Now the GOP frontrunner -- thanks not to his policy prowess but to his marketing magic -- Cain said he is pro-life but believes that the decision of whether or not to get an abortion "ultimately gets down to a choice that the family or that mother has to make." During a CNN/Piers Morgan interview this past week, Cain added, "Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide. I shouldn't have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue."
That, dear friends, as any junior high school student knows, is the very essence of the definition of pro-choice.
Unsurprisingly, Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, and Rick Santorum all pounced on Cain.
"It is a liberal canard to say I am personally pro-life but government should stay out of that decision," ABC News quoted Texas Governor and former front-runner Rick Perry saying Saturday night at the Iowa Faith and Freedom Coalition Presidential Forum. "If that is your view, you are not pro-life, you are pro having your cake and eating it too."
"Being pro-life is not a matter of campaign convenience," Perry added.
ABC News on Sunday added,
"Herman Cain's out there, and he's in his first real run for office and a serious campaign and I think he's still finding his way through," Santorum said following his speech at the Iowa Faith and Freedom forum. "This is a pretty big and important race to be finding your way through issues, particularly on issues of this fundamental importance."
He received further criticism today from Michele Bachmann, who called Cain out as a flip-flopper.
"You can't have all of these flip-flops in our nominee," Bachmann said on Fox News Sunday. "I think it's giving people pause, and they're asking real questions about, what does he believe, truly, and how would he govern as president of the United States? And I can tell you, here in Iowa, people want to make sure that our nominee is 100 percent pro-life."
In an interview published Saturday night, Cain was asked by the Christian Broadcasting Network's David Brody, "Are you for some sort of pro-life amendment to the constitution that in essence would trump Roe v. Wade?"
"Yes. Yes I feel that strongly about it. If we can get the necessary support and it comes to my desk I'll sign it. That's all I can do. I will sign it."
Actually, that's not only all he "can do." As president, Cain can't even do that.
As every junior high school student also knows, constitutional amendments don't get signed by the president, they are ratified by the states in a two-part process including the legislative -- not the executive -- branch of government. Cain not knowing this simple yet important fact about how government works doesn't make him ineligible to run government, it just reinforces the general -- and accurate -- perception that Cain is woefully, and intentionally, ignorant.
Cain also told Brody he would support (and presumably, "sign," if the constitution actually worked that way,) a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, adding that, "there are already attempts by some states and some groups to weaken the Defense of Marriage Act."
"I think marriage should be protected at the federal level also. I used to believe that it could be just handled by the states but there's a movement going on to basically take the teeth out of the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act and that could cause an unraveling, so we do need some protection at the federal level because of that and so yes I would support legislation that would say that it's between a man and a woman."
In addition to being ignorant on how government actually works, and on the subject of abortion -- the pro-choice vs. pro-life culture war debate that Roe v. Wade was supposed to have resolved in 1973 -- in general, Cain is obviously, painfully ignorant -- and yes, bigoted -- on the subject of abortion in relation to civil rights.
It certainly is not unfair to highlight who a candidate is in examining what filters and lenses they use to examine issues, and which ones they are willing to utilize to make their points.
That Herman Cain, an African-American, would deign to use the African-American Civil Rights Movement as a tool to remove rights from women, is not only frightening, but offensive.
David Brody told Cain, "The social conservative groups one of the things they're telling me is that they want a President that's going to use the bully pulpit on the life issue. It doesn't mean you have to get bogged down on all of this, but they want to see a president if not advance the legislation at least use the bully pulpit to talk to America about this issue. What's your sense on that?"
"Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was one of the greatest leaders this country has ever seen. How did he bring about the movement that resulted in the Civil Rights Act of 1964? He touched the hearts of people. That's what a President needs to have the ability to do, in order to change peoples' minds."
Yes, because what America needs is a man who was an adult -- an African-American who as an adult, lived through segregation -- using the African-American community's greatest hero, and one of the most important fruits of that hero's labors, as an opportunity to deny women their basic civil rights.
Herman Cain doesn't have policy stances, he doesn't have real ideas or answers, he has marketing slogans, like 9-9-9, which don't even address the real issues Americans want fixed. Americans aren't as concerned about the taxes they might have to pay when they don't have salaries to tax because they don't have jobs.
As every junior high school student also knows, using a proposed change to the tax plan does not strengthen employment, just as using a proposed change to abortion rights does not strengthen the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Cain is not only a flip-flopper on these and other issues, his ignorance about them makes him fatally flawed as a candidate.
See a mistake? Email corrections to: [email protected]