because these quotes are important. Especially the one where he gave the interview in 2004.
OH OH Now, the Weekly Standard and National Review Online have picked up on some of Cain's previous stances and remarks on abortion AND THEY'RE WORSE.
http://tinyurl.com/3j87235and http://tinyurl.com/3qqelqr
But Cain�s first run for office didn�t happen until 2004, when he ran (and lost in the primary) for a Georgia senate seat. Why the delay? At least one reason, according to a 1998 piece in Nation�s Restaurant News that explores why Cain decided against running for a Nebraska senate seat in 2000, is that he wasn�t comfortable with campaigning on social issues:
After meeting with political consultants and past and present senators, Cain said he had determined that while he has very strong and distinct opinions about business-related matters, he is less clear-cutin his stances on social issues and was not ready to appease voters by taking stands on those issues.
�Too many people in the electorate are single-issue voters,� he commented, �and to try and cater to the single-issue voters and the single-issue pockets out there felt like I was compromising my beliefs. As an example, with the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing.�
He added, �I am not a social-issue crusader. I am a free-enterprise crusader.�
AND
In another interview when he ran for US Senate in Georgia in 2004:
Are there circumstances under which he thinks abortion should be legal?
There�s a four-second pause. �Ahhh,� [Cain] sighs, going silent for 16 seconds. �You�re asking, are there circumstances in which it should be legal?� Yes. �Let me get back to you on that. I need to mull this over because that question can be a trap either way you go. I don�t want to be inconsistent with what I have said in the past.�
You have to mull it over? You have to make sure it matches what you said before? WOW, wouldn't need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

Posted by: Tricia at October 21, 2011 09:29 PM (gqG91)

371 In the Weekly Standard. In another interview 2004:
Are there circumstances under which he thinks abortion should be legal?
There�s a four-second pause. �Ahhh,� [Cain] sighs, going silent for 16 seconds.
�You�re asking, are there circumstances in which it should be legal?� Yes.
�Let me get back to you on that. I need to mull this over because that question can be a trap either way you go.
I don�t want to be inconsistent with what I have said in the past.�
http://tinyurl.com/3j87235
You have to mull it over? You have to make sure it matches what you said before? WOW, wouldn't need to if you had a true core belief. It would come with no pandering nor hesitation.

Posted by: Tricia at October 21, 2011 09:31 PM (gqG91)

372 I didn't intend to win the argument that conclusively so fast.

This helps Cain.

Argue that he's not pro-life enough amongst yourselves more.

Please.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 21, 2011 09:33 PM (yBkGb)

373 Cain could have easily said, "Yes, there are circumstances that abortion should be legal, we are living in one right now aren't we doofus?", then said, "I would rather that the interpretation of the constitution was that it could not be legal in any circumstance."

Posted by: doug at October 21, 2011 09:35 PM (gUGI6)

374 Herman Cain Clarifies (???) His View On Abortion: I Meant Abortion Should Be Illegal But If Someone Wants To Have an Illegal Abortion, That's Her Choice

Should be:

Herman Cain clarifies his view(s) on abortion: Cain says he wouldn't violate his oath of office as POTUS in order to pander to a liberal looking for a gotcha question.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 21, 2011 09:38 PM (yBkGb)

375 You boys ARE spelling Cain's name right aren't you?

Good good.

Carry on.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 21, 2011 09:40 PM (yBkGb)

376 With respect to Cain, he should learn to answer like Ron Paul, who I
believe masterfully straddles thepro-life position with his pure
libertarian view point. That life should be protected, but it is not
the role of the federal government.

I thought that was what he was conveying. But I'm not a Herman basher, so what do I know?

Posted by: currently at October 21, 2011 10:05 PM (flA6l)

377
It's a goddamn quandry. We've got the suckiest incumbent president since we've had since Jimmeh. And we respond with a field of punters.
No opposition candidate can be found who does not have deep flaws.
I have no idea how this will all play out, but I'm voting against Obama. My God, I hope that does not mean I'm voting for Mitt Romney. Please, God, anybody but Mitt Romney. Anybody. Cain will do. My friggin' dog will do.

Posted by: Cowboy at October 21, 2011 10:52 PM (So+7G)

378 This web site is my breathing in, really fantastic pattern and perfect subject matter.

Posted by: Thinking, Fast and Slow ePub at October 21, 2011 11:00 PM (ZWjFn)

379 Sigh, another day, another Cain bash. Oh well.

Here's some good news for the Perrywinkles -- he beat out Bachmann in Nevada. For fifth.

