Skip to main content

Oh, Herman Cain. You may know about bad pizza and three-digit economic plans, but you're clearly in over your head on this whole "pro-life" thing. Because you're doing it so, so wrong.

In an interview with CNN’s Piers Morgan, you start out strong:

I believe that life beings at conception, and abortion under no circumstances.

So far, so good. No abortion under any circumstances. Rape, life of the mother ... forget that. (And definitely forget non-issues like a woman's right to privacy and dignity because she should be allowed to make her own decisions without the government climbing up her uterus.) Abortion is wrong, wrong, wrong—under any circumstances. Ask any Republican; they'll tell you how sacred every sperm really is.

But here's where Herman loses his "pro-life" bona fides:

It comes down to, it's not the government's role, or anybody else's role, to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you're not talking about about that big a number. So what I'm saying is, 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 for such a sensitive decision. [...]

I can have an opinion on an issue without it being a directive on the nation. The government shouldn't be trying to tell people everything to do, especially when it comes to a social decision that they need to make.

Whoa. Herman Cain just articulated exactly what the pro-choice position is. Word for word. He might as well be filming an ad for NARAL. Because that is the pro-choice position: it's a choice the mother has to make. No one else. Not the pizza mogul, not Michele Bachmann and her 10,000 children, not terrorist organizations like Operation Rescue, not Rep. Joe Pitts and his pitiful Protect Life Act Let Women Die bill. And, as Cain said:

it's not the government's role, or anybody else's role, to make that decision.

Don't expect this to remain Herman's position, though. Just as he said earlier this week that he'd release the prisoners at Guantanamo and negotiate with Al Qaeda, only to reverse himself and say he "misspoke," someone will no doubt sit Herman down and explain things to him, and he'll be "misspoking" this too. Because he simply cannot advertise himself as a "pro-life" Republican while expressing any sort of sympathy whatsoever with the very radical position that women should be allowed to make their own health care decisions without the government telling them what to do.

(Via Think Progress)

Originally posted to Kaili Joy Gray on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:20 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos and Abortion.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Here comes a flip flop a flippy to the (13+ / 0-)

    flippy ...

    We view "The Handmaid's Tale" as cautionary. The GOP views it as an instruction book.

    by Vita Brevis on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:24:45 AM PDT

  •  I agree with Herman Cain! (6+ / 0-)

    Scary thought.

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:24:50 AM PDT

  •  He's just hustling. (7+ / 0-)

    I saw a few minutes of an interview last night when he was talking about cutting his own hair, (which I do). I really warmed up to the guy.
    However, I don't think he'd ever get this far in the race.
    It's nice to know he's pro-choice, even if he doesn't know it.

    •  Umm.... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marie, atlliberal

      I don't think he thought he'd ever get this far...

    •  My mother, a staunch republican, (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Marie, cassandracarolina, msmacgyver

      mentioned his name 8 or 9 months ago.  He is EXACTLY what non-teabagger repubs want.  We need to shut him down now.

    •  You like the guy because he cuts his own hair? (0+ / 0-)

      That ranks right up there with voting for someone for president of the United States because "he's the kind of guy I could have a beer with."

      Geez. I think I'd consider a little more in the way of qualifications when voting for a guy to handle perhaps the toughest job in the world.

      Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

      by Sirenus on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 07:37:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ha, I never said I would vote for him. I wouldn't (0+ / 0-)

        vote for him for Mayor of Bugtussle.
        He's just hustling. I think this is where the thread started.
        I've met all kinds of people and I've met many likable people who weren't all that honest or smart or aware of their impact on the world around them.

        •  A really good con man is the most likeable person (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          David54

          in the world. Charming, interested in what you do and what you like....your kind of guy. (Or gal.)

          I read a book one time written by a used car salesman. He said the first thing he'd do, while the customer was wandering the lot, was to check out the customer's car, looking for stickers. Kiwanis, Little League, Girls Scouts, Boy Scouts, "My son is a marine"....anything he could pretend to be involved in so that he could make a "We're the same kind of people!" connection with the potential mark....uh...customer.  Which would tend to make that person trust them.

          Another example? I have a friend who's into dog shows. She sold her blue van to a woman who she met at a dog show, on a down payments, send-money-each-month basis.

          I asked her if she'd had the woman sign a contract regarding the making of payments. "Oh, I didn't need to do that. She's a dog show person. She's okay."

          The woman made two payments and disappeared with the van. Just because someone is "just like me" doesn't mean they're honest.

          Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

          by Sirenus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:36:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  The walk-back will be (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, sherlyle

    whether the new happy mother will choose to use disposable or cloth diapers for her new miracle.

  •  This is where libertarianism and (7+ / 0-)

    Republicans divide.  Republicans want abortion and even birth control outlawed.  Women must be controlled at all costs.  

    So right-wing libertarians have a real quandry: who to pander to ?

    I support public employee's unions.

    by Tracker on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:28:19 AM PDT

  •  Herman's confused (10+ / 0-)

    He thought "small government conservative" meant government stays out of your personal business. It really means that it stays our of your business , business, (ie your pocketbook) while paying the religious right back for their votes by telling you who you can sleep with, when that can happen, and what to do about it afterwards.

