October 25, 2011 - 3:42 pm
Herman Cain has come under attack for his position(s) on abortion, from the left because he opposes it and from the right because he has been perceived as unclear (a) about the extent to which he opposes it and (b) what he would do to advance the pro-life cause as President. This article at my blog looks into what he has said and what he can do to keep and increase his momentum before it’s too late.
Frankly, I’d like to know why Cain—and Perry, for that matter—were so fatheaded as to open their yaps on the abortion issue in the first place.
The election next year is, or should be about Obama’s idiotic economic decisions, his administration’s blatant corruption, crony capitalism, selective enforcement of the laws, promotion of divisiveness, setting the federal government against states which are being forced to enforce federal law that the federal government is not upholding, racist preferences, etc., etc. It’s about the economy and jobs and the grotesque overreach of the federal government as an economic regulator and as an unconstitutional healthcare behemoth.
It is not—repeat, not—about abortion. There is little that any president can do directly about abortion, given the existing court decisions. A president can appoint justices, but whether or not they will be confirmed—and how they will rule, if confirmed—is always a crapshoot.
Shut up, boys. That means you, Mr. Perry, and you, too, Mr. Cain—just shut the hell up about an issue that is guaranteed to gain you no more conservative votes but is at the same time more than likely to lose you the swing votes you need to win the general election. Shut up, damn it. Shut the hell up about an issue which is almost entirely symbolic and can do nothing but hurt you.
Shut. Up.
I agree that they should have kept their yaps shut about abortion. However, the issue is now unfortunately on the table, is a distraction and needs to be dealt with.
I also agree that the Republican candidates should be going after President Obama on the points you mention and others, on which they are likely more or less to agree with each other. However, they seem to find more pleasure in getting sound bites with which to attack each other. I wrote about that here.
Your debate suggestions are excellent.
Regarding the abortion issue, I think that both Perry and Cain should try and stuff the genie back in the bottle by saying, “It was an issue which I should not have raised; important as it may be, it is less important than the economic issues that this election is really about.”
In the meantime, much as I wanted to like Cain and would still like to like Perry, the fact that these two supposedly savvy men brought up this extraneous issue on their own, unbidden, and lumbered themselves with it for no damned good reason, calls the judgment of both of them into serious question.
Yes, the yahoos need to STFU about abortion.
They need to consistently say: “It’s an important issue, but it’s not THE most important issue. The economy is…” and then segue into specifics.
They can attract undecideds and independents (and even a few non-lobotomized Dems) with a strong plan for economic revitalization, national security and energy independence. They’ll lose large swaths of those voting blocks if they make abortion a central issue.
Dodging a question is worse than giving a bad answer. The American people will sooner forgive bad judgment than moral cowardice. If you admit your errors, you will learn from them and not repeat them, but if you refuse to answer the questions you are asked, or try to split hairs, you demonstrate a character flaw that is far harder to correct than making a bad decision.
Governor Romney seems to be trying to compete with Mr. Cain as a flip-flopper. The more the merrier, maybe?
What about asking alleged conservatives some questions, so they can clarify their own perspective vis-a-vis the Constitution? (Borrowing from Dan’s blog.)
1. Would you support a repeal of Roe v. Wade alone as a sign that the federal government should be out of the abortion business?
2. Can states then, under the 10th Amendment, vote to ban abortion?
3. Would you support a candidate who supports the above two principles?
Much as some would like to see a blanket ban, some religions do not consider life at conception, and will successfully fight a federal ban on First Amendment principles.
Based upon the unpopularity of gay marriage in most state referendums, we stand a far better chance limiting abortion by repealing Roe v Wade and proceeding with state referendums banning abortion, perhaps with exceptions for rape and clear medical threats to the woman.
If the goal is to win on this issue as much as possible, this gambit will be more successful. Right or wrong, the American electorate won’t go for a blanket federal ban. We need to get creative and understand the principle of incrementalism, which was so successful with gun banners up until halfway through the Clinton administration, and has been so successful since with Second Amendment supporters.
We can be right, or we can win.
Howard, how would you suggest that Roe v. Wade be repealed? Doing so completely would almost certainly require an amendment to the Constitution. That seems unlikely to happen since it would take 2/3 of the Congress and 3/4 of the states.
Roe v. Wade seems to leave open the possibility of legislation, consistent with it or even nibbling around the edges, prohibiting some abortions — principally those after viability and probably after a fetus can experience pain. The chances are probably nil that a statute prohibiting first trimester abortions could withstand constitutional review.
An excellent point, and one in keeping with my perspective on tackling the abortion issue. If we cannot repeal Roe v. Wade without a massive undertaking of a Constitutional Amendment, then why do so many people get so attached to promoting the idea that we can illegalize abortion? Wouldn’t our energy be better spent on educating people about the issue, thereby encouraging more people to reject abortion? This is a free market principle at work in the realm of ideas.
Also, if it is so difficult to repeal Roe v. Wade, shouldn’t we spend less time analyzing GOP candidates’ positions on abortion? After all, their personal views on abortion will have zero impact on banning abortions.
We can nibble away legislatively at the limitations on abortion flowing from Roe v. Wade. A straight up ban on abortion would require a constitutional amendment. The nibbling away part is worthy of debate and so is the termination of federal funding.
My own views on abortion are not exactly mainstream conservative. An Agnostic, I have no religious position on the matter. I view late term abortions as gruesome and uncivilized and think they can and should be banned, except when the life of the pregnant woman is seriously at risk unless the fetus is aborted. Whether this should be a matter of federal or state legislation is not an easy question.
There are many important matter where the President can do things. As to those, presidential candidates should state their positions clearly. Had abortion not already become a debate/advertising topic and generated lots of contentious discussion, it would be better not to have raised it except to the extent that the President can do something about it — federal funding, late term abortions, etc. Prohibiting abortion having been raised, its highly emotional nature has led candidates and the media to find inconsistencies in positions taken regardless of whether there have been inconsistencies. “Gotcha moments.” Characterization of a candidate as a flip-flopper on any issue, but particularly on one as highly charged as abortion, flows over into flip-flopper charges as to other issues. Flip-flopping is, of course, bad; but only where it has actually occurred.
Excuse me, but I am writing these words on Wednesday, October 26, 2011—a full year away from Election Day! There is no reason to panic. This is the time to get issues like abortion out of the way. Gradually over the next few months, the two finalist Rick Perry and Mitt Romney can focus almost exclusively on the economy. This is a sure winner for the GOP, It should capture virtually every purple and red state.