Who came in 1st? Nah, that would be rubbing it in ;-)

Posted by: DaMav at October 21, 2011 11:04 PM (QNU76)

380 bladesoul rmtTERA RMTAION RMTTERA RMTC9 RMT��åɥ��ȩ`�� RMTredstone rmt�� RMT��Ʃ`�� RMT��륽�`�� RMTFF14 RMTFNO RMT�ᥤ�ץ륹�ȩ`��` RMT��ͩ`��2 RMT�ɥ饴��ͥ�� RMT��ȥ��ƥ�� RMTRO RMT��L��Ұ�� RMT��L RMT��륿�� RMT�ɥ饴�˥� RMTcabal rmt��ͩ`�� RMTAION RMTTERA RMT��åɥ��ȩ`�� RMTredstone rmtC9 RMT��ͩ`��2 RMT�ɥ饴��ͥ��RMT��Ʃ`�� RMT�ᥤ�ץ륹�ȩ`��` RMT�� RMT��L��Ұ�� RMT��L RMT��륽�`�� RMT��륿�� RMT�ɥ饴�˥� RMTcabal rmt�ɥ饴��ͥ�� RMTFNO RMTarad RMTredstone RMTff14 RMTc9 RMT

Posted by: blade&soul at October 21, 2011 11:31 PM (P3CtB)

381 Took me time to read all the comments, but I really enjoyed the article.
It proved to be Very helpful to me.

ipad converter iPad Video Converter is then designed for iPad
fans to convert videos to iPad. iPad converter This special
ipad video converter can convert all video formats to iPad compatible formats. DVD to ipad ipad to Mac
transfer ipad to
computer transfer ipad transfer epub to ipad |

the best pdf converter Windows and Mac OSX pdf converter for mac | pdf converter pdf to swf
converter Powerful
evidence: using PDF to IMAGE Converter, U can convert pdf to all kinds of image
formats: JPEG, PNG, GIF, BMP, PCX, TGA, TIFF. U can also adjust the color,
quailty, resolution, page of the files converted! flv converter
flv convertitore flv convertidor flv konverter

Using pdf
to word converter, U can convert pdf to all kinds of
pdf formats to Word. pdf editor for Mac U can also adjust the color, quailty, resolution, page of
the files converted | . pdf to ppt for mac baby steps, pdf to word for mac I
guess. pdf
to word converterpdf to swf

Posted by: charings at October 22, 2011 02:28 AM (ub+8K)

382 "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."

FAIL CAIN. Intent is for losers.

Reagan got lucky.

Posted by: twoslaps at October 22, 2011 03:56 AM (yBkGb)

383 Yeah, screw Cain! Let' have another Kang vs. Kodos election. Worked out well in 2008.

Posted by: Glenn Frey at October 22, 2011 05:02 AM (B0LGd)

384 I get what Cain is saying and you do to. If you dont like the guy thats fine but dont pretend what he is saying makes no sense. Its obvious he is saying, "i am absolutely pro life, but you know what, its not something i am prepared to decide for every other human being in the country"

Not a popular position in the GOP but how i feel. He was just trying to say it in a way that didnt make the staunch pro lifers wig out.

Perry is a dolt, im sorry. I was all ready to anoint him the nominee but it turns out he is slow witted, for amnesty and a jerk about it, a TERRIBLE debater, kind of a crony capitalist, and just an underwhelming guy. There is a reason he is lagging behind Newt in the polls. He makes GWB look like Ronald Reagan. Time to give up on that dead horse....

Posted by: AlecJ at October 22, 2011 01:02 PM (jTvZ3)

385 Ace:

Cain isn't a pro-choice fanatic. The othe candidates aren't seriously pro-choice either ... but they will lie for the fundy vote.

I'm sure Perry and Romney will be happy to tell the pro-choice voters that they are for-square against abortion, and then do absolutely nothing about it.

You are dinging Cain for being honest.

If Cain would just give up this silly damned VAT he is pushing, I would have no reservations about voting for him.

Posted by: Kristopher at October 22, 2011 01:22 PM (Z3y1K)

386 Guys, not to beat a dead horse, but Cain's out of his depth. This has been apparent to me for weeks.

Actually that's a kind way of putting it. Cain is just not that smart, his mathematics degree notwithstanding.

I'll just keep repeating what I've been saying for weeks here: only two guys are smart enough to make it either as candidate or president in this under-the-microscope media age: Mitt and Newt.

Pick the lesser of two evils and be done with it already.

Posted by: JB at October 22, 2011 09:42 PM (7T+Mz)

387 Leaving him to grope on stage for explanations and defenses, and coming up with the worst one possible.
brochure printing, calendar printing, LED display, LED screen, LED sign, LED panel, outdoor LED display, induction lamp, energy saving lamp

Posted by: anna lucia at October 24, 2011 02:07 AM (O05PQ)

Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0675 seconds.
14 queries taking 0.0264 seconds, 395 records returned.
Page size 249 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.