    "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." Daniel Patrick Moynihan

    by atlliberal on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:28:47 AM PDT

  •  Oh, let's just post this to Redstate etc... as is. (9+ / 0-)

    No need to spend money for an attack ad.

    Thanks, Herb!

    Nature created the human race, but humans created racism.

    by GrannyOPhilly on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:29:27 AM PDT

  •  A nit-pick: (9+ / 0-)
    it's a choice the mother has to make.

    By using the term "mother", you fall into the group that believes "life" begins at conception (which it doesn't scientifically do).

    Please be careful with this......that concept is quickly becoming commonplace and it must not be allowed to take hold.

    •  Define "life" (8+ / 0-)

      Maybe it begins as soon as the cell starts to organize itself. Or maybe when the cell divides. Or maybe when the fetus can make a "thoughtful" response to external stimulus. Or when the lungs are developed enough to breath. Or when the heart starts to beat.

      Or when the kid finally moves out of the house for the last time :-)

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:33:41 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Choice goes out the window when it (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Neon Mama, venger, msmacgyver

        becomes accepted that "life" begins at conception.  

        •  Not necessarily. (7+ / 0-)

          One can make the argument that, even if the embryo is a full-fledged, legally recognized independent human being, it still does not have the right to occupy a woman's body for nine months without her consent.  

          •  There's a distinction between (5+ / 0-)

            "life" as a biological term, and "life" as a legal term.

            If you ask when we should grant a developing fetus full legal rights as a human being that is a different question than when life begins, and one more tractable to political discussion.

            In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

            by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:50:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  No problem granting fetus full legal rights... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blue aardvark

              as a human.  After all, no human already born has any legal right to anyone else's organs. That is the response I have for all of my anti-choice friends.   Children can't lose rights by being born.  So if we have no legal requirement that a mother (or father or great aunt) of a new born infant donate blood, in a circumstance without which the newborn will perish, then it is inconsistent to make a law requiring the woman-carrying-a-fetus-in-her-uterus (goodness!  saying 'mother' would save typing!) to provide her uterus to a fetus.  

              •  I wonder if that's ever been litigated (0+ / 0-)

                I wonder if there's ever been a child who died because near relatives were the only possible blood donors and they (Jehovah's Witnesses?) declined.

                In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

                by blue aardvark on Fri Oct 21, 2011 at 06:05:32 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I can't imagine that it HASN'T happened b4 (0+ / 0-)

                  I couldn't find anything via Google, but it just seems that there have to be instances of a person who needs an organ or bone marrow and the only match is another sibling who declines and the sick sibling sues.  I'm hopeful that the reason I can't find it is because the courts injected some sanity and tossed out the case.  

                  While I would certainly willingly and cheerfully donate kidneys and bone marrow to members of my family, I would despise a country that forced me to donate even fingernail clippings against my free choice.

                  That's another discussion point I use with my anti-choice friends.  Many of them are not regular blood donors.  I am.  I ask if they would support a law that required them to donate blood if someone with their blood type needed it to live. Which happens all of the time, it is just that there are many potential donors, as opposed to a single uterus.  But, similar circumstance.  Someone will die without your organ or blood - can you be forced to provide it?  

                  Those discussions don't always sway people, but I hope it gives them another viewpoint to consider.  

          •  Consent gained (0+ / 0-)

            You could argue (and after all if we didn't want to argue, would we be here) that if a woman has had unprotected vaginal sex with a male, she has given her consent for the embryo to move in.  

            I think there is something going for that argument. This might give joy to the enemy, but I draw two further conclusions from it:

            1) That good, scientific sex education is an essential part of becoming an adult

            2) Everyone should have access to free no-questions-asked contraception (apart from, "Are you allergic to latex?" type questions).

            However, I also don't agree that an embryo, or a foetus has rights, or not until the point of independent viability.  Even then some would not like the measures I would be prepared to extend, like, "If this foetus is trying to die, let it.  It probably knows better than you do."

        •  Well, yes it does (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          PsychoSavannah, DollyMadison

          So if it is "true" that life begins at conception you should adapt your politics to the truth, not the other way around.

          However, I offered quite a menu of choices up there. The Roe V. Wade choice was "lungs", BTW, which I think was weakly reasoned.

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

          by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:49:16 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Life at conception is as human as (5+ / 0-)

          fingernail.  Well, actually not quite as human.  The cells in a fingernail are differentiated.

          You might as well say that anything containing dna is alive, because life can be "created" - I prefer coaxed out of - dna.

          The community of fools might be small were it not such an accomplished proselytizer.

          by ZedMont on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:52:50 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  If you define life as (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah

            differentiated cells with ongoing mitosis you might be able to call a fetus alive at a rather early stage of development.

            In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

            by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:32:30 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  You might be able to, but I wouldn't. (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              blue aardvark

              I think I'm with whoever asked whether or not sperm and egg are alive, the implication being that anything that "kills" either could be viewed as killing life if you want to carry the ridiculous to the extreme.

              I would go even further and suggest that spermatazoa are more human than a blastocyst.  They already have a job and a small percentage of them become successful, the successful ones leaving the vast majority of their fellows to wither and die without remorse, which means they have already identified with a political party as well.

              The community of fools might be small were it not such an accomplished proselytizer.

              by ZedMont on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:31:33 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Spermatazoa (0+ / 0-)
                They already have a job and a small percentage of them become successful, the successful ones leaving the vast majority of their fellows to wither and die without remorse, which means they have already identified with a political party as well.

                Yes, but they are thoroughly committed to Darwinism, so they'll have to watch the evangelical base.

        •  Yup (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue aardvark, PsychoSavannah

          as Rachel pointed out on her show last night, the "life begins at conception" belief and laws could make illegal many forms of female birth control like "the pill" and IUDs.

          •  Not the pill (0+ / 0-)

            Despite complete right-wing lunacy on this point, we have no evidence that the pill prevents development of a fertilized egg.  The generally-accepted belief is that the pill prevents ovulation.  It is conceptually possible that the pill also prevents development of a lining sufficient to sustain a pregnancy, but there is no good evidence of fertilized eggs despite appropriate and consistent pill use.  In fact, the best available tests to detect pregnancy are only detecting post-implantation pregnancy (which would not occur under the poor lining theory).  The idea that the pill terminates a fertilized egg is purely hypothetical and not supported by evidence.

            Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

            by milton333 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:29:46 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Thanks for clarifying (0+ / 0-)

              I was probably mistaken in the way I stated it.   Rachel may have been reporting that the anti-choice contingent could try to use the definition to ban the pill which is a different matter altogether.

              As we've seen in the past, whether or not the scientific evidence supports this is irrelevant.

          •  That pill probably is the morning after pill (0+ / 0-)

            The pill Rachel M is referencing is likely the morning after pill, not regular birth control pills that work by suppressing ovulation.  No egg for the sperm to meet.  

      •  It's human life, but not *A human being* (9+ / 0-)

        Until it can survive, on its own (sometimes with significant medical support, of course, and always with some adult support, warmth, love, shelter, etc), it's a non-viable fetus.

        If it leaves the womb, and can't survive outside the womb, it remains a non-viable fetus.

        If it leaves the womb as a viable fetus, it becomes a baby - it becomes a human being.

        And nothing that's not yet reached the level of being a potential human being should ever get superior rights to control another human being's body! It's unfair to give superior rights to a non-viable fetus to force a woman to be an unwilling incubator for that fetus.

        So, Herman Cain is almost right, that it should be the woman (not the family of that woman) who gets to choose what should happen. He'll walk it back.

        But it's not a human being - it's not a human life. It's human life from before the egg and sperm join up! It's not "a" human life until it can survive, on its own, outside the womb. It's only a potential human life before then.

        •  Excellent, thanks...nt (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          DollyMadison

          May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

          by msmacgyver on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:12:11 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I don't agree with this (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blue aardvark, PsychoSavannah

          If you really strictly believe this then the definition of "a human being" has changed as our technology in being able to keep premature babies alive.

          •  No, you're wrong (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            PsychoSavannah, milton333

            A human being becomes a human being when a fetus leaves the womb and can survive without being inside the womb any longer.

            For different fetuses, that time of gestation will vary.

            There is no set time. There's a bunch of parameters that allow one fetus to be viable outside of the womb and another fetus to be non-viable outside of the womb.

            The definition hasn't changed at all! If a fetus can survive outside the womb, it can be fairly classified as a human being. Sometimes the only support that a newborn human being needs is food, love, and shelter. Other times, that newborn will need a little more help, and other times, it'll need a ton of medical intervention in order to survive. But the criteria hasn't changed at all - if it can survive outside the womb, it's a human being.

            •  Then by your logic, (0+ / 0-)

              in the future a fertilized egg will be a human being since it is clear to me that at least some point in the future we will be able to completely gestate a fertilized egg outside of woman's womb.

              Or are you saying that a baby born prematurely that requires any kind of assistance to live is not a human until it   no longer requires a machine?

              Defining when a fetus becomes a human being is a very grey area and one not easily defined with a black and white definition such as "as soon as it leaves the womb".

              •  You're wrong about being able to gestate like that (0+ / 0-)

                And even if we were, that would in an artificial womb - and the non-viable fetus would not be able to survive OUTSIDE THAT ARTIFICIAL WOMB, even with intensive medical intervention!

                This isn't brain surgery, yet it baffles way too many people!

                Defining when a fetus is viable or not viable is pretty darn easy. A non-viable fetus never becomes a human being. They never become a baby. They will always only be a fetus. Only a viable fetus, once it leaves the womb, becomes a baby!

        •  Do we get to use significant medical (2+ / 0-)

          technology to keep a removed fetus alive?

          There are lots of wanted babies who come out and wouldn't live without incubators / respirators / other tools.

          At some point we'll have the capability to remove a fetus at any stage from conception on, put it in a gadget, and have it live.

          So you'll either have to define a kid with, e.g., a hole in the heart as not human until the surgery is done - which leaves all sorts of room for insurance companies to wiggle through - or rework your definition of human life.

          Then there's the whole issue of intrauterine surgery. If the fetus is not a human being, how can surgery on them possibly be covered? It's not surgery on the mother per se.

          Anyone who gets all black and white on this issue gives me the willies regardless of which side they are on.

          In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

          by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:37:41 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No, we won't ever reach that point (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            milton333

            We've about reached the point at which a fetus can leave the placenta and the womb and survive outside of it. Medical interventionists don't see a time when it'll be lowered hardly any more than it's already been lowered. You're wrong when you say that they will be. They see no potential in the future for any kind of artificial womb that can sustain life like a woman's uterus and blood supply and a placenta attached to the fetus and the woman's blood supply can.

            I guess you missed the part of my comment where I specifically mentioned medical intervention. Not sure how that happened, since I put it in the very first sentence to try to forestall misinterpretations like yours!

            There's no limitation on operating on a fetus. I have no idea where you're pulling that from, but you're wrong. Medical coverage is available for a pregnant woman, and that covers her growing fetus too while it's a parasite in her womb. The fetus isn't covered as a separate human being. It's covered a part of the pregnant woman's body. If she doesn't have insurance, but the father of the fetus does, an operation on the fetus isn't covered. One doesn't require separate insurance until the fetus is a separate human being - until that time, it's covered as though it is, in fact, part of the woman. It is "surgery on the mother" as far as insurance is concerned.

            Anyone who misses the points by such a wide margin as you did give me the willies.

    •  Disagree (5+ / 0-)

      You can believe that life begins at conception (from a religious, moral or other position that is not scientific) and still be pro-choice.  Lots of us are.   I remember when I told this to Kelley the long time director of NARAL-NY and watched her head explode.  What fun that was.  It doesn't have to be a "scientific" belief.  I don't believe that science has an answer here, because it depends on what you think is is or life is.

      •  Does Cancer tumor as life begin at cell split? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        PsychoSavannah, milton333

        Or when the first cancer cell decides to run amok?  
        Scientifically speaking --- both have life threatening potential for the invaded human female.  It is her choice whether, when, and how to defend her life.

        I prefer preventions to cures.  Teach real science to kids so they don't die from STDs and/or pregnancies.  Educate so we don't need to incarcerate.

        If every life is "sacred", no other "life" has a right to steal mine.  I choose against war.  I choose against death penalty.  I choose for self defense if I really must.  

        Democracy means we all get to vote on group action, and no one gets to "vote" to remove human rights -- including my right to life.

        Anyone who wants to call a fertilized egg a person, can get out of my incorporated uterus business -- because I'm protected from government forcing me to "quarter" their potential soldier.  

        De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

        by Neon Mama on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:23:36 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We forget that pregnancy is dangerous (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Neon Mama

          For most of human history, everyone was quite well aware that pregnancy was a very dangerous business, that very well could pit mother against fetus and result in loss of life.

          My own pregnancy triggered serious anxiety attacks, one of which had me hospitalized after passing out for inability to breathe.  Pre-eclampsia can kill mom and/or fetus.  With an increasingly overweight and obese population come all kinds of health risks from pregnancy - hypertension, pre-e, gestational diabetes, even the risk of stroke is 6 times what it was a decade ago.

          And there are all kinds of other issues that linger after pregnancy, including nerve and tissue damage from vaginal childbirth that can cause life-long diminished sensation with sex.  Stress urinary incontinence.  Carpal tunnel syndrome.

          And women die in pregnancy and childbirth.  Still.

          I hate that we have these purely intellectual, hypothetical debates about when life begins.  An unwanted pregnancy is terrifying, and always has the risk of real harm to a woman.  What business does anyone have to force her to undergo it?

          Thought is only a flash in the middle of a long night, but the flash that means everything - Henri Poincaré

          by milton333 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 02:40:21 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  The potential for life certainly is made at (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        adobedragon, PsychoSavannah

        conception, however, let's not confuse that with life.

        The fertilized egg may contain genetic defects that will not allow a life to develop.  Also, there are many other things that can go wrong as the fetus develops and it is little more than a mass of cells.

    •  IMO, this life-begins-at-conception (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      freeport beach PA

      discussion should be avoided entirely.  This is a no-win debate primarily because..."which it doesn't scientifically do".

      No amount of scientific data will convince anti-abortion advocates.

      I've learned the hard way which direction I need to take on this issue and I keep it simple.  This is established law and the decision remains with the woman.  Period.

      May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

      by msmacgyver on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:10:12 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's one thing to flip-flop (8+ / 0-)

    It's another thing to have not given a moment's thought to the issue.

    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

    by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:30:12 AM PDT

  •  You know that chart of popularity weve (5+ / 0-)

    seen Cain climbing lately? Well, that climb is about to turn and nosedive. You heard it here first.

    Cain is not and was never a real candidate. He's a caricature. He cant raise money and racist baggers wont vote for him no matter how much he disses his own race.

    •  Au contraire (4+ / 0-)

      Something the Dog Said has a good diary up about Herman today. I think the typical bagger will look at Herman and say "Credit to his race", with all the patronizing condescension that implies.

      In other words, he's not like them. So he's OK.

      In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice; but in practice, there always is a difference. - Yogi Berra

      by blue aardvark on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:34:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I agree up to a point (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blue aardvark

        and that is that Baggers, specifically, and the GOP in general are racists.  It isn't that long ago that the Country Club Republicans prohibited "certain people" from joining their Club.

        May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. George Carlin

        by msmacgyver on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:15:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Fundie head-explosion in 3.. 2.. 1.. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Marie, a2nite, sherlyle

    Can't have the poor little dears be responsible for themselves, now can we, Mr. Cain.

    Alcohol. The cause of and solution to all of life's problems!

    by sizzzzlerz on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:31:05 AM PDT

  •  This is great news (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sherlyle

    for Herb-"Get a job"-man Cain

    Chuck Grassley voted to end Medicare

    by divedeeper on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:32:22 AM PDT

  •  You can see the campaign message guy (4+ / 0-)

    on the sidelines, stabbing the shock button over and over.

    "Fucking Chinese batteries!"

  •  One more example of a (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    blue aardvark, cassandracarolina

    not-ready-for-prime-time candidate. Hermy should be spouting babble like, "I'm all for a smaller government telling women how to run their lives according to my formula" or some such non-sequitor.

    It's not the government's role, or anybody else's role, to say who you can sleep with, either, but that isn't Hermy's position, is it? His is a more, well, missionary position, insisting a Government role in determining the propriety of sexual relations.

    Hermy should be running for a school board post, not the Presidency.

  •  Herman said: (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    big annie, OldDragon, DollyMadison
    I believe that life beings at conception,

    and you said

    So far, so good.

    Really??  Weren't the sperm & egg alive a moment (or however long) before conception?

    Face it, the guy's a complete idiot.   Don't even try to find any merit in anything he says . ..

    •  She meant "so far so good" as in (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sherlyle, venger, msmacgyver

      that's what the standard Republican response is, not as in she agrees with it.

      "No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare." -James Madison

      by R Rhino from CT4 on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:41:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  location, location, location (5+ / 0-)

      If life begins at fertilization, then embryos in fertility clinics are "alive," yet no one makes a fuss about those "little people."

      Republicans are like bad mannered dogs......always with their noses up someone's crotch.

      •  Well actually a few people ARE concerned (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        big annie

        'cuz aren't these the so-called (at least potential) "snowflake" babies?

        But the larger point you make is absolutely correct - this remains a very fringe issue since shutting down the fertility clinics would have an outsized effect on rich republicans who for what ever reason have difficulty have children by other means . . . .

        •  More Republicans use fertility clinics? (0+ / 0-)

          I would be surprised by that.  Not that I have seen any data, but I would have assumed that Democrats would be more likely to do so because women are more likely to have serious careers and wait until they are beyond 35 to start a family.  Also, I would have assumed conservative people would be uncomfortable with them um.....invasive....nature of the treatment at a fertility clinic.  

  •  shocking (6+ / 0-)

    Getting elected is now its own end. It isn't getting elected because you think your ideas are great, or because you think you can make a difference.

    It isn't about explaining your positions to people with different views with a mind to bring them to your side. It is covertly pandering and blowing smoke up the ass of as many groups as possible, hoping that they never bother to compare notes.

    Really at this point, who cares? When people are willing to spend a billion dollars for a chance at a $400,000/year job, it is clear that the fix is already in.

  •  It's a stupid position (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle

    If you truly believe that abortion is really honestly murder, then to NOT oppose it is to condone murder because it is politically correct.  

    That position is, IMHO, worse than being honestly pro-life.

    But then, my position is that if you truly believe that abortion is murder of an innocent life (a belief  I do not have, btw), then to say that murder is OK because of rape or incest is morally suspect.

    Minority rights should never be subject to majority vote.

    by lostboyjim on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:39:23 AM PDT

    •  I don't expect complex thought from these... (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle, Amber6541, qofdisks

      GOP clowns.  Even if they are capable, their voters do not want it.

      The more you learn the less you know.

      by quiet in NC on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:43:06 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  If one believes that abortion is murder (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle

      One should be protesting outside fertility clinics every morning.

      That's because families choose to dispose of fertilized eggs that they aren't going to use as biological waste every day! If there's something magical about a fertilized egg, that same prohibition to decide to dispose of that "human life" should outrage the right-to-lifers. But it doesn't. And it doesn't because they aren't being honest in their objections.

      It's the hypocrisy, stupid - it always has been their stupid hypocrisy that's the issue. If one is a conservative, then one supposedly doesn't want government involved in most things, but rightwingers want the gov't involved in the bedroom, in the womb, etc, etc.

      •  I make the same point, a lot. (0+ / 0-)

        But I think the reason why is simple.

        Fertility clinics (and I'm fine with them) are a billion-dollar industry that serves people who can afford $10,000+ per try.

        Abortion clinics? They tend to serve the poor and the desperate. The rich never are judged by the standards used by the poor.

        Actually, this isn't about the sanctitiy of life. Never has been. If it was, these people would be on every street corner handing out condoms and birth control pills to help make sure no unwanted child is ever concieved.

        This is about keeping women poor, pregnant and subservient to men. If you  can't decide when or even if you'll get pregnant, it's pretty hard to go to school, have a career or even stay single. You have to rely on men for support. Which gives them power over you.

        And the patriachs of the GOP and the TP love that idea. Women knowing "their place"....at home, taking care of the babies.  Period.

        Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

        by Sirenus on Sat Oct 22, 2011 at 07:46:43 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Control (0+ / 0-)

          I looked at the article on Catholicism and Abortion on Wiki and found this priceless quotation,

          The Michigan State Medical Society journal reported in 1870 that, while most churches were "neglecting" the subject of abortion, Catholic priests were teaching that "destruction of the embryo at any period from the first instant of conception is a crime equal in guilt to that of murder," and "that to admit its practice is to open the way for the most unbridled licentiousness, and to take away the responsibility of maternity is to destroy one of the strongest bulwarks of female virtue.

          I think that some of the "pro-lifers" are actually against letting a woman get away with disposing of the evidence of her wrongdoing.

          There was a young lady so mild
          Who kept herself quite undefiled
          By thinking of Jesus
          Contagious diseases
          And having an unwanted child.

          It's all another part of the campaign to restore Purity - by people who are so deluded they think it was ever there in the first place.

          •  Yep, got to make sure that "young lady" becomes (0+ / 0-)

            the exclusive property of one man. Who can "defile" himself all he wants before marriage because he'll never have a "baby bump" to proclaim his "shame."

            Freedom has two enemies: Those who want to control everyone around them...and those who feel no need to control themselves.

            by Sirenus on Mon Oct 24, 2011 at 08:27:14 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

  •  Truly weird. Just when I think Hapless Herb can't (0+ / 0-)

    get any weirder, he truly outdoes himself.

    I believe that in every country the people themselves are more peaceably and liberally inclined than their governments. -- Franklin D. Roosevelt

    by Blue Knight on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:42:10 AM PDT

  •  It's not clear to me... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sue B, PsychoSavannah, Supavash

    ...whether he's articulating a pro-choice position, or merely a slightly-less-batshit-crazy anti-choice position.  He starts going on about it not being the government's role when asked about pregnancy resulting from rape or incest.  But the framing he's using is the same as is used for making a general pro-choice argument.  

  •  Thanks nt (0+ / 0-)

    The radical Republican party is the party of oppression, fear, loathing and above all more money and power for the people who robbed us.

    by a2nite on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:43:27 AM PDT

  •  Be careful. If Herman Cain sells you a pizza, it (0+ / 0-)

    might be something else in that box.  What the hell?

    The community of fools might be small were it not such an accomplished proselytizer.

    by ZedMont on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:45:59 AM PDT

  •  Bwhahahahaha! Perhaps this should be his new (0+ / 0-)

    I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

    by mdmslle on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:46:01 AM PDT

  •  This is absolutely amazing. He does not even (4+ / 0-)

    understand where and when to repeat his talking points.  I think he really is pro-choice.  That statement he made seemed sincere and certainly would fit with a hands off people's individual decisions kind of position.  This will end his support by the Tea Party and the fundamentalists.  There's no going back on this issue.  Guantanamo maybe but not this.

  •  Just joking (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DollyMadison, martydd, Julia Grey

    women should not be trusted to make choices about what's in their bodies.

  •  The mark of a non-thinking man's man (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mdmslle, Zack from the SFV

    Can't wait to see what happens when the anti-abortion  people hear about this.

  •  How long 'til this is in a Romney/Perry ad? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DollyMadison
  •  Good diary! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CountryMouse

    Inspired me to revisit the pro-life vs. pro-choice terms debate here:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    I actually think Cain's position is intellectually consistent.  He believes its wrong, and immoral, but it's not government's job to legislate morality.  I tend to feel the same way on, say, drug use, or prostitution.  You can believe something is unethical without forcing your morals on others.  

    The one I hate is the bizarre "rape and incest" exception that most Republican politicians advocate.  Because that's an argument that makes no sense at all -- if you believe life begins at conception, and every life is sacred, and abortion kills a living person... then why on earth would the circumstances behind the conception have any bearing on whether the "unborn child" is worthy of protection or not?  I have yet to ever hear a clear, honest, intellectually consistent defense of this exception.  It's like saying "racism is wrong, except against Hispanics".  (Although come to think of it, that seems to be a common Republican position as well.)

    "The majority of a single vote is as sacred as if unanimous." - Thomas Jefferson

    by cartwrightdale on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 08:59:06 AM PDT

  •  So let's review: (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bobinson, Zack from the SFV

    Romney : supposed frontrunner who 75% of the party hates. Flip flopper extraordinaire. Architect of Obamacare. Formerly prochoice Massachusetts governor who governed as a moderate democrat. Mormon.

    Perry: idiot extraordinaire. Gave education to mexicans. Can't debate worth a shit. Did I mention he's a dim bulb. But nice swagger. Just dumb as a box of rocks. And a Mexican lover. Or something.

    Cain: pro choice idiot with universally reviled pizza selling pitch for a campaign slogan; terrorist appeaser; black;

    Bhwahahaha! These are the top tier choices, folks. My money's on Perry. But haws what a pathetic lot. I almost feel sorry for the GOP. We Dems never have this problem. We had a whole slew of really good choices in 08. Nothing like this! It's just surreal. These are their PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES!?!

    I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

    by mdmslle on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:06:28 AM PDT

    •  follow the big money and those running the party (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      mdmslle

      it will be Mittens.

      •  meh. i'm cool with any of these losers. (0+ / 0-)

        Mitt romney might actually help us take back both houses strong.

        the point is they all suck for different reasons. although I was relly pulling for Cain. I figured with him, we get all the turnout malaise of Romney (after all a good 50% of republicans would not vote for the idiot balck guy) as well as all the buffoonery Perry and the inexperience of, well, cain. I was really hoping he'd pull through. But I'm afraid this prochoice utterance may be deadly.

        I've become re-radicalized. Thanks a lot you bunch of oligarchical fascist sons-of-bitches. But once again, I have no choice. Bring it the fuck on.

        by mdmslle on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:47:55 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Comparing Herman Cain's statements (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV

    to Herman Cain's statements is like   ...... comparing apples to oranges.

    I have no idea what this guy is talking about, and I don't think he does either.

    My dogs think triciawyse is smart and pretty. They think I'm a strange, frumpy woman wth limitless snacks.

    by martydd on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:08:53 AM PDT

  •  "Herman Cain is pro-choice" (0+ / 0-)

    (I just wanted to type that out with my own fingers.  This should be retyped as far and wide and as fast as our fingers are able.)

    Thanks for posting this news!  I look forward to reading the responses of the pundits, politicians, tea party, republicans, etc.  It should be entertaining, and perhaps, for some, educational.

  •  Hermie is dumb as a box of hair. eom (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Zack from the SFV, OHdog

    I used to be Snow White. And then I drifted. - Mae West

    by CherryTheTart on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:12:20 AM PDT

    •  maybe that's where his hair went? (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart, OHdog

         I know I shouldn't be amazed by the fuzzy logic and unclear thinking of the Greedy Old Party candidates, but they still leave me speechless some of the time. I've started watching some of their debates for the reality show/circus entertainment value.

          Herman is OK but Michele (and her husband) provide more entertainment. The last debate was great, with all of its squabbling and discord. Keep it up, boys and girl...

      Diehard Swingnut, disgruntled Democrat, age 53, new CA-30

      by Zack from the SFV on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:47:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  There you go, talking bad about Perry again. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      CherryTheTart

      It was Molly Ivins that started calling Perry Governor Goodhair. Somebody needs to go through her columns about Perry and extract some more truths. She tried to warn the country about W with her "Shrub" columns and book but nobody listened. Maybe this time.

      Bipartisan analogy: Both musicians and fishermen want more bass.

      by OHdog on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:48:36 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In Cainland, everyone chooses to be pro-life (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OHdog

    Everything is perfect in Herman Cain's utopia. Climb into the bubble and everyone agrees that no one should ever get an abortion for any reason. It's not the government telling women they can't get abortions, it's the women's own conscience. Wonderful. And everyone gets a pony flavored pizza.

    CROUCH!...TOUCH!...PAUSE!...Engage!

    by bobinson on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:12:51 AM PDT

  •  Yet in Iowa (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia Grey

    Cain is at the top of a new poll taken on WED.

    http://www.rasmussenreports.com/...

    Proof that Republicans are STUPID and DANGEROUS voters for this country.

    •  Why do you think this is the case? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Julia Grey

      Those in control of the Republican Party know they need Mittens to be the nominee or they have no prayer of beating the President.

      By keeping multiple nut-jobs competitive they split the Teahadists vote and Mittens with his solid 25% can win the nomination.

      If it ever gets down to Mittens vs a single nutter then the nutter will be the nominee.   If you want to know what happens in this case, just look back to 2010 when the Republicans lost Senate races in DE and NV that they should have easily won.

  •  Maybe we should make a commerical out of it. (0+ / 0-)

    This pro-choice position that it is the woman, in
    consultation with her doctor, spiritual advisers, family etc. is both common sense, and consistent with the anti-government position of the libertarians and many of the Tea Party Republicans.

    With a focused campaign, perhaps, we could peel off another 5% to 15% to our position.

    If always suspected that many of the anti-abortion crowd are following the demagoguery of their leadership and special interest group.

    The "subtlety" of our position, "that one can personally find abortion objectionable" and still support the pro-choice position escapes much of the one dimensional traditional media sound bite bandwidth.

    I wonder what Herman Cain believe the Democratic position is?  How does he think it is different than his own position?

    The means is the ends in the process of becoming. - Mahatma Gandhi

    by HoundDog on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:42:48 AM PDT

  •  The Koch Machine didn't like optics of (0+ / 0-)

    all white, all male, Republibates last time.   So they fund a token female, token black, for this round of political theater.  Gotta LOOK fair and balanced -- but pick sure losers for minority roles.

    Too bad Dems don't get free publicity of "debates" this Presidential cycle.   I'd love it if Obama could stick to "public financing"  and save all other cash spent on convention whose outcome is an Obama certainty --- and divert that cash to making some real lives better.     Just do public cyber convention online?

    I suppose that's not good for down ticket races tho?  Or the vendors in convention towns.  Sigh.

    De fund + de bunk = de EXIT--->>>>>

    by Neon Mama on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 09:45:06 AM PDT

  •  With so many Ultra-Rich Anti-Choice (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia Grey

    Pro-life-till-pass-the Vagina-Lips Hatemongers you'd think they would have made an Artificial Womb by now and offered it free of charge to any woman wanting a Abortion,oh wait if they did that there would go "a ton" of Anti-Choice Voters and a Mountain-high pile of Money from charging desperate Women a small fortune each to do so.

  •  Toast (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia Grey

    Herman Cain is toast for saying what he said (if a pizza guy can be toast...).  His opponents are going to use it to beat him to a political pulp.  For the base of the base of the Republican Party this is a bigger transgression than being for tax increases.

    Burned toast; I can almost smell it from here.

    •  Nah (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Julia Grey

      If Cain is able to get away with his electrified fence flip-flopping (changing his position 3 times in less than a few days) then I have no doubts he'll be able to handle a single flip on this one.

      He'll just say he was confused by the question and was misunderstood as he has always been strongly against any and all abortions even in the case of rape or when the woman's life is in danger.   I can even hear the nutters cheering in my head as I write this.

  •  Absolutely finished (0+ / 0-)

    The middle hasn't enough bodies to keep him in the race at this point.  Being a pro-choice republican is political suicide, and I was pretty much flabbergasted as I heard the words come out of his mouth.

    Love ya anyway, Herman.  You too, Ron Paul.  Seriously, I do.  

  •  Would be great if Cain couldn't be flipped on this (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia Grey

    I think that it would be great if Cain would just stick to his guns about abortion being a private decision. How many other pro-business Republicians are also pro-choice, but not courageous enough to say so? I would suspect that there are at least a few. Maybe if Cain stuck to this principles, it would encourage a few more of them to do less pandering!

  •  Whoever is guiding him... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    OHdog

    ...is doing a "bad job." He is not ready for prime-time.

    This debate is something teenagers have rehearsed many times.

    It's shocking to see a Presidential candidate so ineptly answer this question.

    Oh well, just another Republican candidate with shit for brains.

    There are two kinds of people in this world. The kind who divide the world into two kinds of people, and the kind who don't.

    by upstate NY on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:31:12 AM PDT

  •  Pro-life is a misnomer. It's really pro-soul. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    According to Fish

    This is really all about when God puts a soul into the fetus, embryo, zygote or whatever stage of development they happen to be yapping about. In Ohio it's when the embryo has heart cells that have a rhythmic contraction according to the heart beat bill introduced. A  few hundred years ago it was set by the Catholic Church as happening at the quickening defined as when the fetus moved on its own in the uterus. There is no reason to talk about the science of embryogenesis because it never was and never will be about anything scientifically provable. It's always going to be about when God plants a soul. Of course up to 30% of all embryos conceived never go to term. Most actually are expelled or resorbed before the woman even knows she is pregnant.

    Bipartisan analogy: Both musicians and fishermen want more bass.

    by OHdog on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 10:40:40 AM PDT

  •  This from Santorum reported on Boston.com (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Julia Grey
    CONCORD, N.H.—Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum pounced on rival Herman Cain's position on abortion Thursday, saying it mirrors the views of abortion-rights supporters and shows that Cain is not a true conservative.
    In an interview Wednesday with CNN, Cain said he believes life begins at conception. "And abortion under no circumstances," he added. But Cain also said "it's not the government's role or anybody else's role to make that decision," according to a CNN transcript

    Bipartisan analogy: Both musicians and fishermen want more bass.

    by OHdog on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 11:01:40 AM PDT

  •  So, His Strategy Is To Out Flip Mitt? (0+ / 0-)

    Good luck with that one.

    I just heard this on the radio, and spit my coffee when I heard him talking.Was gonna put my Cain Is Able bumper sticker on the car and drive around the neighborhood.  

    I think I'll just wait for the Rapture instead. Or the Santorum boom. Whichever comes first.

    Two most obscene words in the English language: financial services

    by BobBlueMass on Thu Oct 20, 2011 at 01:30:45 PM PDT

  •  Remember when Michael Steele, (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CountryMouse

    former RNC chairman, had to be schooled on this same issue? He blithely said almost exactly the same thing when interviewed on the subject.

    It seems that there is a streak of good sense flowing through African-American Republicans.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site